Civ 7's Victory Paths can Use Some Work to Feel Less Western Specific

[Ornen]

This. Firaxis is a western game devoloper who created a western game series about "doing an imperialism" which is meant to provide a very loose abstraction of all of human history and which has always operated from a very western centric view of World History. That is the Civilization series..

Though more recent titles have tried to be more inclusive, the realities of modern history are inescapable. Our "modern age" is defined by Western imperialism, colonialism, and technological advances/maritime expansion. You're not going to escape that reality in the Civilization series either, whether it's smacking you in the face in the form of Moteczuma donning a suit and tie in an western themed industrial age ala Civ 3, Colonization/revolution mechanics modelled on the Americas ala Civ IV, or the game ending in cataclysmic clash of European born ideologies ala V. This is a western series attempting to abstract all of human history into a game about imperialism at its core.

Asking Firaxis to make victory paths feel "less western" is like asking Jane Austen to make her novels "more black" or asking James Baldwin "hey where are all the straight, white male character?" It's just fruitless. Instead of arguing about the victory paths being "too western" it's probably makes more sense to argue about how the restrictive design of eras and their accompanying victory conditions will force the players into the same exact historical narrative every single game and turn what used to effectively be a very customizable long form sandbox 4x campaign experience into a glorified terra map script with short themed scenario packs for rounds.

this is bang on the money. I think you could make a game about history with another perspective as your starting point (say, African or Indigenous or nomadic) but Civ is firmly grounded in a very Euro/American vision of empire-building & progress from the bronze age to the space age.

as for Ming treasure fleets and all that, the game sets a European trend in history — the Age of Exploration, typically defined by European exploration & colonialism — and tries to fit non-European civs onto that narrative. you inevitably end up imposing Eurocentric gameplay mechanics & win conditions on countries that don't really fit the mold, which is in fact the starting point of this thread.

England belongs in the game in my view. leaving them out to sell DLC, I understand that. I think Ed Beach went too far when he said that England did not exist in the Age of Exploration, any historian would argue with him on that. that is a faulty claim on his part, and speaks to the incoherence that results when you try to make a game about the Age of Exploration that pretends Europe did not play a central role in the Age of Exploration.

Maybe you want to keep track of the topic of this thread and the conversation? Someone said that the OP's premise is unsound because Firaxis is a western studio with a western perspective. You were effectively continuing that part of the conversation.

you've made a series of ridiculous claims, which I have disputed. I never argued that OP's premise is unsound. you said someone here was "incoherent" and made "zero sense", regarding the plain and simple fact that Sid Meier, Ed Beach, and Firaxis are westerners making history games from a western perspective.

Now that I think about it, one of the dev streams mentioned the Ming Treasure Fleets. So the Economic victory concept might not be that Eurocentric either (same as, as I mentioned, the Cultural/religious one, since China and Japan also saw big proselytisation efforts during this period).

I guess that shouldn't be surprising since Firaxis did choose to launch with only 2 Euro civs in Exploration Age. I think, time and again, the studio has shown that it seeks to represent not only Western macro-historical trends, but that of the world at large, which is great. The exclusion of England/Britain from the initial roster seals this for me. I don't see how that's deniable.

I deny it; it is deniable; do you see how it's deniable? calling something 'undeniable' is very silly because it can be refuted in three simple words. you are trying to preclude any arguments against your own, and I am saying no.

 

[Ornen]

Shared victory between multiple players doesn't seem right from gameplay point of view, in the first place. The game should have a clear winner.

I was thinking about some kind of diplomatic domination, which is an alternative to just conquering. First idea which comes to mind for contemporary age is military base placement. Winning civ agrees to protect another one by placing military units, that sort of thing. Protected country counts towards domination/diplomacy victory for protector, but could still try to reach another victory type.

closest thing to diplomatic victory IRL was achieved by the US, which we did by conquering our ideological opponents and developing nuclear arms. which is in fact (rightly) the conquest win condition

 

[Krikkit1]

Shared victory between multiple players doesn't seem right from gameplay point of view, in the first place. The game should have a clear winner.

I was thinking about some kind of diplomatic domination, which is an alternative to just conquering. First idea which comes to mind for contemporary age is military base placement. Winning civ agrees to protect another one by placing military units, that sort of thing. Protected country counts towards domination/diplomacy victory for protector, but could still try to reach another victory type.

