Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
They made a scenario specifically related to European colonization of Africa. The Zulu were an inevitable choice there. They would have had to removed the scenario if they weren't in.
Now Kongo is out ... :(
- Thread starter Gedemo
- Start date
They made a scenario specifically related to European colonization of Africa. The Zulu were an inevitable choice there. They would have had to removed the scenario if they weren't in.
Torwaechter
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2006
- Messages
- 33
Why? They could make Zulu a scenario-only civ (see Goths or Franks)
@poom3619:
so let's assume neither Indonesia nor Vietnam will make it into BNW - and one of the devs would tell us they couldn't include such brand-new civs, because there was a "fan tradition" to be fulfilled and they feared new civs like Vietnam and Indonesia wouldn't interest anyone?
well, life is hard, and I don't want to argue with you about what is "right" - I just know how most artists feel about this - you can see it in music and films as well - in almost all cases, artists love to do and try something new, while their fan base expects the same thing again and again
that's something that has to be put into balance if relationship should remain stable
so I acknowledge that Firaxis tries to fulfill som fan wishes, it makes sense to make some people happy - but I can still think that it is boring...
good art (and game design is a form of art) is not about making people happy, it is about surprising people and widening their horizon, pushing the envelope
@poom3619:
so let's assume neither Indonesia nor Vietnam will make it into BNW - and one of the devs would tell us they couldn't include such brand-new civs, because there was a "fan tradition" to be fulfilled and they feared new civs like Vietnam and Indonesia wouldn't interest anyone?
well, life is hard, and I don't want to argue with you about what is "right" - I just know how most artists feel about this - you can see it in music and films as well - in almost all cases, artists love to do and try something new, while their fan base expects the same thing again and again
that's something that has to be put into balance if relationship should remain stable
so I acknowledge that Firaxis tries to fulfill som fan wishes, it makes sense to make some people happy - but I can still think that it is boring...
good art (and game design is a form of art) is not about making people happy, it is about surprising people and widening their horizon, pushing the envelope
Sorry, a little late on the reply. To keep it short, I just don't think the United States is a distinct civilization. American civilization is English civilization, and we don't even really pretend otherwise. Sure, there's a strong admixture of French ideas, classical and Judeo-Christian influence, etc., but those are characteristics shared with English civilization, not ones that make America distinct from it.
Of course, if Byzantium can share the world with Rome and Austria with Germany, there's plenty of room for both America and England. I might argue that, say, the USSR was more civilizationally distinct from Russia than the US is from England, but there's a bit of a cartographic problem there.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I disagree completely here. I think we have, from the beginning (at least since Thomas Paine) emphasized the differences. And our culture is German, Irish, Scottish, Italian, Swedish, Mexican, and a sort of naturally developing pioneering culture influenced by having to live in rural isolation and a bit by Native Americans who surrounded us whose iconography we adopted.
Our culture is an off-shoot, but its absorbed so many other things. France was initially a Roman culture, but I don't think Rome and France are the same things.
But the customer base isn't what you think it is. People on this forum want lots of obscure choices which the average player wouldn't even know existed. I'm going to say right now that if it was purely on customers then Canada, Australia, Argentina and Indonesia probably get in because they are large & affluent games buying areas. Assyria never sees the light of day because they are from an area already heavily represented and with relatively low sales. I'd be happy as Majapahit and Australia are two of the 4 I would pick.
I think you should remember that this forum is not truly representative of the base market - we are the hard core. Think of it like wrestling - in pro wrestling the hard core fans like someone like Punk or Bryan whilst the average fan loves John Cena. The wrestling caters for the average fan (10 year old boys in that case) rather that the hard core base. I think the Civ developers actually cater for the hard core base a lot and then hope that John Smith in Omaha decides that he'll play Assyria even though he's never heard of them.
Thomas Paine was English. Practically all of the founders were English (a few were Scottish or Irish, although I'd argue that education and upbringing made them essentially English as wellScottish nationalism then being at a low ebb and Irish nationalism non-existent). The few heroes of the Revolution who weren't British (like Lafayette and Kosciuszko), though they were granted American citizenship, never felt themselves to be Americans; they returned to and died in their native countries.
