quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-21-2001 09:27 AM Okay, CivilizationIII is a game, not SimAnthropology. It's fun, not an evolutionary humanity simulation. So what if none of the civs in the game existed for longer then 3,000 years of prominence, not even half of the game's length. The fact that Civ allows me to watch Ghandi declare war on me and start heaving nukes at my cities, for me, this is worth most of the game price alone. |
You guys are missing my point. This is not to indicate that civ3 wont be a good game. On the civ vs history simulator issue i have other thread i intend to start.
I was intending to give another perspective ont he unque civs question. And yet again to strengthen the case for generic civs, not just on gameplay grounds but on historic grounds. And yet at the same time to acknowledge the one case, in which i beleive the unique civ ground has a strong case to make - China. While you may dispute China, I think it is clear that China is by far the strongest case that can be made HISTORICALLY for unique civs. As opposed to Americans, Germans, etc.
LOTM
Comment