The problem is that doesn’t work as a “Diplomatic” victory if the other players are paying attention. ie if me being protected by you would put you over the threshold I won’t do it…unless I have no choice…(which is another possiblility, see below)

The other possibility is I can basically buy out your civ with Influence*, whether or not you agree. (basically I spend enough Influence and now we are Diplomatically one..and I get your Influence yields…but you can still pursue another victory)

*probably with enhancements from CS allies.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

England belongs in the game in my view. leaving them out to sell DLC, I understand that. I think Ed Beach went too far when he said that England did not exist in the Age of Exploration, any historian would argue with him on that. that is a faulty claim on his part, and speaks to the incoherence that results when you try to make a game about the Age of Exploration that pretends that Europe did not play a central role in the Age of Exploration.

I agree that it was a weird statement, though I think that was the only statement he could make to justify having the Normans in the game.

closest thing to diplomatic victory IRL was achieved by the US, which we did by conquering our ideological opponents and developing nuclear arms. which is in fact (rightly) the conquest win condition

That's sort of what I was thinking how it could be achieved, without the actual war part. It would revolve around gaining points by spending influence to make treaties with other civilizations. You would also gain even more points if these treaties if they have a different ideology than you.

 

[sTAPler27]

What I still don't understand about this argument is the notion that Civ has ever been a "very customizable long form sandbox". It may just be a lack of imagination on my part, can you be more specific about what you mean, in gameplay terms? My personal experience of Civ is that it is extremely linear, since everything is tied to the linear progression of tech trees. Where's the sandbox? Civ VI has a ton of mechanics that you can choose to engage with, or ignore if you prefer - is that what you mean? But is VII really different in that regard?

I mean just think about how different your empire looks between the different victory types or between different civs.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I mean just think about how different your empire looks between the different victory types or between different civs.

Not sure I follow to be honest. That's not going to be different in VII vs any other Civ, is it?

 

[stealth_nsk]

closest thing to diplomatic victory IRL was achieved by the US, which we did by conquering our ideological opponents and developing nuclear arms. which is in fact (rightly) the conquest win condition

Yes, that's exactly what I see when I imagine diplomatic being a form of domination victory for contemporary age.

 

[aelf]

this is bang on the money. I think you could make a game about history with another perspective as your starting point (say, African or Indigenous or nomadic) but Civ is firmly grounded in a very Euro/American vision of empire-building & progress from the bronze age to the space age.

as for Ming treasure fleets and all that, the game sets a European trend in history — the Age of Exploration, typically defined by European exploration & colonialism — and tries to fit non-European civs onto that narrative. you inevitably end up imposing Eurocentric gameplay mechanics & win conditions on countries that don't really fit the mold, which is in fact the starting point of this thread.

England belongs in the game in my view. leaving them out to sell DLC, I understand that. I think Ed Beach went too far when he said that England did not exist in the Age of Exploration, any historian would argue with him on that. that is a faulty claim on his part, and speaks to the incoherence that results when you try to make a game about the Age of Exploration that pretends Europe did not play a central role in the Age of Exploration.

you've made a series of ridiculous claims, which I have disputed. I never argued that OP's premise is unsound. you said someone here was "incoherent" and made "zero sense", regarding the plain and simple fact that Sid Meier, Ed Beach, and Firaxis are westerners making history games from a western perspective.

I deny it; it is deniable; do you see how it's deniable? calling something 'undeniable' is very silly because it can be refuted in three simple words. you are trying to preclude any arguments against your own, and I am saying no.

I don't think you understand what I was talking about at all.

In any case, Ming Treasure Fleets were mentioned. England is not in the base game, and who knows when it will be in? You just have to accept that reality. If it makes you unhappy, you don't have to buy the game.

 

[Ornen]

I don't think you understand what I was talking about at all.

In any case, Ming Treasure Fleets were mentioned. England is not in the base game, and who knows when it will be in? You just have to accept that reality. If it makes you unhappy, you don't have to buy the game.

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about at all. it's clear we're talking past each other at this point, and I haven't seen you argue in good faith in the slightest. you have your point of view, and you willingly ignore, misconstrue, or declare ridiculous anyone who disagrees with it. guess that's just how you like to spend your time

 

[sTAPler27]

Not sure I follow to be honest. That's not going to be different in VII vs any other Civ, is it?

