Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[cybrxkhan]

Why is it that I want to kill you SOOO bad?

because he sounds like your stereotypical stereotyping arrogant American... and im assuming hes being sarcastic to a degree...


oh, and you cant kick Vietnam's ***. thats an impossibility.

 

[The Flame]

because he sounds like your stereotypical stereotyping arrogant American... and im assuming hes being sarcastic to a degree...

Yeah, I kinda figured. It still doesn't stop me from wanting to kill him

 

[jkp1187]

This is 'merica pal. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's the center of the universe. We won both World Wars single handedly, destroyed those Evil Communists, liberated countless countries from bad guys, invented everything, first on the moon, stopped Iraq from using it's WMD, and will kick anyones ass who says otherwise. Take your "history" and shove it.

USA IS #1!

This must be that Canadian friendliness I've heard so much about. (Or should I say, 'inferiority complex'? Or 'middle child syndrome'? You know, not as driven as the first born Yanks, not as laid-back and cool as those baby Aussies. Ah, but I digress...)

To the OP: Ultimately, it is a game, and I am sure that if any of us were privy to the actual decision-making process that leads to certain civs/leaders being included/excluded, we would probably be stunned at how superficial it really is. I would much prefer that the programmers spend more time on game balance than (for instance) fixing Winston Churchill's Warlords Civilopedia entry. (Which, BTW, incorrectly states that his second term as PM began after the Suez War....)

 

[Kushluk]

As a writer with a considerable background in East Asian history, I am wondering whether Firaxis is guilty of a gross misrepresentation of East Asian history--and by association, perhaps non-Western history simply. To make the argument succinct, as it is late: It appears to me that Firaxis has done very little serious research in picking East Asian leaders. The formula seems to have been "Let's just pick those leaders who are well-known in the West," when it should have been "Let's find out who is considered the greatest leaders by the natives of those civilizations represented." In so doing, Firaxis has came up with some curious choices when it comes to East Asian leaders.

I suspect the same dynamic is at work with other non-Western civilizations (or those Western civilizations that have not survived to modernity), but let me restrict my points to East Asia--as that is my field of expertise.

To begin with, I have already written at length about the ridiculous inclusion of Wang Kon as the sole Korean leader. I don't want to repeat myself, but no Korean--whether the expert historian or the average Joe in the street--would tell you that Wang is even remotely close to the greatest or the most important Korean leader. He was a puppet "founder" of a Korean dynasty neither known for its power or longevity. Why was he picked? He was personally not remarkable--neither a great general nor a great administrator. His rule was extremely weak, and it was his weakness that necessitated the autocratic correction of his brilliant son, Gwangjong. But for Gwangjong, Wang's new dynast would not have lasted half a century. And even then, the Koryo dynasty was nothing remarkable. It was weaker than Koguryo, for instance; it was the shortest of all major Korean dynasties. It was also internally the weakest among all major Korean dynasties, as its king almost never had any power. Finally, Wang actually did not "found" Koryo, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Korean history knows. The founder of Koryo dynasty was really the mad monk-king, Gung Ye.

Wang Kon, I am sorry to say, Firaxis, was an insignificant figure in Korean history--compared to others who could have taken his place: Sejong the Great, Gwanggaeto the Great, Yi Bangwon, Yeon Gaesomun, et al.

So much for Korea; but what of China? The problem is that China is represented by two leaders who are among the worst butchers in East Asian history. True, unlike Wang Kon--who was simply weak and insignificant--both the Chin Emperor and Mao are important figures. But did you really have to pick both the blueprint totalitarian and the latest model totalitarian to represent a culture known for its moderation? Now, I am in principle averse to putting men like Hitler and Stalin and Mao as a leader, but I would not have objected with putting one of these scoundrels in there. But two?

It is not as if there is a dearth of important, powerful, and benevolent Chinese leaders. How about Taizong--who is universally considered the greatest Chinese monarch and the founder of perhaps the greatest Chinese dynasty of them all? (Officially Taizong's father was the founder, but later historian have established that Taizong was the true founder.) Even the Kangxi emperor would have been a good choice to replace either Shi-huang-di or Mao.

Of course, the average Westerner knows no idea who Taizong is--nor the clowns at Firaxis. But most know who Mao is (heck, even Mike Tyson has him tattooed to his arm), and many--thanks to Jet Li--know who the Chin emperor is. So a Mao replaces a Taizong. Surely, a "dumbing" down of history at its worst.

Agree agree agree!!! I'm a Chinese major and I've lived in Taiwan. I am no historian but I know my dynasties. Both Mao and SHD are important, but they are just the tip of the iceberg! There are many many important kings and emperors, and choosing two very much "alike" tyrants as leaders sort of pidgeonholes the whole civilization into a rut.

I wanted to see Sun Yat Sen - a truly different Chinese leader. Qianlong, Taizong and many others are worth inclusion but instead we get the same guy seperated by a few thousand years. . .

 

[Gilder]

This is a computer game, not a history simlulator. If you're looking for historical accuracy I suggest you try a game like Europa Universitalis.

 

[thadian]

I like some of the non conquerors. Maybe Liu Bei or Cao Cao could lead china? Yes i know they werent the leader.

