Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[Wodan]

Of course. I expected you to. My values are false. They are inferior. They are not to be taken into consideration. It's quite predictable at this point.

There's no point in responding to someone who's rhetoric consists of this.

So they're underdeveloped because they don't see things the way you do?

I mentioned a specific topic and said that another country was less developed in that area. The subject was considering whether development in this area was a good thing or not, and I talked about that this may not be the case. Somehow you took this to be development in general, with the implication that I was being derogatory. Come on.

Don't attribute me to the exact opposite of what I was saying.

Wodan

 

[Roxlimn]

Of course not. I wasn't referring to development in general. I was referring to your referring to it as "development" and making out that the Iraqis are "less developed" and therefore inferior in that area in that respect.

Some people are less individualistic than others, but if you think that I'm referring to a retardation in development or somesuch, then that is merely your own bias speaking.

There's no point in responding to someone who's rhetoric consists of this.

Whysoever not? I'm indicating an instance where you insist on the inherent veracity of a given statement and may therefore "help me" to "achieve enlightenment" whether or not I want to. Even if you don't, you'll be convinced that you are the correct one and are therefore living a better life (and may thus be a better person).

Take note that while "you" here refers to a statement you yourself make, other Americans are somewhat more forceful about "convincing" other people to adopt changes "for their own benefit," even if you personally aren't.

 

[Wodan]

Of course not. I wasn't referring to development in general. I was referring to your referring to it as "development" and making out that the Iraqis are "less developed" and therefore inferior in that area in that respect.

I could have been talking about ice cream making. You managed to twist this such that I'm "therefore" considering them "underdeveloped". Only when questioned do you admit that this was only talking about ice cream.

By your own statements, you consider Americans to possess certain attributes (even if not me in specific). Somehow , you're able to twist statements into leading to conclusions supporting your own hypotheses. Sorry, but I don't appreciate those kind of tactics.

Wodan

 

[Roxlimn]

Every debate tactic is about "twisting" statements. If you're losing and you don't agree it's "twisting." If you agree with it, it's logic. It's all just a matter of perspective.

 

[Wodan]

There's no logic about interpreting statements in the exact opposite as they were intended. If that's your "perspective"... sorry but I decline to participate further.

Wodan

 

[Roxlimn]

I wasn't referring to intention, but to turn of phrase, which appears contrary to your intention, but is present anyway. If you find the discussion hitting too close to home, I understand. This is one of the reasons why I think that the "kill everybody" solution is more doable in Iraq than the "understand them" solution.

 

[Zhahz]

As a game player, I love the Civ series and thank Firaxis for it.

I kind of find the people who complain about this civ or that civ, historical issues, and stuff that has nothing to really do with the gameplay, to be highly ridiculous and amusing.

 

[Phlegmak]

As a game player, I love the Civ series and thank Firaxis for it.

I kind of find the people who complain about this civ or that civ, historical issues, and stuff that has nothing to really do with the gameplay, to be highly ridiculous and amusing.

So you wouldn't have any problem with an immortal Alexander the Great being Supreme Immortal Poobah of the Polynesian Empire, for example? How about George W Bush being the reason the US won in WW2, which occurred in 900AD?

 

[Roxlimn]

If you're playing this game, you shouldn't have a problem with either of those situations.

 

[gettingfat]

I know I know, Civ is a GAME, not a history textbook, so don't take it too seriously.

BUT, on the other side of the coin:

Imagine if Civ does not have all those countries, historical figures, nationally related wonders, will the game sell as well? Say if I call it civ black, civ red and civ blue, and the leaders become a monkey, an elephant, a dog, etc. Can you guarantee all the current players are still interested in it?

So it's quite obvious to me the game company has ripped benefit from the historical elements, so maybe... just maybe... should they do a bit more homework on this component? If some customers will enjoy the game more and will be interested in buying the expansion if they can play a leader that make them prouder, should the game company invest a few more days asking a few history major graduates to improve their product? As a Chinese, I only played Mao twice (both from random leaders) in almost a thousand of games I've played. I don't like him to start with.

And while a game is supposedly for fun, does it have to be ONLY that junior type of fun? If a game can bring in a historical aspect in a relatively accurate manner, will it be a better, deeper product?

Also, I believe Civ players are mostly SMART people . I didn't know some of the western leaders (and African ones as well) and the game brings them to my attention. Now Hannibal is my favorite, and I tried to see if Catherine indeed looked good (well, reality is harsh ). Then why is it impossible for the equally smart western Civ players to learn some truly non-Western leaders? For example, Tang Taizong was essentially a hybrid of Augustus and Hannibal. Empress Wu was sexy, cunning and highly competent. Isn't it also fun to know people like that existed in our past?

Finally, I guess sometimes it's not the lack of research for the non-western part of history, it's the stereotype that is inherent in the choice of leaders that ticks me (I can't speak too much for others) off. Picking some totalian tyrannies and tagged them with protective. I can only say, I don't like it!

 

[Roxlimn]

Personally, I think picking Mao for a Chinese leader makes about as much sense as picking Nixon for an American leader. Outside the US, Nixon is at least as well known as Roosevelt, and probably more than Washington.

If more Chinese bought legit copies of Civ, perhaps the company might become interested in focusing more on just badly done Western historical reenactments.

