Why Reward Sadism?

[King Of America]

I am very disturbed by some of the conquests described so far. I think that awarding points for human sacrifice and defining the Inquisition as a technology cross the line between a game in which war, ear units, and war technology are a necessary componnet and a game in which wanton cruelty is rewarded.

I also do not understand why Fascism is a part of the game. Not only did it fail so miserably historically that it is hard to imagiine anyone taking it seriously as a game tool, but by even naming an Civ-based totalitarian form of government is revolting.

No doubt that modern totalitarianism is a strong form of government, but why replace fundamentalism with fascism?

Sure "it's only a game" and in Civ2, I nuked a city or two, but the new conquests have crossed a serious line.

I've played every version of Civ since the first board game, but I won't be buying this one.

 

[Philips beard]

Do you want a realistic game, or a politically correct utopia one!!!??????

 

[nalves]

It's a game man enjoy it

 

[IluDeR]

Hi there....

I understand what you mean, but remenber, that, all the things that you said about the conquest, like Fascism, create bad things to the user. Like nuke, if you use it, you mithy have all Civs at war agains you in turn after.

It's a game, yes....how about games like Quake and other??It's about deaths and things like that,can't we play them?Because they show huge amounts of blood?

Remmenber this, if you have an game about car racing, like Nascar. You will play it if you like, and if is your wish to, race in real life maybe. The games ar about that, you must not bring them to reality, bue you can try somenthing a bit diferent, in the weekend, diferent of the real life that you have, without getting worried about real damage or something.

Don't opress the games....don't be like the Media, that say tha Counter Strike is making kids kill parents or something.

Take care.

 

[warpstorm]

I think some of these things were included because they were making a set of scenarios based on history and these things happened.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

For the most parts, I cannot agree:

I am very disturbed by some of the conquests described so far. I think that awarding points for human sacrifice and defining the Inquisition as a technology cross the line between a game in which war, ear units, and war technology are a necessary componnet and a game in which wanton cruelty is rewarded.

Sorry, I fail to see the difference between 'whipping', starving down, and sacrificing.
And the Inquisition was, believe it or not, a good thing - it just institutionalised religious prosecution, and caused far less victims than e.g. the overboarding public which hunting in the protestant countries. As long as all of those have negative side-effects (like causing unhappiness), I think Breakaway handled that properly, given that all of those did exist in RL.

I also do not understand why Fascism is a part of the game. Not only did it fail so miserably historically that it is hard to imagiine anyone taking it seriously as a game tool, but by even naming an Civ-based totalitarian form of government is revolting.

Gov's calling themselves 'Communist' have caused far more deaths than any form of right-wing extremism, face it. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao,.... And still, Communism is in the game, without someone complaining.
I agree, however, that the term 'Fascism' is problematic. I would have prefered if they've called it 'Dictatorship', or 'Totalitarism; nevertheless, those government forms did exist, and still exist in the form of certain military dictators. Or North Korea.

No doubt that modern totalitarianism is a strong form of government, but why replace fundamentalism with fascism?

IIRC, Fundamentalism was originally intented to be in the game, but after 9/11 it was skipped. True, Americans are clearly more sensitive for their own recent history than for that of others, but from a marketing POV, this is understandable.

I do see your points, and if you don't want to buy the game because if them, you're propably right, since you wouldn't enjoy it anyway.
But I'm also 100% sure the Civ3 design is far more sensitive for historical cruelties than any other Computer game for grown-ups around.

 

[Philips beard]

One thing extremly dangerous, even more dangerous then human sacrificing, enslavement and fascism in a game, is some peoples ignorance of history, and their puritanity perception of reallity!
These new ingrediences of the game makes it even richer, and will improve your gaming expierience alot, I dont feel these aspects of history is gloryfied in any way in the game....

