The AH Debate
- Thread starter Saim
- Start date
feldmarshall
Dictator
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Firaxis can introduce "censored" version in Germany with Hitler replaced by another LH (with same traits and personality). it has been done in China
The result of his leadership was total disaster for the german people, the land divided in two and infrastructure in ruins. And at the end of his mad days he ordered the army to kill the german people.
I wouldn't call this a "great leader". Stalin/Mao did lead their people to "greater glory" in a crude way. (under Stalin Soviet became a superpower, and under Mao China became a regional power at least)
Thats why he shouldn't be included unless in a WW2 scenario.
Civilization is about winners, and Hitler is probably one of the biggest losers in history.
I wouldn't call this a "great leader". Stalin/Mao did lead their people to "greater glory" in a crude way. (under Stalin Soviet became a superpower, and under Mao China became a regional power at least)
Thats why he shouldn't be included unless in a WW2 scenario.
Civilization is about winners, and Hitler is probably one of the biggest losers in history.
Onagan
The Dutch
I never knew Hannibal was a winner.
I think Leaders in Civilization should be elected because their influence in their world. And then you can't denied Hitler.
there's still some jackasses around that follow hitler's mindset. those criminals beating up other people for either their skin color, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. all this is done in the name of some ******* that has driven germany to ruins.
i don't see people running around doing acts of inhumanity in the name of stalin, hannibal or any other leader nowadays.
you really want to give those asshats a game that has hitler in it? i'm not willing to do so.
i don't see people running around doing acts of inhumanity in the name of stalin, hannibal or any other leader nowadays.
you really want to give those asshats a game that has hitler in it? i'm not willing to do so.
rabidveggie
King
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 697
Arguing that Hitler shouldn't be in the game because people act in his name is like arguing that God shouldn't be in the bible for the same reason. I wasn't a member in this forum a year ago, but our summary of the outcome of the last AH posts make sense Lord Olleous. 
FatGroove
Chieftain
Thordk, there are people who go around bashing people because of their religious beliefs and sexual orientation "in the name of" their religion.
The main thing here it seems that those who make the games need to ask themselves "how do we choose a leader?", I mean if you want to make a game about famous/infamous leaders Hitler definitly is an infamous leader, or those that are winners, he was not a winner and what he did was a bad thing.
I guess they also need to ask whether or not it will produce more or lesser money from doing such an act.
Personally though I reckon that they should allow Hitler in the game, I mean whats the difference between playing as Hitler in Civilization and playing as a Nazi in a game like medal of honour (multiplayer)?
The main thing here it seems that those who make the games need to ask themselves "how do we choose a leader?", I mean if you want to make a game about famous/infamous leaders Hitler definitly is an infamous leader, or those that are winners, he was not a winner and what he did was a bad thing.
I guess they also need to ask whether or not it will produce more or lesser money from doing such an act.
Personally though I reckon that they should allow Hitler in the game, I mean whats the difference between playing as Hitler in Civilization and playing as a Nazi in a game like medal of honour (multiplayer)?
GeorgeOP
RF Bleachers
There's still some jacka--- around that follow Stalin's mindset. Those socialists thinking the government should run ever facet of your life...
I would like to see Hitler in the game, so I can beat on him. But I understand it can't be made for sale in Germany and don't get too worked up that Firaxis can't put him in there.
willpax
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 209
Yes, I clicked on this thread hoping to get involved in a discussion of whether or not animal husbandry is an overpriced tech for what you get. Or should cavalry units just be more effective?
Alsark
Noble
In order for the game to represent historical leaders that have played a significant role in our world, should Hitler be added to this game? Yes. Will he ever be added to this game? No. Hitler is probably the first person many people think of if somebody were to say "evil leader/ruler", and for a just reason. Nobody can deny the cruelty that Hitler caused, although Stalin was many times worse. Regardless, Stalin is not thought of as a "bad guy" in Russia, whereas any reference of Hitler is banned in Germany. Despite the Cold War later on, the Americans realized that Russia was an ally in the war, whereas Germany was the enemy. As a result, news of the cruelty and oppression of Hitler spread like wildfire through the United States, as well as all of the other Allied nations, whereas Stalin's cruel acts were largely ignored, and thus forgotten by the public today. So historically, yes, Stalin might have been worse than Hitler, but in the eye of the world today Hitler is about fifty times worse. In the end, a gaming company that prides itself on entertainment [and sales] over historical accuracy must go by what people think rather than what may be true.
