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

[jekke]

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.

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.

Good. It means that we are finally (after how many threads?) beyond the point of emotional teenagers from all over the world crying "we have more than 1 billion population! where is our civ? give me my country, damn eurocentrists!" and thus can constructively discuss real issues.

Just to summarize, in your opinion, guys, the problem is that Firaxis paint european nations too similar to each other. This similarity makes the game less fun to play because once you played, say France, you start the next game as Germany or Russia and experience the very similar gameplay.

I can to a certain extent agree with that (after all, that's your impression of the game), but I am very, very puzzled with the solution you propose. Instead of suggesting making civs more distinct (which is entirely doable, of course) you would rather change civs and hope that new civs would get more interesting unique abilities. Why not giving these abilities to the already existing civs then? It would be much simpler and also help you not to look a bit like desperate SJWs whining about racists everywhere and their conspiracy.

For example, I agree that Shoshone UA in Civ V was clearly distinct. What I also think though is that Germany, Russia or America could easily have this UA. I don't think anyone would find the Russians getting vast lands upon settling unreasonable. The thing is, european civs historically are all-rounders, and thus can host any type of UA, UB etc. In fact, it is much easier to obtain enough diversity with european civs alone. Of course, one could make a native siberian or australian tribe civ with a unique ability of not being able to build any improvements, but that'll hardly be fun.

 

[JimmyBanks]

Good. It means that we are finally (after how many threads?) beyond the point of emotional teenagers from all over the world crying "we have more than 1 billion population! where is our civ? give me my country, damn eurocentrists!" and thus can constructively discuss real issues.

Just to summarize, in your opinion, guys, the problem is that Firaxis paint european nations too similar to each other. This similarity makes the game less fun to play because once you played, say France, you start the next game as Germany or Russia and experience the very similar gameplay.

I can to a certain extent agree with that (after all, that's your impression of the game), but I am very, very puzzled with the solution you propose. Instead of suggesting making civs more distinct (which is entirely doable, of course) you would rather change civs and hope that new civs would get more interesting unique abilities. Why not giving these abilities to the already existing civs then? It would be much simpler and also help you not to look a bit like desperate SJWs whining about racists everywhere and their conspiracy.

For example, I agree that Shoshone UA in Civ V was clearly distinct. What I also think though is that Germany, Russia or America could easily have this UA. I don't think anyone would find the Russians getting vast lands upon settling unreasonable. The thing is, european civs historically are all-rounders, and thus can host any type of UA, UB etc. In fact, it is much easier to obtain enough diversity with european civs alone. Of course, one could make a native siberian or australian tribe civ with a unique ability of not being able to build any improvements, but that'll hardly be fun.

I don't think the arguement is that the Devs make the civs to similiar, I think the arguement is the Civs are to similar in real life, you know like the Queen of England really being German and all that jazz.

 

[GermanSettler]

Reading a lot of posts here I see that quite a lot of people calling the devs out on eurozentrism and disregard for the richness of other civilizations show a big disregard for European civilizations themselves.

I think everybody in this discussion could at least agree on the basic idea that there is really no golden way to do this - this becomes very clear reading this thread. There is not really a common denominator.

 

[Miravlix]

I don't think the arguement is that the Devs make the civs to similiar, I think the arguement is the Civs are to similar in real life, you know like the Queen of England really being German and all that jazz.

They are only similar if your not European, because one just can't learn the feel of a place without living in it. Now your not being anti-Eurocentrism, your simply anti-Euro and then we step into racism.

 

[JimmyBanks]

They are only similar if your not European, because one just can't learn the feel of a place without living in it. Now your not being anti-Eurocentrism, your simply anti-Euro and then we step into racism.

no that's not being anti-euro or anti-eurocentrist. It's simply pointing out history. They all inter-married to try and keep the peace. It's not being judgemental, its just a fact. I think you need to learn what racism is. It's not racist to want the game to have less European civs.

 

[Miravlix]

no that's not being anti-euro or anti-eurocentrist. It's simply pointing out history. They all inter-married to try and keep the peace. It's not being judgemental, its just a fact. I think you need to learn what racism is. It's not racist to want the game to have so many European civs.

