Eurocentrism to the Max!!! What we gonna do?

[DDomenico]

My biggest issue with the civs we have is TSL balance. Seriously, Brazil gets its own continent. The US gets all the space and combined resources of Canada and the US. The kongolese get all of Southern Africa. Hell china gets all of china and south east Asia, while the euros get tiny little Europe.
"Oh but they'll just colonize" you say, but if you play even mediocre and go wide with any non euro civ, by the time any European nation researches the tech required to sail the ocean, and gets a settler all the way across the sea, you should have more than enough resources and cities to prevent coastline colonies, and destroy and inland colonies.

 

[Gangrin]

My biggest issue with the civs we have is TSL balance. Seriously, Brazil gets its own continent. The US gets all the space and combined resources of Canada and the US. The kongolese get all of Southern Africa. Hell china gets all of china and south east Asia, while the euros get tiny little Europe.
"Oh but they'll just colonize" you say, but if you play even mediocre and go wide with any non euro civ, by the time any European nation researches the tech required to sail the ocean, and gets a settler all the way across the sea, you should have more than enough resources and cities to prevent coastline colonies, and destroy and inland colonies.

Ehm, no. Aztec can and probably will be a pain for America and Brazil, while south east Asia will be hotly contested by China, India and Japan. You are right about Kongo though

 

[True_Candyman]

Well...

In Civ1, we had 15 civs, and 6 from Europe. So 40% Eurocentric.
In Civ2, we had 21 civs, 9 from Europe. So 42% Eurocentric.
In Civ3, we had 16 civs in vanilla, and 6 from Europe. So 37% Eurocentric.
In Civ4, we had 18 civs in vanilla, 7 from Europe. So 38% Eurocentric.
In Civ5, we had 18 civs in vanilla, and 6 from Europe. So 33% Eurocentric.
In Civ6, we have 19 civs in vanilla (counting the Aztecs), 8 from Europe. So 42% Eurocentric.

So, we have Civ6 a little more Eurocentric than most previous editions, and the same level of Civ2. So I do not see Civ6 Eurocentric, there is no reason for such a complaint about it. Since Europe will always be the best represented continent in the game. Anyway, I do not care much if the base game is or is not Eurocentric, since I am very convinced that other regions will be represented in the game in the future, anyway.

You're missing America and Brazil from your analysis. They are European countries on other continents. Both are beginning to emerge from that through increasing cultural diversity, but both still largely have an elite with european heritage, and their entire history thus far has been culturally European.

You're also inconsistent in that you don't count the Mongols, or Babylon towards civ V but you count the Aztecs. I'm gunna show comparison for pre-order bonus and deluxe content bonus for both too, just for fun.

So hypothetically that would be:

Civ I 15 civs 7 European 47% European
Civ II 21 civs 10 European 48% European
Civ III 16 civs 7 European 44% European
Civ IV 18 civs 8 European 44% European

Civ V 18 civs 7 European 39% European
Civ V + Pre-order 19 civs 7 European 37% European
Civ V + Pre + Deluxe 20 civs 7 European 35% European

Civ VI 18 civs 10 European 56% European
Civ VI + Pre-order 19 civs 10 European 53% European
Civ VI + Pre + Deluxe 20 civs 11 European 55% European

If we go by leaders for VI, with Gorgo and Isabella with the deluxe that % is up to 59% European.

That makes this game the worst yet in a series, countering a trend up until now towards more representation of cultures outside Europe. That is why i think some people have become agitated.

 

[PhilBowles]

I'm certainly not arguing that about the original (since I) 6 Euro civs and Spain. Those are essentials in my opinion. And the USA isn't going anywhere in the series. (Plus: Teddy!) I just feel that Persia, Mongolia, the Ottomans, the Inca, or a SE Asian civ getting the shaft in favor of Norway, Poland and Brazil is the problem. Also choosing a Greek as the sole leader of Egypt (at this point) is a bit patronizing, especially when two other Greek leaders are already being added.

