Is the civ series too eurocentric?

I've seen this argument crop up alot in the Civ VI forums, and I think it's an interesting question for the series as a whole. Here are some charts/tables I made to examine the issue:






I divided them up by the civs released with each vanilla game and the civs present in each game's final form. They were separated out by Region and Era. Here's a key:



The following civs are the only ones to be in every vanilla iteration of the series...I suppose you could call them the "core civs".



Finally, a couple of notes on the tables:

• Era and Region classifications can sometimes be a bit arbitrary, so in some cases I made a judgment call...whether I made the right one is of course debatable
• My era dates are based on some commonly accepted delineations by historians.
• Several of the Civ VI civs of course have not been confirmed officially yet.
• Whether Russia is European or Asian is a subject of much debate. I elected to slot them as European based on the usual leader choices (who leaned European).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, now that the data is out of the way, it seems clear that the series IS eurocentric. So the question is, is that a problem?

I'm of the opinion that it's not, if only for the simple reason that it's developed by westerners for a primarily western audience.

Thoughts?

EDIT: here's a graph from Steam Spy showing where Civ V customers are playing from:

And here's a map showing global video game revenue (in 06/2016):

Not to my mind, no. Civ should represent the most powerful and influential civilizations. Many of those happened to be European. No problem with that at all.

You get a similar phenomenon in East Asia where there are loads of very influential civilizations (China, Mongolia, Japan, Korea) such that virtually the entire region gets covered by one Civ or another (versus somewhere like South America where you have the Inca....and that's basically it).

I do think Civ is too Eurocentric. Obviously, I wouldn't want the big ones left out, but there's no reason it needs to only represent those societies that were historically the most influential or "successful." There is an issue of whether we know enough about a particular society to represent it properly in Civ, though. In Civ V, for example, you need a leader, an overarching trait or characteristic of some kind, and either 2 military units or 1 unit and 1 building or tile improvement. Do we know enough about the Hittites, the Huron, the Gauls or the Oyo Empire?

Yeah, I do think another consideration is that for many non-western civilizations there simply aren't a lot of records regarding them, which makes designing them much more difficult.

Only the US and Germany (to a much smaller extent France, while Spain was crucial in the colonization era) could be taken out and only if the game was really trying to be about which civs are more important in the total run of human history up to now. But - obviously - the game is american, and taking the US out would have been a bad move from the marketing point of view. Germany was there apparently for similar marketing reasons, cause it rose to be a major power only in the end of the 19th century, which is a tiny fraction of the civ timeline.

That said, Zulu civ was there almost in all versions, starting with Civ1, and it wasn't obviously crucial in world history.

Japan is also a choice making little sense in this timeline, if you could take out marketing reasons.

Btw, there should have been a Khmer or Thai civ

Heh...I just updated the data to include the Khmer

Yeah, it is a bit Eurocentric but they have made admirable efforts to include non-European cultures. The worst example that they've never really addressed is treating India as one monolithic whole considering it only became unified after the British conquered it. Perhaps split it into Mughal India and Modern India?

I would prefer to see a new crop of European civs though. Ditch Portugal or the Dutch, and replace it with, say, the Goths. The Goths probably had as large of an impact on history as the Dutch did, if not more.

Sure the game has gotten better at including non-euro civs, but the game is still extremely eurocentric. The implicit values and goals of the game are very much rested in European ideals and tropes. From the tech tree to the ideas, to the progression towards centralized state apparati based around urban centers to the overall victory conditions. Think about the "ages" of civ5: Ancient Era->Classical Era->Medieval Era->Renaissance Era->Modern Era->Atomic Era->Information Era->Futuristic Era. Each of these eras specifically references Western periodization and also, again, borrows a Western understanding of the general flow of history. Hell even things like "wonders of the world" ultimately come from Western culture.

Yes the inclusion of non-western civs is nice. But their inclusion reads more like "We have this game about the development of Western civilization; now let's tack on some non-Western civs for diversity's sake," rather than an actual attempt to capture the full scope of human history.

