Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[johny smith]

Well, when I say it "isn't civilization" I mean it doesn't conform to the core conceits that have defined the game since it was first introduced.

Civilization has always been a game about taking a single Civ from a settler to an empire over 6000 years.
That fundamental aspect of the game has always been the same.

A game that more accurately maps to the ebb and flow of potential history is not that game.

If nothing else, real history is marked as much by chance and the capricious nature of the universe, by the direction of the wind, Storms, earth quakes, warming, cooling, feast, famine.

All of that would make an interesting game, but it would not be the game Civilization. Oh, concepts could be brought in here or there, but the core feature of the game will always be the Start with a settler and build an empire idea.

Well I agree then that we just disagree. An empire has real challenges stay as empire as much as within as outside of it in my eyes.

 

[Xwarq]

I would like too make two points, first is a response about my accusations of mine against Greek philosophy. I am not sure how you know this, but the first recorded Greek "philosophers" were not in Athens or Sparta or mainland Greece at all. Greek philosophy began in the colonies, especially in Asia Minor and Italy (the Elaitics), so its almost as if frontier Greeks transmitted this concept back to the mainland from the various cultures they encountered. (Biographers of Thales write that he did study in Babylon) The religion+ comment was specifically targeting Plato, as there are philosophers of the Greeks I like (Xenophon and Epicurus for example)

Second, I do like seeing my comments about the skin colour being discussed, but I fear the argument is digressing back to civ choices. It is not only what civs are chosen but how they are treated. India is a good example, it has a generic unit (War elephant) with a UB of a group of people who invaded India. India (and China) are treated as 1 civilization throughout history, even if this is grossly inappropriate. While for Euro-civs in the past they acknowledge this and make create new civilizations to accommodate them (Germany -> HRE, Rome/ Greece -> Byz)
Furthermore the wonder selection is absolutely atrocious! Most of the known wonders are Greek, and if the box art is any representation of the game (Which besides being ugly, is deeply Western-centric) none should be expected. Firaxis would rather have the Oracle (why is this here, seriously?), Shakespeare’s Theatre (R U KIDD'N?), and Big Ben (NUFF SAID) than oriental constructions such as the Altar to Heaven. Wonder choices such as this scream that the developers are either blindly ignorant or are wilfully choosing white cultural institutions.

P.S. I know the game is not out, but I have another logical dilemma to defend myself; which is more likly that a game soon to be released has more wonders, diversity, etc and that all media released simply did not have it (which raises further questions...) or that all the wonders, etc are Eurocentric because that is all that is in the game?

India being treated as one civilization throughout history is grossly inappropriate. Splitting it into a Maurya civ, Gupta civ, Mughal civ, Maratha civ, and an India civ would be more appropriate. Or, since those were just temporary empires, maybe a Indo-Aryan, Dardic, Dravidian, etc. civilizations. But then again the temporary empires might be a good idea due to there never actually being a Dravidian empire.

However China as a single civilization makes very much sense. China has been united into 1 or 2 nations 90% of the time since the Han Empire.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

If we have the ability to include like 50+ civs then it might be worth it to have multiple Indian empires. But thats like saying we should of Germany, the HRE, Prussia, Austria etc.

The thing is they are all very similar cultures.

 

[StStutter]

I agree strongly with Johny Smith on only one of his points: that every civilization ever was in fact a medley of different cultural traits taken from other peoples. We all have many influences. However, this does not mean that certain peoples were not more influential than others.

Elvis Presley's music was influenced by many artists who came before him, as was the Beatles'. However, we attribute to them the incredible influence their music had on future generations rather than their inspirations (such as Little Richard for the Beatles, or certain Gospel singers in Presley’s case). Presley would be the Greeks and The Beatles would be the Romans in this example.

It is not wrong to acknowledge that certain civilizations had a greater impact on history just because they had their own inspirations.

This is history. Civ has never claimed to be a “shining beacon of historical accuracy”. Civ is a game and a game must evolve through a set of rules. A free flowing game which modeled history extremely accurately would be both boring and incredibly demanding on processing power and programming ability.

