A perspective from a Shawnee person regarding the civ switching. Kinda sad reading from his thoughts and perspectives. Seem like Firaxis made a misstep.
Moderator Action: Made title less clickbaity --NZ
Last edited by a moderator:
CIV 7 issues raised by a Native American
- Thread starter Glassmage
- Start date
- Status
A perspective from a Shawnee person regarding the civ switching. Kinda sad reading from his thoughts and perspectives. Seem like Firaxis made a misstep.
Moderator Action: Made title less clickbaity --NZ
moysturfurmer
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,231
I’m Persian. I do not anticipate Iran making it in as a Modern civ. At best I’d get an Antiquity Persian civ and an Exploration Age Persian civ. Is that a holistic view of the entirety of my mother’s culture? No, it’s not. Is it a problem for me? No, it isn’t. Ultimately, the cultures we come from have had more significance in certain years over others. So, personally, for me, no, it’s a non issue.
Frankly, I was much more offended by Civ VI’s characterization as Cyrus– someone I know to be a tolerant, even benevolent conqueror– as a backstabbing warmonger who loves backstabbing and stabbing backs. But, again, the civs in these games are meant to fill roles. Whether in gameplay or character archetype. So it’s water off my back.
Frankly, I was much more offended by Civ VI’s characterization as Cyrus– someone I know to be a tolerant, even benevolent conqueror– as a backstabbing warmonger who loves backstabbing and stabbing backs. But, again, the civs in these games are meant to fill roles. Whether in gameplay or character archetype. So it’s water off my back.
TheGrayFox
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2024
- Messages
- 242
I don't think the game is racist or coming at this gamey mechanic with an intent to marginalize or offend but I do think it's inevitable that such a poorly designed gimmick will end up doing both.
There are legitimate concerns to be had about how the civilization swapping mechanic will work when it comes to civilizations and peoples (especially indigenious ones) that end up being conquered, colonized, etc in history and its not going to be solved by simply making indigenious cultures morph into their colonizers or completely unrelated indigenious groups from later time periods.
There are legitimate concerns to be had about how the civilization swapping mechanic will work when it comes to civilizations and peoples (especially indigenious ones) that end up being conquered, colonized, etc in history and its not going to be solved by simply making indigenious cultures morph into their colonizers or completely unrelated indigenious groups from later time periods.
The main complaint seems to be that jerks online are going to do jerk things.
"In online multiplayer, or god forbid a tournament if Firaxis wants to have any, imagine a player chooses an English ruler as their leader, and then through the three ages plays as civilizations that were under British rule prior to the collapse of the empire. They name cities, towns, and units in ways to reference tragic events or historical figures that would be known by those living in the modern countries as having been responsible for atrocities."
How is that different than every other multiplayer game ever made?
"In online multiplayer, or god forbid a tournament if Firaxis wants to have any, imagine a player chooses an English ruler as their leader, and then through the three ages plays as civilizations that were under British rule prior to the collapse of the empire. They name cities, towns, and units in ways to reference tragic events or historical figures that would be known by those living in the modern countries as having been responsible for atrocities."
How is that different than every other multiplayer game ever made?
Maybe I misunderstood the post, but the user seems to be more concerned about bad actors and troll posters who'll do stuff like
-Pick European Leader of a certain Civ
-Pick Civs that the leader's Civ historically treated very poorly
-Start naming things like towns after the names of atrocities or the people who committed them
-Post in a very public place to troll
-Falls on Firaxis to fix this somehow, while taking the initial PR hit
Somebody613
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2,613
"We exist as the same culture that we were 500 years ago. Oh, but we also totally ditched absolutely everything that made us that culture, now living culturally similar to our conquerors."
Okay, not entirely true (they PROBABLY kept their religion, though it has to be verified as a fact), but then we bump into what defines a "culture" to begin with, especially in Civ.
And with Egypt that he also mentions, even more so - the Ancient Pagan Egypt is totally dead in today's Arab Muslim Egypt, despite "retaining the name".
I would be very careful about claiming that "these are the same cultures", regardless of their name.
You could literally do the same in any other Civ game. Pick England, selectively pick AIs for maximum gekoloniseered energy, run a 24 hour loop of British Grenadiers and go to town.
Ditto for the out-of-sight thing. Natives were just as fixed to a specific time and place in any Civ game prior to 7 (the leader keeps wearing pelts, holding a bow, there are obviously no modern military units or buildings, all of which disappear as you progress into the modern age) and the future era track remixes were seen as just as fantastical as space age Gilgamesh with dubstep.
Yes, the common perception of Native Americans is lacking (could always be worse, we could adopt the Canadian/American disdain for them as permanent lowlifes, alcoholics or exploitative casino magnates... childlike curiosity beats that by a landslide I think), but it has absolutely nothing to do with Civ games. The issue lies elsewhere. And similarly, Civ games run on stereotypes which absolutely do not mesh with trying to change that perception.
Ditto for the out-of-sight thing. Natives were just as fixed to a specific time and place in any Civ game prior to 7 (the leader keeps wearing pelts, holding a bow, there are obviously no modern military units or buildings, all of which disappear as you progress into the modern age) and the future era track remixes were seen as just as fantastical as space age Gilgamesh with dubstep.
Yes, the common perception of Native Americans is lacking (could always be worse, we could adopt the Canadian/American disdain for them as permanent lowlifes, alcoholics or exploitative casino magnates... childlike curiosity beats that by a landslide I think), but it has absolutely nothing to do with Civ games. The issue lies elsewhere. And similarly, Civ games run on stereotypes which absolutely do not mesh with trying to change that perception.