And I'd argue that our culture has absorbed a lot less from non-English sources than you think. Certainly, American cuisine is almost entirely derived from German and Italian, and I'll volunteer that American music of the 20th and 21st centuries owes much of its distinct identity to African-American influence. Other than that, thoughwhat distinctly Irish, Swedish, Mexican, or Native American elements in American "civilization" at large can you point to?
Up until the middle of the 20th century, every American who wasn't "Anglo-Saxon" was at best a second-class citizen, and while the Irish, Swedish etc. influenced lots of local cultures and subcultures, they didn't make one dent in the national culture until well into the 20th century. Every American president before Kennedy (apart from Martin Van Buren) was of substantially or entirely English ancestry; despite never being an official language, English swallowed up every other American language, outside of little rural pockets (Cajun, Pennsylvania Dutch) until Spanish got some traction relatively recently. That's in spite of the fact that a far, far greater number of Americans, by the late 19th century, were of German descent than of English.
Anyway I'm rambling and it doesn't really have anything to do with the thread as it is.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Of course he was. I wasn't trying to claim otherwise. I said he fostered an American identity that was different from an English identity (how can an island rule a continent).
Appalachian culture as a whole was inspired by Scots-Irish, not English. I will try to go back and add more info later (I don't really have time right now). I forgot Dutch, btw (New York owed a surprising amount of lasting influence from them).
I'm going to stop you right there because I think part of American culture is the conglomeration of local cultures.
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
Hamburgers and hot dogs originated in Germany.
French fries originated in Belgium.
Pizza originated from Italy.
Quite a number of dishes that are considered American originated elsewhere.
Fortune cookies however did not originate in China but in the United States.
It is said that American culture is a culture of assimilation. Its neighbour to the north officially practises multiculturalism (yet, distinctively Canadian dishes do exist, such as poutine (main ingredient being the aforementioned fries), the unofficial national dish of Canada).
French fries originated in Belgium.
Pizza originated from Italy.
Quite a number of dishes that are considered American originated elsewhere.
Fortune cookies however did not originate in China but in the United States.
It is said that American culture is a culture of assimilation. Its neighbour to the north officially practises multiculturalism (yet, distinctively Canadian dishes do exist, such as poutine (main ingredient being the aforementioned fries), the unofficial national dish of Canada).
Torwaechter
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2006
- Messages
- 33
This really isn't the thread for that discussion, a discussion so old...
well, anyway, my 5 cents - the most distinctive differences between USA and UK:
* Religion (massive differences here - Anglican state church versus a heck load of creeds in a system of rather strict separation of state and church - although some right-wing christians tried to change that very American core value in the younger past, a core value that separated the USA from England and most European cultures very very much, a core value that was developped by English culture, but could not be established in England till this day - it had to be established elsewhere, and that's all the US is or was about; and today? England is one of the nations with the most atheists or humanists in the world, wheras the US still is, especially in the Bible Belt, a God-fearing and religiously loaded society - no way that a US American president could be an atheist - in the UK it is certainly imaginable)
* Immigration & Frontier (be it Afro-American ex-slaves or German Forty-Eighters or Chinese railway construction workers, gold-diggers, whatever - England only became somewhat multicultural in the younger past after WWII, you could say England became influenced by American culture in the last 100 years than the opposite way)
* War Spirit, Traditions (UK still likes to play chess but well, we all know: Britannia is far from being a world power anymore. And UK citizens have become quite pacifist like the rest of European societies after the destructions of WWII - destructions the US never had seen on her own soil - and after the process of de-colonization. The US became a super power, somewhat imperialistic and reckless in the Cold War (Vietnam, Nicaragua, ...) and till this day Americans feature a much more militaristic approach to politics, and there is much more proudness about military tradition, supporting the troops, because so many Americans are serving as soldiers, everybody knows someone who is fighting somewhere abroad or has lost a father or son - there's a distinctive difference in military culture opposed to the UK; or take other things like the right to bear arms - for British people it's pure cowboy and child-killing madness, for Americans it is part of their tradition - not all Americans want that tradition continued, but I hope you know what I mean: there is a distinctive American culture that has developped in the last 300 years and there are strong differences between the US and Europe, in many ways modern England has more in common with France, the Netherlands, Denmark or Germany than the US - England today is the bridge betwen US and EU, influenced by both and influencing both, but in no way can USA and England be put into the same bag)