 

[Phlegmak]

If you're playing this game, you shouldn't have a problem with either of those situations.

Doesn't Firaxis promote Civilization as a simulation of history? If so, those two scenarios should be verboten.

Basically, my opinion is that "it's just a game" doesn't cut it. That's a useless statement.

Let me compare it to another part of pop culture that got a lot of attention lately. The movie "300". The movie 300 showed the Spartans and Persians completely and totally falsely. Some people around the world, who don't know the real history of the matter, thought the story in 300 was true.

This is what I see with Firaxis modifying history in their games. People who don't know better will think the history as portrayed in Firaxis's games is true.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Eh, sometimes I think this website should be called the "Ivory Tower Forums."

Whatever. CIV is abstract and meant to be fun. In most games that I've played, the Incas are often the most advanced civilization, America tends to be small and weak, and sometimes Carthage and the Vikings are large, powerful, and wealthy. Isabella is often Hindu, I've seen Taoist Shaka a few times, as well as Jewish Saladin. Games are about entertainment. If you want knowledge, just read a book. Even as an American myself, sometimes its fun to rewrite history and invade Washington D.C. with Panzers.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Civ is a game about civliizaiton. it draws in stuff from what we know as "history", with as much bias and centrism as the producers deem right, and they take as much as the stuff necessary to make it seem like alternative history, but not to the point where it has to be this or that.

 

[RERomine]

I'm going to avoid the political aspect of this thread and get back to the topic. I don't think the representation of non-western history is a gross misrepresentation. At least to me, that implies intent to be wrong. Is it wrong? Based on the responses from numerous people, I would say that it is. Was it intentional? Highly unlikely. As previously pointed out, the Civ series was created by a for profit company. Being for profit and the fact that historians cost money, my guess is they cut corners to try to go with what sounded good, even if it wasn't popularly accepted.

There are things they could have done differently. With a game that was released by a company earlier this year, they submitted a forum poll to get opinions on which historical characters should be included. In that case, the code utilized was XML and capable of being updated easily before it was burned to CD. Firaxis could have used this approach in selecting such historical figures and appealed to the general public. It wouldn't have made everyone happy, but most folks would have been content. This type of method would have given them access to the opinions of more historically minded individuals, without having to pay for it. What's more, they solicited volunteers to provide biographies for the historical characters, which were incorporated in the game.

Overall, it is a game and not a tool for learning history. Yes, anything that historically incorrect, meaning something that is beyond the realm of opinion, should be corrected. As to who is a great leader and who isn't, does fall into the realm of opinion. Does it have to mean that leader was head of state? I guess that depends on how a leader is defined within the given context. Gandhi was not a head of state, but was a spiritual leader. Not being from India, I'm not sure how he would rank if someone from India was asked. I'll give that one a shot tomorrow if anyone is interested. By the same token, as an American, they didn't ask us who we preferred, either.

 

[Roxlimn]

Whether it's gross misrepresentation or not is not a matter of intent but a matter of magnitude.

Yes, it's a gross misrepresentation. Even the Sengoku Jidai scenario and the Chinese Unification scenarios packaged within each respective game gives the lie to the main game, but it doesn't matter.

Trying to learn history from Civ is like thinking that "300" is historically accurate. They're both fun, but they're not to be taken as seriously as some here obviously do.

 

[Phlegmak]

Trying to learn history from Civ is like thinking that "300" is historically accurate. They're both fun, but they're not to be taken as seriously as some here obviously do.

You don't understand. People who don't know better DO take 300 seriously. I see that I won't be convincing you anytime soon.

 

[Roxlimn]

Yes, I know that. I also know that people who don't know better think that Civ IV is close to accurate. This is not a problem with Civ IV. Any number of Western books on history are grossly inaccurate and that's where the problem lies. If a young Westerner sees a disconnect between CivIV and the history his own professors teach him, then guess whose side he's going to take?

 

[MangleMeElmo]

People take 300 seriously? I can't even imagine....

 

[vicawoo]

Um, I've heard negative opinions about empress Wu, and I haven't heard about her great contributions to society. Being sexy and politically savvy doesn't make you a great leader. For Koreans, the choice for leader is King Saejong, hands down.

Mao is important because his ideals are completely different from typical chinese ideals, and even if they aren't followed today, China is "communist", and it will probably remain communist for a long time. Saying he's not important is like saying communism isn't an important part of history. I'm not saying he's the most important, but he is important.

Let's take the Khmer leader. Is Suryavarman the most famous leader to the Khmer? Yes. Wang Kon, no, and how the hell is Wang Kon western bias? Tokugawa, not sure, but Nobunaga would be a more western bias. Genghis Khan, yes, Kublai Khan, I don't know. Mao, no, Qui, maybe.
So for Asia, most appropriate leader, 2 yes, 3 maybes, 3 no. Western bias, maybe the Khans and Mao, but nobody else.
All the american leaders (montezuma and such) are er, western, biased, but probably no worse than whatever korean textbooks say.

I'm going to have to conclude that fireaxis doesn't pick the best leaders, but does not demonstrate a consistent western bias. And people with this in mind have problems with american imperialism, but do so in the guise of historical accuracy.