We still don’t definitely understand what caused certain civilizations to prosper and others not to throughout history in a macroscopic type of way. Have you ever read “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond? He proposes a theory to explain the rise of Eurasia since early prehistoric times, which boils down to they got lucky by having a massive east-west axis and having the most available domesticable animals and plants situated on their continent. The outcome would therefore be predetermined before even playing, that isn’t much fun.

Secondly, history evolved as it did not because of a conscious leader’s decisions throughout time, but because of unconscious evolution in behavior by each being choosing what was best for him and his family. This would therefore eliminate any need for the player, as he could just watch civs evolve naturally through incredibly complex algorithms.

So civilization chooses to incorporate civilizations based on three things: cultural influence, civ popularity in the fanbase, and geographical location. They try to maintain a balanced amount of civs from different parts in the world while ensuring there is a cultural variety, and while catering to fans’ desires. Which is to recreate history as a civilization that they recognize. Since civ is a western created and marketed game, they create civs that we recognize and are familiar with.

They don’t do a perfect job at balancing marketability and historical accuracy, but in my opinion they do it pretty well.

 

[Pagal]

India being treated as one civilization throughout history is grossly inappropriate. Splitting it into a Maurya civ, Gupta civ, Mughal civ, Maratha civ, and an India civ would be more appropriate. Or, since those were just temporary empires, maybe a Indo-Aryan, Dardic, Dravidian, etc. civilizations. But then again the temporary empires might be a good idea due to there never actually being a Dravidian empire.

There have certainly been very powerful South Indian (Dravidian) empires. The Chalukyas basically led to the decline and fall of Harsha's revived Gupta empire. The Cholas on the other hand, controlled all of South India, and even went so far as to conquer parts of South East Asia.

 

[Civiliz]

I would like too make two points, first is a response about my accusations of mine against Greek philosophy. I am not sure how you know this, but the first recorded Greek "philosophers" were not in Athens or Sparta or mainland Greece at all. Greek philosophy began in the colonies, especially in Asia Minor and Italy (the Elaitics), so its almost as if frontier Greeks transmitted this concept back to the mainland from the various cultures they encountered. (Biographers of Thales write that he did study in Babylon) The religion+ comment was specifically targeting Plato, as there are philosophers of the Greeks I like (Xenophon and Epicurus for example)

Second, I do like seeing my comments about the skin colour being discussed, but I fear the argument is digressing back to civ choices. It is not only what civs are chosen but how they are treated. India is a good example, it has a generic unit (War elephant) with a UB of a group of people who invaded India. India (and China) are treated as 1 civilization throughout history, even if this is grossly inappropriate. While for Euro-civs in the past they acknowledge this and make create new civilizations to accommodate them (Germany -> HRE, Rome/ Greece -> Byz)
Furthermore the wonder selection is absolutely atrocious! Most of the known wonders are Greek, and if the box art is any representation of the game (Which besides being ugly, is deeply Western-centric) none should be expected. Firaxis would rather have the Oracle (why is this here, seriously?), Shakespeare’s Theatre (R U KIDD'N?), and Big Ben (NUFF SAID) than oriental constructions such as the Altar to Heaven. Wonder choices such as this scream that the developers are either blindly ignorant or are wilfully choosing white cultural institutions.

P.S. I know the game is not out, but I have another logical dilemma to defend myself; which is more likly that a game soon to be released has more wonders, diversity, etc and that all media released simply did not have it (which raises further questions...) or that all the wonders, etc are Eurocentric because that is all that is in the game?

So.... are you going to buy the game ?

 

[johny smith]

I agree strongly with Johny Smith on only one of his points: that every civilization ever was in fact a medley of different cultural traits taken from other peoples. We all have many influences. However, this does not mean that certain peoples were not more influential than others.

Elvis Presley's music was influenced by many artists who came before him, as was the Beatles'. However, we attribute to them the incredible influence their music had on future generations rather than their inspirations (such as Little Richard for the Beatles, or certain Gospel singers in Presley’s case). Presley would be the Greeks and The Beatles would be the Romans in this example.

It is not wrong to acknowledge that certain civilizations had a greater impact on history just because they had their own inspirations.