Disgustipated
Deity
If you look hard enough, you can find racism in just about anything.
Is it racist? Too early to tell. Probably not as racist as Seven Cities of Gold video game
. People shouldn't get so hung up on a game mechanic. It doesn't represent real life, just like Ben Franklin isn't immortal, lightning strikes aside.
Is it racist? Too early to tell. Probably not as racist as Seven Cities of Gold video game
. People shouldn't get so hung up on a game mechanic. It doesn't represent real life, just like Ben Franklin isn't immortal, lightning strikes aside.
Brackenspore
King
- Joined
- May 5, 2015
- Messages
- 626
Switching civilizations reminds me of another strange and of course fashionable phenomenon: RCTA (race change to another). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transracial_(identity) 
Well lookee here! Everyone called me an idiot and said people wouldn't react this way. 
Hmmm...
For the record, I never said the game was racist or promoted other things like geno---- as misconstrued by some. I merely said that there would be people that would perceive it that way.
These are sensitive times. Look at the 1619 project for example. Firaxis needs to tread carefully as cancel culture is everywhere.
Hmmm...
For the record, I never said the game was racist or promoted other things like geno---- as misconstrued by some. I merely said that there would be people that would perceive it that way.
These are sensitive times. Look at the 1619 project for example. Firaxis needs to tread carefully as cancel culture is everywhere.
Noble Zarkon
Elite Quattromaster - Immortal (BTS)
Super Moderator
Hall of Fame Staff
GOTM Staff
Supporter
Wait till he sees that you can play as Isabella of the Native American Empire in CIV IV ....
The Native American Empire was insulting for a very different reason. What a mish mash.
TheGrayFox
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2024
- Messages
- 242
This is kind of disingenious. Playing with leaders unlocked from their civilizations wasn't the default setting of IV and IV lumping all North American indigenious groups into a vague Native American civ lead by Sitting Bull as a huge complaint that I vividly remember being raised by fans and even Native American groups at the time. (which is why the series went back to modeling civilization based off specific tribes)
Noble Zarkon
Elite Quattromaster - Immortal (BTS)
Super Moderator
Hall of Fame Staff
GOTM Staff
Supporter
His complaint was about what people could do with the game so not sure what the relevance of unrestricted leaders being an optional choice is?
TheGrayFox
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2024
- Messages
- 242
No his complaint was about how the game is being designed as a default. Again the option you mention in IV wasn't the default of how a civ game is set up but simply a customizablity option which most people never used.
If you had pointed out that his ranting about "online trolling" by using city names is silly, I would've agreed but that's not the part of the argument you responded to.
If you actually read the (whole) post, their concerns are quite valid.
I am not against the civ changing with the era, but do recognise that the message that is being sent by this mechanic is that these cultures no longer exist. Part of the story of history the game is trying to tell is that empires rise and fall and no culture remains the same for a thousand years, let alone six thousand.
The problem is, cultures do not completely disappear either. A European nation who had a vast continent-spanning empire during the game’s Exploration Age will still exist today as an independent nation. Of course the global empire of trade and conquest is more appealing from a game design perspective, but does that culture cease to exist in the Modern Era, obviously not!
This is even more problematic when depicting the colonised people themselves. The Maya and the Shawnee and the Songhai still exist. It is natural that the game depicts them at their historical height, but the game has them inevitably collapse and disappear in later eras.
Firaxis have to be careful here. I don’t think it is likely they will allow you to continue into a later era with the same civ, and even if you did it would be at a huge disadvantage. Of course Humankind had the same exact issue, even if it let you “transcend” as a culture this clearly wasn’t playing the game as it was designed.
I think much of how this goes down will depend on the variety of options of civs to pick in later eras, and whether there is a tangible and visible legacy of who you played before.
I am not against the civ changing with the era, but do recognise that the message that is being sent by this mechanic is that these cultures no longer exist. Part of the story of history the game is trying to tell is that empires rise and fall and no culture remains the same for a thousand years, let alone six thousand.
The problem is, cultures do not completely disappear either. A European nation who had a vast continent-spanning empire during the game’s Exploration Age will still exist today as an independent nation. Of course the global empire of trade and conquest is more appealing from a game design perspective, but does that culture cease to exist in the Modern Era, obviously not!
This is even more problematic when depicting the colonised people themselves. The Maya and the Shawnee and the Songhai still exist. It is natural that the game depicts them at their historical height, but the game has them inevitably collapse and disappear in later eras.
Firaxis have to be careful here. I don’t think it is likely they will allow you to continue into a later era with the same civ, and even if you did it would be at a huge disadvantage. Of course Humankind had the same exact issue, even if it let you “transcend” as a culture this clearly wasn’t playing the game as it was designed.
I think much of how this goes down will depend on the variety of options of civs to pick in later eras, and whether there is a tangible and visible legacy of who you played before.
GeneralZIft
Enigma
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 667
I think there is a tangible legacy (there are legacy bonuses) and hopefully visible legacy.
I read it as well and I agree with your synopsis.
I also read some of the replies that insulted the guy on Reddit and called him crazy. Reddit is such a cesspool. *Ugh*
Mr Jon of Cheam
King
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 746
I'm hoping things like great works and unique wonders will help it feel like your former civ choices are preserved. It would be disappointing if each Age felt like a total reset and disconnected from the previous ones.
- Status
