Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

And clean water.

Wezqu said:

Roman Empire called all other civilizations as barbarians who were savages to make themselves feel mightier and more civilized. It was a total ego game.

Click to expand...

This is not even true. Read Tacitus. Or read Caesar, even. Tacitus is a big admirer of the Germans, and Caesar never regards the Gauls as barbarians, even as he's conquering them.

WRT whether a civilization is "European" or not - in some cases, that depends on when you ask. Russia is, of course, a European civilization now. But I don't think that there's any argument to be made that the Duchy of Muscovy was a European civilization in, say, 1500. Of course, Russia is *also* an Asian power. (But not an Asian civilization).

The Ottoman Empire is another border case - its capital was at the city formerly known as Constantinople, and it included substantial other European possessions, such as Hungary and Greece (and parts in between); it was fairly tightly interwoven into the European great power scheme. But I would tend to call it an European power rather than a European civilization; it was quite different culturally. (Although after Ataturk it's become more European, IMO).

Tusked said:

Wait, so you're telling me the Vandals had aqueducts? 'cause I seem to remember that being a Roman invention.

Click to expand...

Well if you didn't know Vandals conquered most of North Africa from Romans and used their technology if they saw it usefull and aquaducts in north africa were really must for the cities.

Well...looking at the selections from a different perspective. Categorisation of civs into the time period they were "most important"...

Ancient era civs (pre 500 AD)
- Egypt, Greece, India (Maurya Empire), Persia, Rome
Medieval era civs (500 AD until 1500 AD)
- Arabia, Aztecs, China (Tang dynasty), Songhai
Early modern era civs (1500 AD until 1800 AD)
- France, Iroquois, Ottomans, Siam
Modern era civs (post 1800 AD)
- America, England, Germany, Japan, Russia

As a result, I don't think its fair to (example) sub out the Songhai for a non-medieval civ (eg Spain, which would be early modern). I would say that the Iroquois could be subbed out for Spain though.

What I do find annoying is that civs aren't designed "to their time period" (if that makes sense). Example - the Iroquois will be strongest in the ancient era...It's not like they didn't have guns (hint UU)...

I don't really like the "Have the Iroquois in to bring something different to the game" gameplay arguement, since you are building a civ up from scratch, you can design it to be however you want it to be. Persia could just as easily be the "best rush" civ. Aztecs could easily have India's ability based on history (just emphasing a different aspect of them)

Is the game too euro-centric ? I don't think so, since I can't make a case for excluding any Europeans that are currently in. That said, the only European I could make a case for that isn't in at the moment is Spain. To me - the balance is about right between Europe and non-euro. (Although some of the non-euro selections are abit off, eg Aztecs ahead of Incans).

You cant say that Civ is Eurocentric. It isnt trying to snub any cultures, its appealing to its audience which is the Western world (i.e. America, England, France, Germany) so putting in a bunch of little Civs that these cultures havent heard of would be odd. And there are way more small non-Euro civs in civr5. And most of modern civilization is based on the Romans and the Greeks, so they would have to be a bit more euro than other cultures. This game is fair to everyone, not just Europeans.

johny smith said:

Do you think they would not buy the game if not? Well poor nationalist would not be able to play their civs


Yes. Rinse and repeat twice a day. Do you people enjoy eating the same food everyday? I guess you need bling to sell a European audience. Maybe that is why they are not selling outside of Europe and America that well.

Click to expand...

You seem to contradict yourself there. First you ridicule the opinion that sales would fall in Germany if they were not in the game, then in the next paragraph claim that the reason sales are low outside Europe and America is because these areas are under-represented

Do you really believe that if they included more African civs that sales would surge in Africa? The reason sales are highest in Europe and North America is that these are prosperous parts of the world with a large market for PC games.

johny smith said:

I would rather play some other nation outside of Europe versus a crappy cookie cut European civilization.
...
I just hope you can mod into it something better otherwise I am not interested in just a bunch of Europeans with one unit-building, and then some leader that they spent quite some time making versus making other civilizations with one unit-building. I guess if a unit was a pretzel they add a few dots to and call it a unique unit, and people would love it. I just flat out don't see the value in game.