This is history. Civ has never claimed to be a “shining beacon of historical accuracy”. Civ is a game and a game must evolve through a set of rules. A free flowing game which modeled history extremely accurately would be both boring and incredibly demanding on processing power and programming ability.

We still don’t definitely understand what caused certain civilizations to prosper and others not to throughout history in a macroscopic type of way. Have you ever read “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond? He proposes a theory to explain the rise of Eurasia since early prehistoric times, which boils down to they got lucky by having a massive east-west axis and having the most available domesticable animals and plants situated on their continent. The outcome would therefore be predetermined before even playing, that isn’t much fun.

Secondly, history evolved as it did not because of a conscious leader’s decisions throughout time, but because of unconscious evolution in behavior by each being choosing what was best for him and his family. This would therefore eliminate any need for the player, as he could just watch civs evolve naturally through incredibly complex algorithms.

So civilization chooses to incorporate civilizations based on three things: cultural influence, civ popularity in the fanbase, and geographical location. They try to maintain a balanced amount of civs from different parts in the world while ensuring there is a cultural variety, and while catering to fans’ desires. Which is to recreate history as a civilization that they recognize. Since civ is a western created and marketed game, they create civs that we recognize and are familiar with.

They don’t do a perfect job at balancing marketability and historical accuracy, but in my opinion they do it pretty well.

I just wanted to point out I do not mean only civilizations here. I mean as in the tech tree has nothing to do with history, the domestic resources are stripped of being anything important, the civilizations are not the most significant ones(but they are ones Americans have very fond stereotypes of), and I could on how ignorance with casual play is more important to the game. It is a game stereotypes and you have to at least accept the stereotype to play it. And there are many theories on how cultures rise and fall.

Fans have push this game. The same fans that could not tell anything much on overview of the history of the whole world, but could tell which way Julius Caser's hair fell on a given day. They are so focused on trivial nonsense and stereotypes it is insane.

1.“Guns, Germs and Steel” is not like some book that must be read. His examples are more advanced version of this game in many ways. That is like asking the writers here to make an more accurate cultural history. I don't think people understand there is an entire field of study dedicated to the subject. Not just one book to read. And again since another write sells a book it must be Eurasia is the best for domesticated plants otherwise you would not buy it(there is nothing that can change these stereotypes that are so entrenched). Well instead of just listening to this. Why don't you just look up where the most used domesticated plants originally were domesticated? I think you will find it fairly well distributed around the globe.

2. Culture evolved basic on climate, on technology, on language, on conquest, on many things that people did have to adjust to consciously in some cases but they did not have some grand view of their culture a 1000 years later.

So I will match the three criteria.
So civilization chooses to incorporate civilizations based on three things:Ethnicity(to draw out colors and style),Stereotypes(From TV Absorbed by at least Americans),Tolerance(Would not want to offend your fanbase to much).

I am not talking about just civilizations though I am talking the entire game has never ever been anywhere near accurate and trying to sell as history. Now for the 1990's this was ok but now this is really getting to point of looking like real issues. I mean I guess it is a statement with what really is wrong with people. They would rather not learn anything but say at the same time then say I lead my civilization through 6000 years and was a superhero leader. No wonder Americans are so dense to things outside of their country they play civilization too much.

The game reassures you of your set stereotypes. It does not add new things outside of your stereotypes otherwise if it drifted to far you would not buy the game. Just like a fantasy game. But this is not fantasy they are playing with this is history. It is no wonder that people lack of understanding of other cultures I mean look at this game. And again this is not just about civilizations selected in the game. The games entire appearance is clearly to sell out to stupid stereotypes, and make sure on top of that they go for the casual gamers(the ones that even want to know less).

I decided I just can not buy the game anymore and support the promotion of the Western lifestyle being superior and a warped technology tree that never displays any dirt on Europe(because that would not be fun), using color amplify differences(obvious American racial views), and I go on but it is just a waste of time. Modifiable or not who would I mod for. Myself?

