How diverse is civ6?

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Paraguay....

Sorry for breaking your bubble, but go check what the official language of Paraguay is. It is listed as both Guarini and Spanish. Don't jump on the "eurocentric" train that quickly without checking, learn from your mistake you made only 10 minutes ago.
And by the way, being able to point out 1 place out of 20+ countries that have one more language BESIDE an existing European language isn't strong evidence of your point.

 

[anonxanemone]

What is your “measure” of a civilization?

I don't really have an answer to that but, if I had one, it would be along the lines of a civilization being successful in their corner of the world. Using the example of Inuit brought up here, they survive the harshest of climates with their technology and way of life. As @nzcamel mentioned:

Well, it's a 4X game.

A lack of expansionist ambitions goes against one of the X's in a 4X game (i.e. eXpand) so it might not make a good playable civ in the premise of Civilization (quite directly at odds, in fact). Perhaps in the future, a new genre could develop shedding pre-conceived notions of what makes a good civilization. In this respect, I think the upcoming Humankind game is pioneering in that direction.

 

[nzcamel]

Paraguay....

Spanish is one of their official languages.

Perhaps in the future, a new genre could develop shedding pre-conceived notions of what makes a good civilization. In this respect, I think the upcoming Humankind game is pioneering in that direction.

A change I would like to see is how the Steppe Civs etc are represented. I don't know how you do that without fundamentally changing the game; but founding cities was not how they rolled lol

 

[The Civs 6]

I don't really have an answer to that but, if I had one, it would be along the lines of a civilization being successful in their corner of the world. Using the example of Inuit brought up here, they survive the harshest of climates with their technology and way of life. As @nzcamel mentioned:



A lack of expansionist ambitions goes against one of the X's in a 4X game (i.e. eXpand) so it might not make a good playable civ in the premise of Civilization (quite directly at odds, in fact). Perhaps in the future, a new genre could develop shedding pre-conceived notions of what makes a good civilization. In this respect, I think the upcoming Humankind game is pioneering in that direction.

The problem with this is it basically espouses a false dichotomy - expansionist Europeans versus supposedly peaceful non-Europeans. It is ironic because it is bizarrely neocolonialist in its own way. Just take the Spanish for example. Because our history is so dominated by the English version of events, we have the "black myth" as applied to Spaniards in the new world. So even buying the idea that they were awful is already problematic.

But why might the Spanish have been warlike? Because of their encounters with a non-European (the Caliphate) power bent on conquering them and subjugating them.

My point is that the false (and strangely racist) dichotomy about Europeans breaks down at the slightest scrutiny. Scrutiny that people like you don't seem willing to take on.

 

[Birch617]

Tbh i'm done with this thread so i will only say one last thing.
I'ts fine that you guys like European history and its cool that you are invested in it, but understand that in the same way you guys prefer european history, other like me prefer non european history, which include history of place before and after european contact; the difference is that i'm only saying that i would like to see more civs from outside of Europe and i don't mind seeing more civs from that continent as long as we also see it from others places; you guys have pretty much take this as a attack towards european history just because you guys like it and have resort to put the kind of history i (and other like the guy who created this thread like) while i have only say "Its eurocentric because there are more european civ" that doesn't mean its bad, i just think i would be nice to see more representation from other places that have also have done incredible things during their periods, but for some reason you guys have take this as a attack towards developers or like europe, like WTH i never said things like "This certain civ from europe is unimportant" so idk.

 

[The Civs 6]

Tbh i'm done with this thread so i will only say one last thing.
I'ts fine that you guys like European history and its cool that you are invested in it, but understand that in the same way you guys prefer european history, other like me prefer non european history, which include history of place before and after european contact; the difference is that i'm only saying that i would like to see more civs from outside of Europe and i don't mind seeing more civs from that continent as long as we also see it from others places; you guys have pretty much take this as a attack towards european history just because you guys like it and have resort to put the kind of history i (and other like the guy who created this thread like) while i have only say "Its eurocentric because there are more european civ" that doesn't mean its bad, i just think i would be nice to see more representation from other places that have also have done incredible things during their periods, but for some reason you guys have take this as a attack towards developers or like europe, like WTH i never said things like "This certain civ from europe is unimportant" so idk.

All I said was basically do your homework. Show why a civilization that maybe no one has ever heard of in English historical tradition deserves inclusion. But make a good case. Don't just say something like "anthropologists think they were doing a lot of farming in x valley". Show numbers and create a story, that is my recommendation. And don't be presumptuous and act like we know all the details and rejected it. And most of all, don't throw around words like "eurocentric" (which is just a nice way of saying "racist").

