Jonathan
Prince
strhopper said:Well it doesnt matter becuase they are already in the game
But I, the player, can exclude them from the game with a mighty stroke of my mouse right at the start. Take that, you upstarts!
strhopper said:Well it doesnt matter becuase they are already in the game
Jonathan said:Well, of course the USA is a civ, and of course it's an important civ, there should be no argument about that.
However, it's a civ that's existed in modern times only (since 1776 AD), and there should be no argument about that either.
To me, it seems grossly anachronistic to have "Americans" running around in ancient times, and for that reason I suspect I'll simply erase Americans from the game when playing single-player. Admittedly, it's also anachronistic to have "English", "Spanish", etc., running around in ancient times, but subjectively it's not quite so bad.
As some people have said, it would be an improvement in principle if civs could emerge in mid-game by splitting off from older civs -- which is how the USA was created in reality. But, from a practical point of view, how many players would want to enter a game after most of it had already been played?
I have to admit I think Firaxis has done the right thing by providing the Americans for those who want them, but allowing players themselves to exclude particular civs from the game (I presume that is possible).
Enkidu Warrior said:There's absolutely no reason why this topic should get so heated. Personally I don't tend to include America in my games because it doesn't sit right in my mind to have America in 4000BC. There's no pro- or anti- anything in that, it's a simple preference. Most people who object to America being in the game have exactly the same reasoning.
America has many similarities to the superpowers of the past, so I can of course see why many would want to include it in their games. Similarly, I'm sure everyone can see why America sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the great ancient civilizations for many players, particularly those, like myself, who play with a historical perspective.
Of course, for Firaxis, this is a non-issue - commercial considerations make it essential. Beyond that though, it's clear to me that America should be in the game because a great many Civ players very much want them in. It should nevertheless be uncontroversial to state that America does stick out as a somewhat uncomfortable inclusion for many players for very good reasons.
Ozymandous said:Hey, mod the American's out and while you're at it mod it so the Romans, Greeks, and all the ancient powerful cultures shrink down to OCC (or just a few anyway) about the time musketeers come into play as well.
Ozymandous said:Also mod so that French, English, Spanish, German and most of your European countries can't have more than a handful of cities until the 'modern' or 'industrial' times as well since historically they weren't very powerful until different times (none of them ancient) in history as well.
I mean if you're going to use that flimsy excuse "Oh the US is a new country" then you might as well mod the game to be in line with doing that for -all- countries across the board.
Ozymandous said:So, you only play the game with Egypt, China, Babylonian, Inca, Maya, Zulu and that's it? I mean England wasn't an 'ancient power' nor were any of the 'modern' European countries. It must get boring to pnly play the game with the same 6 or so "cradle of civilization" civ's. Unless of course you're a hypocrite and include other more 'modern' (and yes, England was more an late Middle Ages/Industrialization nation not ancient so would be excluded) civ's in there when you play...
weakciv said:Civ does not equal history.
(group of people A) did not exist durring the same time as (group of people B).
etc...
etc...
(which came first the chicken or the egg) :roll eyes:
sorry guys but we have heard these same arguments in every incarnation of Civ. The bottom line is that it is a game that takes part of world history and organizes it into a game setting.
Could it work just like history? Sure.
Should it work just like history? Absolutely not! Otherwise you already know who is winning at a specific point in history.
Scenarios is where history is repeated and changed, not in the normal play mode.
oh well, just my thoughts.
Enkidu Warrior said:That's cool, I know many players are a lot less interested in the history side of things than others. As long as you realise that many players do very much enjoy the historical aspect of the game. A game with the scope of civ is bound to attract players with very different perspectives and a number of different reasons for playing. Arguments like this spring up because these different groups of people misunderstand each other (and in this case maybe because of a bit of oversensitivity to perceived insults to national pride).
aneeshm said:As for the argument that only the original human civilisations should be included , that leaves only the fertile crescent ( the the form of Babylon ) , Egypt , India , China , Greece , and the central American civilisations . A grand total of . . . . . . . . six .
Until holy king gives his definition of civilization and shows how other included civs meet it, but the United States donesn't, no one should really bother posting here.
@holy king: If you make this kind of thread it is smart to give it a neutral start. Else it will spawm much unhappiness to early.
Yes thier impact is huge. We are living in the modern time. The only way you can take america out is if you take the modernage out of the game
I want to hear holy king respond with his reasons.
In other words, joke of the day
holy king said:there's no overall us-american culture...
Come on now, in 4000 BC the world was covered with hordes of different tribes. The main problem is that most of them are unrecorded in history... But specialists in ancient history could probably name dozens of them at least. Firaxis chose civs that mostly weren't around in 4000 BC because it felt we'd like to play as civs that we'd heard of.
I'm not saying that including America is "wrong", just that it doesn't sit right with me because America has a mere fraction of the history of the other civs.
Legionary37 said:Also, in regards to the "Rome was despised back then" arguement, in the beggining Rome was not loved, but by the Republican and Imperial times, Rome was very well respected. Merely the name of Roman Citizen could save you from punishments in other countries. People really respected it. Roman citizenship was something highly prized.
Legionary37 said:When Germany and France ask the president of the United States approve their election, and when the English monarchs request to be coronated by the Americans, then i'll say that America is as held in high esteem and has as much power as Rome did in it's height.
Legionary37 said:As far as I'm concerned, America is one of the lower "first class civs" in terms of it's power and eminence throughout history.
holy king said:i think i made that clear by saying there's no overall us-american culture...
a unified culture may not be the only criterium for a civilization, but i'd say it certainly is one
i dont consider mcdonalds or levis as culture (which is what some posters stated), since those are merely just products sold all over the world. i wouldnt say a chinese or indian restaurant is part of their culture, and i'm chinesified or indianified because i go there either.