 

[johny smith]

Let me make it clear. I say American because that is where the game is coming from. Every country does it. I would rather at least spend money on some new range of stereotypes at least if small from total different view. Meaning I would rather support something that is not oversaturated in an aka American sense. I still would not like to support a game if it has too much blatant disregard though for reality or other views. Again I do not mean only civilizations here. Anyway please do not label me as somebody who just loves to support some anti-American culture. I just am less interested in something I hear everyday, and civilization is blablabla I hear everyday.

 

[Songkok]

If you read Muslim intellectuals who wrote in the decades before 9/11 youd see that globalism was discussed a lot. And certainly the leaders many of these countries play to peoples emotions on those issues.

btw Why do you think the US went to war with Iraq?

US went to war with Iraq for its OIL of course. This fact is well reflected in the unique historical victories for America in RFC.

It is a quite well known fact that the oil in Iraq was already been planned to be portioned off to the various oil companies even during Iraq was invaded. And it is one of the major reasons why the Iraqis burnt their wells.

just to be curious, why did you think US went to war with Iraq?

 

[SalmonSoil]

The game reassures you of your set stereotypes. It does not add new things outside of your stereotypes otherwise if it drifted to far you would not buy the game. Just like a fantasy game. But this is not fantasy they are playing with this is history. It is no wonder that people lack of understanding of other cultures I mean look at this game. And again this is not just about civilizations selected in the game. The games entire appearance is clearly to sell out to stupid stereotypes, and make sure on top of that they go for the casual gamers(the ones that even want to know less).

I decided I just can not buy the game anymore and support the promotion of the Western lifestyle being superior and a warped technology tree that never displays any dirt on Europe(because that would not be fun), using color amplify differences(obvious American racial views), and I go on but it is just a waste of time. Modifiable or not who would I mod for. Myself?

Would you like to give us a list of your 18 most important civilizations?
Take into account that a civs in game represent nationalities cultures, and states, not just one of these things. And also make sure you choose civs for a wide spread over the globe.
I agree that it would be nice for the art style to differ between civs, but I really don't see how the tech tree is warped. All they've done is removed political /philosophical techs and placed them in the Social Policy trees.

Also do you realise that Jared Diamond argues against a Eurocentric world view, most of the examples he uses don't involve Europeans and his main arugment is that Europe simply had a good geographic position to dominate the world, not that Europe has superior culture, or superior people, just a better geographic position. (How else would you explain their domination of the world without being Eurocentric? Luck?)

 

[craig123]

I decided I just can not buy the game anymore and support the promotion of the Western lifestyle being superior ...

I understand your point about a Eurocentric tech tree, but how does the game show Western lifestyle as being superior?

... and a warped technology tree that never displays any dirt on Europe(because that would not be fun), ...

How can a tech tree display dirt on Europe? Or anyone for that matter? Are you asking for 'racism' to be a technology

... using color amplify differences(obvious American racial views), ...

???

Modifiable or not who would I mod for. Myself?

Probably.

 

[Geek113377]

if you're SO appalled about all this, why don't you go work for firaxis and fix it all.

 

[Sofar Sogood]

if you're SO appalled about all this, why don't you go work for firaxis and fix it all.

That's understandably a rather difficult proposition. Not only would it require programming/marketing/blahblahblah experience and all that, it'd require Firaxis to have an opening and be willing to listen to a single employees' opinion on the matter. All that and more, probably.

The advice seems rather weird anyhow. If you don't like the prices at a local store, your first thought isn't, "I should get a job here and make them change the prices!"

Is it?

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

using color to amplify differences (obvious American racial views)

I am seriously offended by that just because most Americans back in 1860 were racist doesn't mean that modern Americans are too. We are now quite tolerant thank you. Heck were not even assimilating them into our culture any more.

Also Europeans, Arabs, heck even Africans can't claim innocence.

And lastly if every civ was the same color how would we tell them apart? Would you say that every WWII Board game on the planet is racist because the Russian, German, and American units are different colors?

 

[StStutter]

I just wanted to point out I do not mean only civilizations here. I mean as in the tech tree has nothing to do with history, the domestic resources are stripped of being anything important, the civilizations are not the most significant ones(but they are ones Americans have very fond stereotypes of), and I could on how ignorance with casual play is more important to the game. It is a game stereotypes and you have to at least accept the stereotype to play it. And there are many theories on how cultures rise and fall.