It's 2020. We are all so tired of being called "racist" for the crime of disagreeing with you.

 

[nzcamel]

Tbh i'm done with this thread so i will only say one last thing.
I'ts fine that you guys like European history and its cool that you are invested in it, but understand that in the same way you guys prefer european history, other like me prefer non european history, which include history of place before and after european contact; the difference is that i'm only saying that i would like to see more civs from outside of Europe and i don't mind seeing more civs from that continent as long as we also see it from others places; you guys have pretty much take this as a attack towards european history just because you guys like it and have resort to put the kind of history i (and other like the guy who created this thread like) while i have only say "Its eurocentric because there are more european civ" that doesn't mean its bad, i just think i would be nice to see more representation from other places that have also have done incredible things during their periods, but for some reason you guys have take this as a attack towards developers or like europe, like WTH i never said things like "This certain civ from europe is unimportant" so idk.

Now you're just ignoring the very relevant points we have made like that Civ spots are limited in game; and therefore what defines a Civilization in this genre? That is what this comes down to on a practical level.

 

[The Civs 6]

Just to make my point - the exemplar of nice non-4x civs you brought up, the Inuits, according to wikipedia:

"Inuit are the descendants of what anthropologists call the Thule people, who emerged from western Alaska around 1000 CE. They had split from the related Aleut group about 4000 years ago and from northeastern Siberian migrants. They spread eastwards across the Arctic. They displaced the related Dorset culture, called the Tuniit in Inuktitut, which was the last major Paleo-Eskimo culture."

What do you think "displace" means? That the Dorset culture just sort of nicely ran off into the sunset?

 

[nzcamel]

The problem with this is it basically espouses a false dichotomy - expansionist Europeans versus supposedly peaceful non-Europeans. It is ironic because it is bizarrely neocolonialist in its own way. Just take the Spanish for example. Because our history is so dominated by the English version of events, we have the "black myth" as applied to Spaniards in the new world. So even buying the idea that they were awful is already problematic.

But why might the Spanish have been warlike? Because of their encounters with a non-European (the Caliphate) power bent on conquering them and subjugating them.

My point is that the false (and strangely racist) dichotomy about Europeans breaks down at the slightest scrutiny. Scrutiny that people like you don't seem willing to take on.

Pretty sure the Spanish were, on average, the most brutal of the European powers in the new world, even without English bias against them But yes, you make some excellent points.

Just to make my point - the exemplar of nice non-4x civs you brought up, the Inuits, according to wikipedia:

"Inuit are the descendants of what anthropologists call the Thule people, who emerged from western Alaska around 1000 CE. They had split from the related Aleut group about 4000 years ago and from northeastern Siberian migrants. They spread eastwards across the Arctic. They displaced the related Dorset culture, called the Tuniit in Inuktitut, which was the last major Paleo-Eskimo culture."

What do you think "displace" means? That the Dorset culture just sort of nicely ran off into the sunset?

BOOOYA!
Man am I sick of all the noble savage mythology that makes out the rest of the world outside Europe living in harmony all day everyday

 

[Birch617]

And most of all, don't throw around words like "eurocentric" (which is just a nice way of saying "racist").

If you think Eurocentric is another way of saying "Racist" idk in what reality you live but okay i guess, still the game eurocentric civ wise and that is fine, i would like other civs from other parts of the world that deserve it like Muisca, Guarani,Argentina and Mexico, im not saying that i want a Ubate civ

Moderator Action: Edited to remove profanity. Please watch your language and comply with site rules regarding use of inapproporiate language. Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Tbh i'm done with this thread so i will only say one last thing.
I'ts fine that you guys like European history and its cool that you are invested in it, but understand that in the same way you guys prefer european history, other like me prefer non european history, which include history of place before and after european contact; the difference is that i'm only saying that i would like to see more civs from outside of Europe and i don't mind seeing more civs from that continent as long as we also see it from others places; you guys have pretty much take this as a attack towards european history just because you guys like it and have resort to put the kind of history i (and other like the guy who created this thread like) while i have only say "Its eurocentric because there are more european civ" that doesn't mean its bad, i just think i would be nice to see more representation from other places that have also have done incredible things during their periods, but for some reason you guys have take this as a attack towards developers or like europe, like WTH i never said things like "This certain civ from europe is unimportant" so idk.

Which we have already discussed but you refused to understand: the number of civs is limited, so it is not humanly possible to add everything you wish for. This is not about diversity, because we already have diversity. You asked that every region is Equally represented, which means important major powers should be on the same level as a tribe that has only a handful of people, which by all account, will not happen in any civ game in the future until the death of this franchise.

