Aztec - Montezuma I Thread

[Zaarin]

Native Americans, pre-white conquest, had (and have) a wide variety of skin tones. Monty's skin tone looks fine; it's the shape of his face that doesn't look very Aztec to me. Lack of skull-flattening is also a problem, as both the Aztecs and Mayans considered skull-deformation a sign of noble birth.

 

[ehecatzin]

What's over his head in that codex picture? A shade? Maybe there is something to that theory about him being an emperor and staying out of the sun...

Actually thats, his name. the codex does this thing were they draw a line from the person to the Gliph or Pictogram of his/her name. So in this case its Moctezuma Ilhuicamina , "Ilhuicamina" shoots at the heaven, or close to it, you may also translate it to He who pierces the Heavens (Insert Gurren Lagann joke here)

just to provide another example, Axayacatl, water face would be:

Spoiler :

 

[Martinus]

I'm offended that a civilization that practiced human sacrifice is not presented with more sensitivity to its rich cultural heritage.

 

[King Jason]

Also I'd suggest it's just as likely that european depictions of Natives actually darkened their skin tones as much as it's possible they lightened them.

This is colonial-to-imperial era Europe we're talking about - fostering an "us vs them" outlook was practically the ideology of the age. Dark skinned tribal peoples were regularly depicted as and believed to be inferior. It's entirely possible the imagination of the "american" in the minds of the average european manifested itself as Dark skinned, regardless of how dark they actually were.

 

[ehecatzin]

I'm offended that a civilization that practiced human sacrifice is not presented with more sensitivity to its rich cultural heritage.

Whats so wrong with skinning people and wearing them on festivities? you clearly don't understand fashion.

 

[loli969]

So...what about that weird pinkish-black border next to Aztecs at the end of the video? Are we getting a glimpse of next civ? Who do you think is next?

 

[Thormodr]

So...what about that weird pinkish-black border next to Aztecs at the end of the video? Are we getting a glimpse of next civ? Who do you think is next?

It's a city state. Welcome to the Forums!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's a city-state.

 

[ehecatzin]

Also I'd suggest it's just as likely that european depictions of Natives actually darkened their skin tones as much as it's possible they lightened them.

This is colonial-to-imperial era Europe we're talking about - fostering an "us vs them" outlook was practically the ideology of the age. Dark skinned tribal peoples were regularly depicted as and believed to be inferior. It's entirely possible the imagination of the "american" in the minds of the average european manifested itself as Dark skinned, regardless of how dark they actually were.

Even more accentuated when you take into account that colonial Mexico had a very complicated caste system, they had names and rules for every concievable racial combination, it's no wonder they wanted to accentuate diferences.

Spoiler :

 

[King Rad]

I'll say it once I'll say it a thousand times: diversity makes for better, more interesting gameplay in a game like civ. Giving us a variety of leaders with drastically different personalities, backgrounds and abilities makes the game dynamic and deep. having Poland but no Maya, or one of several important and cultrally significant NAmerican groups, makes the game so much lesser, as well as ickily eurocentric.

I agree that diversity, different personalities, etc. makes for better gameplay, but that does not automatically mean that the Maya would be better than Poland, to cite your example. I understand people wanting a variety of civs and leaders, and everyone has a civ or leader they would like to see (e.g. I think Eleanor of Aquitaine could be a fun addition plus she looks somewhat like B5 in the leader photo thread, but we've already got England so it's probably not going to happen). With that said, adding a specific civ or leader simply because they're from what we feel is an underrepresented area does not in and of itself doesn't make the game better.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Also I'd suggest it's just as likely that european depictions of Natives actually darkened their skin tones as much as it's possible they lightened them.

This is colonial-to-imperial era Europe we're talking about - fostering an "us vs them" outlook was practically the ideology of the age. Dark skinned tribal peoples were regularly depicted as and believed to be inferior. It's entirely possible the imagination of the "american" in the minds of the average european manifested itself as Dark skinned, regardless of how dark they actually were.

I mean many of these natives are still alive today it's not like we only have European drawings to go off of here if we're looking for skin tone

 

[Zaarin]

Also I'd suggest it's just as likely that european depictions of Natives actually darkened their skin tones as much as it's possible they lightened them.

