Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[Tregon]

Well, I am from Europe but that doesnt mean I want a too Eurocentric game.

And its a simulation. A simulation should allow all civs to compete for world dominance. Otherwise you could just get a message during year 1500 "Europeans have colonized your empire since it was not possible for you to develop gunpowder. Game over!"

You are free to suggest more empires. But they should have something unique in them, not just copies of one another.

Inca empire I could understand. But reality is that outside Europe there are rather few civilizations/empires which have enough material on them to make them viable options for addition.

Making "Middle Eastern Civilization" 1, 2, 3 and 4 is not improvement unless they offer distinctively different gameplay from one another.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Even civs like Rome are not so earth-shaking when you realize that the Roman empire only ever really encompassed European lands and bits of the Middle East. Germany has been put into Civ almost entirely by dint of its effect on Continental history, since its history outside Europe is quite limited. I welcome the inclusion of more neglected civs like Siam, Iroquois, Songhai and the Ottomans (it really shocked me that the Ottomans weren't in Civ4 Vanilla) and hope they add more of them in the future. Of course, I wouldn't mind at the same time more interesting European civs like Spain and Portugal. With any luck there will be "ethnically diverse" units in Civ 5 as well.

While falling into Eurocentrism is a big mistake, denying its importance is too. It sounds a little too apologist. For example, if Rome "only" held the lands it did and only accomplished the things it did; then Egypt must have just been some two bit regional power subsisting along a river, hardly worthy of inclusion at all. Likewise, the German scientific and cultural achievements should hardly be overlooked in a game that values these things.

Like it or not, the story of the world for the last few hundred years has been the story of Europe for the most part. And there have been many separate entities telling that story; so while in China you have one giant society, Europe is much more fractured and you see more nations playing a part. I suppose you could just lump most of them into a single European "Civ," that's just as unacceptable as disregarding the Middle East or China.

That all said, of course I'd like to see more diverse Civs, for inclusion as well as just for fun. It seems really strange to me to not include the Inca in the first go-round, for example. And honestly, and as silly as it sounds, I just really want to launch a flotilla of war canoes as leader of the Hawaiians.

 

[ezzlar]

You are free to suggest more empires. But they should have something unique in them, not just copies of one another.

Inca empire I could understand. But reality is that outside Europe there are rather few civilizations/empires which have enough material on them to make them viable options for addition.

Making "Middle Eastern Civilization" 1, 2, 3 and 4 is not improvement unless they offer distinctively different gameplay from one another.

Well, that is the problem. Europe did have an enormous impact on the world. Many civs never got a chance to rise...

 

[Disgustipated]

in terms of physical size the countries can't compare. But it's silly to think Europe had no impact.

If anything the game isn't europe centric enough.

And yes we know other civilizations did a "couple" great things. The middle east was fairly advanced during certain ages. But let's face it. Europe pushed the world into the industrial and modern ages. I doubt China would have done much technologically without European contact. They were too isolated. They never even developed an alphabet .

Someone mentioned the Anasazi. Please. Population alone doesn't constitute a civilization. There are too many minor native american tribes in the civ4 and civ5 as it is. I'm okay with the Mayan and Aztecs, maybe even the Incas. But no more are needed.

 

[Dragonflow]

Well, I don't think the game is Eurocentric. Firaxis picks more Europeans because of several reasons:
A. Marketing: You wan't to sell your game in the richest part of the world.
B. Impact on World history: Europe practicaly ruled the world for 5 centuries.
C. Lack of decent candidates outside of Europe: Some regions just didn't have many notable civilizations, like Sub-Saharan Africa for example except for Mali and Ethiopia there weren't any important civs.
All in all, I think there is still a number of important Europeans who haven't been in Civilization ever like Austria, Hungary, Poland and others.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

in terms of physical size the countries can't compare. But it's silly to think Europe had no impact.

If anything the game isn't europe centric enough.

And yes we know other civilizations did a "couple" great things. The middle east was fairly advanced during certain ages. But let's face it. Europe pushed the world into the industrial and modern ages. I doubt China would have done much technologically without European contact. They were too isolated. They never even developed an alphabet .

Where "during certain ages" means "for most of human history." Until a few hundred years ago, Europe was a useless backwater compared to Asia and the Middle East. If anything, they helped nudge Europe forward more than the other way around.

China wasn't as much isolated as much as it was "unified" so to speak, so it would be harder to find as many different civs like you can with Europe. Though you could find some if you tried, I suppose. A Tibetan Empire civ could be pretty unique and interesting.

 

[Dragonflow]

Where "during certain ages" means "for most of human history." Until a few hundred years ago, Europe was a useless backwater compared to Asia and the Middle East. If anything, they helped nudge Europe forward more than the other way around.

