Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
You must have been looking at the Australian Aborigine Civ discussion in the Possible Civilizations Thread.
Is civ 6 PC
- Thread starter Kupe Navigator
- Start date
- Status
I have a solution. Add them as city-states as long as the problems are either language or leader depictions.
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
Really? I have more problems with Gorgo than Catherine.
I kind of feel that the responses to my previous post are proving the point. Y'all are still complaining about leaders like Eleanor and Catherine and Seondeok. You're convinced that these leaders (and most of the other female leaders) are only in the game to meet some quota and not because they have interesting stories, personalities, and accomplishments. Perhaps "most famous" or "conquered the most land" or "won some big war" aren't always the best criteria for selecting leaders. Maybe some of us don't want to play the same 1-2 leaders from a given civilization in every iteration of the franchise.
It's kind of funny to see some people using Wu Zetian as an example of a female leader that "deserves" to be in the game. Back when she was added to Civilization V, this board and many others were full of complaints about how China had many better (male) leaders to choose and that she was only being included to fill some PC quota and blah blah blah.
Oh, well.
It's kind of funny to see some people using Wu Zetian as an example of a female leader that "deserves" to be in the game. Back when she was added to Civilization V, this board and many others were full of complaints about how China had many better (male) leaders to choose and that she was only being included to fill some PC quota and blah blah blah.
Oh, well.
ManoftheHour333
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2021
- Messages
- 242
An interesting yet ultimately unfortunate discussion to have been had. And some real great points by everyone (Even Andrew from FXS-cool!)
Personally, I don't think Civ is becoming overly "PC" in it's purest form. People who cry out on both sides for whatever cause are just complaining because we live in a world of echo chambers where it's so easy to get enveloped in a sanctuary of your own political beliefs. And these echoes can sadly change even our perceptions of facts and history. But that doesn't mean that we can't be open to having different aspects of the game be influenced by new historical discoveries or ways of looking at things. And again, this really does hit to both sides of the aisle...I just think that the complaints here aren't actually in favor of the game being sugarcoated by "PC culture"...whatever that means.
However, I will say that Civ is becoming too "commercialized" and this can often get in the way of making the game more historical. Since the game is catering to a more diverse audience, it seems that FXS went hard on trying to make history as approachable as possible-especially past the R&F. Like we haven't seen ANY new scenarios like Conquests of Alex or Jadwiga's Legacy. Tbh, I kinda liked those and some of my favorite moments in Civ IV and V were in the WWII scenario in IV, the Scramble for Africa in V, and the New World in V. Plus, these scenarios helped to contextualize leaders and really make certain eras pop more (I.e. the Bronze Age one). It helps to scratch the historical nerves and if done correctly, can introduce new and cool civs/leaders to the pool. My worry is that Civ seems to be breaking from that format due to not being as marketable...Yeah historical nerds would love a WWII scenario or colonization scenario...but many people wouldn't and it's not worth the controversy when stuff like zombies and vampires are not controversial at all really. By ignoring those aspects of history, the game is more easily digested by modern people...or that's at least a more business-friendly perspective. I get it that we're not going to get any Civ without money but I don't think the answer is leaving big historical gaps or trying to blobify civs to no end to avoid the unsavory. I don't think we've jumped the shark yet but it *could* happen admittedly.
TLDR: Feel free to introduce new leaders or civs that challenge our concepts of civilization and the like. But don't try and gloss over history to avoid making a historically-centered game at it's core.
Lol! I remember people saying that about her...I think it's largely that people have been discovering how much of a bada$$ she was and how much Chinese historians had been slandering her for a millennia that have made her into more of a great Chinese leader in 2021 than she was seen as in 2011. Historical discovery/rediscovery is fun ain't it?
Personally, I don't think Civ is becoming overly "PC" in it's purest form. People who cry out on both sides for whatever cause are just complaining because we live in a world of echo chambers where it's so easy to get enveloped in a sanctuary of your own political beliefs. And these echoes can sadly change even our perceptions of facts and history. But that doesn't mean that we can't be open to having different aspects of the game be influenced by new historical discoveries or ways of looking at things. And again, this really does hit to both sides of the aisle...I just think that the complaints here aren't actually in favor of the game being sugarcoated by "PC culture"...whatever that means.