You didn't read all of what I quoted.

 

[True_Candyman]

They are only similar if your not European, because one just can't learn the feel of a place without living in it. Now your not being anti-Eurocentrism, your simply anti-Euro and then we step into racism.

You didn't read all of what I quoted.

I'm not sure I even understand what you're saying here. European countries fundamentally are quite similar from the Renaissance onwards in particular. Yes, each has it's own little cultural quirks, but there has been so much historic migration between our countries, particularly at the level of the political elite, that many of our institutions are inspired by each others, most of our philosophies are shared and much of our history is intertwined.

I mean, I'm English, I've been to other European countries and I can even understand the basics of their languages without speaking them. There's a reason 'western culture' has become a common phrase, and that's because western europe in particular and it's former colonies, particularly in the americas, have a great deal in common.

But none of that is really relevent or a problem. We can have a million and 1 european civs in game and I don't think anyone would complain, as long as there there's good representation outside of Europe too.

There seem to be two main issues concerning the preference towards European civs in this thread.

1) The preference for Brazil, a European colonial state, as a new civ over Persia/Mongolia/Ottomans which were perceived to have been civ staples. Meanwhile European staples remain sacrosanct and it's hard to imagine they would ever be dropped for a lesser known European civ, let alone a non-European civ.

2) The number of European staples, Germany, England, France, Russia, America, Greece, Rome, is completely out of proportion with the non-European staples, Egypt, China, India and Japan.

So we have the issue that the are more civs with perceived value inside of Europe than out of it in the first place. And then we have the issue that even those civs outside of Europe that are valued are still perceived as expendable, with 4 exceptions.

And then the problem is that this game claims not to be just about European history but about humanity and its great achievements. It definitely isn't just about the last 500 years of history. But in reality this game prefers to celebrate recent and familiar empires achievements with a significant weighting against the older and more obscure to western audiences. And i think that is largely down to the fact a western developer is making it for a western audience and that's all it is, because they've chosen civilizations that are still well off, still recognizable and generally within the same western cultural group that the producers come from. This jars with the grand message the game gives off, and people come into this expecting to pit the worlds best against one another, when really its Europe's best and a few that Europeans would recognise against each other.

The argument that this thread is really trying to put forward is not to get rid of any of what it currently prefers, but for the game to open it's eyes to different periods of history when other great empires were on top and put forward something different for once.

 

[Nixalo]

Good. It means that we are finally (after how many threads?) beyond the point of emotional teenagers from all over the world crying "we have more than 1 billion population! where is our civ? give me my country, damn eurocentrists!" and thus can constructively discuss real issues.

Just to summarize, in your opinion, guys, the problem is that Firaxis paint european nations too similar to each other. This similarity makes the game less fun to play because once you played, say France, you start the next game as Germany or Russia and experience the very similar gameplay.

I can to a certain extent agree with that (after all, that's your impression of the game), but I am very, very puzzled with the solution you propose. Instead of suggesting making civs more distinct (which is entirely doable, of course) you would rather change civs and hope that new civs would get more interesting unique abilities. Why not giving these abilities to the already existing civs then? It would be much simpler and also help you not to look a bit like desperate SJWs whining about racists everywhere and their conspiracy.

For example, I agree that Shoshone UA in Civ V was clearly distinct. What I also think though is that Germany, Russia or America could easily have this UA. I don't think anyone would find the Russians getting vast lands upon settling unreasonable. The thing is, european civs historically are all-rounders, and thus can host any type of UA, UB etc. In fact, it is much easier to obtain enough diversity with european civs alone. Of course, one could make a native siberian or australian tribe civ with a unique ability of not being able to build any improvements, but that'll hardly be fun.

Well It's too late to change the civs now.

But seeing how Civ VI is designed, I can't blame Firaxis completely. There won't be uch complaining coming from dead civs on accuracy as they people are mostly dead and the rarer civs have fans who would just be appreciative that they exist.

So European and America civs end up being a hodge podge of their history and end up samey (especially on harder difficulty).

