How diverse is civ6?

[Fudge Nuggets]

Moreover, it begs the obvious question - how do you make a game about a civilization, or anything for that matter, about which all you know are the very tentative findings of anthropologists and archaeologists?

And it's not like it's purely a Eurocentric thing. We know so little about people like the Goths. The Gauls are probably only in the game because of Greco-Roman accounts about them. It's not a coincidence that there are no pre-antiquity European civilizations - pre-antiquity Europe didn't leave written records and only gave us some stuff for archeologists. Is the game Levant-centric because Egypt, Babylon, Sumer etc. are the only representatives other than China from the pre-antiquity world?

No kidding. You guys need to stop tripping all over yourselves trying to be the most “not racist”. Why is Europe so heavily represented in a game about civilization and history? I don’t know open a history book. BTW I’m not European, but I understand why someone may want Italy added before one of these obscure footnotes some of to bring up just to appear educated.

 

[The Civs 6]

In pragmatic terms it does. I love that every new version of Civ adds more official Civs (official as opposed to mods) which does allow for more places of the world to be represented in game. But The current limit sits somewhere around 40-50. That means that if you add three random cultures, you have to drop 3 others. Hell, with Scotland, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Gran Columbia and Gaul there is some room for that; but nowhere near as much as people pushing for diversity at any cost would want.
I often make the comparison to Sports games. Your Fifa '20 game probably does have all the international teams, along with a few different leagues present in it; but imagine they only had the budget to include 50 different teams. Would you want them to include minnow's of the game like the New Zealand All Whites (who I might add, didn't lose a game at the last world cup finals they played in...we didn't win one either, but that's another story ) or should they include all the titans of world football first? As a New Zealander I'm not big on football; but were I, I'd want to see all the great teams I admire, and the others who give them a run for the money, before seeing my own humble nation make an appearance.



Come back to us at Civilization XX, when there's 200 Civs in game

On the other hand, the only area I see some truth with the OP is the lack of vision/strategy they have for Civ choices (well, the strategy is to do what sells games...) If I was an advocate for a fairly important regional power outside of Europe (let's say Teotihuacan for now), I would be a little miffed to see Rome AND Byzantium included in the game. Unless you believe the CCP line about 6000 years of Chinese history, it's weird that we frame Byzantium as a whole different civilization than Rome.

Civ looks at Europe through a microscope and the rest of the world through a telescope. But I think the solution is rethinking our approach to Europe rather than to the rest of the world. For example, and I say this as an American, do Canadians, Australians, English and Americans really constitute four different civilizations? I see us as a continuous civilization with shared culture and political beliefs, etc. To put it another way, it's strange that each European nation-state gets representation (looking at you, sweden and Scotland), but all of the Maya/Turks/Egyptians etc. get blobbed together.

So my suggestion is to move away from the Westphalian categorization system and to rethink European civs in terms of being civilizations. This would put European civs on the same footing as the rest of the world, while also making civ design make sense on the game's time scale.

No kidding. You guys need to stop tripping all over yourselves trying to be the most “not racist”. Why is Europe so heavily represented in a game about civilization and history? I don’t know open a history book. BTW I’m not European, but I understand why someone may want Italy added before one of these obscure footnotes some of to bring up just to appear educated.

On some level yeah, similar to how westerners aren't concerned about pre-classical Europe (except for a tiny minority) but rather have essentially picked up the history of pre-classical Egypt/Israel/Babylon as their own history. It's an acknowledgment that the people of that region were basically in the driver's seat of what Sid Meier's Civilization thinks is "civilization", and that Europeans were in the passenger seat.

 

[anonxanemone]

Yeah, its a little sided in favor if europe because European countries really have, for better or worst of course, influenced the world more than some others.

If influence, expansionist ambitions, and what-have-you is a measure of civilization, sure. The game isn't called Imperialism, is it? Joking aside, just thought avoiding to pidgeonhole (not sure if it's the right word) what makes a civilization was worth a mention.

 

[The Civs 6]

If influence, expansionist ambitions, and what-have-you is a measure of civilization, sure. The game isn't called Imperialism, is it? Joking aside, just thought avoiding to pidgeonhole (not sure if it's the right word) what makes a civilization was worth a mention.

In a game where wiping out every other Civilization is the preferred method of victory, yes, yes it is.

 

[Birch617]

Only 1/3 of the Heroes are from Europe, so I really don't agree with you when you say the mode is "eurocentric".

Oya and Anansi are from Africa, Sinbad is from the Middle East, Sun Wukong, Himiko, and Mulan are from Asia, Hunahpu and Xbalanque are from South America, and Maui is from Polynesia.