Brazil is an issue well beyond Eurocentrism - rather it's the poster child for Moneygrubbingism - a society added for no other reason than there's a large playerbase in that country. Which would be fair enough if it wasn't such an awkward fit that they have to add gimmicks like being "the jungle civ" (never mind that there are many jungle cultures they could have used, most of which have more actual involvement with the forest than Brazil does). Brazil in Civ V was a caricature - getting a 'Carnival district' hardly suggests its Civ VI incarnation will be a less shallow reflection of the actual country.

Adding fan-sop civs is fine where they actually showcase interesting histories or gameplay - Korea, Indonesia and Kongo have all been added to the series as a concession to fan demand, and they explicitly said when releasing BNW that Indonesia was added mainly as a concession to the growing Southeast Asian market - but Brazil gives the sense that the designers don't really know what to do with it.

As for choosing a Greek as the leader of Egypt, Russia has been led by a German for several incarnations of Civ and no one seems to have complained.

 

[PhilBowles]

It's not about what they could, it's about what they are doing. England has a rich history but it's UA is something about museums and their expansionism is reduce to a single melee gunpowder unit. France has rumours, an extra spy and some other stuff I forgot because it doesn't pop. Spain is the only European Civ that looks like a chance was made.

But everyone remembers their Shoshone runs because of how different their UA and UU was.

It feels like the designers won't take chances with America or European Civ. So they end up boring. Therefore if 30% of the civs are European...

This seems more a base game phenomenon - base game civs have to showcase the basic rules and can't do anything very extreme. So they're just about accumulating resource X better than other civs, using mechanic Y to their advantage more than other civs, or getting bonuses from terrain feature Z. Civs like Venice and the Shoshone are expansion fodder.

It's a shame the 'agenda' system is no more than an AI preference - looking at the English agenda, for instance, it seems great as a notion for Victoria to favour colonising every continent ... but as you say the civ doesn't mechanically offer any real incentive for doing so. Instead of an AI agenda they could build in a system that rewards the civ for playing in the desired way - the AI could be coded with an agenda that helps it to maximise those bonuses to get the desired AI behaviour, while at the same time the player would be incentivised to play the same way.

 

[Xandinho]

You're missing America and Brazil from your analysis. They are European countries on other continents. Both are beginning to emerge from that through increasing cultural diversity, but both still largely have an elite with european heritage, and their entire history thus far has been culturally European.

You're also inconsistent in that you don't count the Mongols, or Babylon towards civ V but you count the Aztecs. I'm gunna show comparison for pre-order bonus and deluxe content bonus for both too, just for fun.

So hypothetically that would be:

Civ I 15 civs 7 European 47% European
Civ II 21 civs 10 European 48% European
Civ III 16 civs 7 European 44% European
Civ IV 18 civs 8 European 44% European

Civ V 18 civs 7 European 39% European
Civ V + Pre-order 19 civs 7 European 37% European
Civ V + Pre + Deluxe 20 civs 7 European 35% European

Civ VI 18 civs 10 European 56% European
Civ VI + Pre-order 19 civs 10 European 53% European
Civ VI + Pre + Deluxe 20 civs 11 European 55% European

If we go by leaders for VI, with Gorgo and Isabella with the deluxe that % is up to 59% European.

That makes this game the worst yet in a series, countering a trend up until now towards more representation of cultures outside Europe. That is why i think some people have become agitated.

I did not forget them, I did not mention them because I do not agree that they are Eurocentric.
America: is a very multicultural country, receiving influence of African and Native American culture. And a recently the Latin American and Asian culture. Thus, I do not think that a nation so multicultual can only be considered "Eurocentric". Anyway, regardless of America is or not is Eurocentric, it will always be included in the base game for obvious reasons.
Brazil: I've had a lot of discussion about it here. The issue is that Brazil is probably even less Eurocentric than America. Almost half the population is brown, the result of a strong ethnic mix of whites with blacks and indigenous peoples, resulting in a great cultural blending, allowing the country lost much of its "Eurocentric identity." In addition to the strong African heritage in Brazil is so strong as to have heavily influenced the cuisine, dance, music, beliefs and even language. Among other factors.

