Is civ 6 PC

[PiR]

I mean how can a Civ build a Pyramid without Slaves? you would have to spend a Mountain of Gold to pay normal People to do all that tiring work.

Even with slaves I find you need a lot of gold there are some materials you need to pay to another civ at some point, or something you need to pay, that your slaves just cannot provide.

Civ25 will probably only give us the choices of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein - human history has a way of pendulum-like irrationality!!!

Without being so extreme , I agree that most leaders that are accused today of having been chosen for conformism reasons, if they become famous (thanks to that or not), will be subject to controversy sooner or later. And then they will have to be replaced.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Korean communities were furious about a leader pick. But was this pick enforced by PC, or it was just a Korean community interpretation? People like to use PC as a keyword that explains everything. There are always extremes on both sides. One side is overreacting and for them, the fact someone is white European is offensive itself. The other side says PC is oppressive because they cannot say "the truth". I think we should not bother what extremists say
BTW What I have noticed the more someone complains about PC, or is oversensitive from the other hand the more this person has a problem with biases.
EDIT:
As for the question itself Is Civ6 PC? Kinda is. But not as it comes to leader picks and gender equality, but the fact we will not have a Tibet or The Hebrew in the game for example. This is where politics ties the dev's hands.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I wish the devs had been a bit more consistent about "we want to pick lesser known/b-list rulers". Then it'd be more justifiable to pick people like Gorgo, Eleanor of aquitane, etc. But they pick them and then ALSO end up going with a few "probably the/amongst the biggest name for their civ" like Montezuma or Cyrus or Hammurabi, making it seem kind of inconsistent and arbitrary

 

[Noble Zarkon]

lots of negative reactions to pretty much every female leader (except for Tamar). Much more so than for most male leaders, surely

There's a much bigger pool of male leaders to pick from (because that's world history) which is why trying to be PC or having a gender quota leads you into some of the bad choices we have seen.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Even with slaves I find you need a lot of gold there are some materials you need to pay to another civ at some point, or something you need to pay, that your slaves just cannot provide.

Roleplaying Slaver through buying Builders, POOOGGGG-Ahem, excuse me.

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgzWkRl-xV6PGQgCCMx4AaABCQ

Anyway, just to warn you all, I'm going to probably drop an essay on this thread soon, so, you have been warned.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Played civ games since III and my conclusion is no, it is not more PC than past games but it seems to try to represent stuff in more detail compared to past games:

• Civ 6 try to reward you for not chopping and harvesting everything and also add more real cost to improvements. Past civ games everything eventually ends up being mined, farmed, roaded. Stuff like forest don't last long and in Civ III and IV rainforest are pure bad. The past civ games was not realistic with terrain improvements, if it was there would not exist anything but farms and mines in countries, stuff like forest would be completely gone. Civ 6 is more realistic, there is atleast some reasons to maintain the terrain as it was at the start.
• Colonization, Civ 6 allow you to get various bonuses from colonization such as cards and leader abilities. In Civ 3 corruption would make such cities of limited use and Civ 4 added additional maintaince cost to such cities. Civ 5 added penalties for expanding empires to an degree beyond what past games have done. Civ 6 the only penalties is like the cost of the settlers, diplomatic relations for wars (which can be reduced if you are ahead in technology which seems to represent historical colonization).
• Governments, in Civ 3 republic seems to be the best government and Civ 4 give you unhappiness if you don't switch to emancipation. Civ 6 don't seems to favor particular government forms to the same degree as past games, the authoritarian governments seems more competetive, obviously there may be inbalances but nothing like Civ 3 governments and there is not demand to go for something like emancipation in Civ 6.
• Warfare and pillaging seems to be as strong if not stronger compared to past games, certain civs are also designed around aggressive playstyles to a degree beyond what past civ games have done.
• Don't see anything strange with leaders, I'm pretty sure in 2016 it was claimed the leaders would be great personalities, not something like the best leader the civilization have had (which is very arbitary because you need to define best in some way) or about how long they ruled. Don't see any major difference between leaders in 6 compared to past civ games, except that they now have abilities tied to them (which they also had in 4 but as two non unique traits).
• Slavery is references many times in the game such as capturing civilian units, various card and unique abilities.
• Civ 6 use sterotypes similar to past civ games, perhaps nothing like Civ V India whos unique ability was called "population grow".

