 |
|
|
I'm not really bothered abou the historical accuracy or what he looks like but the picture of him does not have good graphics. It is a much lower picture quality compared to the other pictures we've seen. Does anyone else see this or is it just my computer??
|
|
| |
|
|
Martinus
|
 |
of Poland
Jun 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
Geez. I have not seen such a whining thread for ages. I mean, people. 
I am a history major and can recite you the whole biography of Alexander back and forth. Also I DO know Aristotle was more important than just a teacher of Alexander. And I DO know that the Greek democracy was not a full democracy.
Actually I would expect everybody who is not a neanderthal history-wise to know that.
BUT www.civ3.com is NOT a history encyclopedia. If you don't know historical facts (or feel so unsecure about your knowledge that you need to point out every single incaccuracy made for the sake of humour) than read some freaking book or take history classes.
When I open the "civ of the week" feature I expect it to introduce me to the feel and general style of civilisation IN GAME, rather than throw at me thousands of hard facts and dates. I do NOT need a game site to teach me who Aristotle was.
Humorus variations about the facts and dates only add a nice comic value to the whole thing. And for this credit should go to Dan Magaha, who does a great job. 
And finally about the leader portrait. Yes, he does not look like Alexander. What Firaxis did I believe was to take a name of the most widely know Greek (Macedonian, I know) and put him as the leader of civilisation that, except for exactly the Alexander's episode, was commercial and scientific. And this guy sure LOOKS commercial and scientific to me.
So, I will say something I read so rarely here: I AM HAPPY. 
Now, can we please move to discussing the potential pros and cons of Greeks and phalanx in the game, rather than continue this high-school level pseudo-historical debate?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
El hidalgo
|
|
Yeah, "funny" is not what I'm looking for in a game of Civ. If it is argued that if I want historical accuracy I should read a history book, then the proper response is that if I want humor I'll go watch Monty Python rather than play Civ. The humor on the site, Dan's prose, that I enjoy, I don't have any problem with that, just keep the yuks out of the game. This worn-out, suck-faced, lipless priss who is represented to be Alexander is funny looking, yes, but maybe we should write a skit around him instead of a game .
Would it really have required any extra effort to make an Alexander that actually looks somewhat like Alexander? Or is it just that Firaxis wants to make him look like a clown, because Civ3 is supposed to be "funny"? (Hardy-har.) And no, he doesn't look commercial and scientific to me, he just looks weak and yet condescending, like some petty bureaucrat, not an emperor, and he looks a lot older than 33. A big thumbs-down for this Alexander, though I haven't been too impressed with any of the leaders so far. Maybe there will be an expansion pack with some historically accurate leaders.... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
splangy
|
 |
of my own little kingdom...
Jun 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
MY GOD!!! Your all so whiny, it's like talking to a bunch of highly educated children!!! Its a recreation of history, who said in my history Alex didn't wan to express his homosexuality, and that he is constapated  (J/K). Firaxis dosen't even have to make you guys a game, they could always go back to dinosours, SMAC 2, etc. These things they cant be yelled at for being wrong becouse no one has any proof of what they were or will be like. Cut them some fricken slack will ya! I enjoy there history, the greak UU and there bonuses, yes Alexander scares me a bit but i rather they hammer out a good GAME, and not worry all that much about graphics. Maybe they had to choose between a good AI or a accurate picture of Alexander. Maybe, for once, everyone could stop being so fricking pissy, and all shall live in peace, and all will rejoice *yay*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
splangy
|
|
of my own little kingdom...
Jun 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by El hidalgo
Yeah, "funny" is not what I'm looking for in a game of Civ. If it is argued that if I want historical accuracy I should read a history book, then the proper response is that if I want humor I'll go watch Monty Python rather than play Civ. The humor on the site, Dan's prose, that I enjoy, I don't have any problem with that, just keep the yuks out of the game. This worn-out, suck-faced, lipless priss who is represented to be Alexander is funny looking, yes, but maybe we should write a skit around him instead of a game .
