Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[Lancor]

Uh lets see. Stone Age America techs are not represented at all. Are they just stupid for not using metal? 3 more posts needed.

Which do you mean? The game is very "symbolized" and many techs in the tech tree represent a lot of things at once. For example there is "animal husbrandy", where one could say: Why there is no "how to raise cows" or "how to hold sheeps" technology :x
Which technologies do you think should be in there, which the native americans possessed and would make any real difference to these "universal" techs we see in the tree now?

 

[johny smith]

Last post. I am asking for unique technologies for every civilization, and not so focused on trying to balance the game instead trying to show a unique history for the civilizations presented. People who want to relive their nationalistic dreams in this game are not going to play some aka "primitive culture" in their eyes. So they are going to stick to their fascination with their supposed history. Which keeps Civ afloat. I am not interested. I am more interested in playing through the eyes of a long lost culture not reliving history through the American History Channel of Sexy Action History prespective.

 

[Takeda]

Ok where is the gunpowder of the Chinese or Damascus Steel of the Arabs. Where is the improved Arab technology versus backwards Europe in Middle Ages?

for that matter, where is the democracy of the greeks? Both gunpowder and steel are present in the tech tree. You want different varieties of steel to be reflected? Gunpoweder was discovered by the Chinese long before the discovery spread to europe, but it hardly revolutionized warfare in Ming China. They used some basic gunpowder weapons to limited effect, but gunpowder did not become a weapon of great military significance until the cannon was developed.(not by europeans, mind you). It's place in the tech tree is appropriate and not euro-centric.

Everything continues through time as if Europe was the most influential in the world.

What the hell does this even mean. From the 17th century on, Europe WAS the most influential region of the world.

 

[johny smith]

Which do you mean? The game is very "symbolized" and many techs in the tech tree represent a lot of things at once. For example there is "animal husbrandy", where one could say: Why there is no "how to raise cows" or "how to hold sheeps" technology :x
Which technologies do you think should be in there, which the native americans possessed and would make any real difference to these "universal" techs we see in the tree now?

Ok one more. Their should not be just one tech tree. That is it. Civilizations learn technologies in different stages. You could not include Rubber for example from Americas or different stages Pottery or Stone Tools without forcing aka "Europeans" to be stuck. Many groups would of not progressed as far in Stone usage as the Americas because they skipped to metal.

Sorry not everyone in the world has all of the knowledge of another region. You can compare any one area to another anywhere in the globe and find that many things that are not shared technology wise. Europe still does not know some things from China for example. Somehow that is not Sexy Action version people want to hear. Ok I am done. Now I am sure I will be flamed by a long list of people that have not really...and I do mean really understand anything other possible culture. I am sure you could ask the German above about a great many things that you could see as being more advanced in America or Germany versus the other that neither area does.

 

[Lancor]

Last post. I am asking for unique technologies for every civilization, and not so focused on trying to balance the game instead trying to show a unique history for the civilizations presented. People who want to relive their nationalistic dreams in this game are not going to play some aka "primitive culture" in their eyes. So they are going to stick to their fascination with their supposed history. Which keeps Civ afloat. I am not interested. I am more interested in playing through the eyes of a long lost culture not reliving history through the American History Channel of Sexy Action History prespective.

You should try to see the things in the tech tree how you want them to see, and not how you think most people will see them.
For example "Gunpowder".
It's not like your civ doesn't know gunpowder until you research this tech. It's just, when you research it, your people know how to make weapons of it finally.
Some things are up to your imagination and can't be represented without heavy modding or breaking the whole game balance.


As I said, the tech tree is very symbolized and should not be seen this flat.


A somewhot "unique" tree for every civ may be a possibility but there are two points speaking against it:

1. The balance would be hard to establish. That's even the point why they decided to give all civs the same starting technology now.

2. Some things just can't be changed and are logical conclusions. Like: Without metal casting you can't create rifles. Or without mathematics no currency.
But this point can be discussed to death, as it even brings the possibility that you may loose every connection to the real world... a society where one doesn't even know the wheel but flys around in nuclear powered air vehicles armed with 16. century cannons and equipped with onboard internet connection...
Some people would like this I know ;D but some would be reeealy turned off.



and edit:
PS: I don't flame you, I like this kind of theorycrafting... it's a part of why I study history. And I don't know everything, by no means. ^^

 

[Schalke 04]

Oh, that's what you mean. That's not so much eurocentrism as Eurasia-centrism. There can only be one tech tree, and it broadly reflects the standard technological arc followed by most civilizations. Given that certain civilizations discovered/we're exposed to certain techs at slightly different times. What more could you ask for?