Click to expand...

johny smith said:

4. Many people buy games and do not want to hear or see a poor job done on something they learned from being raised there. There is a large population of people who have an aversion to nationalism. I live in America and I am an American citizen. The one civilization I hate to play is America. I would rather play something more exotic but hard to play with any lack of depth to the civilizations.

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure of the point you're trying to make (and perhaps I misunderstood) but you do come across as being rather anti-European (in quite a bigoted way) and as having some kind of obsession with nationalism. If someone said they weren't "interested in just a bunch of Africans" I'm sure you'd be offended. Why do you hate playing as America?

johny smith said:

That is why I suggest regional tech trees. With a equal number of civs using each tech tree, and you change a civ each era based on the region you are in. So to have uniqueness. But that means not enough time to make all of those leaders.

Click to expand...

johny smith said:

The games need some system that makes logical sense of how aka "civilizations" rise and fall. Meaning for example the fall of Rome lead to rise of Europeans states speaking Latin still. Or the fall Babylonian lead to rise of other states in Mesopotamia. Or the fall of various dynasties in China lead to rise of various effects in China. Or the fall of the Mayans lead to rise of various Mesoamerican cultures. There needs to be something showing what impact the culture of the previous "civilization" had on the next. Not try to play a civilization (America for example) that makes no sense in 4000 BC.

I do not mean it has to be deciding exactly that America splits from England. But America is more or less a whole hodge-podge of European culture and a little of north american indian culture. Any civilization schisms from Europe in right time period could be America for example. You can apply this to various groups around the world. There is no culture that has stayed the same(even though many Chinese think they are the same I heard). I would like players to be able to choose how they want to make their civilization not have a pick ones that really do not represent anything but a unit and a building.

Click to expand...

You're ideas are interesting, and could be fun, but it would be very difficult to implement - not to mention likely balance issues. Civ has never been, or attempted to be, a historical simulator. It is a strategy game based loosely around history. Washington can build the pyramids; Gandi can declare war on Caesar. It's not realistic, but it's not meant to be! It sounds like you're looking for a Rhye's and Fall-style mod - or a different game altogether.

johny smith said:

Anyway what I am trying to say is that no one region is more influential through the whole course of history. Now you can argue Europe is so important because of the current situation. And civilization the game will not be so important in the future when Europe/North Americans are no longer in control. Who knows what the game will be. I know most of you will not be buying a Chinese game similar to civilization where East Asia is overemphasized. So I am saying if people would get their head out their rear it might be possible to make a game that stands the test of time. Where people who are outside of Europe/North America might feel as they are represented better.

Click to expand...

While clearly no one region has been dominant throughout the whole course of human history, some regions have been more so than others: namely Europe, China and the Fertile Cresent. And these are the regions that are emphasised. You sound as though all 18 civs are European.

Why do you assume we would not buy a Chinese-made civilization game? We already buy Japanese-made games. If it was a fun game then I would buy it, even if they replaced a couple of European civs with a couple of Asian ones and had a Chinese-based tech tree.

As stated previously, I think that the 18 civs chosen strike a good balance. If you want non-European civs to be more represented, please give an example of who to put in the game and who to take out. I would regard only 6 of the 18 civs (America, England, France, Germany, Greece, Rome and Russia) as being "European". And there are 7 Asian/Middle-Eastern civs (Arabia, China, India, Japan, Ottoman, Persia and Siam).

johny smith said:

I can not agree more. That is all I am trying to say. Nothing really is done correct. If don't right I would care much less if more aka "civilizations" were European, but would I prefer more outside of Europe.

Click to expand...

If you're just saying you want more civilizations that's fine; more will come out in expansion packs and/or as DLC. But the vanilla game ships with 18. If you want other areas of the world to be better represented, you have to choose someone to replace.

Reginleif said:

I just want to thank everyone for their opinions on my statement, but I just want to clarify, that I do not think Civ is Eurocentric because there are too many Western states, but mainly due to the art styles so far released. All the buttons for the generic units are white (or implied to be, see Longswordsman) in a game where most of the people in these states are not, even the Euro-Med civs like Greece or Rome. This is beyond Eurocentrism, and treads on racial favoritism. I am not saying there should not be any white buttons, but there should at least be black, tanned, and oriental skin ethnicities as well.