Would it really have required any extra effort to make an Alexander that actually looks somewhat like Alexander? Or is it just that Firaxis wants to make him look like a clown, because Civ3 is supposed to be "funny"? (Hardy-har.) And no, he doesn't look commercial and scientific to me, he just looks weak and yet condescending, like some petty bureaucrat, not an emperor, and he looks a lot older than 33. A big thumbs-down for this Alexander, though I haven't been too impressed with any of the leaders so far. Maybe there will be an expansion pack with some historically accurate leaders.... |
or maybe you could stop thinking about your self and relize that firaxis is making a game, not a picture gallery. To think you are the same people that will whine when they release a bad AI becouse there budget had to go to a bunch of pictures that affect the game by smiling or frowning.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
If this game was representing fictional characters, then who really cares what they look like.
But these were very REAL leaders that we have all read about in the past.
This makes all the difference in the game. And not just ANY game - but the grand-daddy of them all - Civ III - and by the master of the Civ genre - Sid Meier.
From a company like Firaxis and from a game designer like Meier, we should expect quality AND accuracy.
These images (like poor 'ol Alex) have been the result of hours of work. They most likely started with sketches of what Alex looked like. They were shown at the weekly meetings. People had to discuss and AGREE on the image they were going to use. Then that image they selected was then rendered in 3D on the computer.
Again, probably every week or two, the artists had to provide an up-date on this image of Alex. All the facial expressions, movement, etc all had to be worked out in painstaking detail.
No my friends, this pathetic image of Alex was NO accident. Many people had to AGREE on the image they were going to use. And many hours went into the creation of it. To suggest that they did not know what Alex looked like is laughable. Are there no libraries nearby?
Don't be surprised if many of the characters will be the exact opposite of what they were in real life. They seem to reflect a particular outlook:
A politically correct, revisionist history outlook that simply doesn't square with actual history nor with common sense.
It would have taken just as long to make an accurate Alex or Cleopatra, as it did these laughable representations of them.
Don't get me wrong - I love Meier's games - I have all of them. And I am expecting BIG things from this game. But this type of graphical representation of well-known historical figures is just too sloppy for my taste. If I want fiction, I'll play space games.
But when I want to re-live moments in history, I like to play Civ and the many wonderful scenarios that dedicated scenario designers have poured their hearts into making. Does anyone recall Red Front? Colonies? Spartacus? Seeds of Greatness? Imperium Romanum? I could go on and on. . . These scenarios were GREAT because their creators took their subject matter seriously, and these scenarios have become classics as a result of the love they had for their subject matter.
Don't give me comedy; give me a great game.
Don't give me sloppiness; give me a product that treats its subject matter with some respect.
Don't fail the thousands of dedicated fans; and in return, they will give you their money
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Leonidas
These images (like poor 'ol Alex) have been the result of hours of work. They most likely started with sketches of what Alex looked like. They were shown at the weekly meetings. People had to discuss and AGREE on the image they were going to use. Then that image they selected was then rendered in 3D on the computer.
Again, probably every week or two, the artists had to provide an up-date on this image of Alex. All the facial expressions, movement, etc all had to be worked out in painstaking detail.
No my friends, this pathetic image of Alex was NO accident. Many people had to AGREE on the image they were going to use. And many hours went into the creation of it. To suggest that they did not know what Alex looked like is laughable. Are there no libraries nearby?
Don't be surprised if many of the characters will be the exact opposite of what they were in real life. They seem to reflect a particular outlook:
A politically correct, revisionist history outlook that simply doesn't square with actual history nor with common sense. |
Now, on Cleo I agree. But, with Alexander, why brainwashing anybody into thinking he looked like an Italian shopkeeper? Do they have something against the ancient Greeks? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
Great pictures MarkG 
Comrade Tribune: You agree that Cleo was BLACK? Hmmm, she had a Greek lineage (Ptolemy). Olive-skinned maybe, but black? Nothing more than revisionist history. . .
Now onto Alexander:
OK, let's for a moment assume that we know absolutely nothing about what he looked like.
So, let's build an image of him from what we know about him.
By accounts written about Alex, he was athletic, well-read, and highly intelligent. He was extremely brave, always leading from the front, inspiring his men, etc.
Alexander spent years outdoors, hunting, horseback riding, living under the stars.
Couple this with the fact that he had YEARS of training in the arts of war: fighting with the sword, throwing spears, running, etc
Then add the fact that he spent YEARS on very tough campaigns under the hot sun in Persia - outdoors, walking , riding, fighting, etc.