Well, I really don't mean it offensively, but in a certain way today's world culture was being made by Eurasian Civilization (as a whole). It all started with "human life" in the regions of Africa. Then, like in all Civ-Games ( ) human development and culture followed the food. For what we define as "culture" many was established by the Fertile Crescent in the centre of Eurasia/Arabia. From this "point" settlement started, resulting in any Asian, African and European Civilizations several thousand years ago.

Arabic (= roughly Islamic... I know this is a VERY poor description...!) , European and Asian culture descentends. This is what you have all in all today! I know there are some aboriginal states on American and Australian continents (Aborigines in Australia, Indians in North America, Aztecs, Maya etc in South America). But they are just small footnotes of the said (especially Western) cultures. They didn't contribute at all to the face of modern world, and very probably won't ever...

Therefore I think it is absolutely rational to have the techs eurasiacentiristic, as these cultures have made these ideas that what they mean to all of us: essential and self-explenatiary to nearly all of the people on this earth

 

[Helmling]

Last post. I am asking for unique technologies for every civilization, and not so focused on trying to balance the game instead trying to show a unique history for the civilizations presented. People who want to relive their nationalistic dreams in this game are not going to play some aka "primitive culture" in their eyes. So they are going to stick to their fascination with their supposed history. Which keeps Civ afloat. I am not interested. I am more interested in playing through the eyes of a long lost culture not reliving history through the American History Channel of Sexy Action History prespective.

It shouldn't be locked into the history of these cultures as they unfolded in reality. Civ is about alternate history. This variety you're talking about would be great, but it should be contextual, based on the circumstances of the different cultures--not just arbitrarily imposed upon the player based on the course followed by his civ in actual history.

So, let's mod this!

 

[VikingMaekel]

Last post. I am asking for unique technologies for every civilization, and not so focused on trying to balance the game instead trying to show a unique history for the civilizations presented. People who want to relive their nationalistic dreams in this game are not going to play some aka "primitive culture" in their eyes. So they are going to stick to their fascination with their supposed history. Which keeps Civ afloat. I am not interested. I am more interested in playing through the eyes of a long lost culture not reliving history through the American History Channel of Sexy Action History prespective.

Uuh, you want to throw game balance out of the window for realism? Do you understand the meaning of the word 'game'? If you want a history lesson and to experience the history of a long lost culture then you shouldn't be looking to games to get your answer, I think a visit to the library would be better.

The only thing I can say about "Supposed history" and "American History Channel of Sexy Action History" is this: At least Western Culture did a damn fine job at being the dominant culture for hundreds of years that that is possible. Truth is that in the period of colonialism and after that, Western culture came in and supplanted whichever natural balance the native people had created with their own, technology included.

Edit: I don't say that supplanting the balance that the indigenous people had created was better, looking at the turmoil in the world today I'd say we've disrupted things pretty well, all I'm saying is that it did happen.

 

[Takeda]

Well, I really don't mean it offensively, but in a certain way today's world culture was being made by Eurasian Civilization (as a whole). It all started with "human life" in the regions of Africa. Then, like in all Civ-Games ( ) human development and culture followed the food. For what we define as "culture" many was established by the Fertile Crescent in the centre of Eurasia/Arabia. From this "point" settlement started, resulting in any Asian, African and European Civilizations several thousand years ago.

Arabic (= roughly Islamic... I know this is a VERY poor description...!) , European and Asian culture descentends. This is what you have all in all today! I know there are some aboriginal states on American and Australian continents (Aborigines in Australia, Indians in North America, Aztecs, Maya etc in South America). But they are just small footnotes of the said (especially Western) cultures. They didn't contribute at all to the face of modern world, and very probably won't ever...

Therefore I think it is absolutely rational to have the techs eurasiacentiristic, as these cultures have made these ideas that what they mean to all of us: essential and self-explenatiary to nearly all of the people on this earth

I agree completely

 

[Revoran]

Well let's take a look at the big civs likely to get in:

Europe: Portugal, Spain, Vikings, Netherlands (sort of maybe), Poland (maybe), Austria (maybe) Celts (maybe) though this might be similar to the Native American situation I described below.