This is colonial-to-imperial era Europe we're talking about - fostering an "us vs them" outlook was practically the ideology of the age. Dark skinned tribal peoples were regularly depicted as and believed to be inferior. It's entirely possible the imagination of the "american" in the minds of the average european manifested itself as Dark skinned, regardless of how dark they actually were.

Indeed. It's also worth noting that the earliest explorers, before racial dichotomies set in, almost universally described the natives of the New World as "light-skinned" or "tawny." Native Americans wouldn't be called "red" until the 18th century, by contrast. It's also worth commenting that Russian explorers in the 18th century said that Tlingit were darkened by the sun but were born "as light as we are."

I agree that diversity, different personalities, etc. makes for better gameplay, but that does not automatically mean that the Maya would be better than Poland, to cite your example. I understand people wanting a variety of civs and leaders, and everyone has a civ or leader they would like to see (e.g. I think Eleanor of Aquitaine could be a fun addition plus she looks somewhat like B5 in the leader photo thread, but we've already got England so it's probably not going to happen). With that said, adding a specific civ or leader simply because they're from what we feel is an underrepresented area does not in and of itself doesn't make the game better.

Eleanor of Aquitaine would be interesting, but (if representing Aquitaine--she was also Queen of France and Queen of England at various points in her life) she would overlap with France far more than England. Her daughter, Louise of Aquitaine, could also be interesting. Neither would be ideal base game choices, however; might be interesting as mods or DLC, though.

 

[j51]

in keeping with my obnoxious personality, I'm required by law to say eurocentrism is real and i'm pumped for Catherine.

/headdesk

once someone yells about SJWS!!!!!!! i'm pretty sure any discussion is done.

as someone with many thousands of hours logged in Civilization I care about this stuff! other people on this forum do as well! Moreover the forum is not some sacrosanct thing but merely a group of people with a common interest who all still exist in the real world! discussing strategy and being disappointed with racially... insensitive dev decisions are not mutually exclusive! thank u and good night.

You Go!

I'm just glad there's a wider variety viewpoints on this forum.

Personally, I'd rather a Louis XIV or Henri IV, but Catherine's interesting too.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

Am I the only one that keeps on getting distracted by the severe level of the commentator's vocal fry in these videos?

 

[Socrates99]

Am I the only one that keeps on getting distracted by the severe level of the commentator's vocal fry in these videos?

Hah! My wife has a lot of that quality in her voice. I think I'm deaf to it now.

 

[Zaarin]

Am I the only one that keeps on getting distracted by the severe level of the commentator's vocal fry in these videos?

Not that specifically, but I absolutely cannot stand her voice. So irritating.

 

[zwei833]

Yup, the voice is just... dull...

 

[Aukhenaten]

Sounds fine to me, honestly unsure as to how she irritates so many people.

 

[OnceAKing]

I'm offended that a civilization that practiced human sacrifice is not presented with more sensitivity to its rich cultural heritage.

No matter the modern extremes we may see in someone's culture, there is still a vast and rich value we can derive from civilizations all across the world. I'd hate to get into a competition that compares the practice of Christopher Columbus chopping off the hands of native americans who didn't mine enough gold, or the Spanish inquisition, the witch burnings, some of the practices of the vikings, the annihilation of whole metropolises by the Mongols,. I mean the acts of violence by most civilizations, even today, is endless, so it's needless and senseless to make one out to be worse than an other and use that as an excuse to devalue their overall culture.


To the poster harping on skin color, as a person of color I'm hyper aware of white washing that can occur. However, I think you're being a bit harsh on the art team on this one. Based on lighting and the flimsy knowledge we have of his appearance, I think this is a fair depiction of skin tone. I'm ignorant of mezoamerican history so I couldnt speak to his attire at all.

I do agree with you that it's a bit disappointing if the leader bingo page holds up because it's a very Eurocentric perspective, if that is in fact the final list. I'll still be buying it, but I just look at it as lost potential on the part of the devs if they couldn't see the forest for the trees once they started looking outside of the core 8 civs.

Some say game design trumps realism, but sometimes new perpectives, flavors and experiences elevate game design not hurt it.

 

[Thormodr]

Sounds fine to me, honestly unsure as to how she irritates so many people.

I can't understand it, either. She sounds perfectly fine to me, too.