Click to expand...

First of all, we should bear in mind that the only screenshots/videos we have seen so far are being played as Rome, France and Germany (I believe). Therefore it is still possible that the units and buttons will reflect the civ you play, it's just that we have only seen European civs so far. Note that the German settler unit comes with a mule and the Iroquois settler comes with a llama, suggesting there are regional differences.
See: http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_ancient_units.html

Secondly, I don't think that the buttons seen so far (see link above) are necessarily white. The icons could quite easily be European, Middle-Eastern or North African (which covers about two-thirds of the civs in the game). In other words, they may have decided to have generic buttons for all civs that uses a pale skin colour that would represent as many civs as possible.

I agree it would be great if all civs' units and buttons were the correct ethnicity, but personally I'm more concerned about how good the gameplay is - and I'd rather they spend most effort there.

In answer to the thread title: Not me. I think it's like complaining that Civ is too humano-centric. Or too Terra-centric.

Answer: No. Anyone who expects a video game to conform to politically-"correct", "modern", notions of what constitutes a society ought to grow a sheet of thicker skin.

What does it really matter, the game is modable, if you don't like it change it for something you do like!

craig123 said:

You seem to contradict yourself there. First you ridicule the opinion that sales would fall in Germany if they were not in the game, then in the next paragraph claim that the reason sales are low outside Europe and America is because these areas are under-represented

Do you really believe that if they included more African civs that sales would surge in Africa? The reason sales are highest in Europe and North America is that these are prosperous parts of the world with a large market for PC games.

Click to expand...

I was trying to make a statement that you that you will buy the game anyway. Westerners are the prime market. The game appeals to a crowd who do not want to really understand anything about history, but somehow play as they were there. If you would try to diversify the areas of the game it would look less bias. And then with rise of other markets not really Africa you could sell outside of the traditional market. It is bias as is it does not meet the details of any civilization in history, nor does it try to go outside of the boundary of the west as superior model for 6000 years.

It is stupid to make a game that claims that civilizations of last 500 years are the most important for the last 6000 years, and should be able to play them in 4000 BC. It just shows that instead of really going into history it is preferred to stick to a strictly European/American soap opera history. Which maybe the mass majority are not that interested in history.

The game as the state basically says it is a game of the entire history of the world but we do not want to go into any detail of the world really at say 1000 BC. We like to pretend that there is some genetic/culture traits of people that lived for 6000 years and they always been there. Like instead of looking the various civilizations in the middle east in 1000 BC we rather pretend the English people existed for 6000 years. It just reeks of ridiculous nationalism which could be funny, but unfortunately the audience really believes it. And for quite a few that sells the game.

craig123 said:

I'm not exactly sure of the point you're trying to make (and perhaps I misunderstood) but you do come across as being rather anti-European (in quite a bigoted way) and as having some kind of obsession with nationalism. If someone said they weren't "interested in just a bunch of Africans" I'm sure you'd be offended. Why do you hate playing as America?

Click to expand...

Nationalism is a bunch BS. It is there to basically give some culture reason for a group of people that have went through a bunch of series of culture changes to now think they are unique. Like in 6000 years there were not other cultures there. For example the Germans people ideas of existing from the beginning of time. The same applies to Mali, to China, to India. Apparently you did not get my point. If you really are only interested in playing a civilizations for 6000 years(that never could exist that long in the same exact culture form) all the entire uniqueness is represented as one unit and one building.

If that is only detail to game that is unique then it should be easy to add very dumbed down civs from other areas of the globe that we know nothing about. Then changing the course of history would be more interesting to me play something very different outside of Europe but just another flat pointless civ from unimportant place today in the real world. Because there is not much difference between America, England, or Germany. For that matter even Africa compared to Europe in the game. Why not just dump more dummy civs in the game which unique art styles at least.