So, what image do we get from all of the above? First, Alex would have had a deeply tanned, weather-beaten face. Perhaps a few scars adorned his face and/or other extremities. He would have been thickly muscled, well-toned, and wearing the expression of someone who has seen a great deal of fighting and death.
He would have LOOKED like a KING who was filled with bravery, firmness, kindness and cruelty.
Just one example should suffice. During one seige, when it was time to attack the walls, Alexander was the first soldier up the ladder to scale the wall. He was fast, strong and brave. He reached the top of the wall, only to be confronted by several enemy soldiers, whom Alexander beat off and subdued. Then he rushed forward to fight other enemy soldiers who were manning the wall. By this time, he was joined by several of his own soldiers, and they all fought to take the city.
Do you realize how much strength and energy it takes to scale walls, and fight for your life against enemy soldiers?
Does the present image in the game represent THIS Alexander?
Last edited by Leonidas on 27-08-2001 at 21:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Leonidas
So, what image do we get from all of the above? First, Alex would have had a deeply tanned, weather-beaten face. Perhaps a few scars adorned his face and/or other extremities. He would have been thickly muscled, well-toned, and wearing the expression of someone who has seen a great deal of fighting and death.
|
That is a very prejudicial opinion and in some notable cases, a very wrong conclusion based on the facts. I recently read an account of an English prince (I forgot who, sorry) who basically had many of the exact same attributes and lifestyle as Alexander (led military campaigns against the French, spend considerable time outdoors engaging in the recreational pursuits typical of the nobility, etc.). So perhaps he was a man's man like Alexander, with weather-beaten face? Hardly, he was feminine fop who wore white makeup, false eyelashes and lipstick.
I am not saying Alexander could have not have had a ruddy look, but you are jumping to the wrong conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. And a very prejudice one as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
Quote by Steve Clark:
"That is a very prejudicial opinion and in some notable cases, a very wrong conclusion based on the facts. I recently read an account of an English prince (I forgot who, sorry) who basically had many of the exact same attributes and lifestyle as Alexander (led military campaigns against the French, spend considerable time outdoors engaging in the recreational pursuits typical of the nobility, etc.). So perhaps he was a man's man like Alexander, with weather-beaten face? Hardly, he was feminine fop who wore white makeup, false eyelashes and lipstick."
Hmmm, an effeminate English prince with many of the same attributes as Alexander? And you don't even know his name? He must have been quite a leader. . .
Yet Alexander conquered the known world. His exploits have fired the imagination of generations of people. He inspired his troops. His name and exploits have endured for thousands of years.
I did not say Alex had a "ruddy" complexion. "Ruddy" means "reddish". I said Alex was deepy tanned and weather-beaten. A very fair assumption, considering that Alex DID campaign for years in Persia outdoors under the hot sun. He LIVED with his men, and endured the many hardships they endured. Prejudicial? It sounds very reasonable based on the facts and common sense.
The current in-game graphical representation that is supposed to be Alexander, is not only prejudical, but would no doubt fit the image of this unknown, effeminate "English prince" you mention. But it hardly squares with what was written about the real Alexander.
Just look at anyone today who plays sports, camps a great deal, goes hiking and horseback riding, etc -- they will look tanned and athletic - they will not look like a "shop-keeper".
Years spent fighting with the sword will make you muscular. Just look at the images of Greek and Roman soldiers. Alex was not only a leader, but he actually fought at the front with his men. . .
This type of leader not only inspired his men, but served as an example for how other military leaders should act, from Caesar (who wept at Alexander's grave), to Napoleon and Rommel, and many others. . .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steve Clark
|
|
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
You are missing the point. It is prejudical when you look at someone's skin color, build, complexion or whatever and judge such a person to be a shopkeeper or a hero warrior. In my example of that English prince, it wasn't that he was hero as Alexander but if you were to look at his portrait, you would immediately judge that he probable never spent anytime out of doors. Just like I have a friend who looks like the classic nerd (you know the stereotype - slight build, pale, unsociable, etc.) but is one of the best mountain climber and cyclist I know. While it may generally be true that those that are muscular and weathered complexion do spend time outdoors, do not judge a person's image on stereotypical (or prejudicial) views. While we all probably want Alexander to look very "manly" (as seem to be the consensus here, including me), someone who looks like an "Italian shopkeeper" could have very well done the same thing as Alexander. That's all.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-08-2001 13:34
If not, I'm sorry.)
|