 

[The Civs 6]

Pretty sure the Spanish were, on average, the most brutal of the European powers in the new world, even without English bias against them But yes, you make some excellent points.

It's a debatable point that is clouded by the geopolitical rivalry between (protestant) England and (catholic) Spain. But I would argue that while the Spanish were bent on religious conversion (which, forced, isn't a very nice thing) with some atrocities thrown in, the English (and especially Americans) were kind of interested in wholesale extermination and removal of the native population. But again, I'm throwing out an approach to colonial American history that hasn't achieved mainstream acceptance.

 

[nzcamel]

If you think Eurocentric is another way of saying "Racist" idk in what reality you live but okay i guess, still the game eurocentric civ wise and that is fine, i would like other civs from other parts of the world that deserve it like Muisca, Guarani,Argentina and Mexico, im not saying that i want a Ubate civ

Spots are limited. So how do they deserve it more than the current line up? That is the case you have to make. Hell, some probably will. But make that case. Don't simply moan about a lack of "diversity".

 

[anonxanemone]

Just to make my point - the exemplar of nice non-4x civs you brought up, the Inuits, according to wikipedia:

"Inuit are the descendants of what anthropologists call the Thule people, who emerged from western Alaska around 1000 CE. They had split from the related Aleut group about 4000 years ago and from northeastern Siberian migrants. They spread eastwards across the Arctic. They displaced the related Dorset culture, called the Tuniit in Inuktitut, which was the last major Paleo-Eskimo culture."

What do you think "displace" means? That the Dorset culture just sort of nicely ran off into the sunset?

This goes to show my ignorance. Perhaps there is no such thing as a "peaceful civilization" and war is just a natural part of civilizing.

 

[The Civs 6]

If you think Eurocentric is another way of saying "Racist" idk in what reality you live but okay i guess, still the game eurocentric civ wise and that is fine, i would like other civs from other parts of the world that deserve it like Muisca, Guarani,Argentina and Mexico, im not saying that i want a Ubate civ

I think Mexico is about as worthy of an inclusion as Italy, for what it's worth. But you throw out this polity called "Muisca". I did a quick Wikipedia search and the researchers estimate that only, at most, 3 million people were a part of this entity. Why should they be included? I would ask this question about any entity that someone suggested should be included.

 

[nzcamel]

It's a debatable point that is clouded by the geopolitical rivalry between (protestant) England and (catholic) Spain. But I would argue that while the Spanish were bent on religious conversion (which, forced, isn't a very nice thing) with some atrocities thrown in, the English (and especially Americans) were kind of interested in wholesale extermination and removal of the native population. But again, I'm throwing out an approach to colonial American history that hasn't achieved mainstream acceptance.

I don't think any of them were quite as hell bent as you suggest. Diseases they didn't understand at that time did 90% of the killing.

 

[nzcamel]

This goes to show my ignorance. Perhaps there is no such thing as a "peaceful civilization" and war is just as natural part if being civilizing.

No. There really wasn't. Liberalism has changed our world for the better; as the modern world gradually accepts we can do things differently. Too bad progressives are hell bent on sweeping it away.

 

[The Civs 6]

One thing I can't help thinking about is how Civ's refusal to include post-World War 2 elements actually is harmful to non-European representation.

After all, countries like Iraq, Vietnam, Mexico and Nigeria are among the most populous - more so than countries like France or England, let alone the Netherlands or Sweden. Certainly at least some of these countries will be significant geopolitical players in the next 200 years. It's hard to point to exactly what kind of Civ they would be, but just food for thought.

 

[Birch617]

I think Mexico is about as worthy of an inclusion as Italy, for what it's worth. But you throw out this polity called "Muisca". I did a quick Wikipedia search and the researchers estimate that only, at most, 3 million people were a part of this entity. Why should they be included? I would ask this question about any entity that someone suggested should be included.

Dude just because you don't know about the Muisca doesn't mean they are just a random small tribe
For example i didn't know things like importance of Bulgaria as an empire until saw some people just mentioning as something they wanted, i did my researched and found out they did amazing things which made understand why would people want them, like i said its fine if you prefer european history, just don't put down the rest of the world because its not of your interest or knowledge

 

[Birch617]

Which we have already discussed but you refused to understand: the number of civs is limited, so it is not humanly possible to add everything you wish for. This is not about diversity, because we already have diversity. You asked that every region is Equally represented, which means important major powers should be on the same level as a tribe that has only a handful of people, which by all account, will not happen in any civ game in the future until the death of this franchise.

I just said i wanted more civs from other places that aren't Europe thats it, and i like Civ 6 because they have done a better job of doing it; if you guys get so touchy from me just saying Eurocentrism