No I would not be offended they were not interested in Africa. But to say here play America as a stupid one unit and one building combo sucks. Wow I get a mall and a F16. Now that is America right. I must buy the game now. I am offended that the makers think that I am that stupid and that is there sell pitch. I would at least respect the makers if they had to take the time to research something.

craig123 said:

You're ideas are interesting, and could be fun, but it would be very difficult to implement - not to mention likely balance issues. Civ has never been, or attempted to be, a historical simulator. It is a strategy game based loosely around history. Washington can build the pyramids; Gandi can declare war on Caesar. It's not realistic, but it's not meant to be! It sounds like you're looking for a Rhye's and Fall-style mod - or a different game altogether.

Click to expand...

You are going to obviously buy the game. I did not ask for realism. Realism would be having to be exact who split from who. Yes the current dumbed down culture models and diplomacy models would not work. And you never understood me. I did not say that the civilizations could not build whatever they want. I am saying you could have for example America in the industrial period with a unique cavalry unit, and then in the modern era say a F-16. You would have an option to say I want to play the Confederate States of America or the Union at the end of the industrial period for example. Just change the civilization to get a different alternate history not realism. At least I would feel like I have changed history somewhat. And don't mean you need a civil war to do it. You just decide where you culture as headed. America in 1850 is not the same as America in 1950. The language was not same, the food was not the same. There are plenty of differences.

Would it be same game? No. But I guess you think the change in battle tactics or the hex map means it is not the same game as well. Just adding more unique units and buildings per era I guess is game changing. Oh ya you would have to change the name of your civilization. Oh no!!! America is so different than any other European civilization.

craig123 said:

While clearly no one region has been dominant throughout the whole course of human history, some regions have been more so than others: namely Europe, China and the Fertile Cresent. And these are the regions that are emphasised. You sound as though all 18 civs are European.

Why do you assume we would not buy a Chinese-made civilization game? We already buy Japanese-made games. If it was a fun game then I would buy it, even if they replaced a couple of European civs with a couple of Asian ones and had a Chinese-based tech tree.

As stated previously, I think that the 18 civs chosen strike a good balance. If you want non-European civs to be more represented, please give an example of who to put in the game and who to take out. I would regard only 6 of the 18 civs (America, England, France, Germany, Greece, Rome and Russia) as being "European". And there are 7 Asian/Middle-Eastern civs (Arabia, China, India, Japan, Ottoman, Persia and Siam).

Click to expand...

You don't understand me. I am wanting the game to start around regions that really formed first on the real globe not Civilizations ridiculous model. I would put civilizations for example in the Americas as never getting really out of the stone age or just right out of the end of it. Why? Because it is true. Stone Age means making stone tools. Then there is the Copper Age in some models. Then a Bronze, and after that an Iron.

You could have plenty of civilizations from the Americas start then at stone age technology. Mayans, pre-Incas, Olmec, Anasazi, Mississippians(culture group). The list could go on. How many groups within various American civs I do not know, but at least one would be better than none. Of course later an alternate history of them going out of the stone age. (Versus Civ5's pseudo try to be real model of Europe in control always represented by more civs in game because you see Europe is the best now garbage.)

Next you could have at least one African group. I am not going to look for the names of the culture groups at this second, but you could have one Region around the Niger River, one around the Nile River, and coming from South Africa. There are plenty of unique groups formed with names to use. They all as in case of the American civs each had unique technologies. Again one or more is a question of how much detail wanted.

Let's see Europe. Well Europe stone age technology(the current linguist groups that are in the game split from some the Indo-European beginning languages from Central Asia)...Well there was none of the names listed from above. The were the Etruscans for possible example on one from the South Europe. You could have Chasséen(culture) for West Europe. For East Europe how about the Vinča(culture). Again the point would be to from a civilization this is really beginning stages. These would change as you progress and is you select civilizations. For example eventually the Etruscans could possible become Rome. It is not perfect, but sure is not as dumb as the current model.

That is some examples. Now I could on and on, but I sure I will be booed off the stage. Because you are looking for your Sexy Action Civilizations that have live for 6000 years. The number does not even matter to me. The point is any of the 18 civilizations could change to another civilization. No culture stays the same that is my peeve. Just please realize Chinese culture is not at all the same today as it was in 500 BC when Qin united it.

craig123 said:

If you're just saying you want more civilizations that's fine; more will come out in expansion packs and/or as DLC. But the vanilla game ships with 18. If you want other areas of the world to be better represented, you have to choose someone to replace.