But thanks to video games, most "average americans" are well hearsed in the romance of the three kingdoms Wei, Wu and Shu. Very few of the same know anything about the Yellow Turbans, Who they were and why they rebelled.

But these 2 are almost household names in america, and both fit the samurai reputation well. Like with Joan of Arc and Ghandi, i dont mind if each civ had one leader then 1-2 great "non-leaders".

By the same theory, Takeda Shingen or Oda Nobunaga would make good figures for china. Im on the "Anti-oda" boat myself, but i would support him being in the game.

Each civ given one leader and 1-2 "great people" would be a good goal for firaxis. Outside of educational forms of entertainment though the only thing about china taught in america is in the apocalypse the "evil china commies" will march down the yellow river, and that "Commie Mao was evil". Likewise, most know "ninjas are cool" or (lol) "Chinese invented gunpowder". (well, they DID invent the stirrup).

Most americans are taught only american history and not world history efficiently. At that the childeren are taught in a fassion of conservative-themed bias. The difference seems to be sociology, which is more liberal. (bias either way is bad).

So is there a problem that they expect the greater number of people to be warmongering-unknowing people about history? People who truly appreciate it are the exception and not the rule. They package it how they think it will sell to the average gamer, knowing the loyalist Civ fans will probably be loyal until we see an exdpansion where you play as hitler to destroy the jews.

 

[cybrxkhan]

about the Three Kingdoms...

how about Zhuge Liang? hes revered in China, (supposedly) geniuos strategist, carries a fan and sits in a carridge...

its almost like adding Hannibal, so why not?

but... whatever.

 

[Wodan]

One thing I think people get confused is when someone was a leader or heavy influence on an aspect of the civilization (versus the nation). That's why it can make sense for a general, religious figure, or other to be a "leader" of the civ in the game.

That said, I agree Canute would be better than Ragnar.

Wodan

 

[cybrxkhan]

and actually, many people including me support a leader because he/she is "important".

well? what IS importance? ah, ah, don't say it yet... i guarantee you it is definitely different than everyone's notion of importance! so, in the end, we have to find out what FIRAXIS thinks is important! anybody ready to raid Firaxis?

 

[thadian]

New Civ proposal:

Firaxis

Leader:

Sid Meier

Traits: Intollerant/Ignorant
Starting techs: Composites, Future Tech 1.

UU: False Historian (Replaces Missionary)
UB: Civlopedia (replaces library)

Civ Description:

On a mission to destroy civilization and rewrite everything, Sid Meier has declared war on civilization! First, he refused a nation to Poland, and decreed Mao, Wang and Stalin the greatest foreign examples of leadership.

Then he decreed religions shalt be only 7. Now, with his massive army of missionaries and his libraries, he sets out on his quest to send us all to the state of Americanism! Or better known, "Corporate Barbarism". He will make you his vassal, stick you over the table and rewrite history.

Civ Adjective: Holy Roman Empire

KIDDING YALL.

 

[cybrxkhan]

10chars

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

This is a computer game, not a history simlulator. If you're looking for historical accuracy I suggest you try a game like Europa Universitalis.

I have to agree with you on that. As much as Civ is based on history, it's still a game that's meant to be fun. Historical accuracy is not it's main objective. I do agree with the OP, though. It is, obviously, Western-centric (as most everything Western is) and there is a fair enough debate over Moa, for both sides.


So, I am completly, 100% on the fence

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

I like some of the non conquerors. Maybe Liu Bei or Cao Cao could lead china? Yes i know they werent the leader.

But thanks to video games, most "average americans" are well hearsed in the romance of the three kingdoms Wei, Wu and Shu. Very few of the same know anything about the Yellow Turbans, Who they were and why they rebelled.

But these 2 are almost household names in america, and both fit the samurai reputation well. Like with Joan of Arc and Ghandi, i dont mind if each civ had one leader then 1-2 great "non-leaders".

By the same theory, Takeda Shingen or Oda Nobunaga would make good figures for china. Im on the "Anti-oda" boat myself, but i would support him being in the game.

Takeda Shingen or Oda Nobunaga for "China"? Um... Samurai are Japanese...

 

[cybrxkhan]

i think he was joking... or maybe not... some Americans do actually confuse the two - China and Japan. seriously

 

[thadian]

i meant to say japan...

 

[AThousandYoung]

Why is it that I want to kill you SOOO bad?

Jealousy of our superior Americanness. It's about EMULATING, not KILLING us...be like us b/c we're better than you!

 

[pooshka]

I'm a korean - yes i can see your whole point about wang kon, but who cares... it's not like i expect americans/europeans/whoever else to get interested in korean history - why should they care? you may say it's their loss for being ignorant about it but they're obviously doing FINE without teaching these things in school.

just get over it. if they think they'll benefit from studying korean history they'll go for it even if you don't want them to.

it's like trying convince a girl who's not interested in you that you are actually an attractive person and she should pay more attention on you. fat chance.

