No Slavery in Civ3

[Nikolai]

Who is those "PC nazis"? You guys should be careful with what you are saying!

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Having slaves in a game, and using them to progress and become the leader of the world, goes against politcal correctness in every way imaginable. It would open up the door for becoming Stalin in a videogame.

I see no connection between stalinism and slavery.

[Nikolai]

Duble post! (problems with connection...!)

[jsw363]

I think the most important part of this discussion that really hasn't been adequately addressed is that despite the genre, this is a fantasy game. There is "willing suspension of disbelief" (although seeing the people in these forums, I wonder how many of them actually believe that they are Julius Caesar ) So the bottom line is that this game isn't supposed to replace reality, though for a lot of people it does change the way they act in the real world.

If you can slaughter millions without consequences in a game, it DOES have an impact on your psyche.

In some ways we are fortunate that we go through the civ game as the emporer and not the slave. Would make a very different game. So we are spared from seeing the people die of famine. We just get a little pop-up box. That's the way I like it. Sometimes you don't want to have to deal with all the bad aspects of building a civlization. Sometimes (or more likely always) some of the citizens die.

I, for one, would like to see religion and slavery and some other concepts included in the series because I think that they are educational (I have actually learned a lot from my ten years civing) and also add to gameplay. I think that though some things aren't so accurate (food production etc.) at least there is an attempt at reality. Slavery was a big part of history and has been completely ignored by this series.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by jsw363
In some ways we are fortunate that we go through the civ game as the emporer and not the slave. Would make a very different game. So we are spared from seeing the people die of famine. We just get a little pop-up box. That's the way I like it. Sometimes you don't want to have to deal with all the bad aspects of building a civlization. Sometimes (or more likely always) some of the citizens die.

Being a 6,000 year old slave? Probably not very good for physical labor anymore. Of course it would make the game different...the game would suck.

To quote Stalin, "One death is a tragedy. A million, a statistic." With that in mind, a simple pop-up box doesn't seem unreasonable.

[Sabre2th]

Sometimes (or more likely always) some of the citizens die.

Well of course they do. You don't expect them to live for 6000+ years, do you? We all know that only leaders can do that

[Wernazuma III]

Having no slavery is HORRIBLE. For political correctness we should ban nuclear weapons (or better all weapons) from Civ3 - at least until the "wonder of the american constitution" , when it suddenly becomes almost a duty to have them (what is that ****hole in Utah where it IS duty?).

No honestly, that is a big minus for the game!

[Inverse Icarus]

there are many things in real life that haven't made it into many games.

but i believe slavery could be a great additionm to civ 3.

[Wiglaf]

I see no connection between stalinism and slavery.

My original post mentioned "opening up the door to becoming a Stalin"...meaning if you allow slavery and people gobble it up, you'll soon have mass grave sites and murders in a game.

I want to restate my position here. I have nothing wrong with the more historical elements of the past being brought into civ3 ...slavery, oppression, etc. I do have a problem with the people who gain great joy from executing their own computerized people and torching their homes because they are of a different race or background, etc, or for other twisted reasons.

So, in theory, I would like to see history brought into civ3 in full: the bad times, the good times, and the ugly times. This includes all the atrocities that have happened in the past and may happen in the future. But my reasoning is much different. I'm a little concerned about why you would even want them in there in the first place.

Hitler slaughtered millions and millions of people. The suffering they endured was enourmous. I personally believe there's NO harm in putting this in civ3, because it educates people of the horrors of war, and it adds to the experiance at the same time. There are two possible side effects of this, though.

1) It might encourage more and more graphic options in the future. God knows what those will be, but the possibilites aren't good.

2) Death and murder are terrible things, yet from browsing these boards, a lot of people want to replicate them in a videogame for all the wrong reasons. That's a bit sick, and I wouldn't want them further screwed up for the sake of realism.

Hope I cleared my position up.

[Inverse Icarus]

hey, i do that already in my Civ 2 games.

when i take over enemy cities i make them "beeyatch" cities.

those mighty babylonian strongholds of intellectual prospierty now are stripped of all but happiness structures, defensive structures, and now support 5 settlers each, all around my cities.

after the 5 settlers the cities pump out armies to conquer another feeble enemy.

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
For political correctness we should ban nuclear weapons (or better all weapons) from Civ3

HANDS OFF MY NUKES OR I'LL BOMB THOSE PC NAZI'S ASSES BACK TO THE STONE AGE!!!!!

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by Warm Beer
So perhaps not having slavery, religion and other touchy subjects is the best thing for Civ3... But it is safe to assume that, some day, someone will make a empire building game (non sci-fi) that is more complex and realistic, as long as the syllable "civ" doesn't appear anywhere in the title.

I think I found my calling in life [if Firaxis doesn't want to touch the subject] but I should finish college first though. And of course it won't have 'civ' in the title, can you say "lawsuit"?