Civilization IV The Fascist Edition

**Reverend Joe** · 10-01-2005, 22:22

Originally Posted by Meneldil

As many people said, Civ isn't supposed to be accurate. The difference between the factions is quite useless (they get a few techs here and there, different characters, and that's about it).

Calling them racist or fascist is ridiculous. And making fun of the Malian (?) civilisation because you're annoyed isn't the best way to support your arguing.

I have been out of circulation for the last two games (except for a very short time playing Civ 3- and I hated it) , and I had thought they were getting more historically balanced, and hence my argument. Anyway, it really is a moot point for me, because I am not going to buy Civ 4, and Civ 3 was too atrocious to play for more than 5 minutes.

**Byzantine Prince** · 10-01-2005, 22:44

The title of this thread is hillarious.

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 10-02-2005, 01:06

Menedil Civ 3 had a start date and an end date, yuor point still stands though, just me being hypertechnical.

**Meneldil** · 10-02-2005, 09:44

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Menedil Civ 3 had a start date and an end date, yuor point still stands though, just me being hypertechnical.

Yeah, there's a starting date, but that's just an abstraction. If I remember Civ3 correctly, you could start the game with the Russian or any 20th century faction. Hence why the start date is just merely a useless information.

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 10-02-2005, 01:07

Menedil Civ 3 had a start date and an end date and I'd assume that Civ 4 does as well, yuor point still stands though, just me being hypertechnical.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post....

**LeftEyeNine** · 10-02-2005, 01:43

Starting from 4000 AD, if I'm not wrong..

**GoreBag** · 10-02-2005, 03:12

4000 AD? You must be wrong..

I don't think it's racism either. I never liked how they mix political groups and ethnic ones as viable factions, but I only played Civ 3...sadly. The Turks were probably considered and rejected for a number of reasons that don't make sense. I wasn't happy when my ancestors weren't a listed faction in Civ 3, but they came around (in a very Gallocentric fashion) in the expansion. I really wouldn't take it so hard.

**Papewaio** · 10-02-2005, 03:45

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

The title of this thread is hillarious.

It is rather, considering that as the player you are the absolute ruler of (normally) a military machine bent over destroying all other civilisations so you can take over the world.

**bmolsson** · 10-02-2005, 05:45

Actually, it would be interesting if a civilisation developed in to each other. The Sioux developed in to Americans for example (even if it's a bad one)......

**Del Arroyo** · 10-02-2005, 10:57

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Actually, it would be interesting if a civilisation developed in to each other. The Sioux developed in to Americans for example (even if it's a bad one)......

Actually, the Sioux got massacred and put on reservations.

**Komutan** · 10-02-2005, 17:29

I think Turks should be in the game. However, calling the developers rascist just because they did not include Turks in the game is "a little bit" of overreaction.

**Leet Eriksson** · 10-02-2005, 19:42

Lefteyenine, if you think thats annoying, then what would happen if your civ got a non-turk as its leader?

Thats exactly the Arabs case, we get Saladin. Its like a slap to the face.

ggthnxbye

I mean he could have added Al Hajjaj, that guy single handedly expanded the ummayad caliphate from spain to india. but no we get an overrated general instead.