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Heroes_&_Legends_(Civ6)

My bad tbh, i don't have the Heroes and Legends expansion and i forgot who was in; so yeah i mess up big time and i should check twice before making a statement like that

 

[The Civs 6]

My bad tbh, i don't have the Heroes and Legends expansion and i forgot who was in; so yeah i mess up big time and i should check twice before making a statement like that

Really. One might wonder if you were looking for an excuse to use the word "Eurocentric" based on a slip up like that.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Every time a thread of this type comes up, it quickly devolves into "who can name the most obscure cultures" and "why would we have England when we can have this 'civilization' comprising of three dudes sharing a hut on an inaccessible island instead?". This conversation has been happening since civ4 (when I first played civ) without any regards that the current game is so much more diverse than the previous one.

 

[Birch617]

I mean i mess up with the Heroes and Legend mode but i still think civ wise there are more European civs which would make the game eurocentric and like it said before they can as many more European civ as people want as long as they add other civs from different parts of the world

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

as long as they add other civs from different parts of the world

Which they totally definitely do...

 

[anonxanemone]

In a game where wiping out every other Civilization is the preferred method of victory, yes, yes it is.

Preferred by only the bloodthirstiest of the warmongers, right?

 

[Birch617]

Which they totally definitely do...

But not at the same quantity; the things is that you think that you can represent for example First Nations with only the Cree and the add 5 other european civs i said that would be a problem

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I mean i mess up with the Heroes and Legend mode but i still think civ wise there are more European civs which would make the game eurocentric and like it said before they can as many more European civ as people want as long as they add other civs from different parts of the world

Gran Colombia, Mayans, Ethiopia, Babylon: Really?

But not at the same quantity; the things is that you think that you can represent for example First Nations with only the Cree and the add 5 other european civs i said that would be a problem

They added the Mapuche. MAPUCHE! Who has ever heard of the Mapuche prior to playing Civ 6? The answer, not that much.

 

[Fudge Nuggets]

If influence, expansionist ambitions, and what-have-you is a measure of civilization, sure. The game isn't called Imperialism, is it? Joking aside, just thought avoiding to pidgeonhole (not sure if it's the right word) what makes a civilization was worth a mention.

What is your “measure” of a civilization?

 

[nzcamel]

On the other hand, the only area I see some truth with the OP is the lack of vision/strategy they have for Civ choices (well, the strategy is to do what sells games...) If I was an advocate for a fairly important regional power outside of Europe (let's say Teotihuacan for now), I would be a little miffed to see Rome AND Byzantium included in the game. Unless you believe the CCP line about 6000 years of Chinese history, it's weird that we frame Byzantium as a whole different civilization than Rome.

I have no problem with China being represented by one Civ, as I think the continuity is mostly pretty solid. I do think that multiple leaders are a great way to represent different faces of such a long running Civilisation. Then of course I have also argued that Byzantium shouldn't be added separate to Rome. I mean I like them being in the game; but they shouldn't be there ahead of other more distinct choices like the Iroquois.

Civ looks at Europe through a microscope and the rest of the world through a telescope. But I think the solution is rethinking our approach to Europe rather than to the rest of the world. For example, and I say this as an American, do Canadians, Australians, English and Americans really constitute four different civilizations? I see us as a continuous civilization with shared culture and political beliefs, etc. To put it another way, it's strange that each European nation-state gets representation (looking at you, sweden and Scotland), but all of the Maya/Turks/Egyptians etc. get blobbed together.

So my suggestion is to move away from the Westphalian categorization system and to rethink European civs in terms of being civilizations. This would put European civs on the same footing as the rest of the world, while also making civ design make sense on the game's time scale.

I have always felt that the modern nations that used to be a part of the British Empire, were well represented in game by the U.S. None of the rest have ever dominated their region, let alone the world, so aren't great cases for entry into the game like the U.S. is. I don't see separate civilisations there yet. Our countries have fledgling cultures, but they're too young.
On the other hand, as to how Europe gets more diverse internal representation than elsewhere, I don't have too much problem with that. One of the arguments of how our modern world came to be as it is today is that for a variety of reasons Europe has rarely been as unified as elsewhere - say China; especially post Rome. Whether it is the many peninsula's or other things; Europe is a hard place to dominate; so you do have smaller sized countries having a distinct over sized impact on the world. Even a country as small in Europe as the Netherlands should arguably be in every itineration of the game. Their impact on the world as we know it has been massive.

On some level yeah, similar to how westerners aren't concerned about pre-classical Europe (except for a tiny minority) but rather have essentially picked up the history of pre-classical Egypt/Israel/Babylon as their own history. It's an acknowledgment that the people of that region were basically in the driver's seat of what Sid Meier's Civilization thinks is "civilization", and that Europeans were in the passenger seat.

THIS So often ignored!

If influence, expansionist ambitions, and what-have-you is a measure of civilization, sure. The game isn't called Imperialism, is it? Joking aside, just thought avoiding to pidgeonhole (not sure if it's the right word) what makes a civilization was worth a mention.