However, I will say that Civ is becoming too "commercialized" and this can often get in the way of making the game more historical. Since the game is catering to a more diverse audience, it seems that FXS went hard on trying to make history as approachable as possible-especially past the R&F. Like we haven't seen ANY new scenarios like Conquests of Alex or Jadwiga's Legacy. Tbh, I kinda liked those and some of my favorite moments in Civ IV and V were in the WWII scenario in IV, the Scramble for Africa in V, and the New World in V. Plus, these scenarios helped to contextualize leaders and really make certain eras pop more (I.e. the Bronze Age one). It helps to scratch the historical nerves and if done correctly, can introduce new and cool civs/leaders to the pool. My worry is that Civ seems to be breaking from that format due to not being as marketable...Yeah historical nerds would love a WWII scenario or colonization scenario...but many people wouldn't and it's not worth the controversy when stuff like zombies and vampires are not controversial at all really. By ignoring those aspects of history, the game is more easily digested by modern people...or that's at least a more business-friendly perspective. I get it that we're not going to get any Civ without money but I don't think the answer is leaving big historical gaps or trying to blobify civs to no end to avoid the unsavory. I don't think we've jumped the shark yet but it *could* happen admittedly.
TLDR: Feel free to introduce new leaders or civs that challenge our concepts of civilization and the like. But don't try and gloss over history to avoid making a historically-centered game at it's core.
Lol! I remember people saying that about her...I think it's largely that people have been discovering how much of a bada$$ she was and how much Chinese historians had been slandering her for a millennia that have made her into more of a great Chinese leader in 2021 than she was seen as in 2011. Historical discovery/rediscovery is fun ain't it?
Maybe in Civilization VII, we'll see everyone pining to bring back Catherine! Who knows?
bengalryan9
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
- Messages
- 1,127
TBH I wouldn't care if a civilization was lead by a man, woman, dog, alien, or salad bowl... the game would still play exactly the same, so I'd still play it. If the history is important to you that's cool but some of us it's a total non-factor.
Wielki Hegemon
Emperor
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
@Andrew Johnson [FXS] History as social science - the study of the processes of events - and history as mythology - the stories and tales of "heroes" that tell us who we are, what we value and where we come from - in a nutshell.
(Also why popular history will never abandon great men history - because it's fundamentally mythology, stories and tales, and mythological stories and tales need larger than life heroes)
(Also why popular history will never abandon great men history - because it's fundamentally mythology, stories and tales, and mythological stories and tales need larger than life heroes)
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
I don't know if this will be controversial or not, but I am a somewhat-avid supporter of the Great Man Theory by Thomas Carlyle.
João III
King
As someone who only read the title, I can confirm that Civ 6 is on PC, as well as a variety of consoles
I don't necessarily have a problem with Gorgo. I think most people's problem is that she could have easily just been Leonidas with the same ability and agenda.Really? I have more problems with Gorgo than Catherine.
My initial problem with Catherine wasn't because she was a female but because she wasn't Louis XIV, but even I've gotten over that. At least Magnificent Catherine is the playstyle I've wanted from France since the beginning.
I find that kind of funny because my first real foray into the Civilization series was the 2010 board game who had Wu Zetian as the leader for China. I was wondering why and then I realized it was second edition with her, replacing Mao in the first edition. I'm glad I picked up the right one in that regard.
Well every Roman leader so far has been a "Caesar".
João III
King
I feel like we don't talk enough about how, in Firaxis's own words, an "unbelievably brutal dictator" was a leader in multiple (!) gamesI find that kind of funny because my first real foray into the Civilization series was the 2010 board game who had Wu Zetian as the leader for China. I was wondering why and then I realized it was second edition with her, replacing Mao in the first edition. I'm glad I picked up the right one in that regard.
The designer of the game literally took the leaders and civilizations from Civilization Revolution and just put them in initially without realizing the issue was they couldn't sale the game in China, because in no way can you depict him potentially losing a game.
Moderator Action: Removed off topic trolling and responses. leif
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 914
Late for the battle, but here's my opinion anyway.
I think a lot of people might mistake PC to inclusiveness. Both can be linked, of course, but while PC often has a bad reputation attached to it, less people consider being inclusive as something inherently bad.
And it's the core of the problems: words we use, definition we put on them, narrative that we deduce then... PC versus inclusiveness; historical "accuracy" against historical "accuracy".
Firaxis tried to be more inclusive, gender-related and race/culture/ethnicity related. Less male leaders, less european empires.
Of course, this will appear as a bad thing for people that grew up in an eurocentric culture. Only a fraction of white people controlled the world or have been prominent, and yet for those eurocentric people they "deserve" to be overrepresented. Because historical accuracy is more important than inclusiveness, but they don't realize that their historical "accuracy" is completely inaccurate and biased.
Has CdM be a less impactful leader on the History of France than Napoléon, Louis XIV or Charles de Gaulle? Maybe, but if we speak about impacts, Louis XI (completely modernizing the country from top to bottom), François I (making the country what it is today), Colbert (the one that truly created modern France, more than Louis XIV or any king) Clovis (the founder of the country according to the historical novel) should be considered. So why do we always return to the same three names? Because people are utter liars. They don't want "worthy" leaders, "legitimate" leaders, they just want what they know. But I'll teach you something:
The popularity of a leader is not at all a proof of his impact, his "worthiness" or anything that would make him better than a lesser known leader
And that's why I love Civ 6. Because, while we always speak about Charlemagne, Louis XIV or Napoléon, I had little knowledge about CdM. And, at the beginning, I hated her. But then I learnt to appreciate her, and I learnt about her, and I discovered that she was, indeed, a legitimate leader for France amongst the hundreds France could pick out.
