All Nine Revealed?

[Dragonflow]

Seeing how everyone here is so certain that it will be Venice, I really want it to NOT be Venice. I just want for the BNW team to, on the Civ 5 facebook page, say, "It's not Venice." Man, wouldn't that be fun...

But anyway, can someone explain to me this whole thing with the Pueblo? Why can't it be them?

It's not exactly clear whether they've been scrapped or not.
Long story short: The Pueblo Council protested against Firaxis using Popé as the leader for the Pueblo. So Firaxis scrapped Popé and maybe the entire Pueblo civ with him.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Partially so... It's more than the history of many of the nations on the rest of the world was lost, we know that many cultures existed in America, but we don't know what they did, because either oral tradition was lost, or the few records were destroyed with the colony... And the history we know does focus on showing Europe as the center of the World, hence we here in America "were discovered", rather than we both met up... And that the other continents were hugely diverse, but were drawn as stereotypes throught history quite a lot...

Look, I'm not saying that there should be no Europe or Italy or whatever... But the game IS Eurocentric, it's very nitpicky about differentiating civs that were not so different in Europe, but merging together others like Polynesia or India... (Another nitpick, there are 2 city-styles for Europe: European and Mediterranian, but one for all Asian, one for all American, and one for both Africa and Middle East...)

Thing is... It is understandable , that's how we've been learning history for too long ... And I enjoy the game like that, and in fact... Civ 5 is by far the less eurocentric of all Civ Games so I'm extremely happy with that already hehe...

Anyway, I actually became a fan of Enrico Dandolo, so I don't care that much

It is Euro/Middle East-centric but there are reasons for it. With the exception of China (which has always had a higher degree of uniformity to it than Europe, even in the warring periods, and so can only really be one civ, or maybe two) this is where all the cool stuff was happening. It's where civilisation first took off (hence egypt, babylon, assyria, persia, greece, rome and later ottomans, arabians, byzantines), and it's where the reneissance/enlightenment/age of sail exploded from the dark ages (Hence why a reneissance italy is totally fine with me).
To be fair, I'm not sure why they needed Austria, Poland and Germany (2 would have been fine) or the Celts (even though I'm British), so it could be reduced a little (and I'd love to see more and better Indian representation), I think it's generally a fair reflection of the importance of the regions to civilisation as a whole throughout history, coupled with the level of detailed information we have about the civlisations that occupied the lands.

 

[Seek]

I think Nepal is a cop-out for Tibet, personally, and I strongly doubt we'll see Tibet any time soon.

Why's that? It would make a great civ and seems glaring in it's omission.

 

[UnitedSquadron]

Venice has about a 90% chance now, so I'm pretty sure it's in. I'm pretty sure a native american civ is in. However, it could be a different civ. Firaxis might decide that they want to troll us by adding a non-venetian european civ and one that was totally unexpected.

 

[UnitedSquadron]

Why's that? It would make a great civ and seems glaring in it's omission.

Because, China would not be pleased with that decision due to political tensions involving tibet, and I don't think Firaxis wants to have the game banned there. It would be an interesting civ though.

 

[Gucumatz]

Hopefully we don't see the Sioux again. I put the odds for the Sioux at 45%, far from a guarantee.

We already have Berber Cavalry and Kate told us that we would have a unit that would have 34 strength, while possible that it meant only one of these units - how she made it seem that it alone was possible to change, makes me as well that we will not see another cavalry unit.

The Sioux are easily one of the least deserving of the main Native American civs talked about. Many of us don't want them and the hate against the Native American Civ in Civ 4 wasn't indiscriminate. The Sioux have only been in one iteration of the game before and Sitting Bull was in 2. They are by no means a fan favorite civ, it would be a disappointment if they were in compared to the alternatives

Plus we only have 3 scenario related civs at the moment. Its possible we could see another African civ. I don't think the odds are terrible for another African civ, but the new "Deluxe" scenario makes that seem less likely now

 

[UnitedSquadron]

I put the odds f another African civ. I don't think the odds are terrible for another African civ, but the new "Deluxe" scenario makes that seem less likely now

Sorry if I'm behind, but what is this deluxe scenario?

 

[Gucumatz]

A slip up in a vid, it appears to be a revamp of the "New World" scenario DLC. There is a separate thread for it here as well in this forum

 

[ehecatzin]

Venice seems to be very likely, the clues all point that way, and TBH, I dont mind their inclusion.

As for the native American civ, I dont get the Sioux love, or rather that they are being stapled with the "fan favorite" label, at least I dont see it. Considering that Firaxis is going for a lot of first timers in BNW, as well as exploring cultures they have neglected in the past, I dont see the Sioux as very likely, they were originaly going for the Pueblo, that should give us a clue on their priorities for a native civ.

I think Shawnee are more likely, as other have mentioned, due to color theory, the axeman UU, originality as well as a recognizable leader. Even if we get a third expansion I dont see them adding the Sioux, considering the native horse nomad niche could be filled with a much more succesful far reaching civ, Comancheria. I mean, in one of their longest raids they got about 100 miles from Mexico City, it makes your head spin.