 

[Slobadog]

Personaly i'd be bored to death if every civ leader was a fine admistrator who spread culture, was tolerent and spread prosperity and kicked some foreigners butts. I don't want to always read about people who used the exact same blasted cookie cutter methods. This is a game. I want variety. I want flavor. I'm not using this game as a tool to learn how to be a great leader. I'm not even always trying to win using in the most effecient and succesful way possible. I don't wanna use the same strategies everybody else uses. I don't wanna be like everybody else. Theres more to history than great masters of politics whos great accomplishments can sometimes be no more than authorizing things. Justinian gets the credit for his great code. But he didn't even write it. All he did was put a royal stamp on it. Why even have different civilizations in the game if they're all gonna have leaders that were equally qualified. Why not give them all every single trait. Civilization to me is just a pageant, a play. Where i can choose a unique role and interact with all the other different characters in which ever way i feel like.



So I don't mind if the celts are led by a loser who was too stubborn. I don't mind if the indians are led by a guy who fought for independence not by running for office or building his own kingdom and being all pragmatic but instead used the extreamlly idealistic passive resistance. I don't mind if Hatshepsut leads the Egyptions even if her only accomplishment was being a a women leader in a male dominated time. (And had a funny looking face) I don't mind if France gets led by a Joan of Arc (In Civ 3) instead of King Louis the 14. Would there even be a France for Louis to be king of with out Joan?


I don't want civ leaders to be without any kind of accomplishment though.
Also I don't like certain Civs getting a bad reputation due to the game. In theory the multiple leader system could of been used to provide a mixture of good leaders and interesting leaders. I must admit Firaxis hasn't always used the multiple leader system effectivly or even always interestingly.

 

[thadian]

it would be nice if they would give each nation 2 leaders. This way people can have it how they want it. I dont care if the name on the screen says Asoka or Ghandi. Bismark or Stalin. To me, its all about the trait/UU combo. I love history, but its a game.

I imagine it would be hard in the shoes of Firaxis. First, they have to "westerenize" their game. Sad but if they want appeal in the american market, they have to cater to the ignorance. They can either make a product ignorant people will buy, or one that only historians would buy, and america is FULL of ignorance.

So then you would have to ask how, after designing the games framework, and debugging, would you decide who/what to include? If you drop on the Civ 2-3 lineup, people will say your repackaging old content over and over (megaman anyone?), so come the search of what to add. You need to be careful to appeal to the idiots, without offending either the historians or hardcore gamers. (Also, mind you, in America were not the west, were AMERICA. were seperate from europe, remember? We dont view ourselves in the same context as we view "the west". We only speak one language, and we dont see ourselves as westerners. We emphasize america different from the west. If we never came the Iriquois and Aztec would rule most of this country, so we arent "trueblood" descent. we ARE european. Ive never been to europe, nor any family in at least 4 generations. Most are so into individualism that the term american sterotypes us.)

What civ's do you want? Lets go there first, we all like the more prominent ones like China, America, France, and Rome. Those just have to be there. So, who do we want? Adding in the major euro-powers is obvious. So is Japan. Now we need to think of leaders.

Oda Nobunga might be the most familiar traditional samurai name in household america. But he never was emperor. Hitler was a man who caused the world to unite against fascism. BUT that would be like adding "Vlad Tepes the Impaler" as the turk leader... what a mess, some will tell me it wasnt turk just yet at his lifetime, others will say he is a slav, others an arab...

At least we agree hes brutal! So we defenitly need a good grouping of names people know. We also need some names nobody knows, hoping they will get into some history while theyre at it. HRE was an obvious blunder, but it has its place. Personally i think Israel would be a good edition. But then someone would remind me that theyre arabs and i would have to question Saladin as king of the jews...

It sounds like they have a hard job, and so far the only feasable complaints ive seen are using Claudius for HRE, no Poland or Israel. (Who cares?) It seems out of everything they added in, they did good.

Personally, i would rather their blunder be using HRE instead of making an actual big blunder. That way we can debate its legitimacy and place, and have a solid educational discussion over the topic and accept being footed it rather than all be mad without a debate because they "had a dumb-dumb" real error in shipping or programing or another more vital area to the product.

Look at how far RPG's have come since nintendo. Until about 3-4 years ago (i think Suikoden 3 was the first real effort to combat this), EVERY GAME WAS HONKEYVILLE!! Everyone was... "White". Once in a while youll have a "non-white" cartoonish person in for flavoring. Now you can look at most of them and not feel like you can be called racist for buying a game with only white people.

Yes the small annoyances from "Honkeyville RPG" to "HRE by Claudius" may be a stick at times, but things like this are only small cracks in a mighty foundation.

 

[Marla_Singer]

More than simply Western centric... Civilization has since the beginning a very US centric view.

In the initial civ game, half of "Middle Age" wonders were British and all of "Modern times" wonders were American (except the unaffiliated ones such as universal suffrage and cure for cancer). During the successive Civilization games, there have been significant improvements to this, even if I'm very dubious about the inclusion of "musicals" instead of "operas" but whatever it seems I'm alone on this.

So anyway, things had been worse before. My only last comment would be that I consider Charles de Gaulle a lot more legitimate than Joan of Arch. Many anti-De Gaulle people seem to massively under-estimate his achievement in French History.