The difference between World War II games and Civilization is that, in most World War II games, you are forced to play on the side of the Allies. This is not always true, as some games offer you the option to play on both sides - but in all of these games, at least in the campaign mode, the game makes it very clear that the Allies are triumphant. I can't think of a World War II game where you can play only as the Axis, but several games exist where you can play only as the Allies. Additionally, Hitler isn't even shown in a lot of these games, as people seem to think he is worse than his Nazi army or any Nazi symbolism. These World War II games follow a very specific timeline in history (the World War II time period), and they therefore must have Nazis in them. It wouldn't be a World War II game otherwise. Civilization, on the other hand, doesn't need to have Hitler in it. Civilization has such a large timespan that having Hitler in the game is by no means a necessity, like in World War II games. Furthermore, Hitler can grow to become extremely powerful, and in the end, he might not be beaten (and could even win), which certainly couldn't be allowed. As I pointed out earlier, Hitler and the Nazis always lose in other World War II games, and the fact that Hitler has any sort of potential to win here isn't acceptable for a lot of people. If it prides itself in including important leaders then yes, it should have Hitler in it, but this would be a very poor move on the company's part.
Really, though, you're not going to not buy Civilization because Hitler isn't in it, but some people won't buy Civilization if Hitler is in it. Boycotting the game because Hitler is in it makes a whole lot more sense than boycotting the game if he isn't in it, which would be rather silly. Firaxis, in fear of such a boycott, even only in a fraction of gamers, will never add Hitler to the game.
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't mind if Hitler was in the game, although it's not worth throwing a parade over if he is put in, either. Rather than think of yourself and your interests, you need to broaden your scope to encompass what others might think about this action. Jewish individuals might be very offended by Hitler being in this game, as might be Germans. In certain parts of America, German kids are still teased and called Nazis by their peers, and these kids (both the Americans and Germans) no doubt hate that Hitler ever existed. The German people don't want to see Hitler in a game, especially when he has the potential to win, when they already have to endure so much hardship from their peers about their country's past. You have to realize that, because so many people would be offended by Hitler being added to the game, that it would not be a wise financial decision. We need to stop thinking of our own interests and focus on what others think by putting ourself in their shoes, and then move on and enjoy life to its fullest without arguments like this that will inevitably never end.
The difference between World War II games and Civilization is that, in most World War II games, you are forced to play on the side of the Allies. This is not always true, as some games offer you the option to play on both sides - but in all of these games, at least in the campaign mode, the game makes it very clear that the Allies are triumphant. I can't think of a World War II game where you can play only as the Axis, but several games exist where you can play only as the Allies. Additionally, Hitler isn't even shown in a lot of these games, as people seem to think he is worse than his Nazi army or any Nazi symbolism. These World War II games follow a very specific timeline in history (the World War II time period), and they therefore must have Nazis in them. It wouldn't be a World War II game otherwise. Civilization, on the other hand, doesn't need to have Hitler in it. Civilization has such a large timespan that having Hitler in the game is by no means a necessity, like in World War II games. Furthermore, Hitler can grow to become extremely powerful, and in the end, he might not be beaten (and could even win), which certainly couldn't be allowed. As I pointed out earlier, Hitler and the Nazis always lose in other World War II games, and the fact that Hitler has any sort of potential to win here isn't acceptable for a lot of people. If it prides itself in including important leaders then yes, it should have Hitler in it, but this would be a very poor move on the company's part.
Really, though, you're not going to not buy Civilization because Hitler isn't in it, but some people won't buy Civilization if Hitler is in it. Boycotting the game because Hitler is in it makes a whole lot more sense than boycotting the game if he isn't in it, which would be rather silly. Firaxis, in fear of such a boycott, even only in a fraction of gamers, will never add Hitler to the game.
