Cài đặt Steam
Đăng nhập
|
Ngôn ngữ
简体中文 (Hán giản thể)
繁體中文 (Hán phồn thể)
日本語 (Nhật)
한국어 (Hàn Quốc)
ไทย (Thái)
Български (Bungari)
Čeština (CH Séc)
Dansk (Đan Mạch)
Deutsch (Đức)
English (Anh)
Español - España (Tây Ban Nha - TBN)
Español - Latinoamérica (Tây Ban Nha cho Mỹ Latin)
Ελληνικά (Hy Lạp)
Français (Pháp)
Italiano (Ý)
Bahasa Indonesia (tiếng Indonesia)
Magyar (Hungary)
Nederlands (Hà Lan)
Norsk (Na Uy)
Polski (Ba Lan)
Português (Tiếng Bồ Đào Nha - BĐN)
Português - Brasil (Bồ Đào Nha - Brazil)
Română (Rumani)
Русский (Nga)
Suomi (Phần Lan)
Svenska (Thụy Điển)
Türkçe (Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ)
Українська (Ukraine)
Báo cáo lỗi dịch thuật
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.