Well, in Europe we have 6 civs that can never be left out of the base game (England, France, Greece, Rome, Russia and Germany) and we have Spain that is not a "foreign element" in the base game, and is almost as worthy of being in the base game as the 6 that I mentioned. So, each base game will always have 6-7 European civs inside. Norway is the only element excessive, I do not think it's enough to make the Eurocentric game. I don't think it is cause for much complaint
And Poland will come DLC, probably.
Going back to what I said before, Europe will always be the best represented continent in the game, because of the large number of historically important civs, it is understandable that this continent has more civs than others, at least in base game. In addition to what I mentioned earlier, we still have Portugal, the Celts, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark and Venice, so without doubt still have many important European civs to be added.

 

[Amrunril]

Well, in Europe we have 6 civs that can never be left out of the base game (England, France, Greece, Rome, Russia and Germany) and we have Spain that is not a "foreign element" in the base game, and is almost as worthy of being in the base game as the 6 that I mentioned. So, each base game will always have 6-7 European civs inside. Norway is the only element excessive, I do not think it's enough to make the Eurocentric game. I don't think it is cause for much complaint
And Poland will come DLC, probably.

In Europe, we have 6 civs that never have been left out of the base game. Whether they never should be left out of the base game is a matter of opinion (one that's been debated heavily in this and related threads).

Of course it's a valid perspective, but it's also a meaningless perspective on the greater scale. You can have 200 people in this thread, all having similar opinions, and in the end their opinions tell us nothing about the greater picture of the playerbase, because of self-selection bias in being part of this forum and more specifically this thread.

By that standard, what's the point of discussing anything on this forum? Those of us who think the civ list is too European have identified an issue that we think keeps the game from being as good as it can be, and we're explaining our reasons for thinking that. While we might hope that a majority of players share our views, they are worth presenting even if this isn't the case, both to give Firaxis a clearer view of the diversity of opinions in the community and to encourage other community members to consider the issue further.

Why would >I< need to provide evidence? I'm not the one arguing for change, I'm the one saying: "I'm perfectly fine with their decisions and I understand why they made them." - if there's no good reason to expect a better outcome based on sound logic then all you're arguing for is "I want the game to meet my personal preferences better!", which again is fine, but generally not a compelling argument for a company when it's otherwise questionable if the change you're asking for is going to provide a better outcome.

Because, as far as I can tell, you're the one introducing majority opinion and sales into the discussion. KrikkitTwo argued that more strategic and roleplaying options are worthwhile design goals that would be served by a more diverse civ list, and you responded by demanding proof that this would improve sales. Krikkit's argument had nothing to do with marketing strategy, and if you think that it's a valid counterargument, the burden is on you to show why.

 

[pholtz]

"Eurocentrism to the Max!!! What we going to do?"

I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to buy the game, play the game and enjoy it!

 

[Ryika]

By that standard, what's the point of discussing anything on this forum?

Exchanging opinions? Having fun hearing different opinions? Discussing and getting a deeper understanding of the world? I don't know, so many things that can make it meaningful and worthwhile for you.

Those of us who think the civ list is too European have identified an issue that we think keeps the game from being as good as it can be, and we're explaining our reasons for thinking that. While we might hope that a majority of players share our views, they are worth presenting even if this isn't the case, both to give Firaxis a clearer view of the diversity of opinions in the community and to encourage other community members to consider the issue further.

Because, as far as I can tell, you're the one introducing majority opinion and sales into the discussion. KrikkitTwo argued that more strategic and roleplaying options are worthwhile design goals that would be served by a more diverse civ list, and you responded by demanding proof that this would improve sales. Krikkit's argument had nothing to do with marketing strategy, and if you think that it's a valid counterargument, the burden is on you to show why.