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't mind if Hitler was in the game, although it's not worth throwing a parade over if he is put in, either. Rather than think of yourself and your interests, you need to broaden your scope to encompass what others might think about this action. Jewish individuals might be very offended by Hitler being in this game, as might be Germans. In certain parts of America, German kids are still teased and called Nazis by their peers, and these kids (both the Americans and Germans) no doubt hate that Hitler ever existed. The German people don't want to see Hitler in a game, especially when he has the potential to win, when they already have to endure so much hardship from their peers about their country's past. You have to realize that, because so many people would be offended by Hitler being added to the game, that it would not be a wise financial decision. We need to stop thinking of our own interests and focus on what others think by putting ourself in their shoes, and then move on and enjoy life to its fullest without arguments like this that will inevitably never end.
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
I never knew Hannibal was a winner.
I think Leaders in Civilization should be elected because their influence in their world. And then you can't denied Hitler.
Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it.
Somebody had to say it.On topic, I think we all know where this is going. It's only a matter of time until a moderator closes the thread, and that's probably a good thing.
this thread is about hitler. if it had been about religion i had argued likewise
if you ask me, religions are one of the biggest woes of mankind.let's say i condemn all acts of inhumanity. all people who harm other people for no other reason than being or thinking different. i just happen to know what kind of person hitler was and what his fascist state has led to for being german and german history is taught the most in our schools. i guess other nations history had some leaders who acted similar and they should be excluded from civ also, but i don't have that knowledge, so i settle with my opinion about hitler.
well, i happen to know a bit about stalin and seeing what he has done he may be excluded from civ as well. but there's one thing that sets stalin apart from hitler:
stalin has also been a lunatic and his "cleaning measures" led to the execution of at least 10 million sovjets. yet he didn't proclaimed some superior race. he feared losing his power and the result has been to let execute political opponents. them being a real threat or an imaginative one. this doesn't excuse for slaughtering millions of people, but it's a qualitative difference to what hitler has done. so both of them are condemnable, with hitler a tad more.
OctavianFlu
Emperor
FatGroove
Chieftain
Funny you mention that Alsark that about geman kids in america getting teased by being called Nazis, happens in Australia too, dunno how much though but I know I was teased when I went to school about my mother being German. Didn't make me hate Hitler though, but yeah other people could start despising him.
Yeah, thats true what you say about religion there Thordk, most pray for peace as long as the other religions are destroyed or something, well at least thats what it seems like, maybe when it is when you just get some fool leading a relgion.
And i'm not sure who actually was worse Stalin or Hitler (depends on how you determine being worse) but when warlords came out I was really surprised that you could be Stalin. I mean to me there the same.
Yeah, thats true what you say about religion there Thordk, most pray for peace as long as the other religions are destroyed or something, well at least thats what it seems like, maybe when it is when you just get some fool leading a relgion.
And i'm not sure who actually was worse Stalin or Hitler (depends on how you determine being worse) but when warlords came out I was really surprised that you could be Stalin. I mean to me there the same.
OTAKUjbski
TK421
The difference is simple ... ask somebody this question:
What was the Great Purge, and what lasting effects did it have on your society?
Now ask them the same question but with "Holocaust" in lieu of "Great Purge".
I guarantee you most people will give you a blank stare at the first question but will have a wealth of input on the second.
That's the difference: most people have no clue what Stalin did, but nearly everybody knows the atrocities Hitler and the Nazi party carried out.
BTW, Hitler will never be in Civilization except as a mod.
WilliamOfOrange
Emperor
Been here, done that, wanna buy like 50 T-shirts?
Seriously though, this has been the best AH debate thread I have seen. No trolls and Alsark hit the nail on the head.
