Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by j51, Aug 18, 2016.
you didn't even attempt to address the argument you are responding to.
If it's any consolation, I'd be saying the same thing if Canada, Australia or some other mid-level ex-colony was in the base game instead of powerful and influential Stand The Test Of Time-level civilizations like Mongolia and Persia.
I believe the inclusion of Brazil should be viewed in a proper cotext.
What is Civ looking for when choosing the civilizations that will be in the game? As they supposed to be the 18 greatest and most influential civs in history? Then Brazil has no place in that list. But we know that's not what they want.
So, what is exactly Brazil role? Do they want a important modern country without that much impact in history? Than Brazil fits. It could be others, like South Africa. And so it would be wrong to think Brazil is "stealing" the place of Persia, Ottomans or other historical civilizations.
The issue with Brazil remains perverse timing, as it was in Civ V. Brazil is not a particularly "important modern country" beyond its immediate region; back when its inclusion was first agitated for, and indeed when it made it into Civ V, a lot was made of justifying its inclusion as part of the BRIC concept, as it was the only one of those economies not represented in the game and it was thought to be an emerging powerhouse.
Brazil not only never realised that potential in a world where China, India and Russia all - as predicted - became more substantial powers, but its performance, both economically and politically, has only worsened over the years since Civ V was released. If there was a time when Brazil justified a place for any other reason than the size of the Brazilian gaming market, it's surely not in what may be its period of most severe decline, at least of recent decades.
If Firaxis could think of something interesting to do with the civ - as with civs like the Shoshone that don't warrant inclusion on the basis of 'significance', that's all well and good, but Civ VI seems to follow Civ V's "well players want it but we don't have any real ideas, so look! It's carnival time in the jungle!" caricature.
It's as simple as this.... the developers of Civ6 over at Firaxis are not a bunch of racists. They aren't trying to pretend civilizations outside of Europe don't exist. They aren't trying to push some kind of pro-european agenda. Why? because they are game developers. There job is to make a fun game and make it sell, they aren't trying to oppress anyone. The only people offended by this supposed and absolutely stupid claim of Eurocentrism are you.
eurocentrism has nothing to do with intentions or agendas. if firaxis is trying to make a fun game to sell to people who believe in the preeminence of european culture then yeah that's eurocentrism
Civ is a game of "what ifs" not "what is" or "what was." It's a strategic, tactical, turn-based, boardgamey video game with a historical veneer and real world references and it is wonderful, but it's nothing more than that. It's not political commentary. It's not historical commentary. It's just Civ.
are you saying that in this case moneycentrism = eurocentrism?
Are Korean Developers that create Grinding MMOs for the Asian Market while ignoring the European Market perpetuating Asiacentrism and should we start learning their language so we can tell them that what they're doing is bad?
Although you wrote some harsh words, it was not just your opinion about Brazil that made me write those things. If your words were "Ah, I just prefer Persia instead of Brazil", it would be ok to me. Do you know why? Because I prefer Brazil than Persia. Canada than Persia. Australia than Persia. And we would just agree to disagree. Persia will probably come in a all Middle East expansion, with Ottomans, Babylon, Arabia, etc.
But then you raise the inclusion of a civ in the game as if it were a Medal of Honor, the highest distinction a nation could get, as if CIV 6 were The Official Ranking of the CIVs of the world. Which it is not. I'll just quote what this game is:
am i? i'm saying a certain world outlook is perpetuated
are you advocating cultural imperialism? that if eurocentrism is true, europeans should tell other countries how to behave because they are also being country-centric?
in any case MMOs aren't any sort of history game in which the 'asian' model is pretending to be the highest end of some sort of pre-ordained developmental path of all humanity
Yes, that's what I'm advocating - benevolent cultural imperialism. If Eurocentrism is a thing that is considered to be a problem, one that has to be overcome through cultural revolution, then we should make sure other cultures are made aware of this problem as soon as possible, because not doing so would mean that we treat them as inferiors who just aren't on our level of understanding.
Or in other words: Not holding them to our own standards would be deeply racist.
That may be true, but many Asia-Grinders have very sexy characters, and when you have a game with sexy characters but only Asian characters in them, then they're basically saying they're the pinnacle of beauty.
Which, to be fair, they are - but if they say that about themselves, then that's some pretty Asiacentric Beauty Standards.
That's a terrible analogy. Unlike Civilization, which is meant to portray world history to some degree of scope and scale, Korean MMOs don't pretend to be about world history or the larger world. Civ does.
So when the base game Civ has proportionally more European civs than any Civ game in the last 12 years, that has nothing to do with Korean MMOs and their alleged "Asiacentrism". (A closer look at Korean MMOs shows that many Korean MMOs feature European style dress and Westernized as well as Asian looking characters and art styles).
It was a joke-analogy in response to cakes' joke question (at least I think it was a joke question).
Yes, but does it claim to be neutral? I don't think it does. Quite the opposite, I think it's very blatant about the fact that it looks at the world from a western audience's point of view.
I understand that that's not what some people want, and I understand the arguments against it. But there's nothing "morally wrong" with it, and people who are okay with it aren't just cultural untermenschen who have to be eased into other cultures as some people seem to think.
I mean, we agree on that, right? Both views have valid arguments and in the end it comes down to personal preference?
Now that you're mentioning it... I didn't even realize they were appropriating western culture but they clearly do. Shameful.
Initially I was angry at the fact Norway is in game instead of Persia, but after 20 pages of the ideological warfare in this topic I am so exhausted I'll enjoy the game with whatever civs it has.
Although I'll be happy upon seeing Persia (Persophile here).
Let's just give the definition of eurocentrism -
So yeah, your claim is that Civilization 6 is viewing European civilization as superior. Can you back this up? are the European civs displayed in any way superior to the non-european civs?
I don't even get this damn hate towards Europe anyway. It's done great things and bad things, and in a way you could say you are being the opposite of euro-centric by denying Europe has any substantial impact on the world to deserve its spot in a Civilization game.
and heres another annoyance of all your arguments - You are describing Europe as a whole. When we describe "Asia" as one place, that's racist. When we describe "Africa" as one place, that's racist. But so many people on this forum are throwing around "Europe" to describe all the European civs, as if they hold no merit as seperate countries and peoples.
Im happy with the current list and cant wait for some of the missing civs to come in later like a native american, monghols, mayas, persia, and a south east asia one.
Im also happy they picked familiar choices for their western audience instead of more exotic choices just for the sake of diversity.
Moderator Action: Lets try and stay on topic and discuss Civilization VI on this thread.
I wasn't pleased to see that the Mongols had been excluded, as well, but we can bide our time until the Persians and Mongols make their triumphant return.
Separate names with a comma.