My point is, they had to choose one tech tree or else it is no longer a game, it is a simulation. The tech tree is one of the fundamental rules of the game. To do it any other way, would end up with a game either incredibly unbalanced, or an actual simulation of history, which is not fun.

Fans have push this game. The same fans that could not tell anything much on overview of the history of the whole world, but could tell which way Julius Caser's hair fell on a given day. They are so focused on trivial nonsense and stereotypes it is insane.

Is this a surprise? People buy Civ expecting a game not a history lesson.

1.“Guns, Germs and Steel” is not like some book that must be read. His examples are more advanced version of this game in many ways. That is like asking the writers here to make an more accurate cultural history. I don't think people understand there is an entire field of study dedicated to the subject. Not just one book to read. And again since another write sells a book it must be Eurasia is the best for domesticated plants otherwise you would not buy it(there is nothing that can change these stereotypes that are so entrenched). Well instead of just listening to this. Why don't you just look up where the most used domesticated plants originally were domesticated? I think you will find it fairly well distributed around the globe.

I’d recommend you look them up. I’ve read the book and have actually checked a couple of his sources, and I can tell you that the continent with the most domesticable plants and animals is factually Eurasia. The fertile crescent was lucky enough to have a whole package of agriculture that satisfied a balanced diet (wheat, barley, olives, cows and goats originated here along with others), China was the only other location that had several optimal plants (rice, apples).

His argument is in no way Eurocentric because he bases the rise of power on inevitable factors that had nothing to do with any biological superiority.

Care to give examples of how I’m wrong? What have you learned from this “entire field of study”?

2. Culture evolved basic on climate, on technology, on language, on conquest, on many things that people did have to adjust to consciously in some cases but they did not have some grand view of their culture a 1000 years later.

This is exactly my point. The fun in Civ is that you do have this grand view, as I mentioned in my last post.

So I will match the three criteria.
So civilization chooses to incorporate civilizations based on three things:Ethnicity(to draw out colors and style),Stereotypes(From TV Absorbed by at least Americans),Tolerance(Would not want to offend your fanbase to much).

I am not talking about just civilizations though I am talking the entire game has never ever been anywhere near accurate and trying to sell as history. Now for the 1990's this was ok but now this is really getting to point of looking like real issues. I mean I guess it is a statement with what really is wrong with people. They would rather not learn anything but say at the same time then say I lead my civilization through 6000 years and was a superhero leader. No wonder Americans are so dense to things outside of their country they play civilization too much.

This is largely where you miss the point. The game isn’t trying to sell as history, it’s never claimed to be an exact replica of history, as I showed that would not sell or make sense. Civ is a history inspired GAME.

And that low blow on Americans was completely ridiculous. If you want a quality history education, it’s gonna cost more than the $59.90 this game does.

The game reassures you of your set stereotypes. It does not add new things outside of your stereotypes otherwise if it drifted to far you would not buy the game. Just like a fantasy game. But this is not fantasy they are playing with this is history. It is no wonder that people lack of understanding of other cultures I mean look at this game. And again this is not just about civilizations selected in the game. The games entire appearance is clearly to sell out to stupid stereotypes, and make sure on top of that they go for the casual gamers(the ones that even want to know less).

Please be more specific with these accusations of the game. We can’t discuss this unless you give some examples of these set stereotypes.

Also, this GAME has nothing to do with the broader picture of ignorance. Absolutely. Nothing.

I decided I just can not buy the game anymore and support the promotion of the Western lifestyle being superior and a warped technology tree that never displays any dirt on Europe(because that would not be fun), using color amplify differences(obvious American racial views), and I go on but it is just a waste of time. Modifiable or not who would I mod for. Myself?

Please, we can’t have a civilized discussion about these points unless you provide some concrete examples.

Are they displaying any dirt on anyone? Not that I can tell.

Color amplify difference? Like art? Yep, that’s present.

 

[j51]

But this is not fantasy they are playing with this is history.

Haven't you ever heard of alternative histories as a genre of sci-fi?