My family suffered because of him and like I said in another post I would not have been born had my grandparents not immigrated to Canada after the war. Also, on my other side, my other grandma wouldn't have remarried and my dad would not have been born. I have friends that are German, Jewish, both and neither and they all have differeing opinions on this. One of my closest friends is a German who married a Jewish girl and while there may be some jokes about that, the ones we tell each other about it can be quite crude but no harm intended. Freud said that morbid humour is a defense-mechanism. I don't know, but after being to the camps (see below) some things are not funny to me like they used to be. But for some people, they will never have a clue.
I tell some I know very well or strangers in a chatroom that I lived in Germany or I was going to work in Germany and some people made some comments either way. While traveling in Paris with my German-Canadian friend, these obnoxious Brits in our hostel were saying are kinds of stuff against Germans (they are all Nazis) and French (whimps for surrendering and stuff). Their comments were the same as KKK folk in "the South": uneducated and prejudiced. That is the real problem or at least part of the issue. Ignorance
If people do not know the history, they have no basis, no schema with which to relate. If they do not learn of the many socio-political or economical or even geographical factors that lead to the collapse of the Maginot Line or the occupation of Belgium in WWI and WWII and how it strained France's defences than they have no right to repeat some 40 year-old comment about the French being p******. I hate that blind patriotism about if my country wasn't in the war, you would all be speaking German. Debate and speculation is fine in a scholatic setting or having a few beers around the campfire (or even outside of Auschwitz doing shots of Vodka -- again see below) is just fine. But it should be just that: debate.
Kids growing up hearing bigotted parents "teaching" them things will be no better. Another problem is that history is often clouded by the "victors". Yes, it's true, all the First Peoples in North America were "savages" and skinned the pioneers alive, you can get AIDS from talking to a gay person. Bias always creeps in. We need to keep an open mind. When I went to Poland two years ago and visited Auschwitz and the even larger and more disturbing Berkenau I was moved to tears imagining the absolute horrors that people endured. And even though I have been desensitized my movies, news and even footage from those camp or kids with swollen bellies in Africa, I knew that I still could not have any real empathy for what happened there. It was the same when touring Flanders Fields and the war memorials and cemetaries in Belgium. That whole thing profoundly changed my attitude. But I keep an open mind. After the day at Auschwitz, I was in Krakow partying it up in my hostel with a bunch of Germans and it did not feel weird in any way. Between
While I would love to play against him in a game and kick the snot out of him, but I would myself never lay as him and try to win. Sure, in CivII it was fun to load the transports and invade Washington and New York and do the whole "What if?" thing. Heck Axis and Allies is great fun if people no their history and want to debate and look at strategies in the confines of a RPG. If I taught history that kind of stuff would be great.
But this is different, taken out of the historic context and playing as him and trying to win, just what are we trying to accomplish? How many have played a religous sealot game and tried to wipe out a religion or two completely? Sure that is fun, but only if it is a random thing and just to see what happens. When I first got the game I tried it, but didn't say, "Oh, I hate the Indians, I am going to eradicate all Hindu cities". The fact that some people out there might do that is sad and I would hope that is the reason for not including him for the power that be. Not profits or sales demographics, just conscience.
Any way. I just looked at the clock and realized that I just wasted the last 30 min of work. I had to go back and add paragraphs and punctuation to this rant. Sorry. I am no longer even sure of my point
, but I thought I would weigh in once and for all (and procrastinate from work).I too wanted an Animal Husbandry thread, but I immdiately knew it wouldn't be. But after reading others comments I am starting to think that there should be.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5394730#post5394730
I never knew Hannibal was a winner.
I think Leaders in Civilization should be elected because their influence in their world. And then you can't denied Hitler.
I'm a bit rusty on roman history... but Hannibal rampaged through the entire Italian peninsula in approx a decade or so and beat the Romans one time after another until the last battle (fitting?
)I think the reason Carthage lost was manpower/resources not leadership, so it's seemingly fitting adding Hannibal as leader for Carthaginians since he was their most famous leader. So for me it makes sense calling him a winner. He was one of the great generals throughout history, it's too bad for him the Romans was very good at learning from their mistakes
(i'm not a history professor so i'm not an expert on this, so i may be wrong
)
