Would you consider Civilization "violent"?

[Iranon]

I find it a very deep game that's more likely to round out a players' education than to be a detriment.

Some things can be a little creepy... like the effectiveness of Slavery in modern times, or how exterminating a rival civ entirely can save you many headaches compared to a kinder approach, or the extent to which the use of 'culture' seems to mirror the use of propaganda.
These are all good though, because possibly uncomfortable aspects of humanity are presented in thought-provoking ways.

 

[Kanzera]

It could teach children that it is a good thing to attack other countries to expand the power and wealth of your own - so, it may not lead to your kids conquering the world, but it could lead to them voting Republican.

Haha! Nice one...

 

[The Snug]

It could teach children that it is a good thing to attack other countries to expand the power and wealth of your own - so, it may not lead to your kids conquering the world, but it could lead to them voting Republican.

lol. See, there is great evil to be found in Civ! Long live Emperor Bush and the Christian mans burden to destroy all heretics!

While there is danger in reducing Imperial Expansion to simple bean-counting, it probably still remains that over-exposure to violence might cause a greater amount of desensitization.

I know that for myself, playing so many 1st person shooters as a child has left me with an over-riding compulsion to shoot guns whenever I'm in public. I didn't go to prison for being nice, afterall.

 

[PredatorFett]

Wal-Mart can shove it. Let's face it. History was violent, and if they can't put up with that, you might as well give your money to retailers who don't blindly force their opinions down everybody else's throats just b/c your standards don't match their own.

Here's what I think. Whoever gave that rating to a game like Civ should be given a little lesson on history, and in the meantime should be forced by a jury to play violent games such as Grand Theft Auto until he appreciates them. ( No matter how long it takes.)

 

[Kanzera]

Wal-Mart can shove it. Let's face it. History was violent, and if they can't put up with that, you might as well give your money to retailers who don't blindly force their opinions down everybody else's throats just b/c your standards don't match their own.

Here's what I think. Whoever gave that rating to a game like Civ should be given a little lesson on history, and in the meantime should be forced by a jury to play violent games such as Grand Theft Auto until he appreciates them. ( No matter how long it takes.)

Here's to you, my man!

 

[Chiyochan]

no, its not violent at all.

 

[r_rolo1]

If you need to have 18 years to play civ IV, then you should need to have 300 years to play the average shoot-em-up or to read a newspaper

 

[CivIVMonger]

If you need to have 18 years to play civ IV, then you should need to have 300 years to play the average shoot-em-up or to read a newspaper

I can understand that for a youngster the grasp a whole animated nation right at your finger tips can lead to the abuse of power. In the wrong hands, of course...

If anybody reads this and is actually concerned, you can turn on quick combat in the options menu and all and any fighting is eliminated in the game.

I am probobly one of the few people who picked up the game at eight. I am now been playing for about five years. Do the math!

Of course I have since I vas very little loved history so that fuled my interest until I really understand it. Which I barely do now!

 

[NKVD]

well Mario on wii hitting Luigi with a baseball bat is rated for Everyone but Civ which is kind of what really happened in history but taking place in an alternate History is rated 17 ?! do they wait until 17 in school to teach you that Cortez massacred millions of south americans and that Hitler gazed millions of jewish ?

even there. In civ when you destroy a city and kill millions you only hear a sound!