Diversity & Inclusion in Civ VI

[blackbutterfly]

I know E3 is over but commentary on the Take Two (2K's parent company) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion panel is still rolling in ->

Take-Two’s E3 Panel Was The Right Thing At The Wrong Time (thegamer.com)

Regardless, it did bring up the debate about diversity and inclusion in games again. In particular in Civ VI. (HUMANKIND by Amplitude, in contrast, is littered with almost cringy, token political correctness that even I think is possibly one of its weak points).

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?

I play Civ VI MP and I think only once in the last 6 months have I played a girl. (And she quit very early on - though it was a Zombies game I think).

 

[Linklite]

I don't think Civ 6 did a terrible job, but there are a few things they could do to improve. There's always going to be an imbalance in an historical game, unless you really force it (and even as someone who wants diversity, some men are really good for inclusion and shouldn't be excluded to make room for a woman who is middling solely on the grounds of genitalia).

I think one area for improvement is Great People. Make GPs reflective of their gender. At the moment, they get an era appropriate model which is mostly male. Each era should have both a male and a female model, or even better, a somewhat unique model for each GP.

Leaders seem fine (given historical bias for men), although I guess they could go down the alt leader route. That works fine for Britain, Egypt and others, but some might be downright problematic. The Mongols for example strike me as a civ that would not have had female leaders (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a historian!) and forcing a female leader would be a major issue. Even the US would be a problem, never having had a female President even now.

The board has already had a lot of discussion about geographical representation. A compromise between gameplay (most people want to play has a familiar civ, which has a strong bias for European) and diversity, which pulls more towards N. America, Africa and Asia for Civ 6 at least. Ironically, I think Civ 6 has enough of the recognisable civs and could easily afford to have more lesser known civs, but won't because they're not doing new content. Every iteration will have this issue, by the time that the favs and big draws are in and they can afford to dedicate time to lesser known ones, it'll be time to move on.

Mostly I think it's more a case of having to tighten things up rather than setting up new ways of thinking. Civ by its very nature is diverse, the entire point of it is to be diverse - no one would buy Civ 7 if it consisted of the US, Canada and the UK.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Oh, goodness gracious, not again with the diversity arguments!! We've already had this discussion in like three or four bloody threads and elsewhere, and the consensus is that Civ VI is perfectly fine.

I also agree with practically all of the points @Linklite has already said. Also, on the GP stuff, while I would love for each GP to have their own unique skin, it would be much easier to just use one skin for men and one skin for women, IMO.

 

[cain3456]

(HUMANKIND by Amplitude, in contrast, is littered with almost cringy, token political correctness that even I think is possibly one of its weak points).

Expand on this, please. I'm already dubious on Humankind for 3rd party DRM.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Oh, goodness gracious, not again with the diversity arguments!! We've already had this discussion in like three or four bloody threads and elsewhere, and the consensus is that Civ VI is perfectly fine.

Well blame Take Two for restarting the discussion.

Though I think it's more to do with making games like Civ VI more accessible to girls (as a potential new market) as well as other new geographical markets, but that's I think been much easier to break into. Just look at the Civ VI players online and you can see they're a very diverse bunch...well, of mostly guys

Also I think one of the panelists at E3 was 2K's Director of Diversity(?) so there may have been a discussion of diversity of those who are employed at the studios. IDK It wasn't even interesting enough for me. TL;DR

Expand on this, please. I'm already dubious on Humankind for 3rd party DRM.

A little OT (as it's re: HUMANKIND) but just look at its loading graphic

 

[universecreep]

I don't buy the argument that including more female or leaders of colour will suddenly draw a more diverse player base. It's the style of game that draws players not the avatars.

The player base of Civ games, at least now, seems to be male dominated seemingly due to the nature of the genre not because there are too many Caucasian leaders. I highly doubt someone is avoiding playing a game because a character doesn't look like them.

The focus needs to be on making interesting leaders (be they female, of colour, whatever) and a fun game. That's all I care about.

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

That being said, despite the attempt at inclusiveness/worldliness, the game at this point stinks. I don't think female and players of colour are flocking to play this substandard game because of Amplitudes effort in this regard.