Going by that logic there shouldn't be any representation for Sub-Saharan Africa, since they were a backwater compared to anybody else and still are a backwater. Also apart from China and India the Asian continent didn't have any impact at all. The Middle-East on the other hand is very important, but you shouldn't forget that much of the Arab knowledge was influenced by Romans, Greeks and Byzantines. I do not deny that Europe wouldn't be what it is now without the Arabs but Middle-East wouldn't have become what it was without the Europeans.

Edit: Also adding Tibet would most likely result a ban of Civ5 in China and I doubt Firaxis wants that.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Going by that logic there shouldn't be any representation for Sub-Saharan Africa, since they were a backwater compared to anybody else and still are a backwater. Also apart from China and India the Asian continent didn't have any impact at all. The Middle-East on the other hand is very important, but you shouldn't forget that much of the Arab knowledge was influenced by Romans, Greeks and Byzantines. I do not deny that Europe wouldn't be what it is now without the Arabs but Middle-East wouldn't have become what it was without the Europeans.

Edit: Also adding Tibet would most likely result a ban of Civ5 in China and I doubt Firaxis wants that.

Haha, I don't think it even should be because it wasn't very long-lasting. I was just trying to think of another power that might be a little different to play.


I am interested by your phrase "apart from China and India the Asian Continent didn't have any impact at all." That's the problem, I think. That's a giant, giant chunk of land and humanity represented there, bigger than Europe (apart from the Amazon, there just isn't that much water in South America). But it's arguably only two civs, and appears underrepresented in the game because of how fragmented Europe is.

I understand and agree with your sub-Saharan statement, but I can see adding civs not only for historical significance, but for variation and fun as well. I don't like the Mayans because they're important, but because they're different and cool.

And I totally wouldn't argue with you that the regions have all influenced each other. I didn't mean to come across that way, either.

All that said, I'm going to go against everything I've been arguing and ask how in the world Spain can't be one of the first civs included. Half of the Western Hemisphere speaks their language.

 

[Disgustipated]

Where "during certain ages" means "for most of human history." Until a few hundred years ago, Europe was a useless backwater compared to Asia and the Middle East. If anything, they helped nudge Europe forward more than the other way around.

China wasn't as much isolated as much as it was "unified" so to speak, so it would be harder to find as many different civs like you can with Europe. Though you could find some if you tried, I suppose. A Tibetan Empire civ could be pretty unique and interesting.

It's dismissive to say Europe was backwater. Their tech was comparable to much of the rest of the world.

 

[Dragonflow]

All that said, I'm going to go against everything I've been arguing and ask how in the world Spain can't be one of the first civs included. Half of the Western Hemisphere speaks their language.

It seems the Españolos have fallen victim to the "diversity" of civ.
But I guess they will be in the first expansion pack.

 

[Disgustipated]

dlc probably .

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It's dismissive to say Europe was backwater. Their tech was comparable to much of the rest of the world.

The article below is horribly biased (Muslim-centric if that's a word?) but still interesting.
http://www.ais.org/~bsb/Herald/Previous/95/science.html

I guess it matters what the definition of "rest of the world is." They were behind the "civilized" lands of the Middle and Far East, but I'm sure well ahead of the Americas and other areas. When the Mongols turned around to go back to settle the succession dispute, they never returned to Europe--not because they were defeated, but because they didn't think there was anything up there worth taking. China had porcelain and silk, and Europe wooden bowls and doctors that weren't allowed to dissect a corpse.

That all changed, of course. I feel like I'm trashing Europe and its achievements when I didn't mean to come across that way at all.

 

[Dragonflow]

The article below is horribly biased (Muslim-centric if that's a word?) but still interesting.
http://www.ais.org/~bsb/Herald/Previous/95/science.html

I guess it matters what the definition of "rest of the world is." They were behind the "civilized" lands of the Middle and Far East, but I'm sure well ahead of the Americas and other areas. When the Mongols turned around to go back to settle the succession dispute, they never returned to Europe--not because they were defeated, but because they didn't think there was anything up there worth taking. China had porcelain and silk, and Europe wooden bowls and doctors that weren't allowed to dissect a corpse.

That all changed, of course. I feel like I'm trashing Europe and its achievements when I didn't mean to come across that way at all.

Well, it depends on what you compare. If you compare Europe's and the Arabian military technology then they are even. If you compare Europe's and the Arabian science and medicine then the Arabs are far superior. But I agree that generally Europe was somewhat behind the Middle-East.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well, it depends on what you compare. If you compare Europe's and the Arabian military technology then they are even. If you compare Europe's and the Arabian science and medicine then the Arabs are far superior. But I agree that generally Europe was somewhat behind the Middle-East.

