Should Hitler be in the game?

[TyBoy]

IMO they really should put charlemagne in as the other german leader instead of frederick. He'd be a better choice than Hitler as well. Frederick is pretty boring, I'd never heard of him before this game and the civilopedia seems to be kind of reaching to make him sound like that big a deal.

I guess you do need to have a leader for each trait combo, and Frederick does fit his combo fairly well.

 

[Depravo]

IMO they really should put charlemagne in as the other german leader instead of frederick. He'd be a better choice than Hitler as well. Frederick is pretty boring, I'd never heard of him before this game and the civilopedia seems to be kind of reaching to make him sound like that big a deal.

I guess you do need to have a leader for each trait combo, and Frederick does fit his combo fairly well.

He's only the prototype Age of Enlightenment monarch, the genitor of Prussian greatness and the best general of the pre-revolutionary eighteenth century. Significant enough, I think.

Charlemagne would be a fine leader, though. I don't think we've enough from the Middle Ages.

If Hitler is in the game, then sooner or later you are going to be faced with a pop-up in which Der Fuhrer asks you to join him and adopt Judaism as your state religion. And if you say no, Hitler the Jewish Fuhrer is going to be "upset that your people have fallen under the sway of a heathen religion."

Not good PR for Firaxis, not good gameplay for many many players, not gonna happen.

That's only a couple of basis points more ridiculous than what we can already see - Jewish Saladin or Muslim Roosevelt, and a fanatically Buddhist Isabella most games.

 

[Syntherio]

Charlemagne would be a fine leader, though. I don't think we've enough from the Middle Ages.

The problem with charlemagne is that he was neither a german, nor a french leader - he was a king of the frankish empire. It emerged into France and Germany, roughly described. If you take him as german leader, the French are disappointed, and the Germans are disappointed, if you take him as french leader.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

He shouldn't be in the game because he didn't really achieve anything..
Hitler has not only lost WW II, he even lost the Dictators Contest.

 

[armchairknight]

The problem with charlemagne is that he was neither a german, nor a french leader - he was a king of the frankish empire. It emerged into France and Germany, roughly described. If you take him as german leader, the French are disappointed, and the Germans are disappointed, if you take him as french leader.

So true, look at Alexander the Great. You know, the Macedonian. Greece, Egypt, and Persia were all among his conquests (and thus his empire) and all three are in the game. They made a good choice, here, in my opinion. I think they could also make a good choice with Charlemagne, but I do think you're right, it would be a tough choice. I would love to see him in the game.

 

[necrolyte]

Stalin and Mao were mass murderers, but they did not drive their countries into the ground. Hitler, between the mass murders and industrializations, first and foremost destroyed Germany. He would be a totally inappropriate leader because of this alone.

 

[Tulkas12]

Honestly, anyone who thinks he's too contraversial need to develop a little more of a hide. I'd hate to imagine me even trying to have a conversation with a person who would object to a video game having him in it.

No wonder western society is so ******** now a days. Watch Mencia and quit whining.

 

[Tulkas12]

Stalin and Mao were mass murderers, but they did not drive their countries into the ground. Hitler, between the mass murders and industrializations, first and foremost destroyed Germany. He would be a totally inappropriate leader because of this alone.

He pulled Germany out of one of the worst depressions in history. Even more honestly. . . his haneous actions pulled the world out of the worst depression in history. Some villians are to be acknowledged, even if it makes us queasy.

 

[Desert-Fox]

Actually I see there more political corrections. The Hitler is worse than Stalin i mean in " signs because Germany was loser in WW2. If he could finish his job and Stalin would start the war then we don't know what would happened.

I personally think that people who wouldn't play the game because of a single leader would be mentally ill. If they without it love the game and with Hitler hate then I do not understand them. Also I see more the fact that after WW2 The winner countries made the constitution of afterwar Germany not the local germans. Before the two Germanies were reunited there still were Allied troops. And I think that single german citizen absolutely do not care if there is hitler or not. Because there were a lot of brainwash in their political authorities then there Nazi symbols are prohibited.

Now I live in Estonia, the northest baltic country. By the Molotov Ribbentrop's pact secret protocol Stalin invaded us and after 1 years suffering their crimes Germany occupied us but local people firstly saw SS people as liberators. And their soldiers were more cultured than red ones. So in my region Stalin is more hated than Hitler.

In conclusion : People, get over it, that's just a game. Nothing more. If there are stalin, mao... then hitler is not worse... it is just fearing the lose money and political correction.

 

[Sohan]

Good points, Desert-Fox.