well, anyway, my 5 cents - the most distinctive differences between USA and UK:
* Religion (massive differences here - Anglican state church versus a heck load of creeds in a system of rather strict separation of state and church - although some right-wing christians tried to change that very American core value in the younger past, a core value that separated the USA from England and most European cultures very very much, a core value that was developped by English culture, but could not be established in England till this day - it had to be established elsewhere, and that's all the US is or was about; and today? England is one of the nations with the most atheists or humanists in the world, wheras the US still is, especially in the Bible Belt, a God-fearing and religiously loaded society - no way that a US American president could be an atheist - in the UK it is certainly imaginable)
* Immigration & Frontier (be it Afro-American ex-slaves or German Forty-Eighters or Chinese railway construction workers, gold-diggers, whatever - England only became somewhat multicultural in the younger past after WWII, you could say England became influenced by American culture in the last 100 years than the opposite way)
* War Spirit, Traditions (UK still likes to play chess but well, we all know: Britannia is far from being a world power anymore. And UK citizens have become quite pacifist like the rest of European societies after the destructions of WWII - destructions the US never had seen on her own soil - and after the process of de-colonization. The US became a super power, somewhat imperialistic and reckless in the Cold War (Vietnam, Nicaragua, ...) and till this day Americans feature a much more militaristic approach to politics, and there is much more proudness about military tradition, supporting the troops, because so many Americans are serving as soldiers, everybody knows someone who is fighting somewhere abroad or has lost a father or son - there's a distinctive difference in military culture opposed to the UK; or take other things like the right to bear arms - for British people it's pure cowboy and child-killing madness, for Americans it is part of their tradition - not all Americans want that tradition continued, but I hope you know what I mean: there is a distinctive American culture that has developped in the last 300 years and there are strong differences between the US and Europe, in many ways modern England has more in common with France, the Netherlands, Denmark or Germany than the US - England today is the bridge betwen US and EU, influenced by both and influencing both, but in no way can USA and England be put into the same bag)
seancolorado
Deity
It is certainly the culture of assimilation but much of the time things that fall upon America's shores evolves into something completely American and not at all to be associated with its mother origins by anything other than name. (E.g. hamburgers are not German tasting at all, Pizza in America is purely American now)
.
InsanelyApple
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2012
- Messages
- 520
I can say I didn't know a lot about history (or sadly geography and capitals) before I played Civ5 and got really into it. I decided to read a bit on history and play TSL map (there is that geography and capitals come into play). Now I can tell you where Lhasa and Almaty and La Venta is!
But anyway, isn't this conversation off topic?
Kind of - I was replying to the statement that the customer is always right (in terms of the customer wanting Kongo in) by pointing out that we are the hard core base but the real customer base (the average player - or in my example John Smith in Omaha) has never heard of Kongo or Assyria or Majapahit or Timurid - the average customer would probably want a Afghanistan or Indonesia or Australia or Vietnam- places they have some familiarity with than more obscure historical choices. The devs have traditionally tried to throw a few ancient civs in to give a broad base of choices and styles and to cater to the hard core base. Saying the customer is always right in asking for civs that no longer exist is probably overstating those civs appeal as I'm certain sales wise you would get a spike in sales with say Argentina but you probably wouldn't with say Mapuche merely based on Argentinian casual gamers buying to play as their home country. Zulu gets in because it's history is both more recent but also the mini series Shaka Zulu and the films Zulu & Zulu Dawn mean that casual gamers have a reasonable chance of knowing who the heck those guys are. How many gamers know what Kongo was? Where it was? What happened to it? Etc etc. It's why I dont believe there will be any more African civs in this enhancement - The Moors are the last iconic civ from Africa - after that you have South Africa, Somalia etc. Given it appears some form of the Moors/Berber/Morrocco is in I think the 2 slots for Africa are filled and I dont see a civ that is screaming for inclusion. There are a lot of civs in Africa I'd happily play but when I look around the world and see no Italy, Lithuania, Timurid, Vietnam, Majapahit, Khmer, Australia, Argentina, Gran Columbia, West Indies, Indian Tribes from anywhere but the North East etc etc I just cant see a 3rd African civ making it in.
