Some thoughts about leaders depiction and choices

Macedonia, Greece... just different words for barbarians

...Barbarian is a Greek word. It originally meant someone who isn't Greek.

As though there was civilization in Greece before Rome

If you asked the Greeks (well, the Athenians) they'd say that there wasn't civilization in Rome until it was borrowed from Greece.

Justice1337 said:

Previous Civ's like Civ IV bunched together Mao's China with Ancient China, which are altogether different despite having the same name.

Click to expand...

Except that depicting ancient China and modern China as separate from each other might anger the Chinese even more. They're very big on the "5000 years of uninterrupted civilization" thing, despite the fact that the Shang Dynasty wasn't really anything like China - "China" didn't exist until Qin Shi Huang's time. I think they just do that so they can say their country is older than anyone else's.

I think it is a mistake to get too caught up on the "historical accuracy" issue. Pretty much all the leaders picked are sterotyped, but it was an attempt to create different ways to play the game, not trying to recreate history. Why else would I get China, and have the US show up as a neighbor?

As to the male/female issue, I think it is strictly marketing.

In my game, Montezuma was friendly with me until I allied with the Huns and Zulus. I think Napoleon is more stereotyped as he always backstabs the user civ if you get to strong.

Bulldog Bats said:

I think it is a mistake to get too caught up on the "historical accuracy" issue. Pretty much all the leaders picked are sterotyped, but it was an attempt to create different ways to play the game, not trying to recreate history. Why else would I get China, and have the US show up as a neighbor?

As to the male/female issue, I think it is strictly marketing.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I just wish that all the stereotyping were done equally across the board, and in a way that doesn't make it seem that Firaxis is shoving a copy of Guns, Germs and Steel down my throat.

The link Abraxis shared on Page 1 was really interesting. There's probably overwhelming inertia toward stereotypes when it comes to fitting a "national persona" into game mechanics. And I really do like the game of Civ for the game. Still though, I think a strong reason we enjoy these games is because of the historical feel. That same blog author wrote about why we find Rome such a great culture for these types of games, sort of the sense that we can take the historical reins and do it right this time. So elsewhere when things make zero sense, it can be pretty jarring. The article in that series on the Zulu even mentioned GG&S directly, and as if it were gospel. You don't have to look very hard for a political faction that minimizes Western culture, but you don't have to ride it into a video game for fear of being on the wrong side. Sacrificing history for politics just makes no sense given that you're going to have to stereotype on some level to fit things into game mechanics. Groups that were at no point cultural leaders in the world, and often had no writing, agriculture, or other hallmarks of civilization are given a civilization in the game. Shaka, Hiawatha, Atilla and Pocatello beat me to the space race, and it's impossible for me to forget that I'm playing a game.

Justice1337 said:

Groups that were at no point cultural leaders in the world, and often had no writing, agriculture, or other hallmarks of civilization are given a civilization in the game. Shaka, Hiawatha, Atilla and Pocatello beat me to the space race, and it's impossible for me to forget that I'm playing a game.

Click to expand...

Oh my, is somebody actually starting with this?

Bulldog Bats said:

I think it is a mistake to get too caught up on the "historical accuracy" issue. Pretty much all the leaders picked are sterotyped, but it was an attempt to create different ways to play the game, not trying to recreate history. Why else would I get China, and have the US show up as a neighbor?

Click to expand...

Then again, Augustus is not dressed as a gladiator because it would be "cooler", he is an emperor and he is portrayed as one, you cant say that about some of the other leader depictions.

A leaderscreen is not there to create diferent ways to play the game, they are there to give civs personality and Firaxis has focused way too much on the leaders (both in game and for marketing) its no surprise that's what we end up picking on. The mechanics, the map, the units, the UA, thats what creates diferent ways to play the game, and TBH they should focus on that much more for CiVI to make each civ really unique.

I'd love it if Firaxis did away with their traditional leaderscreens and instead made leaders units on the map with diferent abilities (and let us have diferent ones) so that they actually impacted gameplay instead of just being eyecandy. And if they must do a 3D diplo screen, why not make it more about the civ than the leader? that way you could encounter a medieval English emissary with a bodyguard (BG castle and all) and that screen could evolve with the eras, and look very diferent by the industrial age.

I remember in Civ II they had videos of actual actors on the advisor screen. That loud, tubby Military Advisor is pretty classic. I also loved the Wonder movies from that civ, even though the computer took a long time to load them.

