Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 55:
***I agree with Joseph on this one. You are guilty of what you accuse him of. Just because you ARE offended by this doesn't mean others are. To quote you, "Do not presume to speak for everyone." Furthermore, this is nonverifiable information. You should read [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] sometime. [[User:Nimlot|Nimlot]] 09:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
**I have never before seen this particular aspect of Civ 4 declared controversial - contrary to the claim in the precise wording proposed - and it's awfully petty. If Scott 110 is offended by it, he would be best off trying to raise consciousness elsewhere (along with informing the benighted Wikipedia community of what a [[gurdwara]] is) and sticking to the genuine points of controversy the game has raised, namely those pertaining to the religious aspects, which have upset people of all kinds, from hardline Christians unwilling to rule over a nonchristian empire, to radical atheists who think religion has been nothing but a force for unmitigated evil.
The unique unit aspect has raised very few - if any at all - eyebrows. I have always believed that the fast worker unit seemed kind of out of place with the Indian civilisation and the designers assigned it to them merely because they wanted to put them somewhere. The manual, therefore, is mere fluff to post-facto rationalise the choice.
As for the injunction given for reading the more general article on the series, the criticisms seem to be flaws in the game mechanics or, more apropos to this discussion, the unique civilisation traits. They are there to give the game some flavour, making the civilisations different. The games have all had an option to randomise these personalities so far as I know, rendering the situation moot. You can even disable the unique units if you have no sense of fun whatsoever. [[User:Pthag|Pthag]] 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
| |||