Rest of the World: Incas, Maya (maybe), Korea, Mongols, Khmer (maybe), Zulu, Ethiopia (maybe), Mali (maybe), Hittites (maybe), Sumeria (maybe). Huns (maybe) - etc etc

My guess is Spain, Portugal, Vikings, Incas and some others were kept out for DLC. A Conquest of the New World DLC or Expansion would be interesting, with first the Vikings, then Spain and Portugal exploring the New World and encountering Incas and the Maya.

Each celtic tribe is perhaps a bit too small or not as noteworthy - whether or not the average game customer recognizes the civ straight away is a big part of whether or not they should be put in the game. Celts, maybe - Spain, Rome, America, England, China and Russia definately. But the Visigoths? Konglese? Not so much.

By the same token, I think Civ has made great strides in becoming a more balanced representation of great cultures from around the world from it's early days.

Besides, better to include well established civs than to make up organized civilizations which never existed as a single entity - like the "Native Americans" from civ IV. It does a disservice to the various native American Tribes to portray them that way, at least the Iroquois Federation was semi-organized.

 

[oopsy poopsy]

I do think some attention should be paid to this, either for DLC or expansion, although It would've been nice in release. I don't mean civ's from everywhere, but mods (in this case really just skins) that allow it to sound like and feel like it's an Asian or African or Indigenous American centric game. This means re-naming the base units, preferably altering how the units look as well and a little bit of work to maybe re-name some techs or resources.

IMO this has value for everyone. I get why people feel the design kind of prevents immersion when they're trying to re-live a history other than the European ones and while I'm a whitey from Canada, I'd love to turn the skin on when I play as China or Iroquois or whatever just for the extra touch it could bring. IMO this is a very small upgrade (except new looking units it's all very easy, but to be done well would require research and consideration) that could greatly enhance anyone's experience of the game.

Now, the biggest problem I foresee is what to do as you move up the tech tree in some cases. That and if done poorly it has the potential to be far more offensive than its omission.

 

[johny smith]

I tried the demo. The opening movie said a lot to me. Old white male dreaming about his "peoples". Sounds like a genetic experiment. I see combat as better. The game is even more simplified(good and bad), and better jazzed up graphics.

The game is just a continuation of the civ series. Nothing wrong with staying on the type of thought and be successful at selling a game. I mean does any other game allow you to play from a different viewpoint of history? Not really. Just another game though to me.

The game has to sell to a crowd of people who I just disagree with I guess. Just like the MMO crowd I am not that interested in playing a game to repeat things over and over that is usually focused on kill this or that.

This just takes some stance of somehow there is some culture that pervades through the entire history of time. You pass it down through the genetic offspring with the knowledge. That is what the majority of society believes in. I am hoping I guess for a title that is more focused on how technology improved different regions of the world, and so how unique these are as in how just "corn"(Maize) effected the globe in the long run. I am looking for the simple steps not just to jump a thousand years in time. For example the Water mill.(which I thought I got way too early in the game)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermill#History

Oh here is Damascus Steel since many people are not aware of what I am talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel

I would rather have more details on how small advances shaped history more so then to hurry to get a unit and then claim this is all abstractly represented. I mean at this point Greek Democracy and the modern version are abstractly the same.

When I say compromise for the sake of balance I mean balance so much and simplification that there is nothing but flashy buttons to click now in race to get the next tier of units. Why does everyone need to get a unit on one particular tech? Why could there not be more in between steps?

I know why because that would be too distracting to the majority of players. While I find it annoying the level of abstraction. That does not mean I am correct in my view to market the game. You must have a base to sell the game to. I am just not part of that base.

I may be wrong but I am guessing the base is.....Color of skin "white"..Gender "male"...Education"varies from PhD to Junior High"...Occupation"Not a history or anthropology teacher"....Nationality"Only one from some industrial country"...plus most have only ever lived in one country.

I am saying this is the norm. I am sure there are some that do not follow this description. So it is an introduction to history in an abstract form. Made in America so it has the viewpoint of Americans on history.

For example the stupid Native American civ really says a lot. I mean the name is only found in America I believe, but it is true many modern Native Americans have a pan-USA movement linking themselves together as one group.

Anyway I did not say that Eurocentric is the worse thing on this planet. It is hard to explain to people though when all they see is the same old same old that the rest of the world does not function the same exact way. So it is hard for people to know what is different so that they know what is Eurocentric.

