Are we trapped by design decisions into very limited gameplay, with an illusion of choice?

[queenpea]

I'm personally expecting a trio of indigenous North American civs in the base game, as many people have theorized, with the Shawnee being an alternate historical path in the Exploration Age.

I don’t think we’ve seen evidence of any Modern NA indigenous civ. Have we?

 

[TheGrayFox]

considering they keep their city names, with the exception of the capital, if they want, their tradition, and their unique buildings, it seems this interpretation of the mechanism is wrong.

they're becoming the US, they're not replaced by it.

and they played the game for 2 years, they seemed fine with it during the presentation.

They "become" the US, after a crisis that leaves their civilization so effected that their people disappear and then a new US civilization is created somehow which builds over old Shawnee's cities and starts naming cities in their empire after American ones and adopting American civics*

The civ swapping or "layering" that Firaxis describe trying to abstract involves civilizations being conquered or assimilated and ultimately replaced by other groups. Roman Britain didn't just become Norman England. The Shawnee doesn't just become the United States, just like the Aztecs don't just become Mexcio, that's not how history works.

Also you're assuming that the consultation was allowed to play the entire game or was consulted about anything other than how their tribe is specfically modelled in game.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The people whose responsibility it is to take care of the Shawnee have concluded that the inclusion of the Shawnee in Civ VII is not problematic. Unlike making everyone agree, that's actually a reasonable standard to expect Firaxis to fulfill.

Again why are we assuming that these Shawnee representitives played through the entire game and were consultated about anything other than how their civilization specifically was represented in the game through leaders, units, and unique buildings?

Or that these two consulted speak for all Shawnee. You know that the chief they interviewed is only the leader of one of three Shawnee groups right?

 

[stealth_nsk]

You may have missed my point. No one has a problem that the Shawnee are in the game. I think it’s great.

The touchy part is situating them as a pre-modern civ. So far, we don’t have evidence of a modern, indigenous North American civ, so a switch to USA is likely.

Previous civ games have avoided some of the hot topics you are referring to, so whitewashing is absolutely part of how Firaxis treats Civ.

This was a theme of one of the first posts on this forum after Civ7 announced ages and Shawnee. That was way before the live stream with Shawnee representatives, so I'm pretty sure Firaxis addressed this and Shawnee themselves have no problems with their representation as an exploration-era civ.

 

[TheGrayFox]

This was a theme of one of the first posts on this forum after Civ7 announced ages and Shawnee. That was way before the live stream with Shawnee representatives, so I'm pretty sure Firaxis addressed this and Shawnee themselves have no problems with their representation as an exploration-era civ.

1) One Shawnee chief does represent ALL The shawnee

2) We still don't know how much of the game these Shawnee representives actually played or how much they were informed about how civ swapping and eras would work specifically

 

[stealth_nsk]

1) One Shawnee chief does represent ALL The shawnee

2) We still don't know how much of the game these Shawnee representives actually played or how much they were informed about how civ swapping and eras would work specifically

1. They've mentioned what they consulted with both eastern and western Shawnee, although, I believe, eastern were much more involved.
2. Yes, we can't say for sure, but I believe the chances for Firaxis not addressing this issue are really low, considering the circumstances.

 

[TheGrayFox]

1. They've mentioned what they consulted with both eastern and western Shawnee, although, I believe, eastern were much more involved.
2. Yes, we can't say for sure, but I believe the chances for Firaxis not addressing this issue are really low, considering the circumstances.

and I think the chances that they didn't tell them are higher considering that they didn't speak to eras or civ swapping at all in their consultation interview

but that's me also making an assumption

 

[queenpea]

1. They've mentioned what they consulted with both eastern and western Shawnee, although, I believe, eastern were much more involved.
2. Yes, we can't say for sure, but I believe the chances for Firaxis not addressing this issue are really low, considering the circumstances.

What, in your mind, would fix the issue other than the existence of a Modern indigenous NA civ?

