Diversity & Inclusion in Civ VI

[UrHolyness]

Civ is a patriarchs power fantasy, rendered of historical relativism, anthropogenic bigottry and overall symptomatic hypocrisy - but hey, as long as we have some matriarchs, Civ may be called inclusive.

Civ doesnt reflect on the womens struggle for equality over the millenia, Civ neglects slavery (cuz Sid didnt wanted it after CtP II) and overall systemic racism, Klassenkampf and the atrocities of war, fascism is a legit goverment.

Civ gamified the eons of mankinds shame into some geopolitical kindergarten with a positive re-branding, where my workers disband happily into digital nirwana after unloading their last charge, democracies wont protest on the use of nukes etc. (disclaimer: /s)


as great as my love for Civ is, inclusion means something more than simply avoiding any critical content, roles and reflections. it means analysing the social patterns of gender- and racial inequality and offering the means to disrupt them.
Civ is a straight white-guy game, which sometimes may attract females (who like straight white guys). cuz the foundational core of gameplay and content didnt evolve since Civs inception. (1991 the target group obv. were the only ones, who could (and would) afford a PC - straight white guys).

 

[Tech Osen]

IMO Civ VI is considerably better than Civ V for diversity and inclusion, in particular for having more women leaders. But did that result in more female players

It might also be a good thing to show the male players that there were women who made a mark on history. Though I do feel some leaders were very forced. But I'm not a history buff by any means.

 

[blackbutterfly]

View attachment 600011

With regards to the Humankind opening graphic, I thought it was a nice thought but a little obvious.

Ah yes, this maybe something that appeals to white middle class sensibilities...but people of color would cringe at.

It demonstrates if anything that Amplitude is as white as Firaxis or any other game studio, cos if there was a team member of color I think there would have certainly been some sort of reaction to that cheesy graphic. (Minor criticism really, of a game - HUMANKIND - that hasn't ceased to impress me).

But this is another very important point w.r.t. "diversity and inclusion" in games: in the game content.

Can studios like Firaxis (and Amplitude) do more to make the content of their games more diverse and inclusive?
The answer is: Yes.

 

[Navelgazer]

One side effect that I really love from the way Civ has been choosing its leaders with an eye towards more diversity and inclusion is the feeling of getting a broader view of the history of different empires/cultures. Catherine di'Médici was far from an obvious choice for France, for instance, but as "easy" a choice as it would have been to go with Napoleon again, is he really representative of French history as a whole, or enough to be the go-to leader for the civilization? A huge personality, yes, and massively important to French history, but also such an outlier that it'd be akin to always going with Oliver Cromwell for England. CdM represents a different period, thus giving us a deeper reflection of French history. Gandhi is an even starker example, being the rare non-head-of-state to be a Leader, the rare 20th-century Leader, being in every game, and being included largely by necessity because his nuke-happiness has become a meme that, of course, runs completely counter to any historical accuracy. Since it seems like we're never going to have a civ game without him, though, including an alt-leader like Chandragupta goes a long way to making it feel like the game is considering Indian history on a deeper level than checking off "gotta have Gandhi for the lulz."

When Civ V came out, I had a Chinese GF who didn't play the game, but the inclusion of Wu Zetian got her psyched for it. She didn't even know Wu Zetian from her own knowledge of Chinese history, but was excited to learn about this Empress who ruled in her own right, and seeing her eyes light up there stuck with me. That was a cool moment.

For myself, I get that a lot of players of all genders and ethnicities will want to play Leaders that look like them or who they can otherwise identify with. Others, myself included, are the opposite. In as much as Civ allows for role-playing, well, I like to RP people unlike me. That meant that, as a white dude, the inclusion of Amanitore got a fist-pump from me, for instance. But no judgments on people for playing the way they want.

