A reasonable plea - don't be so shallow

[sir_schwick]

I know this post I'm about to make will continue the discussion and so pray I am not booted from these forums.

This is from a Rober Ludlam book called The Janson Directive. It is said by an Athenian intelligence broker during a conversation with the book's antagonist.
"People don't hate America for what it does, but for what it is. When the giant man poots on boots he does understand why the ants below him fear and loathe him."
I'm not sure if that was quoted 100% correct. That is not neccessarily my opinion, but I mentioned it to ask non-American nationals if they thought that was a valid prospective on anti-Americanism, not that I am accusing anyone of it.

 

[dh_epic]

I do think there is tangible stuff that America does -- where if they stopped doing it they would be the victim of less hatred. Did you know that Olympians have actually been advised this year to NOT wave the American flag? I'm a Canadian, and in some ways our country is the original Anti-America... and this is just plain WRONG to me. The actions in the past four years have provoked this kind of sentiment... and actions that were supposed to make America and the world safer have made people feel more angry, more extreme, more divided.

As for the game... I figure "Civilization" is a funny term. And when France is there before the Minoan civilization, I don't complain, I recognize the focus. So there's nothing Western-Centric about having an "America" civ.

The Western-Centric comes from a few things, off the top of my head:

- democracy experiences the least corruption
- democracy is the most peace loving (intrinsically hates war)
- democratic cities are invincible to propaganda
- democracy ties political freedom to economic prosperity
- colonies are these little things you build to get a resource. how quaint!
- religion starts out as polytheistic and moves to monotheism
- the positive effects of religion are to reduce unhappiness and produce culture (what about improving law and morality, decreasing corruption?)
- there is no more religious progress by the industrial age
- the tech tree obviously follows mesopotamia --> aegean --> mediterranean --> europe --> america

Just to name a few quick ones. We'll start with those, so people can point to them and say "yeah, so what's wrong with that?"

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is another one. The Knight is the ultimate war machine of the Middle Ages. Hardly true, they were very tough opponents, but Eastern armies had some interesting units too. The Arab special unit should probably be the Hashinin(5/4/1, requires Spices) and come with Feudalism.

No government that accurately reflects China(Socilaist politics, b/c communism is an economic system, and semi-capitalistic econmics).

 

[superpelon]

CivIII rocks. I still enjoy playing it. as do alot of other people. SO WHAT if the Aztecs never had firearms?? SO WHAT!?!?! thats the fun part of civ... I KNOW that the Great Wall could never be built by the Sumerians... and that it DID NOT "place city walls" in ever hamlet, village city etc etc

Dont like it?? Mod it. Still dont like it?? Mod it MORE. Still dont like it. Give your copy to someone who will like it.

CIV3 ROCKS!

 

[mitsho]

And look at the wonders. I mean Leonardo's Workshop? Newtons University? Shakespeare's Theatre? Or the buildings. Cathedral?

mfG mitsho

 

[warpstorm]

Sun Tzu, The Hanging Gardens, The Pyramids, The Great Wall...

 

[mitsho]

Ok, but these are WONDERS (with the exception of Sun Tzu's). Two of the threee I named aren't even wonders. I mean, Leonardo's workshop? Hu? Newton's University. Or copernicus... These are men, not wonders. If you want to include newton's university, then please name it like it was in reality (meaning oxford or so, don't recall on which uni he worked... )
The fact that they are eurocentric comes therefore, that they invented these wonders and took eurocentric names. they could have taken these 'invented' wonders one from each cultural group, but they took all from 'europe'.

I know, Sun Tzu's is the big exception.

mitsho

 

[warpstorm]

Fair enough. Like has been stated before, Civ1 was made by an American for Americans. Civ2 was pretty much the same. Civ3 started down the path of internationalization, but the customer base is still primarily Westerners. If they had put all wonders and units and buildings from other cultures, they could have lost a bit of their primary customer base as it wouldn't have been as accessible and engaging to the average customer (if you are reading this, you are not the average customer). The average customer does know the Western civ cultural icons and references in the game. They would not know them from, say, Indian history.

Yes, there is a pro-Western bias in the game. As members of that culture, the Firaxians will naturally tend to lean that way.

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is my partial solution to this obvious eurocentrism, make it so all Wonders/Improvements/Units have unique looks and names by Cultural group. This still means you can have only one Pyramid type structure, and one great Observatory or great University. Here though, the wonder would be named off of the closest thing that did or theorhetically would model the situation. For example, Sun Tzu's Art of War could be called West Point(Americans). Leonardo's Workshop could be Archimedes Workshop(Hellenes/Greeks). Shakespeare's Theatre could be the Theatre Dionysis(Greeks/Hellenes). That would make wonders unique each game, and more logical to alternate world history.

 

[sir_schwick]

ddulbe post i know, but i love the term Firaxians. I think I will mod that in as a civ, the GL could be Sid Mier, Brian Reynolds, etc. Props to warpstorm

 

[Stid]

i cant believe there are people here who are critising the civ game! its unfathomable! this game may not be perfect but its one of the only things keeping me alive through these summer holidays (i realise i should get out more) this is the only game ive got at the moment which i bought before this year that i still play.and it wasnt just last year but the year before that! how many other people here can say that? it must be more than half of you. by simply registering with this forum you are a fan of the civ seris.i never had a computer when civ1 came out but from what ive heard, that and the other sid games of its time revolutionised the gaming industry selling millions of copies.it cant be that bad a game surely if the 4th is due to be released next year.it may be far from perfect but i play it cos its addictive and never grows old. its the only game where you are fully incharge of the outcome through your actions which makes it so unique compared to others where the storyline is pre-dertermined and no matter how many times you play it, you cannot change the way it finally pans out.the whole point is that you pick your civilization and lead them the way you would have effectively changing their role in the world.its a "what if?" game designed to suit YOU and your wishes not vice versa.fraxis and sid etc have done the best job they can and if you think you can do better i challenge you to make a game of which they frantically do hours and hours of research on.have you every read the accurate descriptions of each civs or weapons or wonders or wars....the list could go on.id rather appreciate what they've done than criticise them. Phew! glad i got that of my chest.

