Civilization 5

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Abe Lincoln tore the United States apart and caused the most horrific war in North America.

thats a horrible example to use in this context. for one thing Lincoln fought tooth and nail to keep a war from happening; it was the south who was hellbent on seceding because they didnt like the governments policies, and for two the first "official" battle that started the war was instigated by the south. Lincoln's situation was entirely different from hitlers... he never openly assaulted another country that was bearing no ill will toward him.

as for the rest of your points, youre incorrect and every post you make defeats your own stance. truth of the matter is that evil and good are relative... you cant argue from a factual standpoint that one person is less or more evil than someone else... so to say that theyre hypocritical for putting a more evil person inside of the game is incorrect... because stalin is not more evil than hitler is. at least, you cant prove he is.

besides i highly doubt the game makers care about hitler, theyre making the game to make money. if they put hitler in the game tthen chances are germany wouldnt sell the game, and they would lose money... so they excluded hitler. hyporicy is to say one thing and do another, so unless the game makers have specifically said that they excluded hitler, not for monetary reasons but for moral, then they could be considered hypocrites for including any other tyrant. if not, then theyre not hypocritial at all. blame germany for having a stick up their ass after all these years.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
thats a horrible example to use in this context. for one thing Lincoln fought tooth and nail to keep a war from happening; it was the south who was hellbent on seceding because they didnt like the governments policies, and for two the first "official" battle that started the war was instigated by the south. Lincoln's situation was entirely different from hitlers... he never openly assaulted another country that was bearing no ill will toward him.

I see. I, like any self-respecting European, slept through history classes that dealt with the American Civil War.

its okay. we didnt even have history classes that covered anything that didn't happen in america in my school 😛

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
its okay. we didnt even have history classes that covered anything that didn't happen in america in my school 😛

Hehe. The history book we used for our History classes had at least 2 or 3 chapters dedicated to the American Civil War alone.

just goes to show how introverted us americans are. 😬 i wish my school had spent the effort to teach us more about other countries and there histories besides what led to the formation of the US and the world wars. i think wed have more appreciation for the rest of the world if we were more knowledgeable about it.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
just goes to show how introverted us americans are. 😬 i wish my school had spent the effort to teach us more about other countries and there histories besides what led to the formation of the US and the world wars. i think wed have more appreciation for the rest of the world if we were more knowledgeable about it.

You can't really blame them for it: USA is a large and powerful country. The rest of the world might as well not even exist for a common American. It's a bit different for European countries, especially the small and economically insignificant ones like mine.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
thats a horrible example to use in this context. for one thing Lincoln fought tooth and nail to keep a war from happening; it was the south who was hellbent on seceding because they didnt like the governments policies, and for two the first "official" battle that started the war was instigated by the south. Lincoln's situation was entirely different from hitlers... he never openly assaulted another country that was bearing no ill will toward him.

as for the rest of your points, youre incorrect and every post you make defeats your own stance. truth of the matter is that evil and good are relative... you cant argue from a factual standpoint that one person is less or more evil than someone else... so to say that theyre hypocritical for putting a more evil person inside of the game is incorrect... because stalin is not more evil than hitler is. at least, you cant prove he is.

besides i highly doubt the game makers care about hitler, theyre making the game to make money. if they put hitler in the game tthen chances are germany wouldnt sell the game, and they would lose money... so they excluded hitler. hyporicy is to say one thing and do another, so unless the game makers have specifically said that they excluded hitler, not for monetary reasons but for moral, then they could be considered hypocrites for including any other tyrant. if not, then theyre not hypocritial at all. blame germany for having a stick up their ass after all these years.

Uh.....yeah.....

You're right about that, however, it's not so much Stalin is more evil then Hitler (I don't believe either were evil). The Holocaust is the primary reason why Hitler is considered "evil", yes? Stalin has, factually, caused more deaths then Hitler. Stalin is factually worse then Hitler (Note I'm not using the word evil). It's kinda hypocritical to include both Stalin and Mao (Who is worse then either of them), yet not Hitler.

Bam. You hit the nail on the head. Honestly though, I can't see why they can't just create Hitler as a sub-leader for Germany, then just lock him out when they release the game in Germany.

Ok, Finalanswer, stop using this as a platform to promote your disturbing moral beliefs. This is not the right place.

Civ doesn't make moral judgments withs its leaders- hence Genghis Khan- it is simply utterly impractical to include Hitler in a commercial product of this type.

That part of the conversation is done. Move on. Warnings will be issued to anyone who tries to continue it.

Amazing game. And the opening narratives to each civilization is just touching.

I actually ended up a bit underwhelmed here. In any case, I don't have the time to pursue a Civ game properly these days.

Problems with this game (not to bash it or say that it's bad):

Archers have a range of 2 hexes.

"OK", you might say. "What's wrong with that?"

A single hex fits a mountain.

"Oh. Ah, the Civilization series has messed up scale, so this isn't really new".

A modern day infantry dude does not have a ranged attack, but an archer does.

"Woah, that's weird."

Neither does a tank, even though modern tanks have an effective attack range of over a mile.

"That's starting to stretch my suspension of disbelief."

Oh, and swordsmen can intercept and shoot down jet fighters.

"..."

And you can get chariot archers without archery or horses, modern infantry without rifling and giant death robots without robotics.

"..."

Hey ya'll, theres a Humble Bundle deal going on for 3 more days that gives Civ 5, all the DLC, previous Civ games, and a few other Sid Meiers games if you donate more than 15 dollars. This is a good chance for anyone who wants to try out Civ 5.

I tried it for the first time 2 days ago and I've been hooked. This game is highly recommended (if your not big on turn based strategy games, this is a good place to start). I'm current still on my hours long first civ game. I chose Alexander of Greece for my first Civ, and so far I've defeated Poland and Songhai. I'm about to take on the only other big civ on my continent (Persia) to try to dominate the entire territory.

And if you're not into history, there are some cool mods out. For example, there is a Game of Thrones mod that has all the houses fighting for control of Westeros, theres a Mass Effect mod between the all the different ME species, etc...

15 dollars for everything is the best deal you're gonna get anytime soon on this game.

For anyone who cares, Civ 6 with two DLCs is on Humble Bundle for 12 dollars, which is a pretty amazing deal