 

[Civrules]

This should not offend you because it is a game. Now, I see how you can be offended by it if it was something more serious than a game but it is not more than just a game. It is also not like it happens today, it is supposed to represent history, which it does. TV represents history doesn't it? Some TV channels show what happened time ago. I don't get offended by it and no one should. It is also not a personal attack by representing the events in the game in which you can be disturbed.

 

[Gogf]

Gov's calling themselves 'Communist' have caused far more deaths than any form of right-wing extremism, face it. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao,.... And still, Communism is in the game, without someone complaining.

Exactly. I can see why having a government like Fascism would offend you, but the government did exist, and was a legitamite part of history. One thing that could have been better would be that for each 'inquisitor' unit you have in the field, each turn, you lose one population, due to the killing of innocent jews and muslims. Now, sacrifising. The 'positive' effect of sacrafising is a growth in culture. That makes a lot of sense to me, becuase everytime you do something that involves your culture (i.e. sacrafising) will result in a culture growth. So, although these are dark parts of history they are major parts, and therefore neccesary. As Doc said, if this offends you, dont' buy the game, as you won't have fun with it. If personally recommend modding these things out (delete inquisitor, boost power of spy, delete replace fascism with "Modern Dictatorship", and don't play the mesoamerican scenario, because of sacrifising (I'm not sure about the Age of Discovery one though).

 

[Tacit_Exit]

I think Space-Invaders already crossed that 'line' a while back.

I guess if people really wish to be offended by something, they'll find a way. Conquests is not crossing any lines that Civ3 hadn't, just the nature of the Scenarios is a little less abstract than the Epic game. And they've found the kahones to push the boundaries of pc ( pardon my language ) a little with the Fascism gov.

 

[King Of America]

Let me repeat a basic point: I have been playing Civ since 1984. If fighting virtual wars was a problem for me, then I would not have spent the money and time I have put into the game.

I do think that there is a difference between, say, winning a game by killing your own citizens and using a nuke in a game, when using the nuke also hurts you (pollution, rep hit), etc. If you don't, well, then we just disagree.

Sure, the Inquiistion is part of history, but I'll bet the WWII scenario does not include torture as a goal, and you don't have to a be a "politically-correct media type" (to conflate some of the terms bantied about) to understand why. The removable of fundamentalism is a good example of which history is "OK", and which hits too close to home.

I agree that pop-rushing is a problem; the fact that I do it more than I used to--or at all-- probably points to an increasing insensitivity on my part. I am not sure I would recommend this attitude.

In the end, what we do with our time affects us. I love Civ, but for me, these conquests go too far.

 

[Xen]

in my opinion, these conquests are a great effort on the parft of the firaxis team, and there (well, honestlly, I have no earthlly Idea still about just how Atari, and the other company(sorry merepatra, I know you explained, but i forgot )factor in to it)

but umm... (not sure how to make the entire sentence co-herent anymore...)

the conqouests serve as a GREAT way to represent historical realities, and yet be able to change the out come- consider-

the goal of the mesoamerican scenario is to get a relic or somthing to som big holy site, not thj sacrifice as many people as possible- I'm sure it will be incredably difficult to do so, but I'm sure that -at least in theory, bearing in mind what little I know of the scenario- that you coul dwin without sacrificing anyone

as for fascism- it was areality, we cant help it, I dont oppose it being in the game, though I do think its advantages are a bit much, and its short comings to few...

*I will also note, that playing civ, you could easilly declare war on any fascims, and enlight the barbarians through...territorial assimilation

 

[thestonesfan]

How could you be playing Civ in 1984? It didn't come out until 1991.

Anyway, I have a solution for you - when you play the game, make it your duty to wipe out any fascist civs that enslave people!

 

[King Of America]

I'm counting the board game, which I onoly played once but I remembered well enough to pick up the game the week after I finished my PhD.

By the way, if I could buy just the game, without the scenerios, I'd do so, and hope to beat the fascists.

 

[Emperor Xerxes]

At the end of the day no one is forcing you to play it. And your basically saying that all the years hard work by Atari was 'sadism'...

