Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
Yeah its definitely bait. But they're so gunna do it though.
Or... You ignore a person's attraction to a specific gender (given its an entirely boring and irrelevant component in CIV) and just focus on making the game.
This is the better idea. It's better to not show in game what proclivities they have.
If a leader is already known to be such, that's fine, but don't add in quotes reinforcing it.
Especially since such quotes are usually directed at player leaders, and there aren't separate quotes depending on which gender they are talking to.
Alexander the Great was probably gay or bi. Also Gustav V of Sweden. So we already had LGBTQ+ leaders, and it's likely that Alexander will return :)
This is so misinformed its tragic. Sexuality as we understand today is totally incompatible with ancient practices. I dare say many people in the LGBTQ+ community would be offended being compared to people in ancient times.
Secondly, Alexander had multiple wives and the suggestion he was bi or even gay is historically contentious with no clear evidence to suggest he was either of those things.