 

[Leah and Rachael]

I wish the devs had been a bit more consistent about "we want to pick lesser known/b-list rulers". Then it'd be more justifiable to pick people like Gorgo, Eleanor of aquitane, etc. But they pick them and then ALSO end up going with a few "probably the/amongst the biggest name for their civ" like Montezuma or Cyrus or Hammurabi, making it seem kind of inconsistent and arbitrary

Did the devs say they want to pick ONLY lesser known rulers? Because I think it is reasonable for them to arbitrarily decide. Even the decision to pick lesser known civs/leaders is in the first place arbitrary.

If you feel pandered to, I don't know what to tell you. Any decision is bound to cause issues with someone within the community. Sometimes, that 'someone' may be you.

For me, I don't see anything WRONG with that decision. Even if they created an 'only female leaders' civ game or scenario or expansion, as long as it is a good game, then they haven't actually committed anything worth being upset about. My opinion, of course

 

[Evie]

I mean how can a Civ build a Pyramid without Slaves?

You should ask the actual Egyptians who built the actual pyramids, since they didn’t use actual slaves in the process.

I guess ancient Egypt was too PC or something.

What they did use was a corvee system, which is essentially a taxation system where the state taxes your labor directly (you owe X days of labor to the state each year) rather than indirectly (you owe money equal to X days of labor to the state each year).

Which was a far more common way for states to get labor for projects than slavery, historically.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

I actually feel like neither of these statements is true, but probably just because they're both a bit hyperbolic. The leaders that Mount Suribachi points out are very uncontroversial, but there are still people who will complain because they wanted Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin instead, for example. Overall I'd say I agree more with BD123 here.

Would you be happier if I rephrased it as "no-one ever complained that Victoria or Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great are only in the game because they're women"?

As for the question itself Is Civ6 PC? Kinda is. But not as it comes to leader picks and gender equality, but the fact we will not have a Tibet or The Hebrew in the game for example. This is where politics ties the dev's hands.

"Golda Meir leads Israel, in Sid Meier's Civilisation 6." Unique unit Mossad Agent.

Now there's a civ I would love to see.

 

[CivLuvah]

Well I've always stand by the opinion that PC is the best medium to play and experience the game. But since the game is in multiple platforms now (Switch, console, Mac, etc.), I don't know why people are complaining about Civ6 only being PC.

*listens to whisper* wait, this thread isn't about that kind of PC?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Well I've always stand by the opinion that PC is the best medium to play and experience the game. But since the game is in multiple platforms now (Switch, console, Mac, etc.), I don't know why people are complaining about Civ6 only being PC.

*listens to whisper* wait, this thread isn't about that kind of PC?

Nope. In all seriousness, I'd like to hear your actual opinion about this topic.

 

[Leucarum]

Given the under-representation of large swathes of the world, I'd like to see civ get more diverse... Even if at the cost of seeing less european civs. Not quite the same thing as being more politically correct but the leader/civ choices appears to be where people mostly get upset/hyperbolic...

 

[CivLuvah]

Nope. In all seriousness, I'd like to hear your actual opinion about this topic.

Well short answer:

People who often claim/complain this seem to enjoy/live vicariously through their wrath on things that are so trivial, or things that are legitimate to include in the game because of importance, renown, what have you.

To get half a quote from a quote for a Civ4 tech: "I have no time for such nonsense." I have too much on my plate to bother.

 

[TreVor_ish]

CIV VI has other issues than being PC.

 

[Duuk]

"Golda Meir leads Israel, in Sid Meier's Civilisation 6." Unique unit Mossad Agent.

Now there's a civ I would love to see.