I think I'm going to have to disagree here. Most of Western Europe know who the Moors are given they invaded the Iberian penisula - the two traditional portrayals of historical Muslim people tend to be the Arabs like Saladin and the Moors. Often those portrayals are innaccurate but they exist in popular culture. Kongo not so much and since the Massai are from Kenya and Tanzania and the Kingdom of Kongo is on the other side of the country and is made up mainly of Bantu tribal peoples and that kind of proves the point to be honest.
You're from France so most of the African immigrants in your country are either from ex French holdings including Nth Africans from places like Algeria who would of been classified as Moors during the time period of the occupation of the Iberian peninsula, Sicily and Malta. The Moors weren't just Moroccan it was a term used for Nth Africans based on the Roman province Mauretania. Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria have remained fairly well known in the West thanks to their proximity to Western Europe.
Kongo on the other hand is on the west coat of Africa. It's more recent in terms of history forming around 1400 and was encountered in 1483 by Portuguese explorers and over the next few 100 years fought a few wars against the Portuguese. They never had much real effect on Europe as such. The Governments of Europe split Central Africa up in 1884/85 and the Portuguese had nominal control of what had been Kongo but by that stage were in decline and basically lost control of the territories pretty quickly.
Given Portugal's fading influence on the world Kongo is probably actually one of the lesser known parts of Africa whilst ex British & French colonies tend to be better known. The Zulus are known largely because of their impressive victories against British forces before eventually succumbing. Had they fought at Isandlwana agaisnt the Portuguese it's likely that battle would be more of a footnote in the history books rather than having a film made about it.
Not saying Kongo isn't interesting or worthy of consideration as a Civ - just pointing out that the average customer (not the hard core forum using kind) probably has no idea where Kongo was or much about it but knows Morocco and Nth Africa if only from films.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Yeah, I think Kongo is a good choice, but the fact remains that every discussion about the Kingdom of the Kongo has to first explain how they are not the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the Republic of the Congo (the next step is to explain how those two are different as well 
). The Moors on the other hand are known at least generally as Muslim invaders of Europe, rulers of Spain and North Africa, and a joke in Seinfeld.
). The Moors on the other hand are known at least generally as Muslim invaders of Europe, rulers of Spain and North Africa, and a joke in Seinfeld.I know that the masai are in the opposite coast of Kongo.
It's an example of a people very well known thanks to tv documentaries. In my opinion, in my country, they are almost more known than Zulu.
Indeed, English people are more focused on the Zulu than us, maybe because of the historical involvement?
About the moor, i live near the area where Charles Martel is told to have stopped the moorish invasion in 732. So I guess the french children still have this date on their history books.
But in my country, Kongo is better known, even by children, because of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintin_in_the_Congo
It's an example of a people very well known thanks to tv documentaries. In my opinion, in my country, they are almost more known than Zulu.
Indeed, English people are more focused on the Zulu than us, maybe because of the historical involvement?
About the moor, i live near the area where Charles Martel is told to have stopped the moorish invasion in 732. So I guess the french children still have this date on their history books.
But in my country, Kongo is better known, even by children, because of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintin_in_the_Congo
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
See, that's the problem. Tintin was in the Belgian Congo, which is not the same thing as the Kongo Kingdom. People know the former, but the latter was far more important.
Regarding the Zulu. Yeah, they're pretty much known because of their involvement with the UK and they're known in America because we speak the same language as the English do. But it's still a predominantly American game, so that's an almost inevitability.
Regarding the Zulu. Yeah, they're pretty much known because of their involvement with the UK and they're known in America because we speak the same language as the English do. But it's still a predominantly American game, so that's an almost inevitability.
nunor
King
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 786
You're messing with some people's deepest passions and convictions here. Please be more respectful!
Similar threads