I think they're about equal in world significance. But you have like ten European civs and just a few from the ME, and 1-2 usually from the far east, and I'm hoping that's all the OP was trying to say. But I think that a lot of that is just due to history and geography--dividing China to into five or eight different Chinas to signify its weight in history wouldn't be very interesting or real. And looking at the Europe civs they included, I think they're all pretty important and worthy. So I'm not sure you can really do anything about it.

 

[dra]

You can't really cope with pace of this forums. If Astronomy isn't good example for what I was saying why not try it with say, republic system. Athens were republic in ancient world before they discovered anything like feudalism or paper. Yet in game we are forced to allways follow path of slavery -> feudalism -> than constitution and republic. Unless you build pyramids (what that has to do with anything?). I would love game where you can start with democracy early just because your people adopted such social policies or ideas.

Another thing that always annoyed me was politheism -> monotheism switch. Just because it happened in Europe doesn't mean monotheism is some higher and more advanced form of religion. In fact I have to agree that civ4 is better in providing alternative tech paths to previous games but still nowhere level that would make me happy.

About 1421, I guess my layman world has been overwhelmed by amount of evidence provided by Menzies. I will have to do some more research and think about it. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

 

[Akka]

It's obvious that civilizations have low and high points during their history. What counts in their relevance is their accomplishments and influence.

Europe may have been backward in the Middle-Age (though not so backward as to be easily conquered, as all invasions were repulsed), but it was supreme during Roman times, and it grew even more supreme after the Middle-Ages.
Let's say it again : there is no place in the world that has not been touched by any European power. Not a single one. At the middle of the past century in fact, most countries on the surface of the world WERE European countries, the rest of the world with few exceptions being under their power.

Even during the Middle-Ages, Europe was far from being an irrelevant plot of land. Due to the titanic changes in demography during the past 150 years, people usually don't know just how special the high population of Europe was. Until very recently, Europe had FAR more - and I mean FAAAR more - population than most of the rest of the world (China and India being the two only exceptions).
When you have such a large proportion of the world's numbers on your land, you can hardly consider that you're too centrist. Civilizations happens where people live, after all.

Get real, people. Being aware that lots of civilizations existed besides Europe is a good thing. Including the most remarkable in the game to recognize this and for variety is a good thing.
But trying to say that Europe was NOT influencial enough to deserve so many spots ? That's just dumb ignorance. Get back to history classes and get your facts straights.

 

[Shurdus]

While I agree with the message that Akka spreads, I would not go as far as to say that it is ignorant to disagree.

 

[brianshapiro]

My beef with the Romans is not that they didn't achieve anything; they did. They're just widely overrated. There were a lot of bad things about the empire, just as there are any place. Moreover, fetishization of Rome has been perpetuated by Western scholars and especially the church since at least the fall of the empire and later since the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It's been the ideal state for nationalistic ideologues who trip over misconceptions surrounding it and use it to justify all sorts of bad causes.

The church criticized the Roman Empire more than anyone, they were against the idea of an Emperor that was considered to be like a god, and felt that the reason for Rome's downfall was its moral decadence. And the church's view was the prevailing view in the West for a long time. 19th c classical education placed a lot of emphasis on the downfall of Rome.

But I don't think anyone is assuming there weren't empires in China and India, or the Mongols weren't important. I'm sure a lot of people here don't like the fact that the Mongols are being excluded.

Also to some in the thread, I don't think Rome's influence can be summed up by saying they did a lot in Europe. They expanded a lot of the trade routes that were first established by Hellenistic Greece, so had an extensive trade network that extended to India, China, and Africa. They expanded into Egypt and the northern coast of Africa and Anatolia in Asia. Aside from that we also have to talk about the cultural impact of Rome.

 

[brianshapiro]

Being strict about, I don't think Spain or Germany were civilizations in the same way I don't think America was a civilization. They were nations, not civilizations , and participated in what they considered 'Christian civilization', ie the idea of Christiendom.

 

[Akka]

While I agree with the message that Akka spreads, I would not go as far as to say that it is ignorant to disagree.

I stated facts, not opinions. Disagreeing with opinions may be fine, but disagreeing with facts is rather harder to justify.
If someone miss such obvious facts (like Europe being one of the three main populations centers for most of history, or Europe dominating the world for centuries, or today's world being largely shaped by Europe), then yes it's a sign of ignorance - at the very least, willfull ignorance and selective thinking.
I don't see the point of being PC. PC's very definition is dodging/ignoring/avoiding facts to please sensitivity.