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

[Miravlix]

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.

Things is getting a little out of hand with the euro-hate, but I hope it's mostly desperation and ignorance.

It's like people is confusing USA with Europa, it makes a hell of a difference that Europa is clearly separate countries. They might as well claim America, Russia and China is the same because they are all big countries.

 

[True_Candyman]

I don't know what I expected from trying to argue academics online, but y'all need to read history.

I think we've kinda got to the point where we know the civs now and we've all made peace with the choice, so I think we can stop throwing around accusations of racism and say there's at least something for everyone.

 

[Nixalo]

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.

My argument is purely mechanical.

Firaxis tends to make vanilla European civs boring as a smooth rock mechanically.

Bonus museum slots?
Extra spy info?
Woohoo?

 

[pholtz]

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

Oops!

 

[j51]

I don't know what I expected from trying to argue academics online, but y'all need to read history.

I think we've kinda got to the point where we know the civs now and we've all made peace with the choice, so I think we can stop throwing around accusations of racism and say there's at least something for everyone.

Yep. This thread is over. We made our points. You in particular have given great arguments and explanations these last few pages that no body has been able to refute.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Things is getting a little out of hand with the euro-hate, but I hope it's mostly desperation and ignorance.

It's like people is confusing USA with Europa, it makes a hell of a difference that Europa is clearly separate countries. They might as well claim America, Russia and China is the same because they are all big countries.

As an American that does make me chuckle. Most of the time when im online, Europeans like to make sure we know we're different from them. Especially when it comes to the US' shortcomings. This might be the first online argument ive seen where Europeans themselves are arguing the exact opposite.

 

[Depravo]

I don't know what I expected from trying to argue academics online, but y'all need to read history.

I think we've kinda got to the point where we know the civs now and we've all made peace with the choice, so I think we can stop throwing around accusations of racism and say there's at least something for everyone.

I agree with you much of the time but you need to dial back the arrogance.

 

[Ryika]

Yep. This thread is over. We made our points. You in particular have given great arguments and explanations these last few pages that no body has been able to refute.

Could you expand on what arguments you think are more than just personal preference but have not been refuted?

Because all I have seen him do is argue about the definition of the word Eurocentrism, say some true things about how a game about human history centers around the last few centuries, <insert reference of him pleasuring Paradox here> and then end with the stereotypical "Ohh, the internet! Why do I even bother arguing with insects?"-post.

 

[j51]

Could you expand on what arguments you think are more than just personal preference but have not been refuted?

Because all I have seen him do is argue about the definition of the word Eurocentrism, say some true things about how a game about human history centers around the last few centuries, <insert reference of him pleasuring Paradox here> and then end with the stereotypical "Ohh, the internet! Why do I even bother arguing with insects?"-post.

Spoiler :

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.

TLDR version: There's no need to not include European and European originating civs, but doing so at the expense of civs from elsewhere, especially staples, such as Persia, Mongolia, Inca, etc. detracts from variety in a game that purports to be about the WHOLE of human history.

 

[Ryika]

That is again just a "I would like the game change in a way that meets my preferences better."-post. If that's his preference, okay. If that's your preference, okay. But that doesn't somehow magically translate into an objective "should", or that it would be a net-positive for Firaxis to implement the changes you're asking for.

The premise that the game must include Civs from all of Human history to rightfully claim it's a celebration of human history is flawed as well. Even if only Current-day European Civs were included the game would still be a game in which we progress through human history. That alone is enough to make the premise valid, the fact that we build wonders from all over the world and that we're able to play as different Civs from different Eras and Places as the protagonists merely builds another layer on the premise. Nobody ever claimed that the game must take it to the absolute maximum possible when it comes to that.

So overall, the reason that post has not been refuted is that there's nothing to refute. You claiming that because nobody "refuted" your personal opinions makes your opinions right doesn't make sense, the only thing you should take from this thread is: "Okay, seems like I'm in a minority when it comes to that opinion. Well, too bad."

 

[JimmyBanks]

To the people claiming racism, you obviously have no understanding of what it actually is.

No one in this thread has been in anyway, shape or form racist. I've read back through the thread and to suggest so is just ridiculous.

People are simply pointing out that there are a large number of European Civs and a low number of other civs. Some people include America and Brazil as European civs, I wouldn't but to do so is not racist.