Any theory that starts with the assumption that Europe is superior has already made a judgment that is not agreed to by the entire planet. I mean it is like debating about God's people. You must assume God exists before you open a discussion.

Small footnote on other cultures around the world is the same that could really be said for Europe if looking at the entire 6000 years portrayed in the game. Imagine playing China and having the gun by the 12 century, and then deciding to wage war versus dismantling later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firearms

There are plenty of things that have came much earlier or later in history that are presented in time sense of when Europeans got it. The rest of the world does not matter in time sense. Yes Europeans built improvements on earlier technology is some cases but I don't think gun just should begin when the Europeans finally used it.

It is funny though with the Americas. There are small things employed in diet of most Europeans and they tend to think that it is unimportant. These changes drastically effected how much food was produced. Germany would not be what it is without the potato. The potato helped in the production of pork of individual farms which led to higher yields in smaller areas. Just one example. Everything that people usually found that was brought from somewhere else has very useful reason of it being used. I mean what would be Italian culture without the Tomato?

Every culture practices what they think is norm and everyone else is different. Humans have not gotten past that, and whatever is fed to them in the form of information is what they perceive as the truth. So the game is only an abstract representation of modern views on the world coming out of America. Would you rather have the view from China? I doubt it.

If anyone is interested in modding the game to give it some more detail in relation to technological advancement, and playing cultures that existed for a period of time versus 6000 years...well click my signature links. If you don't care and are reading this you will probably will be happy with less knowledge more get straight into the action of the game. Have fun

My point is not to insult. It is a hope to find other people who want to add some details to an abstract of an abstract of an abstract of a game. And don't please tell me to play Game A or Game B to get more detail on Europe with more oriented combat and diplomacy. I am looking for a game that shows technology improvement and culture diversity around the world for the last 6000 years. Cultural diversity does not mean dropping in just a civ to represent the aka "primitive" society of some group we can not pronounce. It means showing the other three fourths of world technolgical history.

Again have fun. I am not the majority. I do not claim to be righteous. I do claim though this is Eurocentric and falls in line with most of the games that would come out of America. Not bad in this relationship. Just another game in a pile of others. The only exception to the game is how far the game can be modded. I am going to duck now for all of replies on you are a troll because you do not love the game.

 

[Wezqu]

This thread just reminds me of the same topic in Europa Universalis III forums.

 

[TLF]

Europeans made a game that centers around European concepts.

I'm fairly certain that if it was made in Japan or China it would be China or Japan centric.

Let other cultures make their own game and center then around their own cultures...or not.

Europeans are the only people I know who are hostile to their own culture.

 

[Panzeh]

I think there's only so much content you can put in a game, you have to draw the line somewhere. You can't include every possible evolution of firearms, you have to find an elegant solution. It'd be nice if they differentiated artillery before and after standardization in the 18c but we can't. When they try to implement 'missing links' you get units like the ironclad, which no one really uses in any civ game.

They have to choose one ship type here, to bridge the gap between frigates and destroyers. The choice isn't between having just one ship to represent it and many, it's which one ship type gets to make the cut.

A game with 18 different tech trees that work in the detail you're asking isn't going to come out in anyone's lifetime.

 

[Bast]

This thread just reminds me of the same topic in Europa Universalis III forums.

Europa Universalis is true to history so it would make sense that Europe is ahead in technology at certain points in world history. But actually Europa Universalis has done a remarkable job to research and include all countries in the world at that time. You can play any country in the world in Europa Universalis, Victoria and Hearts of Iron. If you want to westernise, you can. Japan only became a major westernised power in the 19th century.

Civilization is not true to history. Hello? You have a leader that lives 6,000 years. Technically, they are free to include any civilization they want. I'm disappointed it isn't one that represents the world.

I guess the first Civilization VI expansion would include these civilizations:

Austria
Holy Roman Empire
Portugal (if not already in)
Venice
Byzantine Empire
Sweden
Netherlands
Celts
Hungary

I'm out. I'm sticking with Paradox Games. At least, they attempt to include the entire world.

 

[starstrider]

Holy mother of necromancy, you are 6 years late to this debate. Just start a new one!

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Yes, please let dead threads rest in peace. If you want to discuss Eurocentrism in Civ 6, you can post in this thread in the Civ 6 forums. This thread is closed.