Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

Akka said:

I(like Europe being one of the three main populations centers for most of history, or Europe dominating the world for centuries, or today's world being largely shaped by Europe

Click to expand...

I don't see anyone arguing with that. I'd say that European/Western civilization is the most "important" in history. But I would say that the others seem underrepresented because there are not as many "civs" in the game for the other areas of the world. Imagine one Civ called "Rome" and another called "Europe" and that being it for European civs, and I imagine that's how it might feel for some others. China is way more important in the broad scope of things than England or France or Germany or wherever taken individually.

I'd also add that it's not just about being PC. I kind of doubt that the Aztecs or Mayans have been added to be politically correct, I'm guessing that it might just be a little more fun to have more variety in the game.

SammyKhalifa said:

I don't see anyone arguing with that.

Click to expand...

Well, I see several people arguing with that, the (most probably trolling though) OP being the first, and several people agreeing with him thereafter.

I'd also add that it's not just about being PC. I kind of doubt that the Aztecs or Mayans have been added to be politically correct, I'm guessing that it might just be a little more fun to have more variety in the game.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with that. In fact, I already pointed that it's good for the game to have variety, and it's good to include civilization less influential but that developped in their unique ways because THAT is also what history and what civilizations are about. I never said that only the "winner" civilizations should be included, I only wanted people to remember that the amount of European civ in the game is simply proportionnal (and probably even below) to the influence Europe had in history.

Akka said:

I stated facts, not opinions. Disagreeing with opinions may be fine, but disagreeing with facts is rather harder to justify.
If someone miss such obvious facts (like Europe being one of the three main populations centers for most of history, or Europe dominating the world for centuries, or today's world being largely shaped by Europe), then yes it's a sign of ignorance - at the very least, willfull ignorance and selective thinking.
I don't see the point of being PC. PC's very definition is dodging/ignoring/avoiding facts to please sensitivity.

Click to expand...

Ignorant also has an emotional quality to it. I agreed to the message, but I would have worded at least the part about the ignorance less strong. You may call your post factual if you want, I call that harsh and maybe a bit arrogant.

Haha, maybe people ARE arguing with it, I've lost track.

I do wonder if there would be some way to get more playable, INTERESTING Civs from India or China though.

I would rather instead of hearing "that is the way it was/is". I would like people to actual read about cultures in 4000 BC. Starting in 4000 BC would not mean Europe was not nonexistent. Instead of saying who is important I thought this game was to play an alternate history that you shape. It tries to give that appearance, but it is for people who do not care about how cultures change. Instead it focuses on nationalism of the present day and tries to apply the concept to the past. I would want to focus on technology not time making civilizations. Each with different tech trees per region of globe till merging together in the end.

Here is an example of what I would think make a interesting game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
I would like to play a civilization before the Indo-Europeans poured into Europe. There were many groups gone after this. The Basque is an example of a preIndo-European group(Meaning a linguistic isolate but of course had influence from other cultures). Now many groups did not have permanent cities. I would not mind have everyone starting trying to even get to technology to be able to form a permanent city.

Anyway my idea "Rise of the Homos" (I know a stupid name but meant to be catchy) is trying to redo where Civ lacks in the beginning. I would like to redo the tech tree where certain groups have different techs, and these techs open up possible new civs that you can change to per era.

Anyway there are tons of groups of people at one point or another that have surged in advancement in comparison to other groups around them. I would find it fun to play for example in the Incas rise to power. The tech tree I thought was meant to represent where these groups are at. For example I would consider peoples in the Americas as in Stone Age transiting to the Copper Age when the Europeans appeared.

So basically alternate history meaning I could play someone unimportant in real modern era of history and pretend they never disappeared. But that does not mean they would be the same group for 6000 years. The Incas for example I could see having various possible civs forming after going into a Iron Age without European influence.

Did Europe have that much influence on the world? Is really a dumb question. Did Mesoamerica have that much influence on the world? Dumb as well but I bet you are eating Chocolate, Corn, and etc that originated there. Now I want to drink some of an Ethiopian plant called coffee(Brought to Europe by Arabs and probably tiggering Europeans of the time to think again making an enlightment). There are too many things anyway that other groups outside of Europe continent(Which I really think should be considered a subcontinent of Eurasia) that influenced aka "Europeans".

You don't know what would happen if Distillation or Algebra was not created in Arab Caliphate and learned in Europe would be the outcome. Or who knows if China had not improved the paper the making process, gunpowder, compass. Modern Western culture is based on getting ideas from the other groups. So anyway I wish it would reflect it better. None of the ideas are displayed correctly in the time of stages it took in the tech tree.

Rise of the homos. LOL

They should make a civ game where you play as Neanderthals. It wouldn't have much tech progression, or building of anything. But it would have cool skull bashing.

Disgustipated said:

Rise of the homos. LOL

They should make a civ game where you play as Neanderthals. It wouldn't have much tech progression, or building of anything. But it would have cool skull bashing.

Click to expand...