Some people have said that the TSL map is to crowded around Europe, again not racist.

Some people have said other civs are more deserving than some European civs due to Firaxis making some of the European civs to similar in the past, again not racist.

No one has posted "The *insert race* are a bunch of idiots, why are they even in the game." OR "All *insert race* are *insert insult*

Just because you are losing a debate don't resort to name calling. It's unbecoming.

 

[j51]

That is again just a "I would like the game change in a way that meets my preferences better."-post. If that's his preference, okay. If that's your preference, okay. But that doesn't somehow magically translate into an objective "should", or that it would be a net-positive for Firaxis to implement the changes you're asking for.

The premise that the game must include Civs from all of Human history to rightfully claim it's a celebration of human history is flawed as well. Even if only Current-day European Civs were included the game would still be a game in which we progress through human history. That alone is enough to make the premise valid, the fact that we build wonders from all over the world and that we're able to play as different Civs from different Eras and Places as the protagonists merely builds another layer on the premise. Nobody ever claimed that the game must take it to the absolute maximum possible when it comes to that.

So overall, the reason that post has not been refuted is that there's nothing to refute. You claiming that because nobody "refuted" your personal opinions makes your opinions right doesn't make sense, the only thing you should take from this thread is: "Okay, seems like I'm in a minority when it comes to that opinion. Well, too bad."

Obviously this is mostly a subjective issue. Duh! That said, the by the most basic historical objective measurements, Persia (largest empire by percentage of world population) and Mongolia (largest contiguous empire) should be in every basic version of the game. The best objective measurement for the opposite argument is marketing data. Which of these measurements one values more is itself a subjective issue. I clearly value the former more, but yes, a corporation would value the later.

Also, "that the game must include Civs from all of Human history to rightfully claim it's a celebration of human history," is not a flawed premise. A game of only "Current-day European Civs," progressing through history is not "a celebration of human history." It's a celebration of European history, a facet of human history, but certainly not all of it. Get it? Oy.

I haven't seen evidence that those of us arguing for such are in the minority, though it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[nunor]

I don't know what I expected from trying to argue academics online, but y'all need to read history.

Says the guy who'd gladly do away with Greece in a game called "Civilizaton" because, and I quote, "They were a bunch of city states that can be perfectly represented as city states, and had one of the briefest empires in history."

 

[ToothedBomb]

I'm a bit disappointed in the selection for vanilla CiVI.

Certainly, I understand why all these civilizations made it in the game. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. I just think it'd be better if some were moved to DLC or expansions in favour of other, non-European civs. The base game, when it releases will just feel... weird to me. For Civ V I always hoped for a few more (south) African and Native American civs. Those are most fun for me to play as, and encounter in-game. I'm a bit sad to see there's not much improvement there for CiVI.

 

[jekke]

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

Or please, that was obviously about the real life and not Civ V bonuses... I got your point regarding the latter, but that's not "eurocentrism", that's just (maybe) poor design of the european civs.
In which case, as it has just occurred to me, it would make sense to speak about anti-eurocentrism, because it is Europeans which are poorly represented, whereas the factions like Iroquois got more interesting and distinct bonuses.

I am also wondering whether people who complain about the eurocentrism realize that if - one day - someone indeed was bothered with kicking out some factions which were label as European here (an incredibly vague definition), the first candidate would be America?

 

[Ryika]

See I would say "that the game must include Civs from all of Human history to rightfully claim it's a celebration of human history," is not a flawed premise. A game of only "Current-day European Civs," progressing through history is not "a celebration of human history." It's a celebration of European history. Get it? Oy.

The game has Wonders from all over the world, is depicting the historical progress of Civilizations that was made all over the world and not only in Europe. It's depicting the well-known religions from all over the world, etc. etc. etc. etc.. You're specifically reducing the premise to only the Civilizations, that's why it's nonsense. Get it? Oy.

Also, I haven't seen evidence that us arguing for such are in the minority, though it wouldn't surprise me.

The people caring much about this are very obviously a minority, otherwise we would have seen tons and tons of discussions about this all over the place and not only a few threads every now and then in a forum which has an audience that generally leans towards the more history-focused part of the audience.