Kyriakos said:

Only the US and Germany (to a much smaller extent France, while Spain was crucial in the colonization era) could be taken out and only if the game was really trying to be about which civs are more important in the total run of human history up to now.

Click to expand...

Now really.

Owen Glyndwr said:

Sure the game has gotten better at including non-euro civs, but the game is still extremely eurocentric. The implicit values and goals of the game are very much rested in European ideals and tropes. From the tech tree to the ideas, to the progression towards centralized state apparati based around urban centers to the overall victory conditions. Think about the "ages" of civ5: Ancient Era->Classical Era->Medieval Era->Renaissance Era->Modern Era->Atomic Era->Information Era->Futuristic Era. Each of these eras specifically references Western periodization and also, again, borrows a Western understanding of the general flow of history. Hell even things like "wonders of the world" ultimately come from Western culture.

Click to expand...

But the Civilization franchise is inherently about human progress. It describes the chapters of human history that lead up to the present day (or ostensible future). The very idea of a victory to be achieved is already inescapably teleological. Also, most other cultures didn't even possess the concept to begin with until their Europeanization - ancient Mayans or or Egyptians did not conceive of themselves as being in an 'early era' striving towards some better future.

Besides, Europe made Arabs and Japanese and Aztecs aware of each other. It should at least be able to denote some standards of civilization.

To reply to Ajidica: not all other cultures compartmentalize themselves into contiguous civilizations based on language or culture. That's still how the Civ franchise defines them. And I definitely don't think that the Mughals deserve to be represented. India may have had a multitude of kingdoms in the past, but how to define whether, say, Vijayanagar or Orissa deserve their own civilizations? It's not clear that they even possessed a distinct identity or a proto-nationalism. Even if they did, would they have recognized the claims of the other? Chinese states sure didn't; for them, all of the Middle Kingdom was fair game.

The best way to represent this in the franchise is to simply recognize what the Indians viewed themselves as after having absorbed Western ideas of self-determination. Same goes for the Arabs and Chinese.

(I will admit that however that having Byzantine and Holy Roman civs is going too far. Keep in mind I only play Civ4, so I can't reliably comment on any other game.)

Yes the inclusion of non-western civs is nice. But their inclusion reads more like "We have this game about the development of Western civilization; now let's tack on some non-Western civs for diversity's sake," rather than an actual attempt to capture the full scope of human history.

Click to expand...

More charitably, you could say it's an attempt to appeal to the historical consciousness of their audience, which is inevitably going to be Western. Take the Zulu: they were laughably irrelevant to human civilization as a whole, but they're the only thing that might plausibly come to the mind of the average Westerner when they imagine pre-colonial Southern Africa.

Well, the Byzantine empire is a very logical choice, given it lasted for 1100 years and was very important. Again, though, it is far easier to include civs that your players readily identify.
Of course it will create euro civs that exist in different timeframes, eg Greece and tied Byzantine, related Rome as well, while other civs aren't represented at all. But it is not like the average civ player would really seek out medieval-era central/east-asian regional powers.

The 'horde' civs also were largely excluded, apart from Mongols - and Turks

Owen Glyndwr said:

Sure the game has gotten better at including non-euro civs, but the game is still extremely eurocentric. The implicit values and goals of the game are very much rested in European ideals and tropes. From the tech tree to the ideas, to the progression towards centralized state apparati based around urban centers to the overall victory conditions. Think about the "ages" of civ5: Ancient Era->Classical Era->Medieval Era->Renaissance Era->Modern Era->Atomic Era->Information Era->Futuristic Era. Each of these eras specifically references Western periodization and also, again, borrows a Western understanding of the general flow of history. Hell even things like "wonders of the world" ultimately come from Western culture.

Click to expand...

I think the real question is whether or not the game's eurocentricity is a bad or negative thing, which I don't think it is.

We have 3 civilizations Spain, England and France who represent about the same era (early modern) and similar culture and geographical location. These 3 could just as well be bunched into a single civilization called western europe as India can be bunched into a single civilization.