 

[gdr_willter]

They "become" the US, after a crisis that leaves their civilization so effected that their people disappear and then a new US civilization is created somehow which builds over old Shawnee's cities and starts naming cities in their empire after American ones and adopting American civics*

The civ swapping or "layering" that Firaxis describe trying to abstract involves civilizations being conquered or assimilated and ultimately replaced by other groups. Roman Britain didn't just become Norman England. The Shawnee doesn't just become the United States, just like the Aztecs don't just become Mexcio, that's not how history works.

But they have become those. There surely were some interactions, collisions, crisises, and stabilizations. These all were structured as the "contexts". Some of these were the gradual transitions. Some were unifications. Some were the replacements. Some were the conquests. Some were the modern colonizations. That's how history work.

You affirmed that Civ 7 deal the history with wrong way. But how? Did you played the crisis system they introduced? Why are you sure about they will not provide the enough context to feel the civ switching works well?

 

[TheGrayFox]

But they have become those.

No they didn't become those, they got conquered and assimilated into a subject status under the United States, a completely different civilization.

There surely were some interactions, collisions, crisises, and stabilizations. These all were structured as the "contexts". Some of these were the gradual transitions. Some were unifications. Some were the replacements. Some were the conquests. Some were the modern colonizations. That's how history work.

But the post I was quoting was implying that the interpretation of genocide and conquest for civ swapping inbetween eras was wrong.....

You affirmed that Civ 7 deal the history with wrong way. But how? Did you played the crisis system they introduced?

Can you point out in the history books where the Abbasids just become Buganda or when there was a crisises the entire world faced at the same exact time that forced them might morph into completely different and unrelated cultural groups altogether?

 

[stealth_nsk]

What, in your mind, would fix the issue other than the existence of a Modern indigenous NA civ?

Probably you quoted the wrong person, because I don't think there's an issue. Most likely Shawnee are totally ok with them being represented at all and they don't pay that much attention to potential historical paths the way we do.

And, honestly, I don't think having modern indigenous NA civ is a solution in any way, because letting Shawnee progress to another indigenous civ could be viewed as even more offensive than progressing to America.

P.S. Now what I'm thinking about it. Imagine playing as Tecumseh and progressing to America. Now you have American civilization led by Tecumseh. I don't think that version of America is anyhow offensive to Shawnee as it implies them being one of the lead people in this country.

 

[queenpea]

And, honestly, I don't think having modern indigenous NA civ is a solution in any way, because letting Shawnee progress to another indigenous civ could be viewed as even more offensive than progressing to America.

I completely disagree on this point. The Shawnee -> USA could be interpreted as simulated genocide while Shawnee -> Cree, or whomever, would simply be a "regional" transition, like we have seen with Songhai to Buganda (which is crazy but not as controversial).

1. They've mentioned what they consulted with both eastern and western Shawnee, although, I believe, eastern were much more involved.
2. Yes, we can't say for sure, but I believe the chances for Firaxis not addressing this issue are really low, considering the circumstances.

This is what I'm curious about. You are saying that you believe Firaxis will address this, and I am curious what you imagine would be an appropriate way to address it.

 

[gdr_willter]

No they didn't become those, they got conquered and assimilated into a subject status under the United States, a completely different civilization.

You really think all of those people are just vanished to void? I mean, it's partially a fact for the Native American because the US government did it to them, but not for every switching in the world. Egyptian still lives there as Egyptian, Korean still lives there as Korean, after the periods they being a part of the other empires.

But the post I was quoting was implying that the interpretation of genocide and conquest for civ swapping inbetween eras was wrong.....

He just told about in-game situations. I also want to see a modern NA civ for Mississippians and Shawnees. But if I have both possible routes, I'll willingly choose both of them for the gameplay benefits. Because the Civilization franchise always has been an alternative history game, so it's not a problem with imagining like - "I'm a Shawnee chief, and I have to adopt western technology for defend my people and home... They called this whole continent 'America', so we are 'United States of America' from now on."

Can you point out in the history books where the Abbasids just become Buganda or when there was a crisises the entire world faced at the same exact time that forced them might morph into completely different and unrelated cultural groups altogether?

