One of the take aways from the PAX West Panel was that Firaxis has been consulting heavily with the Shawnee people regarding their depiction in Civ 7.
After their issues with the Pueblo in Civ 5, and the mixed consultation with the Cree in Civ6 [though that may of helped the push for Chief Poundmaker Exoneration], it has been good to see the company be proactive on this front.
I somehow can't see that taking up much part of the discussion. Similar to how I can't see that one would discuss with Cree leaders how likely Poundmaker is to nuke someone in civ VI. You meet to discuss and show how you want to portray the people in the game, but some decisions are just outside of that. And what would you do if the Shawnee said they would prefer to unlock Cherokee compared to Lakota? Do you then switch out the other civs? Or if the Shawnee are fine with unlocking Lakota, but the Lakota aren't fine with being unlocked by the Shawnee?
I somehow can't see that taking up much part of the discussion. Similar to how I can't see that one would discuss with Cree leaders how likely Poundmaker is to nuke someone in civ VI. You meet to discuss and show how you want to portray the people in the game, but some decisions are just outside of that. And what would you do if the Shawnee said they would prefer to unlock Cherokee compared to Lakota? Do you then switch out the other civs? Or if the Shawnee are fine with unlocking Lakota, but the Lakota aren't fine with being unlocked by the Shawnee?
So what you're saying is that Civ7 shouldn't be out before another 30-40 years because Firaxis needs to organize a series of world conferences to validate with every nation / ethnic group / culture or anyone who can trace back an origin to them that they agree with the way they're depicted in the game and the way players could interact with them?
That Firaxis should do their research and ask for external expertise so as not to blunder and involuntarily carry on spreading clichés or untruths, that's certainly a good thing.
But that any group should have a say in the game's development based on their preferred historical narrative... that's a big no.
Yes, good to hear. I think they have been proactive on this front for quite a while. They definitely consulted with the Pueblo for Civ 5 -- that's how they got a "no" in the first place. I also remember them highlighting their consultations with the Cree and Maori for Civ 6.
my guess is they reach out to quite a few indigenous peoples in general. it’s been one of the biggest areas of increased demand in recent games, and a lot of groups are just opposed to being depicted in a game with a explicit imperialist mechanic to begin with.
this is definitely something I don’t agree with, especially with indigenous people, who historically have had their own historical narratives wiped out and replaced by colonial fanfiction of how “the natives were weak and uncivilized, so we wiped them out”
there’s also a very common trend, especially in the US, for indigenous north americans to be stereotyped a single way—headdress, teepee, powwow, military ppl, etc. Consulting with elders and experts is often necessary to unlearn these stereotypes.
not to mention more insidious and less well known forms of ethnic cleansing like residential schools, which often find their way into these types of games through erasure of language and culture in popular knowledge. so consultation is necessary here
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I don't believe anyone "owns" history; it's the heritage of everyone who lives in this world. Nor do I believe belonging to any particular community makes you an authority (e.g., AoE3's Native American consultant had a number of opinions about Native history that were frankly based more on romanticism than evidence). On the other hand, if a group of people would prefer not to be represented, not to have their language spoken in the game, or not to have their ancestors depicted, it's just courteous to respect that, especially when dealing with a people who have been and are still being colonized.
On that note, I do think the Cherokee might not be likely due to their current head's position on things. Though they did get into Ara, but I have no idea how much consultation is needed for that game especially since there aren't any uniques, or even dialogue?
The Iroquois and Sioux are represented in media a lot, and historical games, so I wouldn't be surprised if they would be the easiest to include.
They both also have a history of being very willing to consult with media and being willing to work with media companies who are willing to work with them.
I wonder if the Shawnee will be represented as an independent people in the ancient age as well as in the, I presume, exploration age?
If you, ahhhh, "incorporated" them (the independent Shawnee), into your empire, through coercion or diplomacy, could you then choose to play as them at the end of the ancient age?
I suppose we don't know enough about independent people yet, though.
I wonder if the Shawnee will be represented as an independent people in the ancient age as well as in the, I presume, exploration age?
If you, ahhhh, "incorporated" them (the independent Shawnee), into your empire, through coercion or diplomacy, could you then choose to play as them at the end of the ancient age?
I suppose we don't know enough about independent people yet, though.
I'm going to guess that Independent Peoples will not overlap with playable civs, and that if an Independent People become a playable civ, they'll be replaced, just like Civ5/6 city-states.
So what you're saying is that Civ7 shouldn't be out before another 30-40 years because Firaxis needs to organize a series of world conferences to validate with every nation / ethnic group / culture or anyone who can trace back an origin to them that they agree with the way they're depicted in the game and the way players could interact with them?
That Firaxis should do their research and ask for external expertise so as not to blunder and involuntarily carry on spreading clichés or untruths, that's certainly a good thing.
But that any group should have a say in the game's development based on their preferred historical narrative... that's a big no.
Exactly! No one consults the U.S. Congress on how America is represented, nor would I want them to.
If anything, I'd rather Firaxis ruffle some feathers for giving their honest portray of certain civs rather than self-censoring and giving in to hecklers' vetoes.
The Shawnee tribal elders shouldn't have a say over Firaxis' art any more than the Chinese Communist Party should be appeased.
And the Shawnee should certainly know better - they're American citizens first and foremost, every one of them; they should zealously defend the Right of their fellow countrymen to express themselves, even for speech they disagree with.
It's more than likely that there are Americans of Amerindian descent are active fans of the Civilization franchise, whether here or on Reddit, and have ideas for how other civs should be portrayed;
just as they're entitled to have those ideas and opinions for other civs, the rest of us are free to have the same ideas and opinions on how Amerindian tribes should be portrayed.
Exactly! No one consults the U.S. Congress on how America is represented, nor would I want them to.
If anything, I'd rather Firaxis ruffle some feathers for giving their honest portray of certain civs rather than self-censoring and giving in to hecklers' vetoes.
The Shawnee tribal elders shouldn't have a say over Firaxis' art any more than the Chinese Communist Party should be appeased.
And the Shawnee should certainly know better - they're American citizens first and foremost, every one of them; they should zealously defend the Right of their fellow countrymen to express themselves, even for speech they disagree with.
It's more than likely that there are Americans of Amerindian descent are active fans of the Civilization franchise, whether here or on Reddit, and have ideas for how other civs should be portrayed;
just as they're entitled to have those ideas and opinions for other civs, the rest of us are free to have the same ideas and opinions on how Amerindian tribes should be portrayed.
the key difference here is that the popular understanding of history of america, china, etc. largely has not been whitewashed by a dominating, colonizing party that tried to wipe them out for the better part of 400 years, and continues to limit their access to resources, sovereignty, and cultural dignity.
we don’t need to consult congress on us history because a) congress doesn’t have some insight on us history that the rest of us don’t have; b) congress aren’t the last keepers of knowledge that a greater power has actively tried to wipe out and c) depicting americans in stereotypical light will not directly affect america (and we have the resources to not depict america in such a way readily available)
i don’t understand why ppl talk like this about them as if we have all this knowledge publicly available. most of us americans grew up being told the natives willingly gave us crops and farming techniques during thanksgiving and that pocohantas loved her husband when in reality thanksgiving celebrates a raid of an indigenous village and pocohantas was a child who was kidnapped, raped and stripped of her cultural upbringing
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
