So really there are three possible approaches. 1. They have no Civs that didn't make a major contribution to history. 2. They have a few of those alongside a majority of famous ones. 3. They have an equal amount of civs to represent each cultural grouping.
4. They put the civs that are most diverse in terms of traits, unqiue units and gameplay styles, i.e. what they have now.
1 is really a bad idea as I've already pointed out, 3 is ethically sound but bad for sales, since the majority of the market are still Westerners. And they might react unhappily if Civs that they love have been repleaced
"Ethically sound"? Dude, get over yourself. It's a game. It's a game, not genocide.
I wouldn't go as far as to call civ creators racist but they are walking the line with it.
Racism is the belief that some races are inherently better than others. I don't see how they're anywhere close to "racism".
Native indians don't make up the population of most african countries yet they have twice as many civs as africa.
China and India have a massively larger population than most of the rest of the world combined. They contain more than a third of the world's population. Should we have 1\3 of the civs Chinese and indian?
It does seem as if they are avoiding african civs.
Compared to Europe, Asia, and the Americas, there aren't many African civs. Compared to Europe and Asia, most of the Sub-Saharan African civs have had little to nothing to do with world history. There's a limit to how many civs there can be. They need to have a limit to prevent a "glut" of civs (more on this later) so obviously the less historically important will be cut.
When whites came to the Americas all native indians were considered to be savages. No all of a sudden they have more civs than Africa.
We go from racial additudes in the 17th century over to the amount of "african" civilizations in a videogame.
There are far more african civs and african descent players
How do you know? And why does it matter what race the people who play the game are?
I also think the Dutch should be replaced by an African civ.
What African civ? Why should this African civ be there rather than the Dutch? Won't that throw off gameplay if you create a "glut" of different combinations of bonuses?
I disagree with your focus on sub-sahran Africa because it makes it seem like black people don't exist in North or that they didn't accomplish nothing.
Saharan African civs have been very minor parts of World History. The Carthaginians, the Egyptians, etc. have had a large impact on the world and offer a good variety of traits.
I also don't understand why the Carthgians are presented as white-skinned people because I am from Algeria and I am black and 99% of the people in North Africa are black
Because the Carthaginians were Medeterrainian people, not neccessarily "racially" African? Because we have no evidence to the contrary? Because the racial makeup of the world today is different from 2300 years ago?
(I consider egypt east because they are different).
What's wrong with the Egyptians? Are they not racially ure enough to be counted as "African"?
I don't understand why there are repeat civs like spain and portugal. Portugal is basically spain until the moors left.
Spain and Portugal are very seperate nations, both having their seperate cultures, impact on the world, and religions (If I recall, wasn't Spain Catholic, Portugal Protestant?).
You are wrong to say that there is only one black civ. Hannibal is black and Cleopatra would either be black but likely mixed with some sort of European or Greek.
Hannibal is black? How do you know? Do you know his ancestry?
Cleopatra was almost entirely Greek. She was the brother of Ptolmey the, XII if I recall, or perhaps the XI, one of those.
If rome is in there then why is france? Charlemgne was roman emporer and he was french.
At the time of the Roman EMpire, France didn't exist. it was Gaul. You are talking about the Carolingian EMpire founded by Charlagamane, which is entirely different. Different culture, religion, territory, and time.
By now all civ fans now zulu and egypt.
What?
If we are from Europe them we know the moors. So is one unknown african civ so scary. I didn't know what an iroqouis was or a mayan but i didn't **** my pants neither
I'm not from Europe. I knew who the Mali were, and am very familiar with World History. However, I know what civilizations have been influential, and what have not. Unfortunately, History is not "equitable" and "egaltarian" and "racially sensetive". Saharan Africa has had a minimal impact on world history. Europe and Asia have had a maxiamum impact on the world.
So, I mentioned this before, what is "civilization glut"? A glut of civs is what we got with Conquests. We got alot of civs with all the civ 3 expansions. Unfortunately, many of them were very similar. Some had the same traits, or very similar traits and Unique units. Take the Carthaginians and Greeks. Their UU's are almost identical, except that the Numidian Merc has +1 attack. That ends up devaluing the Hoplite.
I want to see a gameplay diversity of civilizations, traits, and unique units. I don't want 30 civs if most of them are going to be near copies of other civs.
Close the thread, #1 is bs. Read the facts, man!