As a Korean, who is the nation faced the era-changes which were triggered by foreign civilizations several times, I think the historical leaps were existed and they affected globally within not so long term - which was short enough to roughly describe as simultaneously in the casual game like Civ franchise. The leaps like, "Rise and Fall of the Mongolian empire", "Introducing of the gunpowder as weapons", "Flood of the imperialism and the colonialism", or "The end of WW2 and boom of newborn nations".

 

[pokiehl]

The touchy part is situating them as a pre-modern civ. So far, we don’t have evidence of a modern, indigenous North American civ, so a switch to USA is likely.

Whatever the case ends up being, the Shawnee were heavily involved in the design process for the civ and surely they were explained the mechanics and what would happen in the Modern Age.

They signed off on it, so if they’re OK with it, I don’t see the problem.

 

[TheGrayFox]

You really think all of those people are just vanished to void? I mean, it's partially a fact for the Native American because the US government did it to them, but not for every switching in the world. Egyptian still lives there as Egyptian, Korean still lives there as Korean, after the periods they being a part of the other empires.

No i don't think all these people just vanished into the void, no where did I even imply that. that's a called strawman.

He just told about in-game situations. I also want to see a modern NA civ for Mississippians and Shawnees. But if I have both possible routes, I'll willingly choose both of them for the gameplay benefits. Because the Civilization franchise always has been an alternative history game, so it's not a problem with imagining like - "I'm a Shawnee chief, and I have to adopt western technology for defend my people and home... They called this whole continent 'America', so we are 'United States of America' from now on."

No he just told someone they were wrong for implying that the process of civ swapping modeled in the game isn't representing conquest and genocide but rather the Shawnee just "turning into" the US. Which is simply wrong because the United States is a very real civilization with its own very real history

As a Korean, who is the nation faced the era-changes which were triggered by foreign civilizations several times, I think the historical leaps were existed and they affected globally within not so long term - which was short enough to roughly describe as simultaneously in the casual game like Civ franchise. The leaps like, "Rise and Fall of the Mongolian empire", "Introducing of the gunpowder as weapons", "Flood of the imperialism and the colonialism", or "The end of WW2 and boom of newborn nations".

Outside of modern Japanese colonization, Korea could be represented by a distinctly Korean state or dynasty for every single era in the game.

Also no bud, the entire world doesn't under go crises all at the same time which forces every single nation on earth to become another completely unrelated cultural group. That's not how history works

 

[TheGrayFox]

Whatever the case ends up being, the Shawnee were heavily involved in the design process for the civ and surely they were explained the mechanics and what would happen in the Modern Age.

They signed off on it, so if they’re OK with it, I don’t see the problem.

another assumption

Moderator Action: Please stop trolling. leif

 

[Zaarin]

They signed off on it, so if they’re OK with it, I don’t see the problem.

This. If the Shawnee are excited about it, we don't need to clutch pearls and be offended on their behalf.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I completely disagree on this point. The Shawnee -> USA could be interpreted as simulated genocide while Shawnee -> Cree, or whomever, would simply be a "regional" transition, like we have seen with Songhai to Buganda (which is crazy but not as controversial).



This is what I'm curious about. You are saying that you believe Firaxis will address this, and I am curious what you imagine would be an appropriate way to address it.

1. It's Shawnee -> America, not Shawnee -> USA. Big difference here, because in "what if" game the particular America could vary a lot. And without knowing all the local culture and history you can't say how potentially offending evolving from Shawnee to Cree could be (cultures growing nearby often have deep grudges and prejudices against each other).
2. The appropriate way is to ask different Shawnee representatives how they feel about it. If they aren't offended, problem is solved.

So overall, the solution to consult with Shawnee and ask what they found offensive is the best solution to me and Firaxis seem to go that route.

 

[gdr_willter]

Also no bud, the entire world doesn't under go crises all at the same time which forces every single nation on earth to become another completely unrelated cultural group. That's not how history works.

You're not listening to me. Okay then. I'll quit. But remember this: history is not yours. Every person has their own historical sense, and you can't blame them just because their sense is not same with yours.

 

[TheGrayFox]

This. If the Shawnee are excited about it, we don't need to clutch pearls and be offended on their behalf.

Again why are we assuming that the Shawnee were consulted about ANYTHING outside of how their civilization is represented in game via unique buildings, units, and its leader?