Click to expand...

I am saying I want either something more elaborate then 1 unit/1building or either more dumb civilizations with equal numbers from each region. I want to mod the game and I may do it. I just can not play it in its current format anymore, and I do not understand how you guys can get into such a stupid design for the civilizations. I understand the first time playing the game, but this is the 5th incantation. I have not really IMO seen much improvements in gameplay. Just eye candy mostly.

I want to play alternate history not trying to mimic the Europeans that are in control now again. Of course they have power now but just changing which Europeans is not alternate history to me. I am sorry Europeans are all about the same when you look at the entire history of the world. If it was just a game in Europe I would understand.

I am not wanting to play who is control now. I want to play what if some Olmecs(then turning into the Mayans eventually)learned Iron age technology before the Middle East. Or China making weapons from the gunpowder before around 1100 AD and decided to invade Europe instead. Or how about the Neolithic Europeans united and held off the Indo-Europeans invaders.

P.S. There are probably plenty of mistakes in the text, and I am sure I will be either misquoted and misunderstood so badly that I sound like some radical fanatic before it is other with. I do not give a damn about PC, but I studied as an anthropologist for a little while so that is where my understanding of culture comes from not from the History channel.

Edit: I did a lot of edits. I am probably too way out for most of the CivFanatics to understand still. The summary I am tired of buying into a selection of civilizations that a 10 year old could write. Either give me something more elaborate to each civilization or either give me more unique dumbed down civs to play where I can bear to play them because I can at least make a new strategy(by changing with the times) as I go to combat my situation in game.

The European powers have affected Global history since at least the 1500' AD. That's 500 years, everyone. (Some might say dominated/directly shaped it, by the way).

Mention the Crusades to anyone in the Mid-East - or Colonialism after!

If you consider Rome influenced (as well as being influenced by) Africa, Asia and The Orient 1000 years BEFORE those, I think we're barking at the wrong mailman.

Then there was Alexander, 300 years before Rome? And he learnt from the Persians, Indo-Aryan proto-Europeans........

Maybe it shouldn't be Euro-centric, in which case, build a Mod and us Europeans will give it a go!

Johny: OK, I understand your position better now I think. So basically you want the start of the game to have civs that actually existed in 4000 BC, and for these civs to go through changes in culture/identity throughout the ages, possibly splitting off to form new civs, or merging with existing ones, etc. And also for each civ to be very distinct, in terms of multiple unique units and buildings etc. Hope I've understood.

You raise some good points, and the game you describe sounds very interesting (if someone could make it work I'm sure it'd be great to play). However, it just doesn't sound like Civilization. I know why you'd like to see such changes, but part of the fun of civ is taking your empire from 4000 BC to the present day, even if it's unrealistic and ignores real-world history. Building up an empire only to have it collapse, to rebel against you, etc. is not fun and would turn-off a lot of players, even though it might be more realistic. Getting to 1776 as England (Britain) and having a message saying 'your overseas colony is declaring independence' would not be fun for most casual players; or as America in 1861 getting a message announcing a civil war. Most casual players want to see improvement over time. People who want those kind of challenges can play mods though.

On the point of making each civ more unique, I can't really argue against that. Perhaps expansions - or maybe civ6 - will give civs more uniqueness. I'm sure mods will do. I imagine it's an issue of 'is it worth the extra time and effort?' and of balance.

GIDS888 said:

The European powers have affected Global history since at least the 1500' AD. That's 500 years, everyone. (Some might say dominated/directly shaped it, by the way).

Mention the Crusades to anyone in the Mid-East - or Colonialism after!

If you consider Rome influenced (as well as being influenced by) Africa, Asia and The Orient 1000 years BEFORE those, I think we're barking at the wrong mailman.

Then there was Alexander, 300 years before Rome? And he learnt from the Persians, Indo-Aryan proto-Europeans........

Maybe it shouldn't be Euro-centric, in which case, build a Mod and us Europeans will give it a go!

Click to expand...