 

[JFD]

They are by no means a fan favorite civ.

This poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=494067 begs to differ and that doesn't scratch the surface of the wider game fanbase.

Considering that Firaxis is going for a lot of first timers in BNW.

This is not necessarily a design choice.

 

[Gucumatz]

What does that prove exactly? 43% would put the Sioux as an expected civ. Far from a fan favorite. That's around the odds I have them getting in too - 45%.

 

[JFD]

What does that prove exactly? 43% would put the Sioux as an expected civ. Far from a fan favorite. That's around the odds I have them getting in too - 45%.

The majority of the fanbase will likely prefer something with which they are familiar. The Sioux fulfills that role. You can't say everyone voted for what they expected, rather than what they wanted, when the poll unhelpfully accepts either-or.

I have no affinity for the Sioux, I'm just saying that you can't pronounce with such absoluteness that they are far from a fan favourite when there is no evidence to indicate that this is true.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The Sioux aren't like the Zulu though. The Zulu add a certain character to the game. The Sioux don't do that. Nobody complained for 20 straight pages that Sweden should have been the Sioux.

The initial selection of the Pueblo indicates that Firaxis was looking for something a little atypical for Native Americans, and you won't get that with the Sioux. They are the biggest Native American cliche.

And why would they pick a cliche when there is so much variety among Native Americans to choose from? The Shawnees can represent both mound builders and Tecumseh's coalition. The Seminoles can be a swampland turtle civ. I'm not sure about the Powhatan Confederacy, I don't know them well. The Tlingit can be a coastal civ.

 

[Gucumatz]

Of course not everyone voted that they 'expected it'. The only reason some are familiar with the Sioux is because they have been in before unlike some of the other options there. :rollseyes: They are no favorite - No "Favorite" Civ would get as much hate as they do and still crack below 50% in a poll like that, which is generous to them too because it includes what people expect rather than want.

The Sioux would be a massive dissapointment

 

[Nujabes]

The Sioux aren't like the Zulu though. The Zulu add a certain character to the game. The Sioux don't do that.

This is such an arbitrary, vague statement though. What is a "certain character"? The Sioux and the Zulu are very similar in terms of being known largely for their confrontations with white people, but as far as I can tell, hardly anyone actually wants to play as the Zulu and most arguments for their inclusion are "they were in before," much like the Sioux. If they can do something interesting with the Sioux, cool. Otherwise, whatever. I doubt it'll be more boring than this instance of the Zulu.

 

[JFD]

The demand for the Sioux is nowhere near as high as was for the Zulu, but that is not my point. I'm just saying that there is no evidence to say that the Sioux are far from a fan favourite. Saying they are by no means a fan favourite is presumptuous. They could at least be by the means of being a familiarity.

Of course not everyone voted that they 'expected it'. The only reason some are familiar with the Sioux is because they have been in before unlike some of the other options there. :rollseyes: They are no favorite - No "Favorite" Civ would get as much hate as they do and still crack below 50% in a poll like that, which is generous to them too because it includes what people expect rather than want.

No. To an American audience, the Sioux would be known by virtue of Sitting Bull's renown. I do not see the "as much hate" that you talk about. Just because it is not a fan favourite here, amongst the historically versed, does not mean you can willfully pronounce it is not a fan favourite amongst the wider, target audience.

 

[Gucumatz]

"Riot for Zulu" has never been applied to Sitting Bull. Anything the Sioux did, another Native American civ did better. The Pueblo almost (and perhaps still) inclusion shows that they didn't want to go the Sioux route again which got massive hatred on the Civ - 4 forums. While I think the Sioux odds are now higher than they once were, the Sioux don't have any of that same appeal as the Zulu did to people

 

[JFD]

"Riot for Zulu" has never been applied to Sitting Bull. Anything the Sioux did, another Native American civ did better. The Pueblo almost (and perhaps still) inclusion shows that they didn't want to go the Sioux route again which got massive hatred on the Civ - 4 forums. While I think the Sioux odds are now higher than they once were, the Sioux don't have any of that same appeal as the Zulu did to people

I've never said that the Sioux had as high a popularity as the Zulu. The comparison I was making was why they were popular and this, I posited, was a matter of familiarity. Anything that the Sioux did, another Native American civ did better, sure, but I'm not arguing that the Sioux should be in, nor am I arguing that an alternative wouldn't ultimately prove more popular, nor am I arguing that Firaxis hasn't had the intent of using an alternative.

 

[awesome]

Unfortunately, "history as a whole" doesn't include a lot of peoples.

 

[Tinker]

As someone who knows nothing whatsoever about Native American tribes, I wouldn't mind any one of these over another. To an ignorant European like me, I'd never even heard of the Pueblo, and past the Apache, Cherokee, Iroquois and Sioux, I couldn't have named you any Native American tribes whatsoever. However, considering they were going to put in the Pueblo (which probably few people would've guessed), I really doubt the Sioux have any edge over anyone else.