Leaders Firaxis considered but didn't include (from art files)

[dearmad]

And the pork in Civ is there because?

And the eating of COWS is there because (hello!!!! This is HORRIBLEY BAD for the MILLIONS of Hindi in the world!)

And the war in civ is there because?

And the slavery (dude if you are not black and american don't even go there with me) is there because?

And the BC/AD is there because?

And the use of nukes is there because (the japanese are the only one IMO who have a legitimate say over how offensive this is)

Mohammad is an HISTORICAL figure who led the Arabs and conquered vast territories through various means in a dynamic way. Why is it SO MUCH MORE appropriate to be careful because so many will be offended by this joke of an offense when there are other far more REAL offenses in the game that people are still dealing with, slavery, for example. And suffrage.

Your defense of this one potential offense is pitiful to me as it is out of proportion and, IMO, a misplaced defense in the name of fear.

[LordShiva]

Bah. I give up. Read Boris' post again, or Imran's.

FYI, it's "Hindu" not "Hindi" - the former is a religion, the latter is a language.

[Byelotsar]

Not to get in on the argument over whether Mohammad would have been a valid inclusion or not (though not alienating a Muslim player, read: purchaser, base seems like a pretty solid reason to shelve the idea), even with all things being equal, I'd still take Saladin over Mohammad. It's impossible to overstate Mohammad's importance in both Arabian and world history (just imagine the modern world had Islam never come onto the scene, either through lack of revelation or lack of charismatic compelling leadership), but Saladin's the man. No reason there couldn't be two leaders for Arabia, I guess, but if the choice were mine, I'd take Saladin.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dis
I'd really be impressed if one of these days a computer game company had the balls to put Hitler in. But it doesn't bother me too much he's out. He wasn't leader for that long

He was in a game, it was the original Red Alert.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Joseph
He was in a game, it was the original Red Alert.

Hehe, not quite; he was in the opening video, in which Einstein kills him

But yes, he was in a game - Wolfenstein (aka Wolf3D, anyone remember it?). He was the boss at the end of episode 3 ("Die Fuhrer Die").

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Excluding Mohammed out of respect for the religious beliefs of others doesn't mean those who decided such did so because they feared violence. THat's utter speculation. More likely, they were being respectful of someone else's beliefs. What's wrong with that?

I notice there's no prophet Jesus Christ in the game. I bet that's for the same reasons.

I'm an athiest myself, and I'm baffled as to why anyone would have a problem with these decisions. Especially since there are plenty of other good candidates for Arab leaders that wouldn't offend a bunch of people.

Exactly. There's no reason to go out of your way to offend people, and no reason not to submit yourself to a TINY inconvenience so as not to offend people.

[kseecs16]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Hehe, not quite; he was in the opening video, in which Einstein kills him

But yes, he was in a game - Wolfenstein (aka Wolf3D, anyone remember it?). He was the boss at the end of episode 3 ("Die Fuhrer Die").

As I already mentioned Adolf Hitler as well as Goering, and many other high level nazi's are all in the game Hearts of Iron and Hearts of Iron 2 - by Paradox Entertainment.

As for this raving on about why Muhammed should be in the game, it is ridiculous. The presence of Muhammad as an individual is not necessitated to include an Arab civ. The fact that including Muhammed, Confucius, Jesus Christ, or any other religious icon could be offensive to any number of people is obviously reason enough to NOT include them, particularly when there are far more secular, and logical choices for leaders.

As to the point of "not mentioning slavery if your not black or american" get a g*d damn clue b/c slavery existed a lot longer and more oppressively in the world before it did in the the Americas for several hundred years, and there is not one damn person on this forum that can claim any real connection to slavery. Don't get all high and mighty on that point when there are people still living in this world in countries that are basically subjected to a slave condition. Slavery is not a unique or "civ" specific phenomenon it was present across most cultures in the world at different times, and at the level of abstraction which it is present in the game it can hardly be construed as offensive (i.e. it refers to no specific race, gender, etc... as the enslaved.)


Everyone knows slavery is wrong - but it is in the game b/c it happened and it was a crucial component in the development of civilzation - but Religion, amongst all things, is highly contentious and a sensitive matter for many people - it is smart business and just plain sensible to avoid singling out any particular religious icons and begin to attribute attributes and characteristics to them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Exactly. There's no reason to go out of your way to offend people, and no reason not to submit yourself to a TINY inconvenience so as not to offend people.

Maybe when you work a bit in publishing you'll understand that there are very good reasons not to needlessly offend people.

Edit, confused by conjunction of Jupiter and Mars. Nevermind.

[duodecimal]

Aye, but in Wolfenstein, the Nazis/Hitler was undeniably the Enemy and truly evil.

What traits can you give the Hitler leader in CIV that would meet so many people's idea that he should clearly be evil? Would that mean the other aggressive/industrial civs (or whatever the traits might have been) are as bad as Hitler?

Also... in any of those games, were you actually able to play as Hitler / the Nazis? That was probably a significant difference in these comparisons.

These are the kind of things the sensitive types were going to agonize over. And that Hitler would be portrayable in any sort of 'good' or even 'neutral' light is something that might run up against some European laws. Not that I'm terribly knowledgeable about such things, but they do seem to be extremely touchy about the subject over there.

/Fawlty Towers
//"DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"
///"Hitler converts to Judaism!"

[LordShiva]

Hitler was also a leader in the Civ2 WW2 scenario.

[lordrichter]

Hitler is also in Civ 4, or at least his words are. Leonard Nimoy reads "the great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one, " when your Civ learns Fascism.

Surprised me.

[4ntifa]

Absurd and illogical PCness...

Originally posted by kseecs16
It seems pretty strait forward to me that they avoid controversial leaders because there is no justifiable reason to include them that outweighs the potential offensiveness.

Seems like a reasonable explanation... but Firaxis has been either very selective or very ignorant in their political correctness.

Most historical "great leaders" were more or less butchers - why settle for the lesser evil?! Why, for example, is including Mao okay, while Hitler, Lenin and Stalin are a no-no? C'mon, they've included Isabella! The mother of inquisition, slave trade and anti-semitism!

[4ntifa]

Originally posted by duodecimal
Would that mean the other aggressive/industrial civs (or whatever the traits might have been) are as bad as Hitler?

Bah, all "great leaders" are butchers (some are just more subtle than others, or won and got to write history _their_ way), as I already pointed out. Since CivIV isn't clearly treading on the black and white ground of moral absolutism (yes, many of the leaders included did some pretty horrible stuff), but the shaky ground of moral relativism, I _really_ fail to see the logic in excluding Hitler, Stalin etc...

[MikeH]

"Oh, abortion is alright, because a foetus is really only a bunch of non-sentient cells"

What's unreasonable about that?

[duodecimal]

Originally posted by 4ntifa
Bah, all "great leaders" are butchers ... I _really_ fail to see the logic in excluding Hitler, Stalin etc...

Aye, curious that those are out but Mao is in, and he was the worst of the lot. He's still revered in China, and he didn't kill many westerners, so even though he's probably the bloodiest murderer in the history of Mankind, it's not objectionable to most that he's in.

As for the rest, mostly dirtbags. Roosevelt is no hero of mine, even though that dictator managed to get on most historians' good side ... if Lincoln was in I'd make it a point to wipe him out.

Three exceptions:
Ghandi
later period Asoka
Saladin - though honorable, still a war-wager... but my favorite leader.