Is the civ series too eurocentric?

Traitorfish said:

I can absolutely see that discussion happening. The difference is, to Westerners, it would be a novel and interesting perspective, rather than something we've seen many times before- five times within this series alone!

Click to expand...

It could be just me, but you seem to contradict yourself.

Traitorfish said:

Remember, nobody is complaining that Civ I, Civ II or even Civ III were Eurocentric: that was, as you say, to be expected. We'd just imagine that, another three games down the line, they'd have done a better job of shaking things up. They're certainly trying, I can't think of many other games that has included Ethiopia or Indonesia as playable factions, but the fact that the Vanilla Civ 6 list is a step back compared to Civ 5- two more Euro civs and one less Middle Eastern civ- suggests they're not making a priority of it.

After all, Civilization is a series which wears its ambition in its title, in a way that I don't think any other strategy series does. It's understandable that people might wonder if it's falling short of that ambition.

Click to expand...

So what are you arguing exactly? I'm just wondering.

Leoreth said:

So people are hypocrites because of their hypothetical reaction to something that doesn't exist? I'm pretty sure the Asian perspective of an Asian game would be remarked upon by a Western audience.

Click to expand...

Which conveniently misses the point. I didn't mention hypocrisy by the way; not sure why you would bring that up.

Leoreth said:

Your post seems to assume the stance that western people tend to give "Asia centric" games a pass while western games get critiqued for being Eurocentric, and that this is a double standard. The difference is that western audiences will automatically perceive an Asian perspective including its biases in an Asian game, while western biases are generally assumed to be the default and are therefore less likely to be noticed.

Click to expand...

You assume too much, surely.

Agent327 said:

It could be just me, but you seem to contradict yourself.

Click to expand...

How so?

So what are you arguing exactly? I'm just wondering.

Click to expand...

That Europe and particularly post-medieval Western Europe is over-represented in the series. I thought I'd been pretty clear?

Traitorfish said:

How so?

Click to expand...

You seem to be saying that 'something we've seen five times before' would be a novel experience.

Traitorfish said:

That Europe and particularly post-medieval Western Europe is over-represented in the series.

Click to expand...

I see. In that case I would disagree. And personally I think no amount of non-eurocentrism will ever satisfy the critics. Now here's the thing: we have a very active modding community, which, to my mind at least, has long corrected any perceived eurocentrism. The amount of civs released since at least Civ III far outstretches any perceived flaws on the part of the designers. So, in short, the designers can afford to be lazy on this particular issue, and this discussion can be continued endlessly.

Agent327 said:

You seem to be saying that 'something we've seen five times before' would be a novel experience.

Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't my intention.

I see. In that case I would disagree. And personally I think no amount of non-eurocentrism will ever satisfy the critics. Now here's the thing: we have a very active modding community, which, to my mind at least, has long corrected any perceived eurocentrism. The amount of civs released since at least Civ III far outstretches any perceived flaws on the part of the designers. So, in short, the designers can afford to be lazy on this particular issue, and this discussion can be continued endlessly.

Click to expand...

It's not laziness, though. When you end up with two dozen civs in a game, you're not being lazy. You've put together all the leaderheads and special mechanics and leaderheads and done all the research to base it on. The problem is a lack of imagination. Instead of doing all that working to add another Christian white guy from 1500-1900, you could have put the same effort into another, more interesting civ, and achieved better results.

"The modders will fix it", on the other hand, is laziness, and to their credit, its not a crutch Firaxis have ever leaned on in the past. Seems unfair to claim that they have, and really very strange to do so as a defence.

No, but Firaxis have made horrible game-breaking moves such as refusing to have Event-files in CivIII when CivII already had them. So they suck anyway

(btw, is CivVI a Firaxis title?)

Traitorfish said:

It's not laziness, though. When you end up with two dozen civs in a game, you're not being lazy. You've put together all the leaderheads and special mechanics and leaderheads and done all the research to base it on. The problem is a lack of imagination. Instead of doing all that working to add another Christian white guy from 1500-1900, you could have put the same effort into another, more interesting civ, and achieved better results.

"The modders will fix it", on the other hand, is laziness, and to their credit, its not a crutch Firaxis have ever leaned on in the past. Seems unfair to claim that they have, and really very strange to do so as a defence.

Click to expand...

Now you definitely are being contradictory. (As per lazy: for Civ 6 they simple replaced 'Denmark' with 'Norway', and added 'state church'. That doesn't particularly strike me as having cost a lot of work.) Also, it's not difficult to add civs once you established that all civs will have a quite large, common set. In fact, what sets civilizations in Civ apart is restricted to UU, UB and leader traits (some of which will also be common). It does, of course take work to actually make the civs. But that's not the kid of lazy I refer to here. The point of this thread seems to be 'Civ is too eurocentric'. That may or may not be the case, but such is not of great interest to a game designer working for a company that sells mostly in the US. That's one.