 

[aieeegrunt]

You could make a fairly solid historical based argument for most (some of the cultures represented in Civ6 I don’t know well enough to judge) of the Civs in 6 to have a male and a female leaders. A fair number of those would be of varying sexual orientation as well

Bam non forced diversity.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Also, has anyone ever noticed how Civ's difficulty levels all use male titles of nobility? (for Prince, King, and Emperor, anyway) And how designers probably never even thought about that choice? Like that was just the default/baseline in their mind?

It's a subtle thing, but I think it says a lot when we immediately default to ruling men, rather than just rulers.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Civ is a patriarchs power fantasy, rendered of historical relativism, anthropogenic bigottry and overall symptomatic hypocrisy - but hey, as long as we have some matriarchs, Civ may be called inclusive.

I'm pretty sure Civilization 6 is a game that is a power fantasy for almost everybody who's played, patriarch and matriarch alike.

You could make a fairly solid historical based argument for most (some of the cultures represented in Civ6 I don’t know well enough to judge) of the Civs in 6 to have a male and a female leaders. A fair number of those would be of varying sexual orientation as well

Bam non forced diversity.

Absolutely.

It might also be a good thing to show the male players that there were women who made a mark on history. Though I do feel some leaders were very forced. But I'm not a history buff by any means.

I'd say Gorgo was the most forced Leader to me. You have Epaminondas, Solon, Alcibiades, and so many more interesting Leaders to pick from, but no, we choose this random person. My Hellenophilism is reeing right now...

Gorgo is fine, IMO, it's just I would have preferred Epaminondas more. He's just such an interesting character in the world.

 

[Theov]

Civ is a patriarchs power fantasy, rendered of historical relativism, anthropogenic bigottry and overall symptomatic hypocrisy - but hey, as long as we have some matriarchs, Civ may be called inclusive.

Civ doesnt reflect on the womens struggle for equality over the millenia, Civ neglects slavery (cuz Sid didnt wanted it after CtP II) and overall systemic racism, Klassenkampf and the atrocities of war, fascism is a legit goverment.

Civ gamified the eons of mankinds shame into some geopolitical kindergarten with a positive re-branding, where my workers disband happily into digital nirwana after unloading their last charge, democracies wont protest on the use of nukes etc. (disclaimer: /s)


as great as my love for Civ is, inclusion means something more than simply avoiding any critical content, roles and reflections. it means analysing the social patterns of gender- and racial inequality and offering the means to disrupt them.
Civ is a straight white-guy game, which sometimes may attract females (who like straight white guys). cuz the foundational core of gameplay and content didnt evolve since Civs inception. (1991 the target group obv. were the only ones, who could (and would) afford a PC - straight white guys).

It was developed in the early 90s when the vast majority of the computers were sold in Europe and America. It was made by an American. Yeah, you probably end up with a game with a bigger focus on European/American history.
Yet half the civs were non Euro or American. It included the women's Suffrage wonder.
Because Sid said he wanted to tell the story of mankind.

Of course if didnt include every struggle of the world. Chess, checkers and 象棋 dont either.

You know, it's never good enough. If it is inclusive, its not inclusive enough. If it diverse, its not diverse enough.

 

[Buktu]

You could make a fairly solid historical based argument for most (some of the cultures represented in Civ6 I don’t know well enough to judge) of the Civs in 6 to have a male and a female leaders.

Which would also make alternative leaders a much better feature than it is now!

 

[Navelgazer]

Which would also make alternative leaders a much better feature than it is now!

The multitude of alt-leaders in Civ 4 was one of my favorite things about it. Of course, Civ 4 leaders were a collection of two already-coded simple buffs and some personality sliders, plus much much simpler animations than what 5 or 6 required, so the dev time required for them was comparatively trivial.

 

[universecreep]

Civ is a patriarchs power fantasy, rendered of historical relativism, anthropogenic bigottry and overall symptomatic hypocrisy - but hey, as long as we have some matriarchs, Civ may be called inclusive.

Civ doesnt reflect on the womens struggle for equality over the millenia, Civ neglects slavery (cuz Sid didnt wanted it after CtP II) and overall systemic racism, Klassenkampf and the atrocities of war, fascism is a legit goverment.