The age of discovery triggered the wave of European dominance. That was kicked off somewhere in 1400's. But Rome fell Europe turned into of bunch feuding city states for a little while. Some empires formed but they were nothing compared to Arabs or China between 400 AD to 1400 AD. I mean as in complete control of the world. No power in Europe was in control of China till when? Rome was not in control of the entire world just the Mediterranean. Hellenistic Greece the same case as Rome. China probably was better off with population and invention then either Rome or Greece. The Crusades were lost because they Arabs were better off technology wise(I wish Damascus Steel was included as a tech).

I don't care about the influence. I want alternate routes. It is pointless though me arguing on a forum where people are dedicated to buying whatever the comes in the Civilization series.

Influence is just stupid to compare. The timeline is supposed to based on technology. I am not into this pride thing for Europe. And I do not understand how you could get behind it either.

Since such dumb statements...I will make my own. Lets make a mod where the real Europeans survived before any of the IndoEuropeans like the Greece,Romans, and etc ever started. Lets play Basque or the Etruscans and defeat the Asian invaders like Greece or the Romans.

Edit: After reading your post again I may of not understood you. Anyway I am trigger happy after hearing tons of pointless arguments of the superiority of Europe. I am sorry I if I misunderstood(as I am thinking I did after reading twice). Please forgive me and disregard this as directed to you if I did misread.

craig123 said:

Johny: OK, I understand your position better now I think. So basically you want the start of the game to have civs that actually existed in 4000 BC, and for these civs to go through changes in culture/identity throughout the ages, possibly splitting off to form new civs, or merging with existing ones, etc. And also for each civ to be very distinct, in terms of multiple unique units and buildings etc. Hope I've understood.

You raise some good points, and the game you describe sounds very interesting (if someone could make it work I'm sure it'd be great to play). However, it just doesn't sound like Civilization. I know why you'd like to see such changes, but part of the fun of civ is taking your empire from 4000 BC to the present day, even if it's unrealistic and ignores real-world history. Building up an empire only to have it collapse, to rebel against you, etc. is not fun and would turn-off a lot of players, even though it might be more realistic. Getting to 1776 as England (Britain) and having a message saying 'your overseas colony is declaring independence' would not be fun for most casual players; or as America in 1861 getting a message announcing a civil war. Most casual players want to see improvement over time. People who want those kind of challenges can play mods though.

On the point of making each civ more unique, I can't really argue against that. Perhaps expansions - or maybe civ6 - will give civs more uniqueness. I'm sure mods will do. I imagine it's an issue of 'is it worth the extra time and effort?' and of balance.

Click to expand...

That is basically the idea. The only reason I posted here is to say the model appears Eurocentric because it looks as a the writers lack knowledge of most of the history of the world and choose based on what limit knowledge they know to place civilizations. It is like they know very little of ones they do make and know of only a few major significant ones outside of Europe.

So it gives the appearance that they really believe the groups in present day Europe have been just superior in some way like genetic, culture, or something for 6000 years. Sounds like a stupid model that started WW2 to me. Some group thought it had a great heritage spanning 1000's of years and it was based on genetics. Which is a big turn off to buy the game to anyone that has a little more knowledge of the world.

Reginleif said:

I love history and I love civilization too, but in preveous renditions I was always upset about thee emphasis on European states at the expense of other playable fractions. Over the years civilization has grown to become more inclusive of other histories and I was hopeful that this theme would continue, but after extensive review of the information currently available, I fear this has not taken place.
My primary reason for this conclusion are the Art Deco buttons the designers will be forever remembered in the archives of gaming. In every unit and tech button I have seen with a person they are clearly Caucasian, or if no skin colour is visible, they are put in the European context anyway (Longswordsman). Perhaps all the icons we have seen are for Europeans , but there is still more.
All the civilizations that have two units are European, while many of the other non-traditional civs have one poorly named unit (Siam), a poorly named building (Songhai), or a generic unit (India). This is common throughout the civilization series, where familiar European civs get the specific units, while unknown areas get bland, generic units. (After reading more about Mali military structures and society I am enraged over how they were treated in Civ IV). Japan may be an exception, but with decades of culture diffusion between the West and Japan, the samurai and Japanese aviation during WWII have become part of the mythos of the West. Also, all the known city-states are Western or were at one point, which is a shame because I expected Swahili, and Polynesian cultures to be represented.
My finale point is more of a counter-point and that is although I know the game is not out, the overall aura of this game has been dripping of Eurocentrism. Civ 5 may not be as bad as Civ 4 , 3 etc, in civilization selection, such as choosing Siam, Songhai, Iroquois over Spain, Dutch (although Greece should have been purged too), I still expected better.
I do not like to live in an echo chamber so I would like to here your responses to my claims.

