Is there not political correctness in Civ 3?

[VetLegion]

hey got rid of fundamentalism in civ 3? why?

There is a chat log somwhere on the site.. someone from firaxis explained it was because of terrorism etc.

[MRT144]

IP! IP! IP!

[Sandman]

Let's not forget the 'other' political correctness in Civ3, namely last few techs on the tech tree are based on American weapons systems, and that whilst the phalanx and trireme were renamed to make them less Greek, we still have the AEGIS cruiser and an insane TWO stealth aircraft.

[Az]

WAAAAAY too easy, Ming.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Azazel
WAAAAAY too easy, Ming.

No kidding...

[Stefu]

Er, on the contrary. Specific inclusion of Zulus is rather a symptom of Eurocentrism. There would have been many more worthwhile African and Native American civilizations - yes, more worthwhile than Portuguese and Dutch, too - to include, but Civ series chose Zulus. In Civ2 they added Sioux, who were scrapped in Civ3 for the Iroquis.

Why? These civilizations are pretty much defined by their contact with Europe. Zulus were pretty much a jumped-up little warrior kingdom. Mali and Ethiopia would have been much worthier inclusions. However, unlike Mali and Ethiopia, Zulus played by the rules of the historical narrative. They achieved one rather high-profile victory against Europeans - Isandhlwana. Same with Sioux, at Little Big Horn. Unlike Mali and Ethiopians, the Sioux and Zulus are part of the European mythology, playing the role of the Technologically Inferior But Still Noble Opponent Achieving One Victory Before Utter Vanquishment. That's the stuff blockbuster movies are made of. And in case of Sioux, it's even better - they're specifically part of the American mythology. Iroquois, too, are part of the American mythology, by the supposed connections between their style of government and American democracy.

[VetLegion]

and that whilst the phalanx and trireme were renamed to make them less Greek

Phalanx was Macedonian, not Greek

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i do find it messed up when political correctness destroys historical correctness...

...and I finds it annoying when both political Correctness and historical correctness pushes the gameplay away... I'd say adding the Zulu's and Iroquis, and leaves out the dutch, makes the gameplay better...

Sure, there might have been a better South African tribe, than the Zulu, but to leave South Africa without any civs, would make it more boring...



... and as a side-note: I don't think the Dutch deserves to be in the game... (unless there's more Civs)... The Iroquis is more important, I'd say

[VetLegion]

Stefu well in that case Ethiopia would just beg to be in after what they did to Italians

[Az]

Communism is too weak in Civ3. They should've allowed it to compete in trade, like in civ2.

[Sandman]

Phalanx was Macedonian, not Greek

Sorry.

[Az]

Oh, who cares, the DL is gone, now let's dance on his tomb.

[orange]

we've had this debate soooooo many times before...and my team always wins

[VetLegion]

Thanks Sandman, I have done a weeks worth of defending macedonia in "what will you do this summer" thread, I can do without a phalanx discussion right now

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Does any of this actually matter?

Yes- we could have had the Dutch. Yes- we could have had the Belgians, or the Hungarians. We could have had hordes of Europeans civilisations distinguishable only by the forms of cruelty to animals perpetrated in their village festivals, but what would have been the point? It would have been dull.

Instead we get bare-chested Zulus in fur skirts. Their civilisation is more deserving that the Portuguese because they had big spears and fur nappies, and that rocks. And Iroquois because they had fab examples of cruelty to enemies and their women all had their tits out.