"Civilization III is a Role Playing Game"

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Master Zen, a master of recognizing another's perspective you are not.

A role playing game Civ3 is, though not in the literal sense of playing the role of an individual person. Just as most "wargames" are "roleplaying a general" and the player slips into the "Rommel Syndrome." Civ3 is just a bit different.

Then Doom is also "roleplaying" a space marine.

Seriously though, we are accustomed to certain genres which are aptly or not, named. To computer game players, the term Role Playing Game refers to a Ultima or Wizardry-type game, nothing else although there are hybrids of course.

Civilization type games are named Strategy games, even though of course, RPGs require strategy just as much.

What I find ridiculous is that a supposedly serious review site, calls Civ3 an RPG in the first sentence. Whatever your perspective towards how to correctly "name" a game, calling Civ3 an RPG is wrong.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Master Zen, a master of recognizing another's perspective you are not.

A role playing game Civ3 is, though not in the literal sense of playing the role of an individual person. Just as most "wargames" are "roleplaying a general" and the player slips into the "Rommel Syndrome." Civ3 is just a bit different.

By that definition, every game in the world is an RPG.

[Hurricane]

This guy probably played one or two games on Chieftain before writing the review. He obviously has no idea about all the things Zachriel mentions.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


By that definition, every game in the world is an RPG.

Tetris?

[TheStinger]

I hope civ4 tries harder to offend.

SMAC must annoy them(unless Miriam wins)

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by statusperfect


Tetris?

In Tetris you play....

THE PLAYER

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


In Tetris you play....

THE PLAYER

Tassadar5000 = Platon

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Nightfall
He did say that you could win by non-violent means, and he is correct.

What does that have to do with Darwin?

Young earth/old earth doesn't have a whole lot to do with Darwin...more to do with Big Bang and background radiation stuff than Darwin.

The critic brought up evolution: it's his issue.

You are somewhat right concerning the science, but not quite. When Darwin proposed his scientific theory of Evolution, physicists dated the age of the Earth as at most a few million years. This was because there no known energy that could power the Sun for a longer period of time. In addition, if the earth were billions of years old, it would presumably be cold inside, which is contradicted by the existance of volcanos. The Darwinists *knew* that the Earth must be at least hundreds of millions of years old due to the fossil and geologic evidence, so they therefore hypothesized that there was a source of energy as yet undiscovered. It took decades for atomic energy to be discovered. Quite a remarkable deduction from the scientific evidence. (Meanwhile, physicists spent the next century confirming the Earth's age through various means, including studies of radioactive decay, geology, planetology, etc.)

In addition, the Darwinists proposed that there was a substance associated with the "gene," that could be passed down intact from generation to generation, and that would ocassionally be mutated slightly during the process. It was supposed that this "gene" would be chemical in nature. Again, decades later this chemical, now known as DNA, was discovered. Now, we can splice human genes into bacterium to produce insulin for diabetics. Another remarkable deduction.

Man, we can't pray in school, we can't quote scripture in advertisements (at least in Canada, so far) and we can't even protest NEAR abortion clinics.

Now you want to take away our right to review games

Even under the tyranny of Canadian government, you can pray after school. You can always pray silently during the school day, and more than likely can pray quietly during any break in classes. Need more prayer in your life? Go to the church of your choice.

The critic has every right to criticize the game for any reason he wants, no matter how inane. The irony of his position is self-evident.

By the way, I pray everyday.

[aaglo]

What if anarchists start to rate games?

"this game has too little mayhem. I cannot choose long term anarchy, if I want to: every now and then it keeps suggesting different (and may I add stupid) forms of governments. And the city improvements are so lame: where's the paint shop, punk-clubs and junkyards? This game is boring, I wouldn't suggest this to any anarchy-child. Hence the rating 'Peaceful'..."

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Nightfall
He did say that you could win by non-violent means, and he is correct.
. . .
The truth will set you

Nightfall, my previous post wasn't meant to start an debate, and certainly not an argument. The gentleman's review set off my irony alarm, that's all.

Not only does he have a right to review a game, but it is important that he do so, so that like-minded individuals can receive information that they deem important.

Besides, he thought Civ3 was a good game. Who am I to argue with that conclusion?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by aaglo
What if anarchists start to rate games?

"this game has too little mayhem. I cannot choose long term anarchy, if I want to: every now and then it keeps suggesting different (and may I add stupid) forms of governments. And the city improvements are so lame: where's the paint shop, punk-clubs and junkyards? This game is boring, I wouldn't suggest this to any anarchy-child. Hence the rating 'Peaceful'..."

Now that's funny!

[TacticalGrace]

from the same site, they had this to say about Tomb Raider:

"The lifelike cartoon character is extremely well built and scantily clad as she jumps around in a variety of positions that reveals her well-endowed body. When falling down or being hurt, Laura makes a plethora of sexy moans that someone listening in the next room could easily assume that sexual intercourse was taking place. There are popular sites on the Internet with codes to transform Tomb Raider into "Nude Raider" stripping Laura of what little clothes she had been wearing. This added "feature" has made Lara Croft a best selling game."

Here you see the double standards. Because the scantily clad animated people are men in civ3 (the warriors) it's considered fine. Presumably the reviewer was a man and so didn't find the warrior or his little moans (when you disband him for example) "sexy". Perhaps we should question the reviewers perception of Lara's injury noises as sexy... amazing how the reviewer gets the phrase "sexual intercourse" into a review about Tomb Raider!

The reviewer goes on to say that Nude Raider was what made the game a best seller. This doesn't explain the Playstation sales though...

Overall I think civilization III got off lightly. If one of the more thorough muck-rakers in the christian fundamentalist community had written a review they might have done a few internet searches (just for the sake of research mind you) and found the possibilities for putting in nude animated amazons or well endowed egyptian princess leaderheads.

Top tip though: if you have any christian fundamentalists visiting, make sure you keep the speakers down when playing civ3 in the next room. Everytime you disband a warrior they might think you are having sexual intercourse.

[TacticalGrace]

Incidentally I find it interesting that the Christian fundamentalists are so disturbed by the idea of public nudity (see the panning that the Sims got) but don't show any concern for the large scale warefare that is pretty much inevitable in Civ3.

The Sims should have got rid of the nudity and put in global thermonuclear weapons if they wanted to keep the religious right happy.

[TacticalGrace]

and one more thing... just have to share this on efor medal of honour:

As in all violent games, killing people is seen as an acceptable action. Even though, in this game, you are fighting Germans, nothing can ever justify taking the life of another person.

yes folks. Even Germans.

[MrBaggins]

[IRONY]****. I didn't think killing Germans actually 'counted'.[/IRONY]