Secondly, even if there is such a perceived eurocentrism, it has long be corrected by the amount of civs released by the modding community, and there's no reason to suspect that Civ 6 will be any different in this respect. People always feel civs are missing, and they always will. You simply can't make a game that will contain all possible civs, nor is that remotely the intention of the series. I was using 'lazy' from the eurocentric critic's point of view, and in this respect Civ can afford to be. We have a very active modding community, after all.

And since the whole discussions is about perceptions, I don't see it ending anytime soon either. Meanwhile Civ 6 will bring another round of many new and shiny civs to play with. Which is the point of the game: to be fun and playable. Civ then has the added bonus of being very moddable as well, as a rule. So I look forward to all those civs, modded or not, and playing the hell out of another Civ game.

Denmark made more sense to have, and their Civ6 Norway is run by the king who died in Stamford bridge and is widely viewed as 'the last viking', and i doubt that Norway played any role after that as a regional power (was annexed by Denmark later on). They obviously have it for adding a new civ (cool), and possibly to lure people there to buy (? Norway is rich, but has a very very small population).
Imo they should have either used generic 'norse' or vikings, or stick with Denmark or Sweden (neither of which were super important on a global scale either, though).

I don't really care if it's Norway, Denmark or the Vikings, I'm just bummed that Scandinavians made it into vanilla Civ 6 when there's no Persia, no Southeast Asian, and no pre-colonial American civ (the Aztecs don't count because of the pre-order blackmail).
Their intresting bonuses somewhat take the sting out of it, but it's still disappointing.

Well. that could be because eurocentrism, because expansions are planned, or any other reason or combination of reasons. But let's focus on 'Is Civ politically correct?' Maybe we should stop buying it.

It may surprise some, but I doubt it ever was an intention of Civ or Sid Meier to prodcue a historically accurate game that spans millennia. It has, over the years, become somewhat more historically accurate - to the point even of historical courses being based off it -, but in the end it's still a godgame. With a nicely active modding community, and an equally active discussion community. How many games can claim that, I wonder, after 25 years?

Well, yes, the first two Civ games didn't even have any difference in what civ you picked other than the name of civ and leader

I think that instead of Brazil or Norway they should have had Khmer, or free Aztecs. I suppose they will have Aztecs in a later expansion? (which makes the DLC even more of a moneygrab).

Well, you may have noticed they like to switch around civs. And nobody is forcing you to buy expansions, but that has been the basic formula since Civ 2.

Hm, if the vanilla civs have to always be 18 now, then maybe:

Greece ( )
Rome
England
Russia
China
Egypt
Babylon (or other mesopotamian)
Aztec or Maya
India/some Indian civ, eg Maurya
Maybe an east asian civ like Khmer (Anghor Wat and other stuff)
Maybe a native north american civ, although imo if US is there it sort of is overkill (hm, can acquire other meanings ) So either US (which is always in due to some reasons) or a native american civ
France or Germany, but imo it doesn't make sense to have both, and along with England they are next to each other.
Mali/Songai for a sub-saharan civ
Maybe Carthage, otherwise Inca, cause they are the only ones in an entire continent.
Persia
Japan?
Maybe some central asian civ, but likely better to have Mongols which take over the area historically
And last but not least... Australia! (nah, i am kidding )
Last civ should be Arabs.

I could say: That list is eurocentric! But I won't, as it would be childish. Alright, a smiley:

Well it only has 5 euro civs (6 with US, but they cover the north of Aztec/most of north American continent) And Asia has 7 civs on the above list!

Besides, we don't need other continents to have more than 2 civs on average

Civ series definately is eurocentric, having been made by euro-people, but I'm not sure if I'd call it too eurocentric, because that'd go into what the game is for and like

what's there to be said about that?

Other than that Civ is made by US people for (mostly) US people I wouldn't know.

I really don't understand the assumption that, because a game is made by and for Western audiences, it must feature a disproportionate number o Western civs. Shogun: Total War was made by and for Westerners, too, and they didn't feel the need to cram in a lot of redundant white guys.

It seems more likely that Firaxis has too little faith in its audience, than that they've taken the accurate measure of their audience and it's not as flattering as it might be.

Traitorfish said:

It seems more likely that Firaxis has too little faith in its audience, than that they've taken the accurate measure of their audience and it's not as flattering as it might be.

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Also it's not that europeople have to make eurocentric stuff, but it kinda makes sense you know

Traitorfish said:

I really don't understand the assumption that, because a game is made by and for Western audiences, it must feature a disproportionate number o Western civs. Shogun: Total War was made by and for Westerners, too, and they didn't feel the need to cram in a lot of redundant white guys.

Click to expand...

A bit of a strange comparison. The Shogun series did have a redundant white guy in it, by the way. Maybe redundant white guys strike a cord with some?

I think the only way to get rid of "Eurocentrism" is to get rid of "predefined" civs and start with generic ones where unique traits, units and buildings of your civilization are somehow organically picked/developed/unlocked as the game unfolds and you name your adversaries as you meet them...

Could be really immersive if done right. Starting with "USA" in 4000BC is such a horrible immersion-breaker.