So early modern western european civilization is overrepresented in my opinion.

Denkt said:

We have 3 civilizations Spain, England and France who represent about the same era (early modern) and similar culture and geographical location. These 3 could just as well be bunched into a single civilization called western europe as India can be bunched into a single civilization.

So early modern western european civilization is overrepresented in my opinion.

Click to expand...

When a sub-unit of India manages to conquer or colonize about half a continent, like each of those did (some several times over), it can have its own civ also.

Why did this thread become about excluding civs?

It is, unquestionably, Eurocentric. The question "is it *too* Euroecentric" is another matter though. What would one use to measure that?

To reply to Ajidica: not all other cultures compartmentalize themselves into contiguous 'civilizations' based on language or culture. That's still how Civilization the game must inevitably define them. And I definitely don't think that the Mughals deserve to be represented. Sure, India has had a multitude of kingdoms in the past- but how to define whether, say, Vijayanagar or Orissa deserve their own civilizations? It's not clear that they even possessed a distinct identity or a proto-nationalism of some sort. Even if they did, would they have recognized the claims of the other? Chinese states sure didn't; for them, all of the Middle Kingdom was fair game.

Click to expand...

Mughals lasted hundreds of years with land area comparable to all but the largest civs in history, with impact still felt in the region today. You want to make a case for Venice, "Celts", NED, Sweden, Denmark (or "Vikings" as in Civ 4) to beat that out? Most civs in the Americas can't touch that either.

You'll fail unless you use anything but personal preference. Once you start talking about "deserve", you start implying that one nation earned something over the other. If you do that, the assertion that Mughals are less accomplished than some of the above is absurd.

And Mughals are not necessarily India's 2nd best candidate (there were multiple centuries-lasting empires there with enormous land area and influence), never mind the nonsense of it being led by Gandhi.

Ajidica said:

Yeah, it is a bit Eurocentric but they have made admirable efforts to include non-European cultures. The worst example that they've never really addressed is treating India as one monolithic whole considering it only became unified after the British conquered it. Perhaps split it into Mughal India and Modern India?

I would prefer to see a new crop of European civs though. Ditch Portugal or the Dutch, and replace it with, say, the Goths. The Goths probably had as large of an impact on history as the Dutch did, if not more.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the game badly needs more Indian Civs. They could quite comfortably do three of them at least (Mughals, Maratha, India).

"India" just means the region to someone who isn't very read on it anyway. To a degree like China is there instead of Song or other dynasties. And i think an indian civ (if the sole indian civ there) should be one with indian religion, so the Mughals aren't that good a choice in that respect.

In a way - but not that much - it is similar with "Persia", and even "Greece". Greece is the collective of the states and unions or even kingdoms and other alliances. Persia in civ usually is the Persia of the Greek-Persian wars, and -to a lesser extent- anything up to the final Byzantine-Sassanid war. It surely isn't meant to be some islamic persian civ.

To be fair much of subcontinental India was united into a single kingdom (Mauryan empire) long before the British showed up.

What I said was that western european early modern civilization is overrepresented and could as well be bunched togther as a single civilization to make room for civilizations who can represent different locations and eras.

TheMeInTeam said:

Mughals lasted hundreds of years with land area comparable to all but the largest civs in history, with impact still felt in the region today. You want to make a case for Venice, "Celts", NED, Sweden, Denmark (or "Vikings" as in Civ 4) to beat that out? Most civs in the Americas can't touch that either.

You'll fail unless you use anything but personal preference. Once you start talking about "deserve", you start implying that one nation earned something over the other. If you do that, the assertion that Mughals are less accomplished than some of the above is absurd.

And Mughals are not necessarily India's 2nd best candidate (there were multiple centuries-lasting empires there with enormous land area and influence), never mind the nonsense of it being led by Gandhi.

Click to expand...

The Mughals are a fricking dynasty. It's directly the opposite of the standard used by Civilization.