 |
|  |
 |
|
Alex
|
 |
Brasil
Mar 1999 time: 02:19
|
|
Boy, let's hope this thread does not degenerate in a flame war...
Despite being a Brazilian myself, I'd like to disagree with D. Pedro... Brazil is simply not important enough to feature as a civ in Civ3, because Brazil is not, technically speaking, a civilisation. USA is not a civilisation too, for that matter.
Brazil must be seen as a part of the "Iberic" civilisation, which would encompass Portugal and Spain. After all, our country was colonized by the Portuguese.
We all understand why America (as the north americans like to style themselves, with some arrogance) is in the game. The game was made by an american company, and its main market is the USA. Firaxis would have to be nuts to not include USA as a civ. But, as I said before, USA does not qualify as a civ IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT UTILIZED BY CIV3.
As for the Simpsons episode, I would like to say that it was stupid to sue the Simpsons, but only because we had no chance to win that lawsuit. Other than that, it was perfectly natural to be dissatisfied with prejudices and misconceptions. Any american would.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jdd2007
|
 |
Cincinnati
Aug 2001 time: 00:19
|
|
im not saying brazil hasnt had an effect on the world, just that it hasnt been large enough to warrant entry into civ3.
although im not usually a flamer, but i take offense at
"U.S. which uses treachery and deceit to advance itself politically in the world"
i dont usually defend my countrys actions, but what you said is completely not true. the us has advanced politically by expansion, hard-fought wars, excellent (mostly) leadership and a strong economy. today the us is powerful because of Europe being rocked by WWII, and later because of the democratic triumph over Russia.
"4% growth in our GNP"
however fast your country as a whole is growing, millions upon millions of brazilians live in shack cities. millions more do better farming and cutting down the rainforest.
"America (as the north americans like to style themselves, with some arrogance)"
whats wrong with saying america? i live in america and you live in america. im in north america, you in south. you live in brazil, and i in the usa.
terrorise people? were we terrorising when we fought the nazis, terrorists, when our government fought a war to end slavery in this country, when we introduced the marshall plan and monroe doctrine? was washington terrorising when he became the president, brushing away the monarchy offered to him.
im not defending all of the united states actions for the last 225 years, just doing what you would do if i said something like
"brazilians are cowards because they have fought so few wars"
know how i feel now? yah ill bet.
my government does not terrorise people. your country is not cowards.
about the simpsons thing, every show mocks american (no, whoops, US) values. the simpsons are a stereotypical US family. when one episode set in brazil makes a few references to a high crime rate there, rio takes it offensively and sues fox. sheesh, do you think springfield, illinois would sue fox, no matter how dumb it makes inhabitants look. no, it wouldnt.
enough for now
jdd
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dom Pedro II
|
 |
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999 time: 05:19
|
|
The USA does not terrorize people.
Friend, few Americans can see what their government as done in the last 60 years. The United States was built on the idea of capitalism, free trade, a small government. That ideal is dead and has been dead for sometime. The United States today is a corporate-controlled, big government, welfare state that I will glad to see in a history book rather than in current reality.
Let me just give you a taste of the U.S.'s "hard-fought" efforts and how they've made the world safe for democracy...
Since this started with Brazil... In 1964, the Brazilian military overthrew the democratically-elected government of Brazil. What most Americans do not know is that the U.S. 7th fleet was off the coast of Joao Pessoa ready to HELP the Brazilian military. After the coup was over, did the Americans press the military regime to begin setting up free elections? Hardly! The CIA began selling torture devices, which my father personally saw with the good old "Made in the USA" printed right on them. They trained the Brazilian police in numerous torture techniques, so that when the regime was lifted in 1985, 10,000 people had been slaughtered. In Chile it was 15,000 by the U.S.-backed Pinochet, in Argentina another 10,000.
The United States CIA ALSO was responsible for paying off a sheik in Afghanistan to declare a holy war against the Soviets so that the Afghans would fight harder. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. for years financed a man called Osama Bin Laden to help the Afghans, and in the conflict with the Lebonese, Isreali intelligence and the CIA helped found a little terrorist organization known as Hamas. Brilliant move guys! None of this came back to bite you in the ass! 
How about World War I? A war that was declared so that rich American bankers would not lose out on their investments of backing the Entente powers. And which at the end, Americans gained no land, but DID make off with billions of dollars in German patents and companies that they just sort of HELPED themselves to.
Or how about in Latin America where the United States trained numerous "national guards" in various latin countries, who then went and just happened to overthrow their governments and set up vicious, U.S. backed dictatorships. The most famous of which was Batista's regime in Cuba. And in 1954, the Eisenhower administration allowed Guatemala City to be reduced to rubble by U.S. bombers because the president of Guatemala nationalized lands belonging to the United Fruit Company, which ruled over these lands like a Southern planter in the 1840s.