(sorry but i cant have people griefing my favourite game )

 

[superpelon]

CIVIII ROCKS!!!

the Aztecs have always been a civ!! And I have to agree that CivIII did go more for the international consumer... just look at the civs in the expansion packs... Mayans, Incas... add that to the Aztecs and you have Latin America down... Koreans, Arabs, Dutch and Spanish are added to make the game much more likable to the international gamers...

but hey, Ive been playing civ since VGA monitors where cutting-edge tecnology. And even if they DO remove the Aztecs... ill still play it... modded, unmodded, scenarios... ill play. and so will you... and you... and you...

so why complain?!

 

[Bibor]

Thanks to all the members of forum who took this thread seriously.

Take for example: warrior, temple, spearman, infantry, battleship, bank etc. - these are pretty generic and apply to all civilizations.
Then, there are cathedral, monotheism, caravel, knight etc. that are not-so-generic.

The changes that need to be applied are so minimal that I'd call them cosmetic. And modding is not a solution. A majority of players don't mod their CIV.

-kirby

 

[superpelon]

This is my last post on this thread:

Any game is bound to have something that someone doesnt like. I kinda dislike the fact that ritual sacrifice is only present in the Mesoamerican scenario... a "genocide" button should be added to all those civs who have wiped out or have tried to wipe out another civ... i WONT name any civs, just about every civ should have this... But i still play Civ3 and ENJOY Civ3.

Some things that Kirby pointed out are true... the might be a bit of bais towards western cultures... (we are discussing this in English, enough said), but thats life. When Civ4 comes out. Im gonna buy it. Even if it has George W. Bush in the intro movie closing the US-Mex border and calling us Mexicans barbarians... id buy it, just to beat it. Its a GAME... enjoy it.

Kirby: try Rise of Nations... all the units are diffrent for each nation... the US isnt in the original game and there are alot of UU... and its fun...

 

[dh_epic]

The whole "if you don't like it, then you must be a civ hater, so stop playing it" reminds me a lot about what's going on in the USA with the Iraq War and George Bush.

People criticize not because they hate Civ... but because they love it. I hope the truth in that is self-evident.

Be that as it may, I agree with Bibor that even cosmetic changes would be a huge step... perhaps even sufficient. What would a japanese pyramid look like? I don't know, but it would be pretty damn cool to see it.

Civ is a game not just about history, but about possibilities. But in my head, when I think of possibilities, I don't think of the Iroquois walking around in Europeans suits spending paper money to see a Native American Britney Spears. It has to be more than different Civilizations following the same path.

I think of Fascism prevailing as the "First World Government", instead of prevailing as a swear word (you Fascists!). I think of India being the colonizer of Britain. I imagine oil running out in 1996, and the world going to war over the reserves. I imagine a polytheistic world view persisting where our Presidents and Rock Stars are considered living Gods -- and their law is treated as the word.

But the game isn't there yet. ... Still, I hope it takes strides towards that.

 

[sir_schwick]

Be that as it may, I agree with Bibor that even cosmetic changes would be a huge step... perhaps even sufficient. What would a japanese pyramid look like? I don't know, but it would be pretty damn cool to see it.

Exactly, I think the real point of this thread is that the Western focus, whether it be slight or significant, reduces the possiblities of the game. Many of the historians in us wonder what the world would have been like if China had not had a sudden shift to isolationism in the 16th century. We wonder what it would have been like if Constantinople had not fallen. Now all you relive in civ is the history of Western Civlization, instead of all civilization.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I think some people have a problem with the Americans being a Civ, when you also have the native American tribes in the game. But the Yanks are a Civ too, even if they're essentially European (of course not only) immigrants and even if this may all look a bit weird next to the Iroquois, Aztecs etc. And what would people expect from an American made game, with America being a very large market?

Well, I really don't see what the issue is. Just because America isn't as old as some other civilizations doesn't mean they're not worthy of being included. It's been the dominant world power for 100 years in a time when that's nothing to scoff at. It's been in existence for 2/4 of the ages in Civ (which is more than some civs can say ) and has been the birthplace of many ideas, technologies, important people, cultural icons and more.

Fact is, most civs look weird when thrown into a 4000 BC context. Civ is a game of abstraction, and having different civs to play is simply a way to add flavor to the game. Up until Civ 3, there was no difference between the civs at all, aside from naming stuff.

Variety is never a bad thing.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think the shallowness being displayed is thinking that CIV should represent someone's pet views about real-worrld politics. Not to mention griping about them on a forum dedicated to a game. And that's all I have to say on the subject.

 

[sir_schwick]

The main complaint, at least for me, is that only the history of Western civilization is represented. We want the variety of the history and developement of all civlizations represented. All civs develop virtually the same way in terms of relioing, civics, etc. They didn't in life and that variety for historical simulation and just game variety doesn't exist.