It would be cool if England's UA promoted massive blobby intercontinental empires or Germany had a massive boost to invading nations with bigger scores and conversion of barbarian camps into cities. But that's not what we got.

when I watch a youtuber or streamer play a European civ in 2017, I will watch them totally skip their UU, UA, or UI over and over again.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I'm not sure I even understand what you're saying here. European countries fundamentally are quite similar from the Renaissance onwards in particular. Yes, each has it's own little cultural quirks, but there has been so much historic migration between our countries, particularly at the level of the political elite, that many of our institutions are inspired by each others, most of our philosophies are shared and much of our history is intertwined.

I mean, I'm English, I've been to other European countries and I can even understand the basics of their languages without speaking them. There's a reason 'western culture' has become a common phrase, and that's because western europe in particular and it's former colonies, particularly in the americas, have a great deal in common.

But none of that is really relevent or a problem. We can have a million and 1 european civs in game and I don't think anyone would complain, as long as there there's good representation outside of Europe too.

There seem to be two main issues concerning the preference towards European civs in this thread.

1) The preference for Brazil, a European colonial state, as a new civ over Persia/Mongolia/Ottomans which were perceived to have been civ staples. Meanwhile European staples remain sacrosanct and it's hard to imagine they would ever be dropped for a lesser known European civ, let alone a non-European civ.

2) The number of European staples, Germany, England, France, Russia, America, Greece, Rome, is completely out of proportion with the non-European staples, Egypt, China, India and Japan.

So we have the issue that the are more civs with perceived value inside of Europe than out of it in the first place. And then we have the issue that even those civs outside of Europe that are valued are still perceived as expendable, with 4 exceptions.

And then the problem is that this game claims not to be just about European history but about humanity and its great achievements. It definitely isn't just about the last 500 years of history. But in reality this game prefers to celebrate recent and familiar empires achievements with a significant weighting against the older and more obscure to western audiences. And i think that is largely down to the fact a western developer is making it for a western audience and that's all it is, because they've chosen civilizations that are still well off, still recognizable and generally within the same western cultural group that the producers come from. This jars with the grand message the game gives off, and people come into this expecting to pit the worlds best against one another, when really its Europe's best and a few that Europeans would recognise against each other.

The argument that this thread is really trying to put forward is not to get rid of any of what it currently prefers, but for the game to open it's eyes to different periods of history when other great empires were on top and put forward something different for once.

In addition to this, the civs outside of Europe are designed with western perspectives. The most obvious for this is the choice of leaders of the following civs: India, Egypt and Kongo. Better choices of leaders for these civs were neglected in favor of leaders better known in the western world or related to the western world.

Edit: Now that I mention this, I am wondering whether the devs consult academic historians about civs, buildings and stuff like that and to which degree they follow the advices to the choices. I know that they have civilopedia with historical information about civs, leaders, building and units etc. So I have the feeling they would have to do that, but still not sure to what degree they follow there advice in their decisions/choices.

 

[jekke]

I don't think the arguement is that the Devs make the civs to similiar, I think the arguement is the Civs are to similar in real life, you know like the Queen of England really being German and all that jazz.

Ah, ok, you and the person whose message I was referring to seem to have different opinions on why the game is "eurocentric".

Now, I suppose we agree then that which nations in reality seem look similar to each other and which not is highly subjective. It is an interesting topic to discuss per se, but I doubt it has any influence on the gameplay experience. I mean, I could agree with you that Spain and Portugal might be somewhat similar in reality, but when I meet them in Civ V they are two completely different fractions, and cannot be confused due to their entirely different UAs and units.
That's why I was talking about in-game similarity: I do understand that argument, but I do not understand how the real-life similarity in your imagination you are talking about impedes the gameplay fun.

---

Spoiler :

And seriously, do Germany and France look more similar to each other than, say, Shoshone and Iroquois? No kidding here?

 

[Nixalo]

---

Spoiler :

And seriously, do Germany and France look more similar to each other than, say, Shoshone and Iroquois? No kidding here?