And then there are the half-assed attempts to actually do some good... for example, the Clinton administration helped train and finance thousands of rebels in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1995. A day before the attack was supposed to be launched, Clinton washed his hands of the whole deal and U.S. support dissolved. The Iraqis moved in days later and slaughtered every man, woman, and child in the resistance. Then they took the heads of the leaders and hung them in downtown Baghdad. We not only let those people die, we were the ones who encouraged them to revolt, so its like we killed them ourselves.
And then there are the times when the USA did good things... World War II. That was a good thing, but guess what... the United States isn't going to be able to ride the "we saved your asses in WWII" excuse forever. And even in that war, the U.S. and Britain conducted terrorist projects! The leveling of Hamburg and Dresden, only reason was the frighten the populace of Germany... they went specifically for civilian targets. And then the always famous attack bomb... thats history's biggest terrorist attack. True, it ended the war, but it also incinerated 100,000 people in two cities that a bunch of military bureaucrats decided upon because they were the ones that had been destroyed the least by U.S. firebombings which had already killed a couple of million Japanese citizens. Jeez! I wish I could play God like that... deciding who lives and who dies...
But hey! It's alright, right? I mean, after the war, we did help rebuild Japan and all (to stop Soviet encroachments, that being the ONLY reason). Of course, all of that financial aid doesn't really help the poor little man and his family who were wiped off the face of the earth just because of something their government had done.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
I mean, the U.S. government has done some stupid stuff too. 12 million bucks to make a pen to write in space and the Soviets used a pencil. |
I have one of those "space pens" and I resent that remark. The fact that I can write upside down comes in handy and is worth the 12 mil.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by siredgar
I'd add love to add the Brazilians if a bunch of modern civs were included in the game. |
That would be cool, to have a game of all modern civs. Would be very cool. The more civs, the merrier.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Miznia
|
 |
Madison WI
Jul 2001 time: 23:19
|
|
quote: asleepathewheel said:
The more civs, the merrier. |
You know, I feel like it isn't, necessarily. If I can't for the life of me imagine a certain civ as a world power, I don't want it in the game (unless it's programmed to suck a little).
Imagine you're playing the Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, or some other grand civilization... And your opposition turns out to be the Swedes, or Poles, or Argentina. That seems really lame to me.
There's also the problem of being able to believe it when one civ beats up another. Sioux kicking the snot out of China: how am I supposed to deal with that? or the Dutch conquer Russia?
In CTP I don't think I ever had the displeasure of encountering the Cuban civ, but if I had, I think I'd be pretty annoyed.
Anyway, I think that 24 civs is already going to be pushing it...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Miznia
You know, I feel like it isn't, necessarily. If I can't for the life of me imagine a certain civ as a world power, I don't want it in the game (unless it's programmed to suck a little).
Imagine you're playing the Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, or some other grand civilization... And your opposition turns out to be the Swedes, or Poles, or Argentina. That seems really lame to me.
There's also the problem of being able to believe it when one civ beats up another. Sioux kicking the snot out of China: how am I supposed to deal with that? or the Dutch conquer Russia?
Anyway, I think that 24 civs is already going to be pushing it... |
Different strokes. I just figure, the more civs, the more unique characteristics, the more varied the gameplay. Playing all random 15 opponents would then actually mean something. This is, of course, assuming that Firaxis will add in new characteristics.
And, isn't the tag on Civ: rewrite world history? I think it would be fun to start out as say Canada, and take over the world. I'm not that hung up on reality.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Weymaster
|
|
Somewhere in this world
Dec 2001 time: 23:19
|
|
Ahem... well, i've been an observer of this flame war, but let me explain why Brazil shouldn't be included in Civ3, and for that matter why other countries should be:
1) While Brazil is a big country (about the same size of the US) and has a big population, it hasn't affected much of the world's affairs, right? If I am wrong, please tell me about 3 Brazilians that influenced the world as much as American, French or Chinese leaders had... Even Cuba could be more important than Brazil in this context (let's remember that Fidel Castro has been a pain in the American @ss since 1951)...
2) If you want to 'fill the spot' of South America, why not to have the Inca Nation instead? In the context of Civ3 it would be a good balancing force against Sioux and Aztecs, and in reality, they were the most advanced civilization in the Americas until the Spanish invasion.
3) If you think of Brazil as a 'future glorious Civilization', why not Argentina, Canada or Mexico? For example: Mexico (a) has a bigger economy than Brazil, (b) Mexico is the only country around the world that has invaded continental US (in the 20th century) ... The whole point is, Latin America cant be a separate civilization
That's it thank you. Please don't let this forum degenerate into a political debate.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|