Is there not political correctness in Civ 3?

[Hueij]

I don't think the Dutch deserves to be in the game...

Hey!!

[Hydey]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
their women all had their tits out.

Yes put all the civs in that have their women's tits showing.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Hydey


Yes put all the civs in that have their women's tits showing.

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

WAAAAAY too easy, Ming.

[Zero]

That guy was playing passive aggressive / blantant ****** game on every single thread with his Captain Obvious and ToughUSA accounts.

[Provost Harrison]

I think it would have been nice to see the Dutch as a civilisation too...

[St Leo]

In all fairness, I think there should also have been a Women civ. It would fit right in

Yes, because women are a very small minority and can be adequatly represented with just one civ...

I think it would have been nice to see the Dutch as a civilisation too...

It's probably possible to make a better argument for including the Dutch than for including the Germans. The Dutch are much more important historically.

Portuguese aren't and the French are basically a foil for the British.

[RGBVideo]

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.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by St Leo
I think it would have been nice to see the Dutch as a civilisation too...

It's probably possible to make a better argument for including the Dutch than for including the Germans. The Dutch are much more important historically.

That would make the WW1 and 2 scenarios rather dull.

[Spiffor]

Well, there is PC in Civ3, but not exceedingly so. Here's the list of non-PC things in Civ3 that I can think of :

- The Germans have their traits and Unique Unit (and hence golden age) directly taken from the nazi period. Sure, their leader isn't Hitler, but AFAIK, the Germans weren't "militaristic scientific" at any period of their history except during WW2.

- Wine is a luxury resource that makes people happy, as well as ivory. Tobacco and precious birds will also be in the next expansion.

- You can raze cities very easily, and genocide whole populations. I remember having killed all Zulus in one game, except for a few slaves.

- Slavery is in, even though it is abstracted very much.

- Nukes

- Barbarians are dumb people who cannot hope to evolve.

- I remember a lengthy discussion that it was racist towards Mongols to depict Ghengis Khan as an ugly person. Some people of this discussion argued that Firaxis was generally racist towards Asians because of Gandhi's ugliness and Mao's laughable smile.

- One of the victory conditions is to have been at war with all the other people on Earth, and to have won. It incites to go to war.

[RGBVideo]

- I remember a lengthy discussion that it was racist towards Mongols to depict Ghengis Khan as an ugly person. Some people of this discussion argued that Firaxis was generally racist towards Asians because of Gandhi's ugliness and Mao's laughable smile.

Hah. It's not the thing that Asian leaders are ugly - it's the thing that Europeans, especially Elisabeth - are unrealistically beautiful - when judging with late 20th century standards!

I don't care about it much, but it's pretty amusing when you notice it.

[alva]

That would make the WW1 and 2 scenarios rather dull.

Only about 30% of graduating americans know who Hitler was anyway, so there's not even a problem here

[Imran Siddiqui]

AFAIK, the Germans weren't "militaristic scientific" at any period of their history except during WW2.

What about after the 30 years war period? Or in the 1800s?

[Spiffor]

Elisabeth - are unrealistically beautiful

[RGBVideo]

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

AFAIK, the Germans weren't "militaristic scientific" at any period of their history except during WW2.

What about after the 30 years war period? Or in the 1800s?

I have no clue about the German science during the 80 years war period, and I don't think the Germans were militaristic during the 1800 (got their ass spanked by the French - if anything the German 19th century was rather scientific - industrious IMHO).
Industrious is generally a trait that fits more the Germans than Militaristic, even thought htere have been a few periods of history were the German populations were very warlike (Germanic wars against Rome, German conquests of Europe, agressive period 1870-1945). But I don't think the Germans are more militaristic than, say, the Arabs or the Spanish.