Based on Civ V

Iroquois
A handful of cities surrounded and connected by forests to boost production and connect cities on the cheap

Shoshone
A disjointed mess of blobby cities forward settled on all neighbors with a pimped out capital due to picking hut bonuses

---

France
Generic civ with generic units/buildings/cities until Renaissance at which point it gets great museums... maybe

Germany
Generic civ with generic units/buildings/cities until atomic era. Might have 2 extra infantry from barbarian camps

 

[Stringer1313]

One angle that I feel this discussion is missing is the desire of civ players to actually encounter a diverse set of civs when playing a random game. Even assuming that every civ player wants to play as the civ where they live (which is extremely dubious-i find that to be very boring), wouldn't players want to encounter a diversity of civs during the game? Is it really that fun to be play a world simulation where 6 out of 7 civs end up being from europe?

 

[demidyad]

No BarshyJ, that point has been made countless times, its just that its shouted over by the endless chorus of "lol SJWs are racist against whites" that continue to completely miss the point.

 

[True_Candyman]

In addition to this, the civs outside of Europe are designed with western perspectives. The most obvious for this is the choice of leaders of the following civs: India, Egypt and Kongo. Better choices of leaders for these civs were neglected in favor of leaders better known in the western world or related to the western world.

Edit: Now that I mention this, I am wondering whether the devs consult academic historians about civs, buildings and stuff like that and to which degree they follow the advices to the choices. I know that they have civilopedia with historical information about civs, leaders, building and units etc. So I have the feeling they would have to do that, but still not sure to what degree they follow there advice in their decisions/choices.

From what I understand, and I may be confusing firaxis with paradox here, they have a reading list of significant historic academic works for their employees to work through, and they do the research themselves, but do it through academic sources.

I don't think they actively consult academics though. I can imagine that would be more pain than it's worth

 

[j51]

From what I understand, and I may be confusing firaxis with paradox here, they have a reading list of significant historic academic works for their employees to work through, and they do the research themselves, but do it through academic sources.

I don't think they actively consult academics though. I can imagine that would be more pain than it's worth

Yeah, I get the impression that Firaxis doesn't even do the reading list thing. I'm pretty sure they wing it based on what they remember from their educations.

 

[Depravo]

Edit: Now that I mention this, I am wondering whether the devs consult academic historians about civs, buildings and stuff like that and to which degree they follow the advices to the choices. I know that they have civilopedia with historical information about civs, leaders, building and units etc. So I have the feeling they would have to do that, but still not sure to what degree they follow there advice in their decisions/choices.

You only have to read the 'descriptive' text in each civ's startup screen to know that Civ 5 apparently subcontracted that task to an earnest but dim 14-year old girl who was late for school.

'The Ottomans, better known as the Turks, started in the tiny country of Bithynia...'

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

 

[True_Candyman]

Yeah, I get the impression that Firaxis doesn't even do the reading list thing. I'm pretty sure they wing it based on what they remember from their educations.

The more i think about it, the more I'm inclined to think it was paradox that did that... God they are a fantastic studio

Maybe we could make inquiries into how much firaxis would sell the civ IP for? Imagine the patches, the balance... Kinda wouldn't feel like civ if something wasn't broken anymore though you know?

 

[Depravo]

The more i think about it, the more I'm inclined to think it was paradox that did that... God they are a fantastic studio

Maybe we could make inquiries into how much firaxis would sell the civ IP for? Imagine the patches, the balance... Kinda wouldn't feel like civ if something wasn't broken anymore though you know?

Paradox haven't been close to the gold standard for a while.

 

[Metecury]

The arguments in this thread are borderline racist and extremely offensive. Saying that there is little difference between European countries in terms of culture is beyond ignorant and stupid.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yeah, I get the impression that Firaxis doesn't even do the reading list thing. I'm pretty sure they wing it based on what they remember from their educations.

Which is actually the best, because they aren't marketing their game to history professors, they are marketing it to people with some history education. (high school, elementary, or just what they see on Face book)

So when that person sees Arabia/Egypt/Vikings/Aztecs, the Uniques/leader, etc. picked by Firaxis will be about what the random player would expect.