Click to expand...

Del Pino
Emperor

Del Pino's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 38

Was this really necessary?
From the Ottoman civ description on the Civilization V site:

"Many Americans know very little about the Ottoman Empire (it occupies the blind spot Americans have for pretty much everything between Greece and China)."


http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=367813

So is it eurocentric, or anti-american? Yes the USA counts as part of those nations associated with the term eurocentric.

Reginleif said:

I love history and I love civilization too, but in preveous renditions I was always upset about thee emphasis on European states at the expense of other playable fractions. Over the years civilization has grown to become more inclusive of other histories and I was hopeful that this theme would continue, but after extensive review of the information currently available, I fear this has not taken place.
My primary reason for this conclusion are the Art Deco buttons the designers will be forever remembered in the archives of gaming. In every unit and tech button I have seen with a person they are clearly Caucasian, or if no skin colour is visible, they are put in the European context anyway (Longswordsman). Perhaps all the icons we have seen are for Europeans , but there is still more.
All the civilizations that have two units are European, while many of the other non-traditional civs have one poorly named unit (Siam), a poorly named building (Songhai), or a generic unit (India). This is common throughout the civilization series, where familiar European civs get the specific units, while unknown areas get bland, generic units. (After reading more about Mali military structures and society I am enraged over how they were treated in Civ IV). Japan may be an exception, but with decades of culture diffusion between the West and Japan, the samurai and Japanese aviation during WWII have become part of the mythos of the West. Also, all the known city-states are Western or were at one point, which is a shame because I expected Swahili, and Polynesian cultures to be represented.
My finale point is more of a counter-point and that is although I know the game is not out, the overall aura of this game has been dripping of Eurocentrism. Civ 5 may not be as bad as Civ 4 , 3 etc, in civilization selection, such as choosing Siam, Songhai, Iroquois over Spain, Dutch (although Greece should have been purged too), I still expected better.
I do not like to live in an echo chamber so I would like to here your responses to my claims.

Click to expand...

It's prolly Euro-centric because it's being developed in a Western Euro-centric culture? Sid Mier is a white caucasian male of Western extraction and so is the lead designer of this game. There's nothing stopping anyone from Brazil or Asia etc from making their own Civ type game - I'm sure it would be heavily influenced by their culture.

In fact there are some good Civ type games out of Asia, check the web.

johny smith said:

The age of discovery triggered the wave of European dominance. That was kicked off somewhere in 1400's. But Rome fell Europe turned into of bunch feuding city states for a little while. Some empires formed but they were nothing compared to Arabs or China between 400 AD to 1400 AD. I mean as in complete control of the world. No power in Europe was in control of China till when? Rome was not in control of the entire world just the Mediterranean. Hellenistic Greece the same case as Rome. China probably was better off with population and invention then either Rome or Greece. The Crusades were lost because they Arabs were better off technology wise(I wish Damascus Steel was included as a tech).

I don't care about the influence. I want alternate routes. It is pointless though me arguing on a forum where people are dedicated to buying whatever the comes in the Civilization series.

Influence is just stupid to compare. The timeline is supposed to based on technology. I am not into this pride thing for Europe. And I do not understand how you could get behind it either.

Since such dumb statements...I will make my own. Lets make a mod where the real Europeans survived before any of the IndoEuropeans like the Greece,Romans, and etc ever started. Lets play Basque or the Etruscans and defeat the Asian invaders like Greece or the Romans.