I have to say that including Wu Zeitian is making sense to be honest, She was did re installed the Imperial Examinations and made China even more prospering, She's probably more fitting than Mao (that guy is responsible for the death of 80 millions people and for much destruction of the Chinese Heritage).
Haile Selassie on the other hand... well, a man with good intentions, but everything went against him (though I'm kinda fond of him).
Maria I is an odd choice, as same as Theodora (Although she did Co-regnant with him, and probably save his throne), and Kamehameha.
An Civ-wise, I'd say that The Huns and the Zulu wouldn't be my first choices (Actually, the Huns were much more like the Barbarians rather than a Civilization) and I do think that there were some Civilizations that were much more Deserving to enter the game than those two (and also Brazil).
And Argentina with Eva Peron? She is one of the reasons that Argentina looks like what it looks today.

Kamehameha is a "fresh" leader for me. I though he was a medieval leader due to his clothes, I was surprised when I discovered he lived in the 19th century. The model was designed after a statue depicting him in a roman uniform.

Kamehameha is hardly a mythical leader; he lived from 1758-1819. So, very real.

Wasn't he the king of Hawaii?
And Polynesia is a only a general term for people that habitats of the Pacific Sea Isles?

El Caballerion said:

I would love for the game to not rely on the 3D depictions of the leaders, something that becomes rather old and tedious a few games in.

Click to expand...

That's why I requested a mod that removes the leaders and any mention of them altogether. Instead a static screen (say of the maps displayed in the choose civ menu until a better idea comes up) and the civ icon. Loading screen text (leader praising) changed to simply first part ("history" section) of civilopedia's entry on that civ, narrating silenced, greeting texts changed to more appropriate, focused on the civ itself etc.

I don't want to play as those characters and against those characters. I want to play as a civilization against other civilizations.

It is amazing how much depth such a simple mod brings when you're not dealing with ever same Washington in his 18th century office, where he rolls a globus before wheel was invented, but rather with mysterious peoples who call themselves "Americans".

I'm glad Firaxis doesn't agree with you dude because that sounds really boring

Really? Huh, so the core of fun civilization experience is in the animated characters with zero immersiveness? I guess I never thought that way of "Civilization". Well... to each his own.

If you play Civilization for realism then you're playing the wrong game. If you somehow like the notion of playing against America in 2500 BC but detest the thought of a leader representing a nation that didn't exist for another ~4000 years then something seems a bit off.

The immersiveness of civ is having the ability to waste a ton of hours in it without even realizing it. The majority of users do it here, so I'd say they get pretty immersed, despite having the burden of speaking to leaders from various civilizations.

TPangolin said:

1. If you play Civilization for realism then you're playing the wrong game. 2. If you somehow like the notion of playing against America in 2500 BC but detest the thought of a leader representing a nation that didn't exist for another ~4000 years then something seems a bit off.

3. The immersiveness of civ is having the ability to waste a ton of hours in it without even realizing it. The majority of users do it here, so I'd say they get pretty immersed, despite having the burden of speaking to leaders from various civilizations.

Click to expand...

Ah, of course. I am very sorry, wasn't posting actively on CFC for some time and I forgot how thing work here... and I guess I wasn't careful enough. I do understand it's hard to even try to understand another's view, and easier to twist it and make assumptions, or worse put words in another's mouth. But what for?

Point by point:

1. Never did I say that I play for realism.

2. Here again you assume I'm looking for some real realistic realism and honestly, that claim is a bit silly. With same logic you could "shoot down" my argument on an RPG game forum about my character shooting an arrow in someones head and that someone saying "must have been my imagination" and continuing doing what he was doing - being not realistic / immersive enough for me for example, by saying "Hey there's dragons and orcs in the game, it's not about realism, you playing the wrong game!" OR "It would be nice if there wasn't explosion sounds in space battles", and the answer would be: "There's space ships and aliens, therefore you asking for no sound in space or that people wouldn't breath and speak in open space is a bit off."... Hopefully I got my point across.

My view is that civ is about creating your own history and your own civilization in your own world and of course have fun in the process. Isn't that the view of majority here (as to point 3.), no? I for one find it weird that it's unacceptable for one to dislike one thing and like another. Yes I do indeed like the notion of meeting some unknown "americans", just as much as meeting all others or building London in the desert around jungles. It's all part of the fun. (Again, majority's view I believe) And indeed I do not like the notion of dealing with a character that does not ever change and somehow possess the tech, his people do not. I don't think it's a bit off, I think it makes sense. But you don't need to agree with that. When I play single player I immerse myself and meta play to an extend, so I play against nations/civilizations etc. When I play MP (not very often), it's another story.

Why must I either embrace all aspects of the game or go play another game? Hmm...

I am very sorry. I didn't mean to upset anyone by my post. I'd like to remind that I just requested a mod, not made a petition to firaxis and didn't even say that my way is the path of righteousness, so...