Actually Neanderthals would be more advanced then even the Homo Sapiens to begin with in relation to stone weapon technology. Anyway yes much of tech tree (if ever done) would be what improved weapon you bash something's skull with.

johny smith said:

Actually Neanderthals would be more advanced then even the Homo Sapiens to begin with in relation to stone weapon technology. Anyway yes much of tech tree (if ever done) would be what improved weapon you bash something's skull with.

Click to expand...

yeah I was thinking when writing that I should look them up in Wiki. I had no idea their brains were so large. I'm still reading the rest of it now. I remember recently they did show there was some interbreeding between H. Sapiens and Neanderthals. This is very interesting. Perhaps it explains racial differences between Europeans and sub-saharan Africans?

So with their large brains, if Homo Sapiens didn't exist, they probably could have formed civilizations eventually. Their range seemed dependent on the weather too. They stayed with the cold weather.

This could be the Civilization series spin off. I can't think of a catchy title right now, maybe later.

I really don't understand how anyone could deny that Civ has a wide variety of civs from across the globe. I mean heck, they replaced the Malinese with a more obscure African nation.

Now, there are a few that I could see adding.
They should have left the mongols in. I mean largest Empire ever should count for something.
On a related note, they shouldn't be as bloodthirsty as they are in IV. I always think of them as Monty Lite. The Horde certainly became cultured. Heck, how much of china is really due to the mongols?

It might be nice to see at least the Mogul empire for the sub continent.

Some of the non European civs are odd choices in Civ4 and really just fillers to be honest.

Beyond some impressive ruins do you think the Khmer belong? The Koreans?

I could argue that a country like Canada has had a bigger influence on world history then Khmer and I am 100% serious when I say that. I mean the invention insulin by itself right? I sure as heck dont think Canada should be in the game nor should Khmer.

On Neanderthals most people accept but some do not that they died off and no mixing. Again I saying there is some discussion over it still. As well it has been suggested they actually were living in a warmer climate than thought previously because of new finds and newer climate models. There are other speculative things like seeing flutes made by Neanderthals that even some seeming to have the same music bar scale of today. So basically a lot of people today still ask why did they really die off. They are certainly not the stupid caveman depicted in cartoons.

As for civs it is a dumb question to really ask I mean because it is impossible to answer. Every culture nearly in the world had something unique and significant. The mongols did not have permanent cities(after the conquer they finally have some place to farm), but they sure as hell were good in butt kicking department. But you could split the Mongols off into a lot groups after the collapse. For example the Turks from Asia (which were fighting alongside the mongols came from the same area)eventually took control Anatolia and formed the Ottoman Empire. But the Ottoman Empire just like any other culture is formed from the combining cultures.

The Khmer were dominant in region had many things like calendar, religion, improved farming techniques, and basically everything that comes about of the time for a large empire(as in time and status in the region). I don't know everything the Khmers gave in technology, but I sure know they did a lot because they were so powerful. I mean the architecture style obviously you can see now. Did they know about the calendar first? No. Every calendar was different. For example they are different for farming seasons because climates are different. I mean there is no criteria to determine important. I mean really for example what happen to the Khmer? The people formed other culture groups. They did not just die and go away. Just like Rome leads to modern Italy.

All I am saying is more Civs and your civilization changing would be my suggestion. I don't care about the leader graphics that much. At least not so much that there are less civs because someone is working hard on the leader graphics. For example America being formed from splitting off from England. Canada forming possibly from France or England. I don't mean it has to be exact. If you had Sweden become a power early on I think I would allow them to splinter into America. That is my opinion anyway.

Actually an above post made it clear what the right choice is. It's not about PC. It's about alternative history. So the significance of a civilization has no bearing whatsoever. For that reason I am no longer unhappy Spain is out. The point is to recreate history, so what difference does it make what a civilization does in real life? Real life is not the game.

For that reason I no longer have any complaints about any civ in the game. I think it's good to try to strike a balance for the other continents. It helps when playing on Earth maps.

As long as the civilization is defined enough that you can come up with a decent unique unit/ability/building whatever and you can come up with a decent leader and city names, that's all you need. Who cares what actual impact they had on our real history. The point is to recreate history for yourself.

Disgustipated said:

Actually an above post made it clear what the right choice is. It's not about PC. It's about alternative history. So the significance of a civilization has no bearing whatsoever. For that reason I am no longer unhappy Spain is out. The point is to recreate history, so what difference does it make what a civilization does in real life? Real life is not the game.

For that reason I no longer have any complaints about any civ in the game. I think it's good to try to strike a balance for the other continents. It helps when playing on Earth maps.

As long as the civilization is defined enough that you can come up with a decent unique unit/ability/building whatever and you can come up with a decent leader and city names, that's all you need. Who cares what actual impact they had on our real history. The point is to recreate history for yourself.

Click to expand...

Exactly. But you worded it better than me. Just the tech tree still though for me for each region that Civ recognizes I mean would be good. So you just swap whatever civilization for an geographic area would make me happy so you could have something unique for each era.

if you want asia-centric games, stick to japanese or taiwanese games... though they're more likely to make yet another dynasty warrior or kung pow MMORPG , than a turn-based strategy with a white miniority.