/edit to edit in you edit:

Obviously this is mostly a subjective issue. Duh! That said, the by the most basic historical objective measurements, Persia (largest empire by percentage of world population) and Mongolia (largest contiguous empire) should be in every basic version of the game. The best objective measurement for the opposite argument is marketing data. Which of these measurements one values more is itself a subjective issue however.

Yeah... glad you realize that. So why are you saying that people weren't able to "refute" your points when it's clear that it's just different opinions? I don't think anyone said: "No, what you're saying is invalid.", did they?

 

[Thormodr]

As I said in the other thread, this is literally the worst civ line up in the entire game.

No Persia (unless they decided to make Xerxes the leader, which I think a terrible decision in itself), No Ottomans, No Mongols. India confirmed to just be one civ again. Kongo is a eurocentric decision, no other subsarahan african civs, only one native american civ (and that's if you preorder!), etc, etc.

But Brazil is a starter civ? Sparta is so important that they get to be split off from the main Greece civ? European Scythians being picked for the token steppe culture rather than the Mongols? God, its like these people don't even care about non-european history, and just throwing in token non-western civs because they feel obligated to. Honestly really dissapointed.

The Scythians were of Iranian descent. They were all over the Asiatic steppes and although they were Indo-European, they definitely can in no way be classified as European.

 

[Tsuchinoko]

TLDR version: There's no need to not include European and European originating civs, but doing so at the expense of civs from elsewhere, especially staples, such as Persia, Mongolia, Inca, etc. detracts from variety in a game that purports to be about the WHOLE of human history.

I think this pretty much covers how I feel about the civ selection. I don't think that any of the civs we know about thus far are 'unworthy' of being included in the game - or even being part of the initial release. The issue I have is that there is a real disparity between Europe and the rest of the continents.

I've said this before in other threads but I think this a problem that can only really be solved by having more than 18 civs in the base game, seeing as there is an expectation that certain civs are 'untouchable' and will always appear in every game, and many of these are from Europe (i.e Rome, Greece, England, France, Germany, Russia etc). I'm not expecting Firaxis to include all civs from the previous version of the game in future base releases, but by upping the number to 24/25ish it would be a lot easier for them to have more than just a single, token representative for some continents, while still including the civs that people expect. If we'd had 25 civs to start with this time we could have had a selection that included, for example, the Ottomans, Persia, Mongolia, the Khmer, the Iroquois, the Inca and Mali - and I think people would have been more satisfied with a lineup along those lines.

Of course, it's too late for that to happen now, so regardless of our views on the selection, we're just going to have to wait and see what Firaxis decides to do next. I honestly hope that all those who are happy with the current civ list (and those who bought it regardless) will be satisfied with the game itself when it comes out.

 

[JeszKar]

First I wanted to say this less kindly but I'll be nice:

European, Asian and Colonial civilization were and are the most influential civilization during our history, not Native American or African.
Be honest with ourselves: How many civilization from Africa is really important in the grand picture? Which one of those created very important technologies, had a serious cultural influence or played a great part in world history? Egypt. And maybe Kongo but only because of the Slave Trade. In my book civilization like Zulus would not even be good enough to be city-states. And the Native Americans? Most of the that didn't even build permanent settlement (what is important in a game built around cities) and outside of Central and South America you can't even see major cultural influence from them.

And I don't even saying we should not have African or American civs but we should not act like they were that important in our history.

 

[j51]

The game has Wonders from all over the world, is depicting the historical progress of Civilizations that was made all over the world and not only in Europe. It's depicting the well-known religions from all over the world, etc. etc. etc. etc.. You're specifically reducing the premise to only the Civilizations, that's why it's nonsense. Get it? Oy.

I was simply arguing with the premise (an all-Euro civ) that you made.

The people caring much about this are very obviously a minority, otherwise we would have seen tons and tons of discussions about this all over the place and not only a few threads every now and then in a forum which has an audience that generally leans towards the more history-focused part of the audience.

/edit to edit in you edit:

Yeah... glad you realize that. So why are you saying that people weren't able to "refute" your points when it's clear that it's just different opinions? I don't think anyone said: "No, what you're saying is invalid.", did they?

You haven't been, but plenty of people have come into this thread, basically said that, without having read any of the previous pages, never to return.