But I suppose you have your own opinions.

 

[Vanadorn]

Too much of the world today is wrapped up in the soft art of PC (Political Correctness). History is not gift wrapped as a part and parcel of brightly colered goodies to be digested like M&M's. The real world, history and all, is gritty, grim, and something that most people would be embarrassed to be associated with/responsible for. However, to ignore those "undesireable" bits of our past and present that are offensive and "not PC", is a disservice to ourselves and others.

If you do not like something you are reading, skip that section. If something on TV offends you, change the channel. You do not throw away the whole paper, you do not discard your television set.

The world is a diverse and evergrowing place. Many, many differing beliefs and histories are melding together. The walls of soveriegn nationality are fading. This brings many things to light that other nations would prefer to forget/ignore.

In short, if you don't want to play the conquests, then don't. But to not buy/play a game you so obviously enjoy is short sighted and deprivatory.

 

[USC]

Originally posted by King Of America
I'm counting the board game, which I onoly played once but I remembered well enough to pick up the game the week after I finished my PhD.

Hiya King,

just a small correction from someone who also played (and loved) the boardgame called Civilization (in French of all things, republished I think by Jeux Descartes): it was published by Avalon Hill originally, and if there was any connection at all between Civ I and that game, it was only in Sid having bought the rights to the name (and probably having tried it and liked it).

Loved that game. Totally different from Civ though.

USC

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by King Of America

I also do not understand why Fascism is a part of the game. Not only did it fail so miserably historically that it is hard to imagiine anyone taking it seriously as a game tool, but by even naming an Civ-based totalitarian form of government is revolting.

Why aren't you complaining about Communism? You can use the same arguments. Communists regimes commited atrocities that were just as terrible as Nazi atrocities. Look at the millions of deaths caused by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Knowledge of the Holocaust is commonplace, as it is nearly unavoidable; why doesn't Stalin's planned starvation of millions of Ukrainians merit the same type of attention? Afterall, Stalinist oppression was so severe that the Ukranians welcomed the Nazis as liberators!

I don't really understand what you mean by not taking Fascism seriously as a game tool. Fascism was very important from the 20s (when Mussolini took power), all the way through the end of WW2. For instance, FDR's social programs were inspired in no small part by Mussolini's govt. Furthermore, though you don't equate Fascism and Fundamentalism, many modern scholars do. Besides, you could argue that Communism failed just as miserably.

If you don't object to Communism on moral grounds (which you obviously don't, considering your support for other Civ games that included Communism), then you shouldn't object to Fascism, either.

 

[Seanirl]

Yeah, this just shows the power of propaganda and selective media attention.

Hitler's world reknowned as a mass murdering psychopath but Stalin's just some Russian guy no one ever pays attention to.

Anyone who's been to www.gamefaqs.com will know how strict the moderators are and even mentioning the name Hitler or the word Nazi has you autoflagged.

But guess what? I've seen a guy there who's username was Stalin Man Of Steel. I'll have to admit, that's a pretty good sounding name but I doubt anyone who had Hitler in their name would get away with it.

That said, he MAY have been banned for all I know, but I know that there's no way you'd even be allowed get a username with Hitler in it in the first place.

 

[Smoking mirror]

Human history has been a catalogue of sadism, mostly fueled by the quest for power. One set of peoples, seeking to dominate another, in order to enjoy the fruits of thier labour. That is the real history of civilization.

The Inquisition was not a "good thing", no more so than Anti semitism. It was an atempt by the church to control the labour and material ritches of a europe just emerging from a dark age of religious fundamentalism.
The reformation has been rewriten by renaisance and enlightenment scholars as a religious battle between protestants and catholics (this was the main obvious result) but it was actualy an attempt by the poor people of europe to control thier own destiny by being able to re-evalute the ethical teachings of the bible. Mostly all modern freedoms emerged from the reformation, including democracy and the right to free speech, but they were just side effects. Of course the peasants of europe were caught between the vast power of the church and its catholic monarchs (france and spain) and the prodestant princes of germany, who wanted political freedom from the catholic church which was basicly under the control of the large catholic monarchies.

