Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

Saim said:

I don't even know why Korea is in the game in the first place. Yeah, I'm kinda ignorant, can someone tell me why?

Click to expand...

I agree with Ogedei there's no need to elaborate on this overly discussed topic. Just a quick comment: Maybe you should also ask why Celts are in the game and have TWO leaders to start with? I don't know how they affect my life and my fellow Asians that much. At least my laptop was made in Korea. And except a nice body, I don't see how Bourdica is on par with most leaders in the game.

I heard this is the thread where I can brag about my vast knowledge of history

How dare they make a game that doesn't please everyone

This entire thread made me

Is the average american ignorant? Obviously. Many Americans cant even point to the United States on a map without political borders drawn.

Do US schools teach grossly biased Western focused history? From what I remember from the laughable public education in history that I was given, you learn lots about Ancient Egypt, Rome, Europe of the middle ages and then the entirety of US history. East of the Ural Mountains is where "Asia" is. and that's about where they left it

But that all really doesn't matter.

Firaxis made a game designed to mostly sell to Americans. Therefore, they aimed to please the target audience. Focusing primarily on easily recognizable and iconic "leaders" that the average American would know. Does that mean many leaders are poorly picked? Naturally. However if you dislike it so strongly then I would advise you to mod in your own preferences.

Also President Bush's atrocious foreign policy/effect on US diplomacy and the war in Iraq have little to do with civ 4

FuRRie said:

Let me tell you something else.
I'm getting sick and tired of all you people complaining what leaders should be in the game and which should not be.
Firaxis takes leaders that are well known by the general public, and nobody cares wether they we're great leaders or they "weren't really the leader of the country called x".
Let me tell you, you people who complain, which is, let's say 5% of all the CIV players care.
The rest doens't care and just wants to have a fun game!

Click to expand...

Excellent point. The leaders are nothing more than figureheads anyway, in this game.

What I wouldn't mind seeing is some sort of system where each country has loads of potential leaders and at the start of a new age you can choose to either

a) keep your existing leader or
b) switch to a new one

Would certainly keep things on its toes! But not many countries have leaders that span 6000 years......

gettingfat said:

I agree with Ogedei there's no need to elaborate on this overly discussed topic. Just a quick comment: Maybe you should also ask why Celts are in the game and have TWO leaders to start with? I don't know how they affect my life and my fellow Asians that much. At least my laptop was made in Korea. And except a nice body, I don't see how Bourdica is on par with most leaders in the game.

Click to expand...

Indeed. They picked Boudicca because she's a romantic figure, though she was very....unsuccessful. I guess they got that we were sick of Kleo, so they decided they'd get some other buxom loser. Seriously, the traits are all that could fit, but she was a poor tactician
"My Queen, the Romans are formed up in defensive positions in a clearing that doesn't allow you to bring your massive numbers to bear."
"Rawr! CHARGE!"
"Ehh...shouldn't we just....not let them leave or something? Maybe slaughter some more Roman civilians?"
"KILL!"
That's...tactics 101, basically. Unless you absolutely have to, you NEVER fight the enemy on his terms. Especially when your sole advantage is numbers.

We're talking about a game where:

Lincoln was left out as an American leader until the second expansion, and FDR was given precedence.

The American UU are navy seals (and americans are the only civ to not get marines), rather than USMC, an aircraft carrier, a USAF airplane, a minuteman, or any number of more appropriate examples.

The Holy Roman Empire is a distinct entity from the German civilization, and Charlemagne is their leader.

Spain is led by a woman notable only for getting lucky by sponsoring a random italian explorer and killing a bunch of people who were of a different religion. Their UU is pretty much complete fantasy, as conquistadors rarely even used horses due to logistic reasons.

The Italians are completely absent despite being responsible for starting the renaissance and a building a good portion of the world wonders in the game.

The French UU are essentially characters from a book rather than being based on a truly notable historical military unit.

The Scandinavians are refered to as 'vikings' and portrayed as violent raiders with no mention at all of important post-christianization leaders or their important roles in political affairs such as the 30 years war.

The Roman military UU is a personal bodyguard of the Emperor that very rarely even fought in real wars. The Roman Empire is represented by two leaders who while significant ruled within a very small time period and the game completely ignores both the republican era and the imperial era when the empire was at its height.

The Celtic leaders are 2 individuals who are notable mainly for losing to the Romans.

The dutch leader was not dutch and never actually ruled the Netherlands.

Knights are developed by researching guilds and macemen come from civil service and machinery (apparently knights were actually mercenaries rather than being nobility and attaching an iron ball to a stick via a chain required an extroardinary amount of beurocratic and mechanical knowledge).


The game is obviously meant to be cartoonish in its portrayal of history, if the western countries were portrayed accurately at all you might have a point but even the American civ is a rather silly representation at best.

My point exactly.

Dracleath said:

Spain is led by a woman notable only for getting lucky by sponsoring a random italian explorer and killing a bunch of people who were of a different religion. Their UU is pretty much complete fantasy, as conquistadors rarely even used horses due to logistic reasons.

Click to expand...

