The Lost Civilization

Louis XXIV said:

They were unclear whether that was a UI or something automatic from just building the cities.

Click to expand...

I think they mentioned incorporating it as a UI, but it sounded a bit vague as if it was only at a brainstorming stage and they ditched it.

Inhalaattori said:

I agree. We can always find some fool who gets offended. Free world can not function with this kind logic.

Click to expand...

For decades Americans portrayed Natives in...less than favorable ways. I think we should all just shut our traps and be sensitive to our history.

seancolorado said:

For decades Americans portrayed Natives in...less than favorable ways. I think we should all just shut our traps and be sensitive to our history.

Click to expand...

I do not think we should necessarily be sensitive to our history, nor emotional. We should be able to understand history in an objective and non-biased sense. The Pueblo peoples should not deny other people the right to understand their culture. Anybody's history is everybody's history. We should be able to enjoy Pope as a leader in a game to inspire people to want to learn more about him. History should not be limited or patented. It should be honest and free. I think people who are not the tribe have just as much right to represent Pope as much as the people in the tribe. They are not Pope, they are just human, like you and me. This limitation they have insisted is superstitious and unfair to the rest of us. Let us interpret the history!

@The Observer,

Preaching to the choir buddy, I wholeheartedly agree with you but think of it this way: You are part of the civ development team and you go and meet with the Pueblo group. They tell you they are offended. It's a lot easier for us to say "who cares?" because we are sitting here on our computers but for the the civ team to include Pueblo despite their encounters might be disrespectful since they already established a person-to-person relationship with them. Of course, that shouldn't matter in the end but I think it says a lot about the team's character for them to do this.

It takes years to build up a company's reputation, yet it can be torn down in an instant. That is not to say this Pueblo issue would have done just that, but it makes sense why companies tend to be overly careful.

Matthew. said:

It takes years to build up a company's reputation, yet it can be torn down in an instant. That is not to say this Pueblo issue would have done just that, but it makes sense why companies tend to be overly careful.

Click to expand...

This. The free market has influence in more ways than one.

Inhalaattori said:

I agree. We can always find some fool who gets offended. Free world can not function with this kind logic.

Click to expand...

The belief of some people that freedom of speech, creativity and similar topics mean that you pretty much can do whatever you want must be one of the most annoying things in the world because of the lack of something that the world has been missing for a while: respect for others. It is something that has done massive damage to international relationships for my country.
Free world means that you have to take responsibility with that freedom, not abuse it. So when using that freedom you will also have to take that of others into account, though it is also the case that some people should be less sensitive but you are not improving the situation and certainly not make it more pleasant by ignoring the others.
In the case of the Pueblo you guys are practically saying 'screw them because I want to play them'. A no is a no, and the Pueblo have clearly stated that they wouldn't appreciate it if one of their historical leader was displayed in a video game. Something that we would find strange but for them it might be something very sensitive. Big credits from me to Fixaris who, despite putting effort and money into it, decided not to do it. Though it would be sad not being able to play the Pueblo, maybe they'll be able to convince them the next time in the development for Civ VI. And there are still plenty of other nations and tribes that are worthy to be added to the game.

anandus said:

No, it were settlements in mountains, I believe.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I'd say that is a somewhat stereotyped UA in any case - the Anasazi dwellings are not especially representative of Pueblan culture, and were certainly not in use by Pope's time. Mountain settlements would be a better fit for the Chachapoya or Nabateaens.

I think the idea was to represent all of Pueblan history. So, the UA could represent Anasazi cliff dwellings, but they would also have Pope and a Kiva UB or something like that.

Have to say I find the whole situation rather odd. Not really sure why you'd ask permission from the people you think best represent a particular civ before including them in the game. Equally I'm a bit baffled by why consent would be withheld.

I must have missed the debate in the Houses of Parliament over whether England should be included.

Well, technically, they contacted them because they were asking for help finding a voice actor.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense. I guess having had an objection raised, it's slightly difficult to ignore it.

Shame though. To be honest I know next to nothing about these guys and would have learned at least a little bit from their inclusion. All I'm going to remember now is that they sure are a touchy bunch....

Bakspatel said:

The belief of some people that freedom of speech, creativity and similar topics mean that you pretty much can do whatever you want must be one of the most annoying things in the world because of the lack of something that the world has been missing for a while: respect for others. It is something that has done massive damage to international relationships for my country.
Free world means that you have to take responsibility with that freedom, not abuse it. So when using that freedom you will also have to take that of others into account, though it is also the case that some people should be less sensitive but you are not improving the situation and certainly not make it more pleasant by ignoring the others.
In the case of the Pueblo you guys are practically saying 'screw them because I want to play them'. A no is a no, and the Pueblo have clearly stated that they wouldn't appreciate it if one of their historical leader was displayed in a video game. Something that we would find strange but for them it might be something very sensitive. Big credits from me to Fixaris who, despite putting effort and money into it, decided not to do it. Though it would be sad not being able to play the Pueblo, maybe they'll be able to convince them the next time in the development for Civ VI. And there are still plenty of other nations and tribes that are worthy to be added to the game.

