Relevance of Geographic Location

Loaf Warden said:

This is why I'm baffled at people who say that the Khmer won't or shouldn't be included because Siam is already in. So what if they are? Siam and the Khmer Empire were not the same thing. Of course there were cultural similarities, because they existed in similar regions. But there was not much overlap of their territory, and they were not linked politically. They would not have the same city lists, and uniques could be found for the Khmer that would make them different from other civs. There is no argument I can see against the Khmer that could not equally well apply to any of the European civs. Saying Siam precludes the Khmer is no different from saying Germany can't get in because France already is, or the Netherlands can't get in because England already is. It's nonsense. Trying to get Siam and Thailand both in might be silly (like trying to get both England and Great Britain), but the Khmer Empire was different from Siam and should not be excluded merely because "Well, we've got Southeast Asia covered already." We've got Europe covered, too, and exhaustively.

Click to expand...

PerceeP927 said:

P.S. this is NOT in support of the inclusion of Italy... they better not do it

Click to expand...

PerceeP927 said:

P.S. this is NOT in support of the inclusion of Italy... they better not do it

Click to expand...

cybrxkhan said:

While I agree that Khmer and Siam are distinct enough to warrant the inclusion of both, I think unfortunately the devs don't agree with you (at least so far). Civ has always been a Eurocentric game, for better or worse - so to them, getting one SE Asian civ is enough. It is enough to represent the "other". Europe's familiar. It's easy for the audience of the games (living mainly in North America and Western Europe) to see the differences between Germany and France. It's not so easy for them to see the difference between Khmer and Siam, and the devs account for this in their decision. Unfortunate? Yes. But that's how it is.

Click to expand...

cybrxkhan said:

While I agree that Khmer and Siam are distinct enough to warrant the inclusion of both, I think unfortunately the devs don't agree with you (at least so far). Civ has always been a Eurocentric game, for better or worse - so to them, getting one SE Asian civ is enough. It is enough to represent the "other". Europe's familiar. It's easy for the audience of the games (living mainly in North America and Western Europe) to see the differences between Germany and France. It's not so easy for them to see the difference between Khmer and Siam, and the devs account for this in their decision. Unfortunate? Yes. But that's how it is. Still, with BNW, I'm hoping that one other SE Asian civ gets in - in terms of "diversity", either Indonesia or Vietnam is viewed distinct enough from Siam to a mild extent (in public perception, maybe) that either might get in - Indonesia because it's all Muslim these days (thus seen differently to the common man than the other SE Asian states (well, except Malaysia, maybe)), and Vietnam because of the association with the Vietnam War and the fact that it's the only Sinicized SE Asian state (rather than an Indianized one)

Click to expand...

PerceeP927 said:

In the debate over which civs may be included in BNW, its seems as if this community's biggest concern is geographic location, for example 3 european, 2 african or people hoping for inuit and aboriginee because those areas are not expressed in the game.
However, since true-start maps are not a part of the game they are selling us, but only included in user-made mods, wouldn't this mean geography is irrelevant to the devs? The only thing that should concern them is if including a civ is going to sell more copies, meaning it should be something interesting, which is why they added civs such as the Huns, for name recognition not for their legitimacy as a civ. In some cases, such as The Scramble for Africa scenario, it should be assumed that african civs should be included. But it seems that people saying "there are too many civs from x continent/not enough civs from y continent" or "this civ needs to be included to fill out this area of the map" are not making legitimate claims, no?

I love to play true-start maps but you have to look at what's actually included in the game.

P.S. this is NOT in support of the inclusion of Italy... they better not do it

Click to expand...

Glassmage said:

Hun, India, Mongol, Persia fill central Asia good enough no more central asian civs plz

Click to expand...

Loaf Warden said:

I mean there are people right here in these forums saying Siam rules out the Khmer. I agree the developers could stand to be less Eurocentric, but it really floors me to see people here thinking Siam and the Khmer are basically the same.

Click to expand...

cybrxkhan said:

People saying Siam rules out the Khmer doesn't' mean those same people imply that Siam and Khmer are basically the same. Most of the time, as said, such people (including myself) are just saying that Siam and the Khmer are basically the same in the public perception. There's a very subtle but significant difference there - we usually just don't put in the "in the public perception part" even though we mean it.

All that aside - frankly, the Khmer have very, very little chance of getting in, in my opinion. I would even want to say they have almost no chance of getting in, but that might be too overconfident a prediction.


Indeed, I am curious as to how a Civ game made by a non-Western company would play out. Would be pretty interesting.

Click to expand...

truenarnian said:

Why do so many people swagger onto this thread with the attitude of "Of course people are idiots for wanting new/unusual/non-classical/non-Euro civs"?

You are perfectly entitled to enjoy those civs more - my friend Bran LOVES the classical and Euro civs - but I enjoy civs like Polynesia and Siam, and would love some more African civs and more obscure civs. My enjoyment of the game is different than yours, but no more or less correct. Correctness has nothing to do with it. Civ is for entertainment and some players like variety in civs.

Further, the Euro/classical civs reflect a "history written by the victors"/imperialistic view of the world. Many civs have been great within their own particular contexts but were wiped out and their majestic stories re-written as pathetic fables by dismissive imperialistic powers whose only interest was quashing dissent and ethnic minority self-identification.

I'm a "white" North American, but I want a chance to walk in the footsteps of many different civilization who were not globally pre-eminent (indeed - very few civs can even make that claim).

Click to expand...

wilbeard said:

While I appreciate your point, I'd say there are far more "anti-European" voices in this community than "anti-diversity" voices.

Click to expand...

truenarnian said:

Why do so many people swagger onto this thread with the attitude of "Of course people are idiots for wanting new/unusual/non-classical/non-Euro civs"?

You are perfectly entitled to enjoy those civs more - my friend Bran LOVES the classical and Euro civs - but I enjoy civs like Polynesia and Siam, and would love some more African civs and more obscure civs. My enjoyment of the game is different than yours, but no more or less correct. Correctness has nothing to do with it. Civ is for entertainment and some players like variety in civs.

Further, the Euro/classical civs reflect a "history written by the victors"/imperialistic view of the world. Many civs have been great within their own particular contexts but were wiped out and their majestic stories re-written as pathetic fables by dismissive imperialistic powers whose only interest was quashing dissent and ethnic minority self-identification.

I'm a "white" North American, but I want a chance to walk in the footsteps of many different civilization who were not globally pre-eminent (indeed - very few civs can even make that claim).

Click to expand...