What?!? You have got to be kidding. You dont know much about Isabella and Ferdinand, do you?

Or maybe I am wrong and she is only notable for the Inquisition and luckily sponsoring an italian explorer.

When in doubt, google.

gettingfat said:

I agree with Ogedei there's no need to elaborate on this overly discussed topic. Just a quick comment: Maybe you should also ask why Celts are in the game and have TWO leaders to start with? I don't know how they affect my life and my fellow Asians that much. At least my laptop was made in Korea. And except a nice body, I don't see how Bourdica is on par with most leaders in the game.

Click to expand...

I didn't even ASK why the Celts aren't in the game, I just said they shouldn't be. In Korea's case, I'm actually asking.

Saim said:

I didn't even ASK why the Celts aren't in the game, I just said they shouldn't be. In Korea's case, I'm actually asking.

Click to expand...

Since this argument has already been beaten to death in previous threads, I'll simply post a quick list on the reasons for Korean being in the game:
-1. Korean civilization (not "Korea" as a nation-state,) is one of the oldest surviving civilizations in the world with a history stretching back 3000 years. Very few civilizations can boast that.
-2. Korea is a distinct and unique East Asian civilization that represents early Northeast Asia. From the Gojoseon Period up to the Samguk Period, in a stretch of several centuries, northeastern China was dominated and shaped by the development of Korean civilization.
-3. Korea is a necessary component to representing East Asia, one of the most populous regions in the world. Korean civilization was responsible for the development of Japanese civilization (even the samurai sword was originally a Korean import; Japanese initially used straight swords).
-4. Modern Korea (both North and South) is highly important in today's world. South Korea is highly important economically and North Korea remains at the political squabbles involving many major players.

The "money talks" argument has been pretty much ignorant. As big as Korea's gaming market is, "Civilization IV" is *not* popular nor is there even a legal Korean version of Civ4.

Use the search feature on "Why is Korea in the game" and the thread should pop up for more details.

Anyways, on the whole Firaxis misrepresenting non-western history thing, I do agree that Asian and African histories are poorly represented, but I don't think that it is anything seriously major. Civilization IV is meant to be cartoony and fantastical, more like a "historical epic" as opposed to a real "historical."

I would also add that they have an alphabet!! When Japan and China have not.

And somehow and alphabetical language is better?

dragodon64 said:

And somehow and alphabetical language is better?

Click to expand...

Not necssarily better. Just more practical.

Lance of Llanwy said:

Indeed. They picked Boudicca because she's a romantic figure, though she was very....unsuccessful. I guess they got that we were sick of Kleo, so they decided they'd get some other buxom loser. Seriously, the traits are all that could fit, but she was a poor tactician
"My Queen, the Romans are formed up in defensive positions in a clearing that doesn't allow you to bring your massive numbers to bear."
"Rawr! CHARGE!"
"Ehh...shouldn't we just....not let them leave or something? Maybe slaughter some more Roman civilians?"
"KILL!"
That's...tactics 101, basically. Unless you absolutely have to, you NEVER fight the enemy on his terms. Especially when your sole advantage is numbers.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was really her fault. She didn't have any control over those people. She could inspire them emotionally, but she was no general and her people weren't soldiers - just really angry rabble.

Ogedei_the_Mad said:

Not necssarily better. Just more practical.

Click to expand...

Eh? I found that Kanji made Japanese much easier to learn. Ever try reading Japanese that uses only the kana and no kanji? It makes my head hurt. Just think of the Chinese/Japanese writings as little pictures that represent a meaning and it actually becomes much easier to read.

You'd still need to memmorize hundreds of different Kanji, the On-yomi, and the Kun-yomi.

Korean Hangeul works in a similar manner to a Western alphabet where each component of a Hangeul set is a letter as opposed to a syllable.

I think what it boils down to is Civilization is a western game. If eastern people came up with a similar game it would probably be western history that would be misinterpreted.

I remember telling a friend of mine from Hong Kong I found it very hard to tell the difference between Koreans, Japanese, Malaysians, Chinese, etc. And he said, ' I can understand. I cant tell the difference between Germans and Spaniards the way you can'.

Exactly!!
I would add that Civilization is not even a western game but american with american view of the world

Of course the game was made from a Western point of view. Europe pretty much dominated history for centuries. We could instead be playing Asia's point of view had history turned out a bit differently. In fact China was once the leading power of the world but civil war, poor leadership, and the Mongol hordes set China back too far. The middle east may have dominated as well if not for the Mongol hordes obliterating their richest and most cultured cities. Since those events did transpire it was the West that eventually came out on top, and as we all know history is written by the victors.

That's a rather strange view of it. As far as I can tell, China after the Mongol dynasty wasn't backwards at all. It's just that the Mongols carried all sorts of Chinese innovations westward that allowed Western Europeans to see what they were missing, and the tools to get at it using brute force.

Aside from that, the West would still not be currently dominant had Western Europeans not exterminated the Americans and took their vast rich lands for their own. Europe is still a power, but the Middle East, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South America are all increasingly powerful regions today.