I do agree with all your views about the "History Chanel mindset" in contemporary American society, and yes, Civ does cater to that, but no, it's not Civ's fault. They're merely reflecting the times. A popular, but far from the most popular, video game is not going to change people's attitudes about history and the developers are under no obligation to try.

I too would love an accurate historical simulation game that uses civ-type mechanics. So go make it and stop whining!

 

[johny smith]

I did not mean to offend about the race thing I am not talking about racism with some intent to from makers to offend. I am only going to keep it short. Americans actually give a race on a birth certificate to everyone when you are born. The US Census asks what race you are every ten years. This is not common across the planet. There are some good reasons it is there because of US History. That is how they apply it to people in the rest of the world. Like the German that is always blond haired blue eyed. That is what I am referring to. Or the very pale skinned person that lives next to Mediterranean.

That is what in general is applied to everything in the game. I do no mean for every example. I mean it is coming from that view(yes it is natural when nothing known different to do it). Another perspective from other regions of the world would have it different. So I am not saying it is an evil intent. I am saying it is there though. The intent was one sometimes you do not know how it should look otherwise or two to make things interesting. They crank it up a notch to make the game more interesting. For better or worse any maker would. As stated above Europeans, Africans, and Arabs do you really think it is that simple? This is what I mean about as well color amplify that is based on how Americans view people look around the world.

The dirt was not meant to be tied to techs specifically I meant anything. Nothing about slavery in the game(slavery not tied to just Europe). Nothing about human or animal sacrifices intertwined in the culture except the Aztecs. Romans had to officially ban human sacrifices at one point. I mean every culture did have them. And I mean no dirt intent was not to offend. If you had one European civilization in the game appearing as lower than the others(as in showing them in a bad light like performing human sacrifices) all hell would break loose from anyone of that group. I would rather see multiple different stages for making is possible to show the changes that were made. For example human sacrifices usually occurred earlier in history. Stone Age Europe or Stone Age America were similar in this. They did not occur as often when cultures progress way pass the traditional model of the Iron Age. Sanitation practices or many features of tech tree are not there. But tech tree is more just illogical then specifically any type of centric.

The theory of Eurasia being naturally better for an origin of domestication of plants is wrong imo, but for the easier growing and spread what he purposed might be. Anthropology is the field that studies humans. It means the study of Humans. Just like every science you have some bias in areas. The only reason the book surged in popularity was basically it reassured the public that knew very little that there long held stereotypes of the world was true on Eurasia versus the rest of world. Not that they were destined genetically, but that now they have superior culture because of geography they live in Eurasia.

Do you eat Potatoes or Tomatoes or Chocolate or Corn or Grits. They come from the Americas I could go on. Africa was the first place probably for anything domesticated when the Sahara was wetter. But there are still things today you have that came from Africa. Watermelon, Coffee, Yams, and a lot more(I don't know them all) that probably have not eaten. The only place that did not have agricultural so much was Australia. So his theory on origin of plants is silly now spread perhaps. This only takes a few minutes to find. Google is your friend.

And no the game is no surprise on how it is done. But that is point no surprise. It is what I would expect. A bunch of views from some jazzed TV land History out of America. The authors are not really bad. I never said that. They are catered to hard I think for the easy dollar from nativity of the fan base and to attract to new people. They are looking for the casual gamer. That is not me with a strategy game that tries to depict the entire history of the world. I want something not catering exclusively to casual gamers and I want a game that expands into the details as it goes along in a series. The game is just going back and forth in no relation to complexity. Complex does not equal micromanagement I think the makers believe it does.

And again the dollar figure is meaningless I am willing to pay more for a good game. I mean now it even looks as new civilizations will be a new selling item alone. DLC's civs? Who is going to make the art for this game for leaders in the modding community? All of this I think was a waste of money. Modding? I will just say it looks like in order to add one thing alone it may be easy. But more work to change things back that they that think are better in Civ4 like aka Happiness tied to each city.

I am disappointed that they spend more time on making tons of art to fit in with their customer base. The customer base decides whether or not they can make a game so they are not evil. But the idea does have a bad influence in the end on people when they teach a new generation of such nonsense. I do not want to support the further spread of such historical inaccuracies. The game just does keep the ignorance in the public by repeating what is wrong that they already heard. But I am sure they will sell plenty.