Well, it's a 4X game. We can debate what it is to be civilised exactly; but it would seem that you need to have left a significant imprint on at least your region, be that culturally or aggressively or in another way.

 

[Birch617]

Gran Colombia, Mayans, Ethiopia, Babylon: Really?

How many Civs are in only South America compared to Europe; i was talking about New Frontier pass been eurocentric ill be in the wrong, i'm just saying in general

 

[The Civs 6]

Gran Colombia, Mayans, Ethiopia, Babylon: Really?

Yeah for a game that is probably designed 100% by Westerners, for probably 50-60% Western audience (and the rest is probably Chinese), and the designers probably have a college degree at most in history, they do a great job of making the Civs diverse.

I have no problem with China being represented by one Civ, as I think the continuity is mostly pretty solid. I do think that multiple leaders are a great way to represent different faces of such a long running Civilisation. Then of course I have also argued that Byzantium shouldn't be added separate to Rome. I mean I like them being in the game; but they shouldn't be there ahead of other more distinct choices like the Iroquois.



I have always felt that the modern nations that used to be a part of the British Empire, were well represented in game by the U.S. None of the rest have ever dominated their region, let alone the world, so aren't great cases for entry into the game like the U.S. is. I don't see separate civilisations there yet. Our countries have fledgling cultures, but they're too young.
On the other hand, as to how Europe gets more diverse internal representation than elsewhere, I don't have too much problem with that. One of the arguments of how our modern world came to be as it is today is that for a variety of reasons Europe has rarely been as unified as elsewhere - say China; especially post Rome. Whether it is the many peninsula's or other things; Europe is a hard place to dominate; so you do have smaller sized countries having a distinct over sized impact on the world. Even a country as small in Europe as the Netherlands should arguably be in every itineration of the game. Their impact on the world as we know it has been massive.



THIS So often ignored!



Well, it's a 4X game. We can debate what it is to be civilised exactly; but it would seem that you need to have left a significant imprint on at least your region, be that culturally or aggressively or in another way.

Yeah ultimately it's a thing where I am open to arguments being made for why a certain Civ merits inclusion, but I'm less interested in arguments that basically say that we should include Civs that have demonstrated absolutely no success as defined by a 4x game, and then the accusations that the 4x criteria are colonialist or whatever.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

How many Civs are in only South America compared to Europe; i was talking about New Frontier pass been eurocentric ill be in the wrong, i'm just saying in general

Did you just seriously compared SA to Europe in terms of historical influence, like unironically? So by diverse, you want everywhere to be represented exactly the same amount, regardless of whether that is a civilization whose most advanced invention is a sharp stick or that is a civilization who conquers half of the world? You said you were Colombian, right? Do you need a reminder what your first language is? The entirety of SA is the perfect example of why things are eurocentric. Show me one place in SA that has a language of their own that is not Spanish, Portuguese or English. Can you?

 

[Birch617]

Did you just seriously compared SA to Europe in terms of historical influence, like unironically? So by diverse, you want everywhere to be represented exactly the same amount, regardless of whether that is a civilization whose most advanced invention is a sharp stick or that is a civilization who conquers half of the world? You said you were Colombian, right? Do you need a reminder what your first language is? The entirety of SA is the perfect example of why things are eurocentric. Show me one place in SA that has a language of their own that is not Spanish, Portuguese or English. Can you?

Paraguay....

 

[The Civs 6]

How many Civs are in only South America compared to Europe; i was talking about New Frontier pass been eurocentric ill be in the wrong, i'm just saying in general

I don't really take the position that the Western view of history is inclusive of all the amazing, even Civ-worthy, things that happened. But my question is this - where is the evidence? I'm open to someone explaining that there were large, important South American polities. But no one seems to be able to make a really compelling case - one that doesn't involve questioning the 4x criteria for what constitutes an important civilization. And I'm not talking about certain people concocting absurd myths to further some political agenda, but serious research.

And if the biggest advocates for these "civs" can't do it, how do you expect software engineers to be wise to it? It appears that Civ designers want to include "diverse" civs, and it also appears they read these boards. My advice is to do some research with credible sources and make an argument for a particular polity.

 

[nzcamel]

Did you just seriously compared SA to Europe in terms of historical influence, like unironically? So by diverse, you want everywhere to be represented exactly the same amount, regardless of whether that is a civilization whose most advanced invention is a sharp stick or that is a civilization who conquers half of the world? You said you were Colombian, right? Do you need a reminder what your first language is? The entirety of SA is the perfect example of why things are eurocentric. Show me one place in SA that has a language of their own that is not Spanish, Portuguese or English. Can you?

And I don't think @DogeEnricoDandolo means a local dialect either... He's talking on a national level.