No Slavery in Civ3

[Wiglaf]

Yin:

I'm not a PC looney, as I've detailed previously. The dolphin thing is ridiculous, and I've never backed that decision. I have, however, spoken out against putting more extreme options in civ3 because (and I'm sure you have too) I've had several relatives killed for pointless reasons in war. Therefore seeing people all excited about death and destruction is sickening.

Brainless nitwit, politically retarded wankers...

Who ordered the flamefest?

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by yin26

By the way, do you know that Age of Kings had to remove dolphins as a food source because it was thought to be too insensitive to the public while slaughtering hundreds of enemy troops was O.K.?

Ughhhhguuuuuerrrrr. Gimme a f###ing break! The poor poor dolphins...

I think slavery should be in the game and actually be helpfull, to a point... After your civ has built a grand empire on the backs of your slaves, changing attitudes, of your people and the slaves, would call for a drastic rethinking of the issue. Of course one could try to supress the abolitionists and slave revolts, with increasing difficulty, of course.
JSW touched on something like this, seeing how the new game mechanics allows for nationality, it could create some interesting possibilities when it comes to managing your opressed underlings.(sorry to go OT, but is the whole nationality of your citizens thing seem like a long overdue change? perhaps it is just me.)

[Sabre2th]

I'm afraid I agree with SMACed (I liked your old name better) on this one.

Slavery can be in, but is not necessary. There certainly doesn't need to be a concentration camp feature or anything like that. Whether it's accurate or not is irrelevant.

[Lord Magnus]

If Black and White wasn't banned by the PC nazis (a game where you can kill many innocent people and still go on to winning the game) why would they react differently to a Civ3 that does something similar? The evil people that enjoy killing are not going to become virtueous just because they don't have the "bad stuff" in Civ. In fact it'd be satisfying defeating a civ that was comitting war crimes (or if you're evil: killing all the loving and peaceful civs). It'd add another dimension to the game if you can play a "good" or "evil" civ ruling style.

[yin26]

Who ordered the flamefest?

Wow. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you! I was talking about the executives at MS who made the dolphin decision. I hope you know it's not my style to flame people...except for the Captains of the Gaming Industry, of course.

I agree with your point that gratuitious violence is, well, gratuitious. However, you can't ignore the fact that most civilizations until just last century were built in large part on slave labor. Even the US has that history to bear.

So removing it from a game about civilizations isn't going to make the world a better place or anything. Now, if slavery in Civ 3 also runs great risks of tarnishing your diplomatic relations with non-slave nations and that sort of thing, it might be fun AND educational.

[Sabre2th]

You can't really compare Black and White to civ3, Lord Magnus

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
You can't really compare Black and White to civ3, Lord Magnus

Quite true! Aside from Civ superior on so many different levels , killing and maiming are much more acceptable in a 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi' situation.

However, there is a line that is being blurred in this discussion. We moved from slave labor, an extensively used economic strategy (yes, I know it is morally wrong), with wanton thrill killing and genocide. Allthough I think recreating the greatest crimes against humanity could be done, I am not sure that it really belongs in a game like Civ3... OTOH a case could be made that ethic cleansing of some sort has also been a widely practiced method throughout the ages... I digress.

[Wiglaf]

Wow. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you! I was talking about the executives at MS who made the dolphin decision. I hope you know it's not my style to flame people...

No problem, sorry for the confusion

I agree with your point that gratuitious violence is, well, gratuitious. However, you can't ignore the fact that most civilizations until just last century were built in large part on slave labor. Even the US has that history to bear.

So removing it from a game about civilizations isn't going to make the world a better place or anything. Now, if slavery in Civ 3 also runs great risks of tarnishing your diplomatic relations with non-slave nations and that sort of thing, it might be fun AND educational.

I have nothing against slavery, war, death, destruction, etc in civ3 because lets face it, it's a game. It's wrong, though, for someone to get so excited about these features they can't wait to use them, which I've seen on these forums recently. That makes me question their whole purpose entirely..do we really need mass grave sites and executions in a hearty game of civ3? I could do without it.

Again, sorry for the mistake yin.

[Lord Magnus]

You can't really compare Black and White to civ3

In the eyes of PC nazis (which was the context I was 'comparing' the two games) since they are both games they see them as the same even though, like true PC'ers, they never played either of them. And like Warm Beer said Civ3 has more depth to it than B&W, that's why I suggest the B&W component becomes part of Civ3 not that Civ3 becomes B&W.

killing and maiming are much more acceptable in a 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi' situation.

so if Civ2 had killing of units (at least I think that's what happens to them), then that makes it 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi'? Killing and maiming happens in real-life and during the history of civilization and I think it's foolish to hide it just because people don't like it. If you don't like to kill, then don't do it. You can't just keep the good parts of Civ and omit the ugly parts otherwise civ is just a fantasy game.