I will say I appreciate Civ a lot more playing the closed beta of Humankind. As much as I have issues with Civ VI, bravo Firaxis!

 

[Linklite]

It's not necessarily about playing characters that look like you. I get most excited about civs that I identify with or can at least identify. So, that's mostly western European, Greek, Middle Eastern, Chinese and so forth. I didntreally give a fig about Khmer, having only heard of the Khmer Rouge. I imagine those from that area of the world enjoy Khmer more than they'd appreciate, say, Norway or the Gauls.

On the other hand, sometimes it is about playing someone that looks like you. My wife took a sudden interest in Battlefront II despite really not liking shoot 'em up games - she isntreally a fan of MK8D battle mode - when she realised that the protagonist was female (this is probably irrelevant, but they also look somewhat similar). I've also noticed that she is more likely to play as a female leader in Civ 6, although is not exclusively so. Sometimes, it's ice to play as someone that looks like you. Hence why the protagonist is, until recently anyway, generally a white male.

That said, I don't think Civ VI is in a bad place for it. There are some female leaders, and they aren't bad either. There are some improvements that could be made, but ultimately, it's mostly tightening things up rather than an overhaul.

 

[Zegangani]

I also don't think that Civ VI has big Issues with diversity. As @Duke William of Normandy stated, it's actually pretty fine.
There is only one aspect that I wish that could be more diverse, and that is the Unit Models for certain Civs. I don't know if this is a bit randomized, but I think there could be some more Female Unit Models for Civs like Scythia and Arabia.

Customisation has become very popular in the last Years, and from @Linklite's example, I think if Civ VII would introduce a Feature that allows the Player to customise the Appearance of the Leader (Just the Face/Head, Hair and Skin Color - and ofc Gender of the Leader), like it will be in Humankind, and the Civ/Leader Name, that would be one major Feature that would help the success of the Game a lot.

 

[universecreep]

It's not necessarily about playing characters that look like you. I get most excited about civs that I identify with or can at least identify. So, that's mostly western European, Greek, Middle Eastern, Chinese and so forth. I didntreally give a fig about Khmer, having only heard of the Khmer Rouge. I imagine those from that area of the world enjoy Khmer more than they'd appreciate, say, Norway or the Gauls.

On the other hand, sometimes it is about playing someone that looks like you. My wife took a sudden interest in Battlefront II despite really not liking shoot 'em up games - she isntreally a fan of MK8D battle mode - when she realised that the protagonist was female (this is probably irrelevant, but they also look somewhat similar). I've also noticed that she is more likely to play as a female leader in Civ 6, although is not exclusively so. Sometimes, it's ice to play as someone that looks like you. Hence why the protagonist is, until recently anyway, generally a white male.

That said, I don't think Civ VI is in a bad place for it. There are some female leaders, and they aren't bad either. There are some improvements that could be made, but ultimately, it's mostly tightening things up rather than an overhaul.

I have no problem with being inclusive but don't sacrifice the game. Civ through its history, I think, has done a pretty good job as many different people/cultures are represented.

Humankind's mediocrity is certainly not due to the Devs trying to incorporate cultural diversity into the game.

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.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I also don't think that Civ VI has big Issues with diversity. As @Duke William of Normandy stated, it's actually pretty fine.
There is only one aspect that I wish that could be more diverse, and that is the Unit Models for certain Civs. I don't know if this is a bit randomized, but I think there could be some more Female Unit Models for Civs like Scythia and Arabia.

I would like that as well, although I'm a bit confused about the part where you want more female unit models for Arabia. To my knowledge, the Arabian women, though they fought like beasts, didn't really participate in battles that much, though I stand to be corrected.

Customisation has become very popular in the last Years, and from @Linklite's example, I think if Civ VII would introduce a Feature that allows the Player to customise the Appearance of the Leader (Just the Face/Head, Hair and Skin Color - and ofc Gender of the Leader), like it will be in Humankind, and the Civ/Leader Name, that would be one major Feature that would help the success of the Game a lot.

I have to disagree with this. One of the major schticks of the Civilization series has been playing as historical Leaders and taking charge of actual historical Civilizations. We may agree to disagree on this, but I feel as if we would be taking a key aspect of the Civilization series away if we were to take away the immortal god-Leaders, like Dom Satan and Gilgamesh.