Edit: After reading your post again I may of not understood you. Anyway I am trigger happy after hearing tons of pointless arguments of the superiority of Europe. I am sorry I if I misunderstood(as I am thinking I did after reading twice). Please forgive me and disregard this as directed to you if I did misread.

Click to expand...

Why did the age of discovery trigger a wave of European dominance?

I'm with you, in that I think its important to represent all cultures in the game. I'm also with you in saying that the reason European dominance happened wasn't because of some biological aspect of being European. But I think the kind of point of view that Europe just happened to come to dominance through a series of accidents, is a kind of bad understanding of history.

The Romans just happened to have an empire. Then it happened to fall apart. Then the European states just happened to sail off ships and open new markets. Europeans just happened to have guns while native americans had arrows. etc..

Keep in mind that European culture had already been influenced by Eastern culture because through the Romans, and control over the Mediterranean, Europe had become a major trading power. They didn't need to physically take over China and India to make themselves important on a worldwide scale. Christianity started as a religion only after Romans conquered the Middle East, and only after Eastern influences were coming into Roman society through their trade with China and India. Christianity wasn't a white man's religion, it was a product of all different types of cultures.

All of the other cultures in the game need to be represented because they were pieces in the puzzle of what was happening on a world scale. But, when people complain about Eurocentrism, they likewise need to realize European culture was already itself a synthesis of other cultures around the world, so when we're talking about the importance of Rome, it shouldn't be seen as white people only caring about white people. There's a damn good reason why we talk about Rome so much.

johny smith: I agree with your view of history and cultural change (I myself made a very similar argument earlier this week in a conversation completely unrelated to Civ.), but disagree with your view of Civ. When you play Civ, you're engaging in a gaming process. One of the more intricate and engrossing, IMO. Keep in mind that the historical factors are merely window dressing. They do little to affect the actual game-play. Civ is as much a fantasy as Warcraft. If this bothers you so much (And don't argue that it doesn't; look at the length of your posts.), you shouldn't even bother to play it. This is why your presence here puzzles me. Why would someone who has such a beef with the game even bother to read this forum? Maybe you're playing a very effective form of devil's advocate. Maybe you're trolling. Either way, I'd love to see the game you're proposing, but to agree with the above comments, it would in no way be Civ! It would probably be an enjoyable, if terribly dry, experience akin to Europa Universalis.

Also, please edit your posts before posting. Your rushed writing makes your well though out arguments very difficult to follow.

Churchdown Yank said:

Hang on a minute here people.
Firstly I don't see how you can say that Civ V is overly Eurocentric in terms of the Civs in the game

Euro Civs: (7 at best)
England, France, Germany, Greece (I suppose - but we could argue that), Rome (see Greece), Ottomans? American (European colony)

Definitely NOT Euro Civs: (12)
Arabia, Aztec, China, Egypt, India, Iroquois (Native American), Japan, Persia, Russia (although both those last two have had Europe as part of their empires I wouldn't call them "European") Siam, Songhai, Babylon

Click to expand...

We could argue for ever about categorization but at the end I have to agree with you that in terms of civilizations, CIVV is not eurocentric.
As you very well wrote: "that's a pretty representative view of the whole globe and scope of history".
Firezaxis stretched as far as possible to include civs from Asia, Africa, and America to please "diversification" at the expense of Eupean civs very worthy of inclusion.

Churchdown Yank said:

As far as the icons. I think there probably is an argument that they are somewhat "Eurocentric". These guys are probably not Asian or (sub Saharan) African:
<...snip...>
If I told you they were Libyan... or Scandanavian?

Click to expand...

The icons are made according to a very specific style with its canons in terms of representation of human features, so colours are dictated by those canon.

However even if you want more "colours", nothing is just black or white.

If you wanted racially different icons, you should add dark-black icons with African face features, yellow with Asian faces, dark skin (not white, not black) for middle east, etc. etc.

My point is one wants racially diversified icons then firaxis will have to provide lots of them, not only black or white.
That's, in my view a waste of time... I'd rather prefer firaxis to concentrate on the game itself.
Units in the game are already civ specific, so cultural diversity is fully respected.

Anyway, if the icons represented dark skinned people only, probably all the PC talks would not have appeared even if the icons would be racially insensitive too.