Civ gamified the eons of mankinds shame into some geopolitical kindergarten with a positive re-branding, where my workers disband happily into digital nirwana after unloading their last charge, democracies wont protest on the use of nukes etc. (disclaimer: /s)


as great as my love for Civ is, inclusion means something more than simply avoiding any critical content, roles and reflections. it means analysing the social patterns of gender- and racial inequality and offering the means to disrupt them.
Civ is a straight white-guy game, which sometimes may attract females (who like straight white guys). cuz the foundational core of gameplay and content didnt evolve since Civs inception. (1991 the target group obv. were the only ones, who could (and would) afford a PC - straight white guys).

I understand what you're saying but it's a game. I play games to get me to forget, for a few minutes, the world can be/has been really crappy to a lot of people.

I'm not sure how you make a game like Civ fun while addressing all of history's ill treatment of people. If they can, great but would it still be a Civ game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Arabian Women didn't participate as much as Men in Battles, and mostly in the early Islamic time, but in Civ VI I oftentimes see only Men Unit Models of the Arab Civ. Maybe they could be a 1/4 or less, but they should be represented. If you want to read about some condensed Stories of Arabian Women Warriors check this Article.

I mean that's most of the civs besides the Toa and Gaesatae which were mentioned. It's not just an Arab thing.

It would be just an Option. Imagine you could tweak Harald Hardrada's face to match your facial Expressions, but keep his Name or name him Duke Harald. he would have the same Outfit though. You wouldn't just play as Harald but also feel as if you are Harald (Civ Leaders that you choose aren't visually very present durring the Game anyway, Only in the Leader Icon and if you click on it). And you would keep the Custom Name for the rest of the Game. Immortal Duke Harald is about to conquer and vassalize the whole World!

I wouldn't mind bringing back the titles from previous games depending on the government you've chosen. Doge Harald for Merchant Republic, King Harald for Monarchy etc.

Also, has anyone ever noticed how Civ's difficulty levels all use male titles of nobility? (for Prince, King, and Emperor, anyway) And how designers probably never even thought about that choice? Like that was just the default/baseline in their mind?

King Tamar and King Jadwiga says hi.

I'd say Gorgo was the most forced Leader to me. You have Epaminondas, Solon, Alcibiades, and so many more interesting Leaders to pick from, but no, we choose this random person. My Hellenophilism is reeing right now...

You could have just said Leonidas, to go with the whole Spartan thing. He'd have the same ability and agenda anyways.

 

[Tychusfindlay919]

people should stop being upset that the vast majority of great conquerors, leaders, etc. were men.

Civ 6 bent over backwards so hard to get female inclusion that they went for women like lady six sky who we barely know anything about over proper more significant rulers like pakal the great. They included Tomyris who may or may not even be real because we have practically nothing on her except for way out of date Greek historians briefly mentioning her as part of Cyrus' downfall.

 

[blackbutterfly]

people should stop being upset that the vast majority of great conquerors, leaders, etc. were men.

@Duke William of Normandy has quite rightly said there's been a ton of discussion already about diversity of civs and leaders but what about other aspects of game content.

1. Music
Baba Yetu of Civ IV(?) may have been cultural appropriation by Christopher Tin but it was still afro-gospel(?) and in Swahili AFAIK.
(HUMANKIND has some ambient flute music as an example of how background music could have drawn from more primeval ethnic sounds).

2. Narratation
How about Lena Headey? (Like Sean Bean a GoT alumni who played Cersei Lannister)
Or Morgan Freeman?

3. Quotations
The majority of quotes are from western literature or popular culture.
There are plenty of Asian and African proverbs and quotes that could also have been used. A ton from religious literature as well. (E.g: Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, etc.)

And that's just off the top of my head.