P.S. I love alternate histories. I am not against that at all. But this just ends with a typical American view of society. Not so much the view of what groups of the Americas would think it would of looked like, or Chinese views. This presumes that where we are at is the best and "dog gone it" everyone sure agrees.

 

[Leoking]

I feel your point. Forst of all ditch the dutch and put the spanish. Spain conquered almost all of south and central america. What i think its that dev are'nt putting tha much in reserch for toher civs since they already have info on almost all of european countries. I wouls say Expand alot more on africa and america. Asia also needs to put some civ they should have that don't.

 

[StStutter]

I did not mean to offend about the race thing I am not talking about racism with some intent to from makers to offend. I am only going to keep it short. Americans actually give a race on a birth certificate to everyone when you are born. The US Census asks what race you are every ten years. This is not common across the planet. There are some good reasons it is there because of US History. That is how they apply it to people in the rest of the world. Like the German that is always blond haired blue eyed. That is what I am referring to. Or the very pale skinned person that lives next to Mediterranean.

That is what in general is applied to everything in the game. I do no mean for every example. I mean it is coming from that view(yes it is natural when nothing known different to do it). Another perspective from other regions of the world would have it different. So I am not saying it is an evil intent. I am saying it is there though. The intent was one sometimes you do not know how it should look otherwise or two to make things interesting. They crank it up a notch to make the game more interesting. For better or worse any maker would. As stated above Europeans, Africans, and Arabs do you really think it is that simple? This is what I mean about as well color amplify that is based on how Americans view people look around the world.

Now, I'm pretty sure Civ doesn't ever depict Germans as a blonde haired, blue eyed people, or Mediterraneans as light skinned.

And actually, many, many censuses ask for race so that they can identify cultural minorities in their country. I know as a fact that Brazil, South Africa, Guam, Bulgaria and Canada all do as well.

Once again, what is your point here? If it is that the game Civilization follows racial stereotypes, please give some specific examples to illustrate this.

The dirt was not meant to be tied to techs specifically I meant anything. Nothing about slavery in the game(slavery not tied to just Europe). Nothing about human or animal sacrifices intertwined in the culture except the Aztecs. Romans had to officially ban human sacrifices at one point. I mean every culture did have them. And I mean no dirt intent was not to offend. If you had one European civilization in the game appearing as lower than the others(as in showing them in a bad light like performing human sacrifices) all hell would break loose from anyone of that group. I would rather see multiple different stages for making is possible to show the changes that were made. For example human sacrifices usually occurred earlier in history. Stone Age Europe or Stone Age America were similar in this. They did not occur as often when cultures progress way pass the traditional model of the Iron Age. Sanitation practices or many features of tech tree are not there. But tech tree is more just illogical then specifically any type of centric.

Believing that Europeans were the only ones to utilize slavery is an incredibly naive view of the world. Slavery has existed in a large majority of civilizations on every continent. Stronger peoples always displace and impose their will on the weaker ones. This is human nature and the reason for the development of our planet today.

Please provide specific examples of what is illogical in the tech tree. Why do you think these things are illogical. Please expand.

The theory of Eurasia being naturally better for an origin of domestication of plants is wrong imo, but for the easier growing and spread what he purposed might be. Anthropology is the field that studies humans. It means the study of Humans. Just like every science you have some bias in areas. The only reason the book surged in popularity was basically it reassured the public that knew very little that there long held stereotypes of the world was true on Eurasia versus the rest of world. Not that they were destined genetically, but that now they have superior culture because of geography they live in Eurasia.

Do you eat Potatoes or Tomatoes or Chocolate or Corn or Grits. They come from the Americas I could go on. Africa was the first place probably for anything domesticated when the Sahara was wetter. But there are still things today you have that came from Africa. Watermelon, Coffee, Yams, and a lot more(I don't know them all) that probably have not eaten. The only place that did not have agricultural so much was Australia. So his theory on origin of plants is silly now spread perhaps. This only takes a few minutes to find. Google is your friend.

Ohhh, that what anthropology is.