It's as if inclusiveness forced people to learn more about History, and people hate it, because it destroy their fragile view of the world and challenge their knowledge.
And it works for everything: female leaders, non-european cultures, everything is worthy of learning, and Civ 6 is a tremendous medium for it. I learnt more about the Kongoleses (which, before, for me, were just the private gardens of Belgians), some of the History of New Zealand... all of that was good. I see absolutely nothing bad in the choices of leaders and civs. The main complains I have are that some abilities are terrible, but that's game design, not the lore around it.
Also, have you noticed that people that say that Political Correctness is made only to cater for some snowflakes minorities that whine for anything, and yet when the narrative deviates as little from what they're used to, they whines like the snowflakes they criticized before?
As for Slavery, indeed it's an interesting topic... Except that slavery, under one form or another, always existed (and some people would say that even our modern countries aren't free from some sorts of "light" slavery). In an incredibly large amount of cultures, nations, empires, throughout the ages, there pretty much always has been a caste, a subset of the population, that was deemed "not-like-us" or used for cheap labour: actual slaves, of course, but also untouchables, serfdom... My point is that "slavery", under many forms and through various levels of intensity, always existed... Therefore, why having to "explicit" it? If you want "slavery" so bad, just consider that, as an immortal leader controlling every move of your workers, you just have slaves. It's just a level of abstraction. I mean, a fish doesn't has a word for water, so why name a thing that could have no incidence on the gameplay because it would be omnipresent? Maybe just add a Industrial/Modern Era civic, "Emancipation", where the need for amenities and housing increases for your population, to represent your slaves freeing themselves.
Wanting to have explicitly slavery in this kind of game would not be good nor bad for me, but just completely unecessary and superfluous and, clearly, not worthy to be the main point of discussion.
As I said : why always those three names?
Charlemagne is not "French" enough to be considered a leader for France. His capital isn't even in actual France now. He was as much a leader for Germany than France (except that the dynasty seems more French), so either he's a dual leader, or we don't take him.
Napoléon, please, stop with the worship of this bloodthirsty ego atop of some mathematical theorems.
As for Louis XIV, yeah, it might works, even if I'd say that he's not necessarily the most representative of France...
Also, you keep saying that they're the most impactful, but, as I said, you "forget" to mention Louis XI, François I, Henri IV, Clovis, Colbert, Richelieu... Are you sure you're interested in "impactful" leaders or are you just catering to your own, pretty narrow narrow vision of the History of France where the same names came over and over without any subtelty?
I'd have prefered Richelieu too, but only because he could have had a magnificent cardinal hat and be all in red. And we all know that all inclusiveness is unworthy confronted to the power of MAGNIFICENT HATS!
I think a lot of people might mistake PC to inclusiveness. Both can be linked, of course, but while PC often has a bad reputation attached to it, less people consider being inclusive as something inherently bad.
And it's the core of the problems: words we use, definition we put on them, narrative that we deduce then... PC versus inclusiveness; historical "accuracy" against historical "accuracy".
Firaxis tried to be more inclusive, gender-related and race/culture/ethnicity related. Less male leaders, less european empires.
Of course, this will appear as a bad thing for people that grew up in an eurocentric culture. Only a fraction of white people controlled the world or have been prominent, and yet for those eurocentric people they "deserve" to be overrepresented. Because historical accuracy is more important than inclusiveness, but they don't realize that their historical "accuracy" is completely inaccurate and biased.
Has CdM be a less impactful leader on the History of France than Napoléon, Louis XIV or Charles de Gaulle? Maybe, but if we speak about impacts, Louis XI (completely modernizing the country from top to bottom), François I (making the country what it is today), Colbert (the one that truly created modern France, more than Louis XIV or any king) Clovis (the founder of the country according to the historical novel) should be considered. So why do we always return to the same three names? Because people are utter liars. They don't want "worthy" leaders, "legitimate" leaders, they just want what they know. But I'll teach you something:
The popularity of a leader is not at all a proof of his impact, his "worthiness" or anything that would make him better than a lesser known leader
And that's why I love Civ 6. Because, while we always speak about Charlemagne, Louis XIV or Napoléon, I had little knowledge about CdM. And, at the beginning, I hated her. But then I learnt to appreciate her, and I learnt about her, and I discovered that she was, indeed, a legitimate leader for France amongst the hundreds France could pick out.