Click to expand...

Agreed. At least this is Firaxis' own decision, not something imposed by anybody else, and I am happy that they chose their decision.

From what I know from second-hand accounts, many native Americans these days are very sensitive to portrayals of their culture in the media and in general their interaction with outsiders. Given the fact that they've been at the short end of the stick for more or less five centuries, I don't find it surprising.

This sort of thing is perhaps something that Westerners sometimes forget; oftentimes their portrayal of non-Western cultures, even if innocent and with good intentions, can be seen as offensive by non-Westerners. For instance, as an Asian, I've seen many depictions of "Asian" culture that, while not outright offensive, still offensive in a subtle way because it makes certain unspoken assumptions and perpetuates stereotypes (like the martial artist stereotype, the arbitrary blend of random cultural elements ranging from Japan to China and Tibet, the assumption of a more "spiritual = better" people in Asia, etc.) even though I understand the creator might not have realized it - or even understood what they were doing.

Think about how these sort of common arbitrary portrayals would offend a peoples who have been ruthlessly conquered, exploited, and stereotyped, and I think it makes sense that they would be distrustful of even a well-intentioned and respectful portrayal that I am sure the Civ series would have been for them. It is rare for anyone in the media to be this considerate about these matters, to be honest, and I applaud Firaxis for doing that.

I applaud Firaxis's decision too, its just I wish some of us could have been there to talk with the council about alternative options and the intent of using the Pueblo in Civ 5. Sid Meier was always a stand up guy, its no surprise that his company would do something like this as well.

There are little details that people could complain about (IE Pacal would never have looked like that... ever in real life, he was basically a rip off of Mel Gibson's terribly inaccurate Apocalypto), Firaxis aren't historians. They try to produce the best game possible while being as accurate as possible for their situation.

I think it all really depends on how much work they had already completed for the Pueblo before Pope was scrapped. A lot of people are talking as if they had actually completed a lot of it, but all the UA/UB talk could have simply been ideas with no work done on them. Even Pope was just concept art. A ton of concept art gets made for ideas that never actually make it into a game. Now, if a good deal of the civ was actually completed, then the higher ups who spent all the money paying for the work could have made the decision to put the civ in but just use a different leader.

Oh man, Pueblo with Pope would have been so great choice.

Would love to see the Pueblo / Pope concept art and what they had completed for the Civ some day. Perhaps those can be found in BNW files like unused wonder art (Panama Canal etc.) ?

turingmachine said:

Now, if a good deal of the civ was actually completed, then the higher ups who spent all the money paying for the work could have made the decision to put the civ in but just use a different leader.

Click to expand...

Yeah, let's hope for that. I've tried to search for alternative leaders, but for the Anasazi/Pueblo/Hopi there aren't many. Elk Foot of Taos tribe is probably the best choice.

i say good for them. i don't agree with such appropriation of cultural images. even as a white new zealander i am still quite offended at the image of the 'maori warrior' for similar reasons

cakes said:

i say good for them. i don't agree with such appropriation of cultural images. even as a white new zealander i am still quite offended at the image of the 'maori warrior' for similar reasons

Click to expand...

How so? The same connotations weren't surrounding the Maori as there were around Pope

Bakspatel said:

The belief of some people that freedom of speech, creativity and similar topics mean that you pretty much can do whatever you want must be one of the most annoying things in the world because of the lack of something that the world has been missing for a while: respect for others. It is something that has done massive damage to international relationships for my country.
Free world means that you have to take responsibility with that freedom, not abuse it. So when using that freedom you will also have to take that of others into account, though it is also the case that some people should be less sensitive but you are not improving the situation and certainly not make it more pleasant by ignoring the others.
In the case of the Pueblo you guys are practically saying 'screw them because I want to play them'. A no is a no, and the Pueblo have clearly stated that they wouldn't appreciate it if one of their historical leader was displayed in a video game. Something that we would find strange but for them it might be something very sensitive. Big credits from me to Fixaris who, despite putting effort and money into it, decided not to do it. Though it would be sad not being able to play the Pueblo, maybe they'll be able to convince them the next time in the development for Civ VI. And there are still plenty of other nations and tribes that are worthy to be added to the game.

Click to expand...

These days many people don't understand the concept of 'respecting' other cultures & religions which causes so much unnecessary conflict. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean that you have the right to shoot someone. Freedom has its own limitations !

I hate to use this cliched argument but I think a lot of you need it:

Put yourself in the shoes of the civ team. You go and meet with the Natives and they say they don't want Pueblo in the game. How culturally insensitive do you have to be to go ahead and include them anyway? We live in the real world, and person-to-person interactions have that effect.

Of course, it is true that everybody's history is our history - but by the very same rationale if our history is theirs, then we need to show some respect and understanding and abide by their cultural norms.

Do I want Pueblo in the game? Hell yes I do. But what happens happens