No - I'm not even trying to make a counter argument to him. I very much understand where he's coming from and he may even be right that it would enrich the game for those who are playing it.

But that's exactly the divide that I'm talking about. Things may very well make the game "better" on some level but still never be implemented because it would reduce the number of people who would even try playing the game.

It's like if you have a soccer match between 2 famous clubs that both play the very standard soccer everybody is used to, and then there's that third team that nobody knows and they have that cool and unique style of soccer that would make the game incredibly fun to watch. But if most of the fans of that other club don't watch it, where's the financial incentive?

So you can sit here all day and talk about how great it would be if it happened, but you're simply not making a point on how it could translate into the game doing better on the market you're really just sitting in an echo chamber with people who agree with you. Which again is fine but goes counter to the "What we gonna do?" in the thread title. That's why I kept asking about that topic, but at this point it's clear that there's no argument that would actually translate into change.

 

[Nixalo]

This seems more a base game phenomenon - base game civs have to showcase the basic rules and can't do anything very extreme. So they're just about accumulating resource X better than other civs, using mechanic Y to their advantage more than other civs, or getting bonuses from terrain feature Z. Civs like Venice and the Shoshone are expansion fodder.

And like I said that is old game design.

Like in old games where the base game has humans, elves, dwarves, and orc that play like humans, "tall humans", "short humans", and "bulky humans" that all play the same. The cool races come in the expansion pack.

The issue isn't that Civ VI is Eurocentric. It is that Firaxis makes Europe into a Mario civ and Luigi civs. France is totally different from England, it's blue! Mario, Luigi, Wario, and Waluigi civs is bad if they are 50%+ of the civs.

 

[Staler87]

And like I said that is old game design.

Like in old games where the base game has humans, elves, dwarves, and orc that play like humans, "tall humans", "short humans", and "bulky humans" that all play the same. The cool races come in the expansion pack.

The issue isn't that Civ VI is Eurocentric. It is that Firaxis makes Europe into a Mario civ and Luigi civs. France is totally different from England, it's blue! Mario, Luigi, Wario, and Waluigi civs is bad if they are 50%+ of the civs.

I think it's good to have civs like Venice that really spice things up, but I think it is bad to fall into the trap that every civ needs to be extremely unique. Using nuance to slightly change gameplay between civs is as important as using a sledgehammer to completely change play-style between civs. We need lots of civs that play the generic way but just focus on slightly different aspects of the game. If you have too many exceptions the concept of a core idea and game unity begins to fall apart. Civ IV was a great game and leader diversity (as in play-style) was essentially nill as everyone just had a trait from a list of generic traits.

 

[Martinus]

Yeah, again the complaint about the lack of truly unique civs shows a player who should be really playing a different game.

Civilization was never about making the civs absolutely unique and different from each other - hell, the first two civs (which many players consider to be timeless classics) had absolutely no difference between civs and leaders whatsoever, other than city names, colour and the leader portrait.

Many people also play civilization games in multiplayer, so you can't just make play styles so completely unique, as it would be difficult to balance.

Civilizations' unique abilities were always meant to be more about flavour, really.

 

[True_Candyman]

I did not forget them, I did not mention them because I do not agree that they are Eurocentric.
America: is a very multicultural country, receiving influence of African and Native American culture. And a recently the Latin American and Asian culture. Thus, I do not think that a nation so multicultual can only be considered "Eurocentric". Anyway, regardless of America is or not is Eurocentric, it will always be included in the base game for obvious reasons.
Brazil: I've had a lot of discussion about it here. The issue is that Brazil is probably even less Eurocentric than America. Almost half the population is brown, the result of a strong ethnic mix of whites with blacks and indigenous peoples, resulting in a great cultural blending, allowing the country lost much of its "Eurocentric identity." In addition to the strong African heritage in Brazil is so strong as to have heavily influenced the cuisine, dance, music, beliefs and even language. Among other factors.