 

[Linklite]

It's interesting that your wife was more drawn to a game due to it's female protagonist. I wonder if this draw for players is as significant with a game like Civ where there isn't the same player avatar from game to game unless you choose it to be? I always assumed Civ type games drew a larger male audience due to the nature of the game. There of course is no reason why a female player can't love Civ and I assumed the only reason why there aren't more female players is because it's been viewed as a male dominated genre. I didn't think female players were staying away because there weren't female lead Civs they could play.

Some of this is in response to your comments, most of it is just airing thoughts.

I think Civ is less of an issue because, to be frank, your avatar is next to pointless. Once you've selected your civ, you won't ever see your avatar unless you specifically look at the screen that explains your bonuses etc or during the loading screen. That's one of my complaints - I often forget what "I" look like in the game and only remember when my wife comments on my proposals or some such. Battlefront on the other hand practically rubs Iden Versio in your face from beginning to end (in the campaign, at any rate), I imagine that the characteristics matter a lot more.

Is the lack of female avatars keeping female players away from Civ? I've only played 6 and, as I mentioned before, I think they've struck a good compromise - there are some really good female leaders. Whether that is enough to be attractive to female gamers is something that women would have to answer, not me, but I don't think it's bad and is actually pretty good, given the subject matter. For games in general, I'd say that the lack of female avatars is harmful to female engagement. Given that 90% (arbitrary percentage but probably not far wrong) of game avatars share the same fundamental characteristics as me (white, male, not disabled, straight if sexuality is displayed, etc), it doesn't bother me if occasionally I play a woman or an African or an African woman or whatever. I imagine for those that aren't as well represented, it's nice to be able to play someone that looks like them. My wife hopes that she can play as Zelda when BotW2 comes out, but we'll see.

How much would having female avatars more present improve female engagement in Civ or games in general? I don't know. It might barely move the needle, or it might be thr one thing really holding Civ back. I'd be curious to see the ratios of players in games like the James Bond games where you are forced to be male, Battlefront II where you're forced to be female and Mass Effect where you can choose. I imagine that the ratios would vary enough to note, but how much would be interesting to see.

 

[Tychusfindlay919]

Every time a new civilization was introduced, there would be threads on various social media platforms in which people from those cultural groups would thank Firaxis for including them in the game and talking about how excited to they were to finally play as their own nation, or ancestral nation, or whatever. My wife is one of those people that vastly prefers playing female characters, regardless of the game. Etc.

As a white guy, you might think that this stuff doesn't matter and that the player base is determined more by genre than by which leaders are included, but the evidence doesn't seem to agree.

And as to Humankind, well, they were all out on inclusion in the artwork and the default AI avatars, but then had almost all white male "influencers" for their Twitch promotions. So, eh.

I'm not even white and all I hear is wah wah wah wahwawah

Why do people give so much of a horsehocky. It's a strategy game. Move the pawns around and do some city projects and just get over it.

 

[Kwami]

I'm not even white and all I hear is wah wah wah wahwawah

Why do people give so much of a ****. It's a strategy game. Move the pawns around and do some city projects and just get over it.

Your tone isn't appreciated here.

Regardless, different people enjoy different parts of the game. That's true of every game. For some, the historical flavor, the leader avatars, and so on are a major selling point.

 

[Theov]

Your tone isn't appreciated here.

People died for the freedom of speech in this world. This isnt China.
Do you want to piss on their graves?

You arent a moderator.
You arent the Thought Police.

 

[Tychusfindlay919]

Your tone isn't appreciated here.

Regardless, different people enjoy different parts of the game. That's true of every game. For some, the historical flavor, the leader avatars, and so on are a major selling point.

And if the majority of the posts in this thread are to be taken at face value, your whining for forced, cringe diversity and inclusion isn't appreciated either. People are here to talk about a strategy game that's loosely based on historical civilizations.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Moderator Action: Unfortunately, though the purpose of these types of threads may have good intentions, inevitably they always devolve into name-calling, personal attacks, and other negative/uncivil posts. As it has started to happen here, I've closed the thread.