To deny that Europeans and to a lesser degree Eurasians have shaped what our world has become today is insane. I'm sure we agree on this. So what caused that to be the way it is?

So let me try to explain the agricultural reason for this. The only major mammals domesticated outside of Eurasia in the history of mankind, and I mean domesticated, not tamed have been the dog in North America, possibly the cow in North Africa, and the llama/alpaca in the Andes. There was also the turkey with the Aztecs. Thats it. Period. This is a fact. Everything else spread from Eurasia.

In terms of domesticable plants, let me give a brief overview of what each region developed, and you tell me which sound like sufficiently nutritious to create a shift from hunter-gatherers to sedentary civilizations:

Mesoamerica: corn, common bean, squashes. Without any truly efficient animals.

Andes: corn, lima bean, peanut, squashes. Llamas

Eastern United States: Maygrass, goosefoot, squash

New Guineea: Sugar Cane

Mind you, these are simply in ancient times, a couple more have been added since then. Everything else was slowly imported to these places from their original location, giving them a later start.

And Africa was the first place for anything to be domesticated? I don't think so. It is well known that it was the Fertile Crescent, the Cradle of Civilization that gave birth to agriculture.

And no the game is no surprise on how it is done. But that is point no surprise. It is what I would expect. A bunch of views from some jazzed TV land History out of America. The authors are not really bad. I never said that. They are catered to hard I think for the easy dollar from nativity of the fan base and to attract to new people. They are looking for the casual gamer. That is not me with a strategy game that tries to depict the entire history of the world. I want something not catering exclusively to casual gamers and I want a game that expands into the details as it goes along in a series. The game is just going back and forth in no relation to complexity. Complex does not equal micromanagement I think the makers believe it does.

Examples? How is it like this. Examples, examples, examples. Give me EXAMPLES.

And again the dollar figure is meaningless I am willing to pay more for a good game. I mean now it even looks as new civilizations will be a new selling item alone. DLC's civs? Who is going to make the art for this game for leaders in the modding community? All of this I think was a waste of money. Modding? I will just say it looks like in order to add one thing alone it may be easy. But more work to change things back that they that think are better in Civ4 like aka Happiness tied to each city.

Irrelevant. I don't know what point you're trying to make here. You don't like the idea of DLC? Fair enough.

Yes modding is a lot of work. So is programming. How else would you like them to make it?

I am disappointed that they spend more time on making tons of art to fit in with their customer base. The customer base decides whether or not they can make a game so they are not evil. But the idea does have a bad influence in the end on people when they teach a new generation of such nonsense. I do not want to support the further spread of such historical inaccuracies. The game just does keep the ignorance in the public by repeating what is wrong that they already heard. But I am sure they will sell plenty.

This game doesn't spread any knowledge. Its a game loosely based on history. If you want something else, you will have to find a different game.

P.S. I love alternate histories. I am not against that at all. But this just ends with a typical American view of society. Not so much the view of what groups of the Americas would think it would of looked like, or Chinese views. This presumes that where we are at is the best and "dog gone it" everyone sure agrees.

What views does it utilize and what other views would you like included. You are throwing accusations around willy-nilly without backing any of them up. Please be less vague.

I'm sorry I couldn't respond better to some of these points you tried to make. But without specific examples I can't actually comment on what you mean because I don't know exactly.

 

[johny smith]

I do not want to write a whole long post. I will just say the answer to the question of why Europe or Asia or any place is the way it is today is technology. Corn should be a technology not just exist out of luck. The Americas never had the wheel. The wheel came from the potters wheel. There are lot of things that the original Americans did not know they lead them down a different path. Rubber was from the Americas they used to as insulation on their feet. Europe did not.

So anyway this just an example. There are hundreds if not thousands. The point is somehow you must accept the first rule that Europe is superior and then there are ways to explain how for this game or the book. I am saying Europe is not superior. Many people in every culture think they are superior because they do not even know about what another culture finds more important. Aka for example Germans would think they are superior in making beer or playing soccer versus Americans. I would tend to agree but that is how the superiority ideas spread over whole perceptions of what one culture things is more important to be superior in. Ya and this means I don't care because I come from etc....Well if you don't care you can not make an alternate history.