Still, Hitler wasn't that... great. Otto von Bismarck and Frederick William did so much more. Bismarck was a great diplomat and, whether he meant to or not, helped unite Germany. As Chancellor of the German Empire his diplomacy kept Germany safe and France isolated, and he also enacted some domestic policies that I believe are still in use in Germany today. Frederick William turned Prussia into one of the five greatest powers in Europe, and ultimately it was Prussia that united the majority of the German states as the German Empire. Plus Frederick William was an enlightened monarch, one of the various great political leaders of his time period that had a helluva impact on Europe. Adolf Hitler definitely had a huge impact too, and (it can be argued) that he might have helped Germany's economy. He temporarily strengthened Germany, but Germany's power didn't last as long afterwards as it did after Bismarck and Frederick William (Germany and Prussia, respectively, remained very powerful for a while after they either died or resigned). In Hitler's case, not as much. In fact, the big difference between Stalin and Hitler is that Stalin died with his country in tact and remaining powerful for a while afterwards, whereas Hitler died as his country was being overrun and remained relatively weak for a while.

 

[Jasond]

First off, Civilization Isn't an adult game at all.

I find my self conquering the lands of civilization IV quite often. The longest game I've played was 7 hours, and I'm only 14.

Second off:

Hitler isn't really needed in the game, He's too contraversal, all it would do is maybe, get Firaxis shut down.

Thirdly:

 

[Desert-Fox]

Sohan : Can you imagine what would happen if Stalin would invade Hitler first? And then Soviet Union would been conquered as Germany in WW2. Then the stalin's power would been different. Stalin was just a monster as hitler... no need to argue who was worse... but Stalin got a lot of help... alone they wouldn't last so much.
I wouldn't quit playing civ4 ... yes there is Stalin in warlords but I don't care... that's just a game.

 

[Desert-Fox]

JasonD ... don't you think that it is very ill political correction. I understand firaxis but there are a lot of "white" criminals who are allowed.

 

[Sohan]

I think "what if" history is more or less ignored. Sure, if Stalin invaded first and lost, and the USSR collapsed, we literally would not have Stalin in Civ IV. Stalin being on the winning side of that war was key for his career, and important in making him a leader in the game. But honestly, that's a "what if" scenario. It might be fun to play around with, but it's unimportant. I can do a "what if" for every leader, which would ultimately transform them into something completely different. I could portray Washington as an ill-talented, unimportant figure by simply changing the weather at one of his battles. "What if" history can change the perception of people a lot. So, I'd sooner ignore "What if" possibilities and stick to what really happened. And what really happened was Stalin won, his country lasted for a long time after his death, and he contributed to its long-term power. Hitler did none of these. He lost, his country got splintered and even after it was re-united it never became as powerful.

 

[Desert-Fox]

Yes he won because he got help. But it doesn't make him less bad. As other people before wrote... in civ4 we have more leaders who lost battles.
Do not read that I really care that Hitler is not icluded... absolutely no, I'm totally indifferent but the reasons are ill.

 

[Jasond]

JasonD ... don't you think that it is very ill political correction. I understand firaxis but there are a lot of "white" criminals who are allowed.

There are very many idiots out there as well, Look at the petition to get firaxis shut down now because of a Antichrist quote in the game, Imagine what hitler would cause

 

[Desert-Fox]

There are very many idiots out there as well, Look at the petition to get firaxis shut down now because of a Antichrist quote in the game, Imagine what hitler would cause

That's very ill because then we have to shut down hollywood(violence, a lot of more stuff what are not politically correct), we have to shut down IOC (boxing is very violent lol), we have to shut down the whole world... thats nonsence. The most important is to tell peole at school what is good and what is bad but understand what is game and what is not.

 

[Jasond]

All I'm saying is that someone will(could) probably start a petition and many morons will follow. No reason to drag it out that far
The government would never allow things to get that far out of hand, and you know it.

 

[gianluca790]

For this you don't necessarily need to be a good leader, just a good manipulator, there is a difference IMHO.

Manipulation and propaganda are part and parcel of politics itself, which has nothing to do with good or bad leadership. Politics itself involves manipulation and propaganda, which can color the perceptions of people, turning bad leaders into good ones and viceversa. Dictators are just as good at this as other types of democratic political leaders. It has more to do with good or bad brinkmanship. Nixon and JFK can thus be considered just as bad as Hitler in this respect.

 

[gianluca790]

That may be true, but just because lots of people are stupid doesn't mean you can ignore them.

I do not have to listen to people whose views I find intellectually dissonant

As much as we'd like to live in an ideal world, we have to live in the real world, and in the real world, the emotional reaction to Hitler is a very real thing that can't be ignored.

I know that, but the fact that one tries shows one's intellectual superiority and immunity to the herd instinct.

For all I care the Germany in the game can have concentration camps as a unique wonder, but it ain't gonna happen because no vendor would sell the game. Same goes for Hitler as leader.

Most people have done worse things than that. Some people do many things without thinking about money, most things in fact. The fact that Firaxis does think about monetary concerns is no excuse for you to do the same. Doing so puts you on the same moral plane as them. One should not even mention such things.

Wishing that everyone was logical is as unrealistic as making decisions based on emotion.

Yet most people actually do make decisions based more on emotion than reason at times, which proves that your statement is both wrong and nonsensical. Please explain the incongruity of the cognitive dissonance in your subjective statement with objective reality. TTFN.