The reformation was realy more of a political strugle than a religious one (if you can seperate the two concepts).

However, the main lesson of history is that those people who use exesive force to achieve power risk a backlash of popular opinion. The governments and organisations that have learned this lesson have also learned to control popular opinion.

One of the reasons that the Aztecs were so easily beaten because thier cruelty and barbarity during the "flower wars" (the wars fought before the conquest, by mesoamerican tribes soley for the aquistion of sacraficial victims) and the sacrafices themselves, not to mention the aztecs total devotion to warfare and conquest at the expense of scientific development had weakened the meso american civilization.

Nazi germany was mainly defeated because the russians resisted so strongly, mostly because they faced conquest by a power even more violent than thier own government (it has been sugested that communism caused more deaths than the NAzis only because of the short duration of the third reich, just 13 years. had they managed thier conquest of russia the death tol of eastern europeans and eurasians would have been astronomical).
Also if it hadn't been for the Nazi's absurd racial theories they may have found greater suport from western europe and America, who favoured right wing totalitarian governments over left wing governemts of any composition (look waht happened in the spanish civil war and in the covert/overt support that right wing dictators recieved from the west during and after the cold war.) in fact much of the troubles of todays world are the result of the wests suport for religious fundamentalists and right wing dictators in their fight against the "evil" of communism.

Forget about sugar coating the past, we live in a brutal and explotative world even today, in the "developed countries" Material rewards are abundant, and the poor can be easily cowed throught he promise of material wealth, but in the "developing and third world" brutal regimes are ruduced to using threats, violence and control of public opinion through propaganda, to keep thier subject population in order.

And the reason for this split between the first world and the rest of humanity? The very fact that the exploitation of the undeveloped nations funds the material wealth of the west. In the rest of the world oppressed and bitterly poor people dont see the past as any more violent or sadistic than thier present condition. While people in the west look back at a time before colonisation and military conquest paid for their own nations development and see only barbarity and "evil" people.

The very fact that you can find the unpleasant parts of history distastefull is because you are insulated from the violence and explotation of our own time by the power that causes such horrible things. Try looking outside the borders of your country and examining the reasons for your own saftey and you might see some of the things you seem so shocked by in history;

Child labour.
Institutional Torture.
Religious and political persecution.
Totalitarian political control.
Colonial explotation.
and obtating low prices for labour through military threats bribes and political muscle.

Political correctness and the revisionist euphamisms used to cover the unpleasant parts of history and our own present day situation make me sick, this is something that I feel very strongly about, so take a look in the mirror and realise that you are in part responsible for the atrocities of the past and present, because you are benefiting from them right now.

Your wide screen TV, paid for by western exploitation of the east during the colonial era.
Your big house, paid for by the exploitation and partial extermination of the indiginous people of your country.
Your gas guzzling Automobile, paid for with world wide control of the oil markets through political and military threats and the actual use of miltary force (and "colateral" damage to civilians).

Thats not to say that I'm not just as guilty, but I take the guilt apon myself. I confront the history of my position in society and accept any moral responibility for it. Heres some of the things I feel guilty for;

The british colonial exploitation and totalitarian dominion of india, africa, parts of asia, Austrailia and northern America.
The british invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
Britsh intervention in the middle east that has partly resulted in the terrible conficts in areas such as palestine and Iraq. (after the fall of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI England and France split the middle east up in to chunks for imperial administration. Our attempts to tidy up and make the area govern itself left it in a far worse state than it had been under the ottomans).
I also take on all moral choices made by America during the Cold war, as "we were on thier side".

What we could all do with is a little humility, it gives us a much more realistic picture of our Civilisation.