Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are civ-specific abilities racist?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JCG
    replied
    They're not racist from my POV....It would be interesting to see more civ-specific properties. But then again I'd like to see them as more of a series of optional paths you can choose: if you build/develop/do certain things, you gain one type of UU, etc.

    Maybe that would make the game too abstract, but hey, it sounds good in theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sava
    replied
    I hope the ACLU doesn't browse these forums

    Leave a comment:


  • Braindead
    replied
    I couldn't care less whether civ specific abilities are racist or not. Anyway, I do not think they are racist, they are nothing more than a means of adding interest to a game by allowing for different strategies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Verto
    replied
    Are civ-specific abilities racist?
    Yes. And sexist. I am disenfranchised every time I play Civilization.

    Leave a comment:


  • RGBVideo
    replied
    Are civ-specific abilities racist?
    Yes. So?

    Leave a comment:


  • Master Zen
    replied
    But still they'll have to reproduce... where do I sign??

    Leave a comment:


  • Quintrala
    replied
    Originally posted by XarXo
    They invade a kingdom and steal the "best" males and use them as slaves.
    Good idea

    Leave a comment:


  • XarXo
    replied
    Originally posted by Abdul-Aziz
    XarXo, how could they have growth rate at all if they're only women?
    Imagine that as a good reason for a war. They invade a kingdom and steal the "best" males and use them as slaves.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dauphin
    replied
    Originally posted by Abdul-Aziz
    BTW, datajack, Romans also had their own religion, not only Christianity...
    Not exactly their own religion, they stole it from the Greeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abdul-Aziz
    replied
    XarXo, how could they have growth rate at all if they're only women?

    Leave a comment:


  • XarXo
    replied
    Everything could be thought as racism (or better say "exclusionist").

    For example, men doesn't have menstruation, so an Amazoness Civ should have a menstruation implementation in the game.

    This is not racism, but BAD FOCUS on ideas!

    The good thing to add in the game about this hipotetical Amazoness civ should be "because they doen't have men" no "because they are only women".

    So, what about and higher growth rate just because they have higher higienic level?

    (Yes yes, this example is SO RUDE!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Abdul-Aziz
    replied
    I think ir is not racist...

    BTW, datajack, Romans also had their own religion, not only Christianity...

    Leave a comment:


  • Master Zen
    replied
    I wonder, can you un-check "Civ-specific abilities" at the start and not get their UU? Never tried this.

    I for one, do not think it is racist and give the same a little spice. Makes civ-selection a little more thoughful. Coming back to Civ2, it looks bland with all civs the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Datajack Franit
    replied
    A religious Rome is a nonsense, as the Roman Empire became a Christian Empire in the last century of its history, causing its fall as well

    Leave a comment:


  • Optimizer
    replied
    Maybe you should be able to choose one civ trait, and only be allowed to change it at a great cost. That would be something for a future civ game.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X