 

[Navelgazer]

I agree that Civ is doing a good job at this, and the way that Civ 6 rolled out I believe shows that that's by design. I can't say whether it's drawing in a more diverse player-base, butI know women who are into Civ and they've been playing since Civ4 at least, for whatever anecdotal data point that adds (and one of them is only interested in playing female leaders, which feels restrictive to me but whatever, it's her time and entertainment.) Also, sometimes there's just some time between opening the doors and people coming through them. Tabletop RPGs are now a very diverse and open space, but there was a good while between the publishers aiming for that and it becoming a reality.

I vehemently defended Take-Two in the E3 thread for opening up the conversation again, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they did it well (and doing it during a presentation when people are expecting news about upcoming titles was an ill-considered choice the more I think about it.)

Playing a lot of Beyond Earth recently, I was struck by how, freed from the constraints of history, Firaxis could just go straight 50-50 gender-split on the leaders. With history to contend with, I feel like the 1/3 female leader representation rule they seem to have feels reasonable. Geographical representation is always the harder issue there, as players are always going to call out for MOAR EUROPE and popular history gives them a lot to draw from there to give folks what they want, so to speak. The fact that they will choose to highlight groups like the Mapuche in the face of that, to me, shows that they're trying, and I appreciate that.

 

[Zegangani]

I would like that as well, although I'm a bit confused about the part where you want more female unit models for Arabia. To my knowledge, the Arabian women, though they fought like beasts, didn't really participate in battles that much, though I stand to be corrected.

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 have to disagree with this. One of the major schticks of the Civilization series has been playing as historical Leaders and taking charge of actual historical Civilizations. We may agree to disagree on this, but I feel as if we would be taking a key aspect of the Civilization series away if we were to take away the immortal god-Leaders, like Dom Satan and Gilgamesh.

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!

 

[Kwami]

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.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Side note on Humankind's title graphic: I think its premise of "large shot of a crowd of different people" would actually work much better for Civ VI. In fact, I feel like Civ VI and Humankind should probably switch title graphics (or at least their concepts).

In Civ, the whole game is very leader-focused and individual-focused. It's about the great leaders of the world, the great generals, artists, musicians, etc. The presentation results in the highlighting and celebration of distinguished individuals.

Humankind, on the other hand, is all about the collective culture, and the identity of a people. Beyond the obvious manifestation of this in the core concept of the game (culture switching), it lacks any historical leaders or great people of any sort. It doesn't give credit to the individual, but instead to the group. It thanks the culture rather than the person who came from it. This is also apparent in its art and presentation. The culture cards all place the emphasis on a group of people, the iconography of the culture, and what their home looks like. There is no celebration of impactful individuals, and all the people pictured in them are completely unnamed. Even on the diplomacy screen- the one place where the game approaches the individualism omnipresent in Civ- leaders are visually distinguished not by their faces or bodies but by their clothing, a byproduct of their culture. Once more, this places emphasis on the culture and the collective force of- fittingly- humankind.

I understand the concept behind Humankind's title graphic: show off not the distinguished nobles, respected leaders, or legendary generals, but instead the ordinary people who are the true drivers of humanity's progress. It just comes off as a bit awkward when it seems like they're charging to battle... with whom? And why? It's framed as something so dramatic for no reason.

I just think it might benefit more from Civ's title graphics, which are all about displaying the awesome marvel of human progress in a vague yet epic way.

the immortal god-Leaders, like Dom Satan and Gilgamesh.

Well in the case of Gilgamesh, we already had the immortal-god treatment without Civ's help. Well, 1/3 of it anyway

I think there could be some more Female Unit Models

Oddly enough, iirc there is only one Civ with female military units, and that is Gaul with their Gaesatae.

(Middle figure in the left)

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Oddly enough, iirc there is only one Civ with female military units, and that is Gaul with their Gaesatae.

(Middle figure in the left)

I'm pretty sure the Toa also have women in their ranks.

 

[dagriggstar]

When my sister was 14-16 probably put in about 50 hours of gameplay in CIV IV. The only leaders she would play - Catherine, Hatshepsut, Isabella. I only started playing female leaders once I became an adult. I even remember an Uncle making fun of me when I showed him a game I was playing and that I was playing as a female leader. So yeah, I would say it matters.