So the Mali Empire was just a mediocre Civilization with maybe some lavish buildings in middle of thousands of huts with adequate running water. They were lucky to be selected to be in the game if you ask me. Trust me, if the franchise was ever to be called out as being too eurocentric, then you at least can say they tried to incorporate some not-so worthy Civilizations in their game.

Thoughtful Thug said:

So the Mali Empire was just a mediocre Civilization with maybe some lavish buildings in middle of thousands of huts with adequate running water. They were lucky to be selected to be in the game if you ask me. Trust me, if the franchise was ever to be called out as being too eurocentric, then you at least can say they tried to incorporate some not-so worthy Civilizations in their game.

Click to expand...

Well another civilization that came later from the Niger river I thought. Ghana before it, and Songhai after. Important for that area yes definitely. Especially to add more diversity. So just another civilization that was important is what I would say. You could have hundreds if you wanted to.

johny smith said:

Well another civilization that came later from the Niger river I thought. Ghana before it, and Songhai after. Important for that area yes definitely. Especially to add more diversity. So just another civilization that was important is what I would say. You could have hundreds if you wanted to.

Click to expand...

Could work if this was CiV1 or so, or did nations have unique units back then too? Can't remember.

Issue with 99% of hundreds of civilizations is that... They are in no way distinct!
Inuit Empire with special ability "Great whaler" which gets extra food from whales, special unit "Dog Sledge warrior" and special building "Igloo"?

Or half a dozen Middle Eastern nations which only differ in the color of headgear of leader and name...


Uniqueness... That is required from civilization which is to be added to the game. And that is seriously lacking in most options. If civilization never got very far from home, or had little impact in history... It very likely also lacks something to make it distinct for game purposes.

I like variety as much as anyone else, but I want variety to be more than colorscheme and title. Civilization has to be different from it's neighbors. That seriously limits options for example for Arabian civs.

To the OP: No

Tregon said:

Could work if this was CiV1 or so, or did nations have unique units back then too? Can't remember.

Issue with 99% of hundreds of civilizations is that... They are in no way distinct!
Inuit Empire with special ability "Great whaler" which gets extra food from whales, special unit "Dog Sledge warrior" and special building "Igloo"?

Or half a dozen Middle Eastern nations which only differ in the color of headgear of leader and name...


Uniqueness... That is required from civilization which is to be added to the game. And that is seriously lacking in most options. If civilization never got very far from home, or had little impact in history... It very likely also lacks something to make it distinct for game purposes.

I like variety as much as anyone else, but I want variety to be more than colorscheme and title. Civilization has to be different from it's neighbors. That seriously limits options for example for Arabian civs.

Click to expand...

I agree, but then again what is the difference between America and Germany for example in Civ4 now. Different leaders is the difference. The civilization is what? One you get a jet and the other a tank. One you get mall and the other a factory. I mean what be difference in just swapping units and building for civilizations in any other civ. I don't see uniqueness in the two. The city art style looks the same. The only difference is how much art you put in to leaders. There is variety in units if from the Middle East even maybe even more. Just depends if you focus on one Era comparing civs they will look similar.

The leader is what is different graphical. I will totally agree that would be rather bland to have just some leader without much variety between them. That is not what the rest of the world leaders look like. The all of the same looking is from people who just cookie cut art because they don't know IMO.

But I am not thinking of using every modern Arab state of today if that is what you are thinking. There has plenty of variation in the Middle East. The leaders did have distinct features. Just no one has made them or at least the ones on Civ4 was the lack of art to use and the lack of knowledge from the modder but at the same time wanting another leader to fill a spot. I mean I hope you guys do not think that everyone looks the same inside of a culture group outside of Europe.

Inuit civ for example...what is any different from the bad job on the Native American civ? Dog warrior and totem pole? Aztecs jaguar warrior and a sacrifice alter? I mean I do not see how any choices are worse than that are present in the game now. There is all sorts of things that could be done differently if hypothetically someone added the Inuit. I am sure they can find some name for a Inuit city hall just like they did for HRE. Rathaus is more or less the word for City Hall in German. Panzer just means tank in German. I mean come on. Do you really think they have been that innovative?

But yes it would get bland after hundreds of civilizations. Hell if you would look at them all you probably would become crosseyed after a while. So yes maybe you are right that they would become bland. I would not care though. Limiting the selection does not appeal to me in the sake of variety. No worse then already there I mean to me anyway.

I not bothered by this at all. I like my Civ games to lead to a world like to modern one which is very European. (Or American depending on how you look at it) I mostly only pick modern leaders and a very distinct set of civs. The only civs that I use outside of Europe are America (Generally the civ I'm playing the game just feels weird to kill my own country) Japan (For WWII) and China. (Same as Japan)

The tech tree is European because the game is designed to follow technological history that leads to the modern era at the right time which requires techs to be very European (and American) based. The only solution would be to make each civ have its own tech tree which would be incredibly imbalanced.