Like you aren't wrong that there's a lot of linear stuff in the game but since theres only so many turns you have to choose what order you do them in and what you prioritize. A culture victory will have a lot of wonders on the map while a science one will have lots of production improvements. I feel like that kind of proves that the game's a sandbox. And throw on all the new layers of civ switching, leaders, mementos, skill paths, narrative events, etc there will be a lot of player choice

 

[TheGrayFox]

What I still don't understand about this argument is the notion that Civ has ever been a "very customizable long form sandbox". It may just be a lack of imagination on my part, can you be more specific about what you mean, in gameplay terms? My personal experience of Civ is that it is extremely linear, since everything is tied to the linear progression of tech trees. Where's the sandbox? Civ VI has a ton of mechanics that you can choose to engage with, or ignore if you prefer - is that what you mean? But is VII really different in that regard?

I'll try to explain it but I'll start by saying "sandbox" might technically be an incorrect term here as Civilization games ultimately have win conditions and goals and are not true sandbox experiences. However, outside of those victory conditions where most only becoming applicable towards the very end of a long campaign, players had a remarkable amount of freedom in how they customized their games from the type of map and size of the world (now every map is a glorified terra script), to player counts (VII's default seems towards less players), and to even which victory conditions were applicable.

Sure all players may be working towards progressing down the same tech tree but all the variables from how the map looks, how many civs there are, how fast they progress technologically, how fast they settle and improve their tiles, leaders interacting diplomatically, how sucesfully they can build and use their mlitaries, how religions spread, etc etc work together to create a completely unique game world every single game where an emergent narrative arises from the players interactions with rather open ended gameplay mechanics rather than through dictated or linear narrative. I don't think the fact that the game progresses through a technology tree has ever made this the game linear... You'd never hear the same logic applied to a Paradox title. EU4 for example gives the player much less of a choice in how they progress through its technology system than Civilization, and yet two games will never play out the exact same. Since most victory conditions weren't applicable for a majority of the game in past Civ titles, players also had a remarkable amount of freedom in how they set goals for themselves within these win conditions and in these longer campaigns. If you wanted to win with a single city? you could. Want to win without conquering a single enemy city? sure go ahead. Hell if you didn't actual care about long term victory conditions, you could just play until your civilization suceeeded so well you became bored because there was no competetion, you could do that as well.

Alot of this is lost however when you split the game into three seperateble scenario acts and give each act very specific victory conditions and win goals which force players to play out very specific narratives and towards very specific conditions. It certainly would be a lack of imagination if you don't see how player freedom is being taken away with such design. OP's concerns are a perfect example of what I'm talking about, where now success in the Exploration age (which will translate to bonuses later in later Modern Age) is defined entirely by how well you imitate European style overseas colonization and how many goals on a checklist Firaxis gave you were accomplished.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Like you aren't wrong that there's a lot of linear stuff in the game but since theres only so many turns you have to choose what order you do them in and what you prioritize. A culture victory will have a lot of wonders on the map while a science one will have lots of production improvements. I feel like that kind of proves that the game's a sandbox. And throw on all the new layers of civ switching, leaders, mementos, skill paths, narrative events, etc there will be a lot of player choice

Right. I'm not sure I'd call it a sandbox, but semantics aside, I completely agree with what you say here. There is as much player choice in VII as there is in previous Civ games, therefore I do not understand the argument that Civ VII is a forced narrative, and previous Civ games are not.

Sure all players may be working towards progressing down the same tech tree but all the variables from how the map looks, how many civs there are, how fast they progress technologically, how fast they settle and improve their tiles, leaders interacting diplomatically, how sucesfully they can build and use their mlitaries, how religions spread, etc etc work together to create a completely unique game world every single game where an emergent narrative arises from the players interactions with rather open ended gameplay mechanics rather than through dictated or linear narrative. I don't think the fact that the game progresses through a technology tree has ever made this the game linear... You'd never hear the same logic applied to a Paradox title. EU4 for example gives the player much less of a choice in how they progress through its technology system than Civilization, and yet two games will never play out the exact same. Since most victory conditions weren't applicable for a majority of the game in past Civ titles, players also had a remarkable amount of freedom in how they set goals for themselves within these win conditions and in these longer campaigns. If you wanted to win with a single city? you could. Want to win without conquering a single enemy city? sure go ahead. Hell if you didn't actual care about long term victory conditions, you could just play until your civilization suceeeded so well you became bored because there was no competetion, you could do that as well.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, but honestly, I don't see how any of what you describe in above quote is lost in the new structure.

I accept that the variety of map types and number of civs per game is currently limited, but that's not an inherent problem with the Ages structure, and I believe this will be expanded.