It's as if inclusiveness forced people to learn more about History, and people hate it, because it destroy their fragile view of the world and challenge their knowledge.
And it works for everything: female leaders, non-european cultures, everything is worthy of learning, and Civ 6 is a tremendous medium for it. I learnt more about the Kongoleses (which, before, for me, were just the private gardens of Belgians), some of the History of New Zealand... all of that was good. I see absolutely nothing bad in the choices of leaders and civs. The main complains I have are that some abilities are terrible, but that's game design, not the lore around it.
Also, have you noticed that people that say that Political Correctness is made only to cater for some snowflakes minorities that whine for anything, and yet when the narrative deviates as little from what they're used to, they whines like the snowflakes they criticized before?
As for Slavery, indeed it's an interesting topic... Except that slavery, under one form or another, always existed (and some people would say that even our modern countries aren't free from some sorts of "light" slavery). In an incredibly large amount of cultures, nations, empires, throughout the ages, there pretty much always has been a caste, a subset of the population, that was deemed "not-like-us" or used for cheap labour: actual slaves, of course, but also untouchables, serfdom... My point is that "slavery", under many forms and through various levels of intensity, always existed... Therefore, why having to "explicit" it? If you want "slavery" so bad, just consider that, as an immortal leader controlling every move of your workers, you just have slaves. It's just a level of abstraction. I mean, a fish doesn't has a word for water, so why name a thing that could have no incidence on the gameplay because it would be omnipresent? Maybe just add a Industrial/Modern Era civic, "Emancipation", where the need for amenities and housing increases for your population, to represent your slaves freeing themselves.
Wanting to have explicitly slavery in this kind of game would not be good nor bad for me, but just completely unecessary and superfluous and, clearly, not worthy to be the main point of discussion.
As I said : why always those three names?
Charlemagne is not "French" enough to be considered a leader for France. His capital isn't even in actual France now. He was as much a leader for Germany than France (except that the dynasty seems more French), so either he's a dual leader, or we don't take him.
Napoléon, please, stop with the worship of this bloodthirsty ego atop of some mathematical theorems.
As for Louis XIV, yeah, it might works, even if I'd say that he's not necessarily the most representative of France...
Also, you keep saying that they're the most impactful, but, as I said, you "forget" to mention Louis XI, François I, Henri IV, Clovis, Colbert, Richelieu... Are you sure you're interested in "impactful" leaders or are you just catering to your own, pretty narrow narrow vision of the History of France where the same names came over and over without any subtelty?
I'd have prefered Richelieu too, but only because he could have had a magnificent cardinal hat and be all in red. And we all know that all inclusiveness is unworthy confronted to the power of MAGNIFICENT HATS!
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
ManoftheHour333
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2021
- Messages
- 242
I'd have prefered Richelieu too, but only because he could have had a magnificent cardinal hat and be all in red. And we all know that all inclusiveness is unworthy confronted to the power of MAGNIFICENT HATS![/QUOTE]
You're right-they toned down the hats for Civ VI. Where was Suleiman's REAL hat! Plus we didn't get Venice for the Doge's hat and Gitarja's does't hold a candle to Ramkhamhaeng's gold glory. I guess Menelik's was pretty dope as was Joao's...but yeah more bigger hats the better!
You're right-they toned down the hats for Civ VI. Where was Suleiman's REAL hat! Plus we didn't get Venice for the Doge's hat and Gitarja's does't hold a candle to Ramkhamhaeng's gold glory. I guess Menelik's was pretty dope as was Joao's...but yeah more bigger hats the better!
I honestly think that Charlemagne might work into his own separate civ, similar to how they gave Alexander Macedon, because as you said he's not French enough, or even German enough to be a leader for even both. Call it the Frankish Empire and I think it could work, though it would probably be on the bottom of civs we need, even the bottom of Europeans I would want.
Well Louis XIV has only appeared once as a leader so I see no reason why we still couldn't get him again.
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
Or the Carolingian Empire if you want to make it a dynastic thing.
Everyone's heard of Charlemagne but not Martel and Pepin.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 914
I personally hated the Macedon treatment (which is just an Alexander-the-civ) so please no more civ like that tailored just for a charismatic leader (looking at you Simon...)
Well Louis XIV has only appeared once as a leader so I see no reason why we still couldn't get him again.
Because we already had him, but we still lack François I, Colbert or my favourite, Louis XI, which all were as impactful as Louis XIV but are less "popularized" (maybe because Louis XIV was seen as the last "good" or "great" monarch before the monarchical decadence... even if, as a king, he was not especially a good one and would have been nobody without Colbert which, again, would make a very viable leader for France). Why reuse an already used leader when you have hundreds of well-documented, strong personality leaders you can pick up from?
- Status