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by Lord Magnus


so if Civ2 had killing of units (at least I think that's what happens to them), then that makes it 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi'?

No, actually I was saying sacrificing a child in BnW cos they give you the most prayer power is OK, since the game is about playing with a giant Care Bear. It looks like noone is in a uproar re: child sacrifice.
Where as in Civ3, if it were possible to round up all your English minority citizens and put them into camps because they were a high revolt risk, I could forsee a huge outcry of anguish, since it is a 'reality' based game.

I do feel the need to echo the point that it is disturbing that people get excited when it comes to commiting simulated acts of violence (Losta people loved starving thier sims to death when the Sims was released). But I do not think you shouldn't elimintate a feature because someone may get perverse enjoyment out of it.
If we were to to that the Gaming industry would have scant few game choices.

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by Warm Beer

No, actually I was saying sacrificing a child in BnW cos they give you the most prayer power is OK, since the game is about playing with a giant Care Bear. It looks like noone is in a uproar re: child sacrifice.
Where as in Civ3, if it were possible to round up all your English minority citizens and put them into camps because they were a high revolt risk, I could forsee a huge outcry of anguish, since it is a 'reality' based game.

Even though what you speak off is probably the truth, it is stupid that one violent action is seen as okay just because you know that it isn't real but another is unacceptable just because it has or can really happen. Of course I'm probably the fool in trying to make logical sense of humanity. But as a last example in support of why a "B&W enhanced" Civ3 may not be gagged by PC thugs, and I know it been said before, is that CTP was able to pass with slavery in it. And maybe Civ3 can get away with other things too.

[Urban Ranger]

Civ 3 is fine without slavery. Just because CtP has it - and what a flawed implementation that was - it doesn't mean it has to be in Civ.

So it's a big part of ancient history. There are bigger parts that are still abstracted and not done properly, such as food production and population growth.

If we want realism, we should start with what's already in the game.

[yin26]

Tropico lets you play as Pinochet and a host of other thugs whose reign of terror still haunts many people. So why wasn't it banned? Because of the way the game itself tended to be rather light-hearted and instructional (though you could still order somebody killed if he threatened your being elected). And because in the end most people could care less what is in or not in a computer game. And Free Speech, etc. Most people understand that entertainment can be in bad taste, after all.

So if THAT can get made without many waves (i.e. using REAL dictators), why are we so conceited as Civ players to think the rest of the world gives much of a damn about what is in or not in Civ 3? At worst, various elements might be considered uncouth by some people, but that's all that would come of it. And if those elements mirrored history in some meaningful way, that "education" tag would makes things even smoother.

What is, to me, a far more interesting discussion is this one: In Civ, when you defeat an army and take over a nation, the "realities" of the death and misery involved are kept from us. Is that, in the end, more or LESS educational? I would argue that in a way, replicating the horror of war and occupation in a graphic and clear-cut manner might actually do people some good. However, to do that kind of thing really well would take an astounding amount of wisdom and programming prowess. And there will always be the one or two freaks who post stuff like: "Yeah, now I can finally torture some Jews!" But idiots are idiots.

All things considered, I'm pretty happy with a more abstract and simple model but wouldn't mind some token nods towards the dark-side of what is really being abstracted in this empire building.

[Warm Beer]

This reminds me of an underlying topic on this board that I, at times, for get: "What would be in the spirit of Civilizaton?"
And I must admit that, although I would like to see an empire builder with more teeth, Civ3 has indeed been an abstraction of what it would be like to run a nation. Which doesn't detract from the Civ series being an incredibly engaging, replayable and enjoyable game.

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.

[SerapisIV]

why are we so conceited as Civ players to think the rest of the world gives much of a damn about what is in or not in Civ 3?

Yin nailed it. No matter what all the game reviewers say when they declare Civ the #1 computer game of all time, Civ is not the end all be all of computer games. Besides that the PC Nazis have a lot more blatant problems with video games, bloody, gorey violent FPS games causing Columbine . You don't Joe Lieberman complaining about reports of disenfranchised teenagers becoming vicious dictators because they got to be cruel dictators in a Civ game.