A
Angrylittlegirl
Guest
Nations game? I was thinking about this one day while playing Civ 4. I've been wondering how the producers of these games narrow down the 1000+ ancient-to-modern civilizations into 16, 18, or 24.
My mother (who's formerly a sociology professor) told me that there are factors, but I'm really not quite sure (because she never really loved things about civilization) if these are it:
The Civilization/Nation should:
1. Leave a monumental structure that stood the test of time - or if it was pillaged, at least it had been recorded by the greatest philosophers/historians of the time
2. It occupied a vast territory - I disagreed with her here, Japan isn't that big, but somehow made an impact in the world
3. It produced the greatest people that ever existed - Plato, Pliny, Aristotle,the Caesars, etc. were great people, that's why Greco-Roman civilization were included.
4. It must be old - I disagreed with her, the U.S. was included.
5. It must have wone many wars with another country - A-Bomb, Vietcong, Korean War, Alexander's Indian Defeat, War of 1812, Seven years War, Hundred years war.......but I'm not really sure how that makes a civilization great if it won many wars. Peace advocacy is still a better option.
But I mean, why the Iroquois, or the North American Indians in general? They are barely known in the world. The Nazca lines were shrouded with mystery, but nobody knows about these Nazcas.
The Byzantines aren't even that unique of a culture. They had emperors alright, but theire armies failed, yet still they're included.
Or how about the Zulu? Portugal had the same culture/achievement as Spain (I can barely even tell the two countries apart), but it's included in one of those games. Montezuma failed. Mansa Musa wasn't recognized by the whole African continent.
I'm not being racist here or anything. I just want to know what the main factors are to be included in these civilization games.
If somehow I (or my mother) was wrong, then please correct us!!!
My mother (who's formerly a sociology professor) told me that there are factors, but I'm really not quite sure (because she never really loved things about civilization) if these are it:
The Civilization/Nation should:
1. Leave a monumental structure that stood the test of time - or if it was pillaged, at least it had been recorded by the greatest philosophers/historians of the time
2. It occupied a vast territory - I disagreed with her here, Japan isn't that big, but somehow made an impact in the world
3. It produced the greatest people that ever existed - Plato, Pliny, Aristotle,the Caesars, etc. were great people, that's why Greco-Roman civilization were included.
4. It must be old - I disagreed with her, the U.S. was included.
5. It must have wone many wars with another country - A-Bomb, Vietcong, Korean War, Alexander's Indian Defeat, War of 1812, Seven years War, Hundred years war.......but I'm not really sure how that makes a civilization great if it won many wars. Peace advocacy is still a better option.
But I mean, why the Iroquois, or the North American Indians in general? They are barely known in the world. The Nazca lines were shrouded with mystery, but nobody knows about these Nazcas.
The Byzantines aren't even that unique of a culture. They had emperors alright, but theire armies failed, yet still they're included.
Or how about the Zulu? Portugal had the same culture/achievement as Spain (I can barely even tell the two countries apart), but it's included in one of those games. Montezuma failed. Mansa Musa wasn't recognized by the whole African continent.
I'm not being racist here or anything. I just want to know what the main factors are to be included in these civilization games.
If somehow I (or my mother) was wrong, then please correct us!!!