I also have an issue with their policy of including a token flirtatious female leader. Like, this is a diplomatic meeting, not a date.

It's one of the reasons I think they should have (at least) two leaders available for each civ. Not every civ needs a female option, but I think it'd help if the majority did.

 

[Theov]

Call me crazy, but I think Leaders should be included based on the historical relevance/impact.
It should not be based on the body parts in their underwear (if they had any underwear at the time). Or the color of their skin, for that matter.

Choosing to play exclusively with Leaders of a certain gender just for the reason of the gender is sexist.

 

[Kwami]

Call me crazy, but I think Leaders should be included based on the historical relevance/impact.
It should not be based on the body parts in their underwear (if they had any underwear at the time). Or the color of their skin, for that matter.

Choosing to play exclusively with Leaders of a certain gender just for the reason of the gender is sexist.

I don't think it's sexist. Some people just enjoy playing as avatars that are more like them. For many people, it's important to see characters like themselves in games, movies, and so on. That's why there's been a push for diversity in media. Sometimes, it goes too far. We can all think of some examples. But that doesn't mean that the entire idea is flawed.

And anyway, playing the same "best, most important" leaders in every iteration of Civilization would be boring. I'm glad that we get the odd Kristina every now and then.

 

[Vandlys]

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?

Maybe, maybe not. But why should that be the only point to measure it by? Having more female leaders will also help male players in understanding there is more to the world than men. It's easy to say "But I know there is" but where I live there are mostly female teachers (apart from that men still dominate most industries), and it's not until you start working in such a place as a man that you feel what underrepresentation means. I'm sure if I were a woman I'd love to see more women in games too (hell, I'd love to see more equality regardless anyway).

People often like to talk about inclusion in video games like they are just that: video games. But they are not, and here might come a point that a load of you think is tripe. Games speak to a modern, general public. In a certain way this means these games will always reflect our current society (use of language, importance of depicting this over that, design, etc.), but it will also always need to take care of how it shapes people playing. What we see everyday shapes the way we think, so I'm all for seeing more women in leadership roles in video games, if that means it's easier to include them in real life too (and I think it does.)

Call me crazy, but I think Leaders should be included based on the historical relevance/impact.

You're crazy! Haha, no of course you're not, and your point is entirely understandable, and one I've often made in my life too. I'm sure most of us, if not all of us, have. But there is one point you're missing, or at least not addressing, and that is the definition of "relevance" and "impact". Not including women in media is of huge relevance in history, so one might argue it's relevant to include them now to offset that balance (the same goes for impact).
Then there is the old adage "History is written by the victor". If you were able to go back in time and speak to a Gaul (nevermind language barriers for a second), they might not agree at all with how we are taught about them.
Finally, there is the falsehood that relevance is equal to sheer volume (more people, more relevance). China, economically speaking, is more relevant to all our lives than Belgium. I'm sure that if you talk to some Belgians whether they think the history of Belgium is more relevant to them, or the history of China is, they'd a least be able to make a good case for the former (or both).



Personally, I want diversity as much as possible. I love learning about new cultures, love seeing different gameplay adapatations, and different cultures and backgrounds (no matter how small) just make the game palette more rich. Then there is the simple argument of having all the work done by about 50% of our societies not being mentioned in the history books, which excludes a lot of friends, half of my parents, half of my grandparents, etc. If it means putting some less obvious leaders in the game to rectify this and make everyone feel more included, teach others more about inclusion and recognition, I'm all for it.

 

[universecreep]

Side note on Humankind's title graphic: I think its premise of "large shot of a crowd of different people" would actually work much better for Civ VI. In fact, I feel like Civ VI and Humankind should probably switch title graphics (or at least their concepts).

In Civ, the whole game is very leader-focused and individual-focused. It's about the great leaders of the world, the great generals, artists, musicians, etc. The presentation results in the highlighting and celebration of distinguished individuals.

Humankind, on the other hand, is all about the collective culture, and the identity of a people.

Great point. I hadn't looked at the games that way nor the title graphics!