 

[aelf]

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about at all. it's clear we're talking past each other at this point, and I haven't seen you argue in good faith in the slightest. you have your point of view, and you willingly ignore, misconstrue, or declare ridiculous anyone who disagrees with it. guess that's just how you like to spend your time

Not sure why this post is allowed, but alright. You waded into the discussion without bothering to understand what was being talked about and you want to speak about ignoring and misconstruing points? That's rich.

Firaxis may be a western company with a western perspective* when creating the game, but clearly the game covers much more than just Western historical trends, which is most clearly seen in the presence of plenty of non-Western civs with rich and flavourful designs and mechanics. I believe this isn't and shouldn't be in contention. Looking at the series as a whole, this appears to be true as well. Western costumes for leaders were not repeated after Civ3. More effort is being put into voicing leaders in the language they would've spoken. It's a series about world history, and that's its core identity, as aptly articulated by the title of 'Civilization.' Not 'Western Civilization' or 'Europa Universalis.'

Here comes the * from above. This western perspective that Firaxis has is one that is innate (as a subject originating from the West who perceives and interprets the world), as well as in the framing of the game's narrative and mechanics. The Age of Exploration is a western concept. In fact, so is the manner of looking at history as a progressive thing, which very much shared in academia (despite the disdain some Tradwest stans might have for it). But within this western framing are aspects of world history that are not limited to Western ones. There were treasure fleets not belonging to the West in history. Ming China and the Mughal Empire had treasure ships, the latter which were targeted by pirates. So this trading aspect of the Age of Exploration is well-covered in the sense that it also reflects what other civilisations outside of Europe did.

What's exclusively (more or less) Western in the Civ7's Age of Exploration is the colonisation aspect. In this regard, I think it's valid to say that the design can be enriched. How did non-European civs get treasure ships in history? Mostly by trading. I'm not sure, but I think treasure resources can only be acquired in game by colonising distant lands right now. So what about making it possible to acquire them by befriending independent powers? For the Economic victory path, only treasure ships matter, so this would still work within the current framework.

Of course, this leaves the Military victory path, which rewards colonising distant lands (except of the Mongols). It's a bit more difficult to see how this can be changed. But for a start, if distant civs can do the same in reverse, that would already be something.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Not sure why this post is allowed, but alright. You waded into the discussion without bothering to understand what was being talked about and you want to speak about ignoring and misconstruing points? That's rich.

Firaxis may be a western company with a western perspective* when creating the game, but clearly the game covers much more than just Western historical trends, which is most clearly seen in the presence of plenty of non-Western civs with rich and flavourful designs and mechanics. I believe this isn't and shouldn't be in contention. Looking at the series as a whole, this appears to be true as well. Western costumes for leaders were not repeated after Civ3. More effort is being put into voicing leaders in the language they would've spoken. It's a series about world history, and that's its core identity, as aptly articulated by the title of 'Civilization.' Not 'Western Civilization' or 'Europa Universalis.'

The presence of non-western civs and having those civs speak their langauge doesn't change the fact that the perspective on world history being presented and used is an very clearly western one. This can literally be seen every facet and iteration of the series. Do you think the Medieval and Renaissance eras and the traditional historical current/periodization which has framed the entire series up until now are eastern in concept? You understand that the industrial/technological revolution which defines the modern age, the adoption of European born ideologies, etc these are western historical trends right?

Moteczuma in a suit and tie may not have been repeated after 3 but guess what has been? Go look at an Aztec city in the information age in Civ 6 and tell me that what's being modelled isn't based on contemporary western cities and western historical trends. You're not escaping the spectre of western civilization in a Civilization game. I'm sorry.

Here comes the * from above. This western perspective that Firaxis has is one that is innate (as a subject originating from the West who perceives and interprets the world), as well as in the framing of the game's narrative and mechanics. The Age of Exploration is a western concept. In fact, so is the manner of looking at history as a progressive thing, which very much shared in academia (despite the disdain some Tradwest stans might have for it). But within this western framing are aspects of world history that are not limited to Western ones. There were treasure fleets not belonging to the West in history. Ming China and the Mughal Empire had treasure ships, the latter which were targeted by pirates. So this trading aspect of the Age of Exploration is well-covered in the sense that it also reflects what other civilisations outside of Europe did.

Again you are fixated on a strawman. No one is saying that there is no place for non-western aspects of world history in the Civilization series when we point out that Civilization is a western game. You understand that western world history classes also teach you about Mesotopamia right?