Well, in Europe we have 6 civs that can never be left out of the base game (England, France, Greece, Rome, Russia and Germany) and we have Spain that is not a "foreign element" in the base game, and is almost as worthy of being in the base game as the 6 that I mentioned. So, each base game will always have 6-7 European civs inside. Norway is the only element excessive, I do not think it's enough to make the Eurocentric game. I don't think it is cause for much complaint
And Poland will come DLC, probably.
Going back to what I said before, Europe will always be the best represented continent in the game, because of the large number of historically important civs, it is understandable that this continent has more civs than others, at least in base game. In addition to what I mentioned earlier, we still have Portugal, the Celts, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark and Venice, so without doubt still have many important European civs to be added.

I'm really not sure you know what Eurocentric means, and I don't think I have sufficient language skills to explain it very well, but I would recommend googling it to understand a bit more. It's not a verb to be used as a substitute for racist or anything else like that.

Believing America and Brazil are not European is by definition Eurocentric though. You are so europeanised that the slightest difference and geography makes you think two countries that were European colonies are not European. I agreed with you about Americas multiculturalism in my post you quoted, but as I stated their, America has been historically a white British country culturally, with more European cultures thrown in over time. It's not very recent history where a larger portion of the population has become non white, and even more recent where multiculturalism has taken off. The vast majority of its history, up until the 1960s id say, America has been an extension of Europe on another continent. As for Brazil, it's a similar situation. It even became the effective capital of Portugal as recently as 1807. It didn't gain independence until 1822, and even today the majority of the population is European or mixed European ancestry. The institutions are European, it's laws are based on European laws etc. The vast majority of its history, again, is European.

Both have a vested interested in portraying themselves as deprecate to legitimise themselves, and both are growing increasingly independent. But both Civs are representing a period from history in the game where both were still basically culturally European.

That is why they are European Civs in this series, it is about history not present. And the point of this debate is to show the frustration of people who want more diverse cultures in game. They are equally frustrated by more Europeans as they are by Brazil, so colonial nations are a part of this debate whether you agree or not.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I bathe in tears of anti-euros
I'm very pleased with Euro line-up this time. It has all I need and want and no more no less, great job firaxis

This also means all the dlc's can focus on other areas IMO. Because IMO Euro line-up is perfect and does not need anything anymore 8)

 

[turboraton]

"Eurocentrism to the Max!!! What we going to do?"

I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to buy the game, play the game and enjoy it!

Pretty much this. I'm Peruvian and I'll gladly take a solid release over the Nazca just for the sake of Nazca Lines and "diversity" and all that weird stuff that people like Candyman are typing.

That being said, please release the Incas for free!

 

[JimmyBanks]

I bathe in tears of anti-euros
I'm very pleased with Euro line-up this time. It has all I need and want and no more no less, great job firaxis

This also means all the dlc's can focus on other areas IMO. Because IMO Euro line-up is perfect and does not need anything anymore 8)

And therein lies the problem. If I was a European and didn't give two hoots about the rest of the world I'd be happy with the line up as well, the issue is the rest of the world should have to rely on DLCs. The fact that south east asia has absolutely no representation is a disgrace. Are we really eant to believe that there are no civs in south east asia/south pacific that are not worthy to be in the base game this time around? There are plenty of them that easily come ahead of Germany/France/Spain. Just because no one at Firaxis has bothered to study the different cultures doesn't mean they aren't more worthy.

All that said, I went out and pre-ordered today.

 

[True_Candyman]

please release the Incas for free!

Good luck

 

[pholtz]

Good luck

The Incas are free. Just earlier for pre-orders, but free later if you don't pre-order.

 

[JimmyBanks]

The Incas are free. Just earlier for pre-orders, but free later if you don't pre-order.

ARe you getting the Aztecs and the Inca's mixed up?

 

[RohirrimElf]

We need more Euro civs.

What about Willem van Oranje?