Also Ed Beach can allude to the fact that China had a treasure fleet but they were an aberation in Chinese history and worked nothing like the treasure fleet actually being modeled in game. Ming China was trying to project power and the treasure fleets were full of treasure to give away to do that. They weren't for bringing back riches or new resources from the New world. That's a decsively western perspective.

What's exclusively (more or less) Western in the Civ7's Age of Exploration is the colonisation aspect. In this regard, I think it's valid to say that the design can be enriched. How did non-European civs get treasure ships in history?

They didn't

Mostly by trading. I'm not sure, but I think treasure resources can only be acquired in game by colonising distant lands right now. So what about making it possible to acquire them by befriending independent powers? For the Economic victory path, only treasure ships matter, so this would still work within the current framework. Of course, this leaves the Military victory path, which rewards colonising distant lands (except of the Mongols). It's a bit more difficult to see how this can be changed. But for a start, if distant civs can do the same in reverse, that would already be something.

Now this is all fair, I think Firaxis should give players more options and paths for achieving these legacy goals than forcing them into European style colonization to suceed every single game... not because it's "too western" but rather because it is a restricive and boring way to play every single game.

 

[aelf]

The fleet returned to Nanjing on 2 October 1407.[36][53][54] After accompanying the fleet during the return journey, the foreign envoys (from Calicut, Quilon, Semudera, Aru, Malacca, and other unspecified nations) visited the Ming court to pay homage and present tribute with their local products.[35][51][55]

On 8 August 1419, the fleet had returned to China.[98][102][107] The Yongle Emperor was in Beijing, but he ordered the Ministry of Rites to give monetary rewards to the fleet's personnel.[108] The accompanying ambassadors were received at the Ming court in the eighth lunar month (21 August to 19 September) of 1419.[98][107] Their tribute included lions, leopards, dromedary camels, ostriches, zebras, rhinoceroses, antelopes, giraffes, and other exotic animals.[91] The arrival of the various animals brought by foreign ambassadors caused sensation at the Ming court.[107]

Upon return, several squadrons regrouped at Calicut and all the squadrons regrouped further at Semudera.[115] Siam was likely visited during the return journey.[113] The fleet returned on 3 September 1422.[111][117] They brought with them envoys from Siam, Semudera, Aden, and other countries, who bore tribute in local products.[117]

The fleet returned with envoys from 11 countries, including from Mecca.[165] On 14 September 1433, as recorded in the Xuanzong Shilu, the following envoys came to court to present tribute: King Zain al-Abidin of Semudera sent his younger brother Halizhi Han and others, King Bilima of Calicut sent his ambassador Gebumanduluya and others, King Keyili of Cochin sent his ambassador Jiabubilima and others, King Parakramabahu VI of Ceylon sent his ambassador Mennidenai and others, King Ali of Dhofar sent his ambassador Hajji Hussein and others, King Al-Malik az-Zahir Yahya b. Isma'il of Aden sent his ambassador Puba and others, King Devaraja of Coimbatore sent his ambassador Duansilijian and others, King Sa'if-ud-Din of Hormuz sent the foreigner Malazu, the King of "Old Kayal" (Jiayile) sent his ambassador Abd-ur-Rahman and others, and the King of Mecca sent the headman (toumu) Shaxian and others.[164]

Ming treasure voyages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheGrayFox]

Ming treasure voyages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did you really think linking a wikipedia article about something I already know about was an argument....? Did these Ming treasure voyage go to a new world specifically to bring back new luxury resources to China?

No, they were designed to project power and fleets were sent off from China full of treasure to give away/trade to do exactly that, helping China open trade relations and obtain tributaries status with other countries that China already knew about in the greater region. They worked nothing like what is being modelled in game, which is very clearly based on the model of treasure fleets of colonial powers extracting wealth from the New World and bringing it back to motherland , which was my point.... . Also these treasure voyages were the exception, not the norm of Chinese history.

 

[sTAPler27]

Right. I'm not sure I'd call it a sandbox, but semantics aside, I completely agree with what you say here. There is as much player choice in VII as there is in previous Civ games, therefore I do not understand the argument that Civ VII is a forced narrative, and previous Civ games are not.

Sandbox in the same way an RPG like Fallout is for example, multiple endings, skill paths, builds. Even if you have a lot of player choice there's still structure to the game to keep the player on a path. It's honestly kind of interesting how RPG adjacent 7 is which I actually like.