Modern Israel would never be a civ. But ancient Hebrews were downright warlords against Phoenicia (Canaan) and other locals, so David or Solomon with a Maccabee unit and an enhanced Temple building that generates +2 and Great Merchant points (one of the things that Jesus was most against) would be nifty.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't know. I remember a lot of negative reactions to Seondeok because her skin was too dark, she didn't look Korean enough, she failed to unite the kingdoms and lost territory, she's not Sejong the Great, etc. And I seem to remember a lot of negative reactions to Jadwiga for not being Casimir, to Catherina de Medici for not being a real queen and not being Napoleon, etc. Sure, there were supportive posters (and I certainly enjoy everyone on that list of yours), but let's not pretend that there weren't also lots of negative reactions to pretty much every female leader (except for Tamar). Much more so than for most male leaders, surely.

Definitely, though I also saw complaints about Tamar's original skin color as well and how she looked darker than she should have. Both Seondeok and Tamar are the only leaders that I'm aware of whose skin tone changed between the First Look videos and release.

Ehh i don't think France's current iffy leader pool in 6 can be so easily relegated to "they wanted women so that's why there's no Frenchmen leaders." They wanted an espionage leader in vanilla and I guess CdM is an alright choice in that regards given her behind-the-scenes influence and palace intrigue but it's not like France itself is a great choice for an espionage civ to begin with.

Well I would argue that Cardinal Richelieu could have still filled that role, and wielded as much power in France that Catherine had. That being said I think Ed Beach had a personal interest in her and that's the reason why we got her.

Would you be happier if I rephrased it as "no-one ever complained that Victoria or Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great are only in the game because they're women"?

I'm sure people would complain if Catherine didn't look like she did in Civ 5 though.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Here is the mini-essay I was talking about earlier:

I would like to briefly talk about why Civilization 6 and its developers simply cannot win when it comes to the political extremes.

For the first part of this whole mini-essay, I would like to bring arguments from both of the extreme sides on the political spectrum. I warn you that I have a conservative bias, so while I ask that you listen to my opinion with an open mind, you will need to form your own original opinions and not blindly listen to people on the internet. I would also like to say that I do not mean any ridicule to the people I mention here. I only come to state my opinion, that is all.

First, I shall start with arguments with far-left points if you pay attention to what they have said before.

Let's start with statements from @GenyaArikado, a fellow CivFanatics user. A while back, when the leak of the March Pack was first released on March 9, GenyaArikado made some dubious claims about Firaxis being 'sexist" for including a male Leader, Joao III, instead of a female Leader, who deriving from his previous posts would probably have meant Luiza de Guzman. He also stated that Firaxis has observed a 1:3 ratio in Female to Male Leaders in previous expansions and that they could have chosen to keep to that route.

....Joao?

This is sexism

Yes, most leaders were made since we live in a patriarchal world, but Civ isn't an accurate depiction of history, they could have CHOSEN to keep the female ratio at least, either with Portugual or someone else.

Another opinion I could find is that of Konrad Curze, a non-CivFanatic whose claims I found on Youtube. In the link to the video below, you can find his comment if you scroll to the bottom of the comment section.

Here are comments that the aforementioned Youtube user posted for those who are not able to access Youtube for some reason:

All of the civilizations available and you choose yet another white European colonizer empire. I would be mad if it wasn’t such an obvious move to get you alt right base back. I remember when people tried to deny that the next was portugal. With them, Gaul, and Byzantium, nearly half of the new civilizations are white. This is the kind of gross overrepresentation that I would expect from some ***** makers of the game. Please try harder next time.

politics are important in all things. Let me guess though, you boycotted coke after they told you to act less ******* white and racist even though it’s just a drink.

As we can see, Konrad Curze has the view that politics are important in all matters of life, if to paraphrase him. He is also of the view that the addition of Portugal into the game is an attempt by Firaxis to bring back the alt-right fan base by including another "White" or "European" Civilization.

Now we shall hear from the opinion that Firaxis is becoming too politically correct or "woke." Once again, I do not mean any harm or ridicule to the aforementioned people.

@onepurpose, another fellow CivFanatic, created a thread on March 25, 2021, titled "Nau Design." In it, he claims that because Firaxis chose to place X's on the sails of the Nau instead of a Templar Cross, it was Civilization ignoring historical accuracy and being "woke" for the sake of it, if you paraphrase it.

Well , I do not want to create polemic.. but the sail has an "X" instead of a cross ("+")

That cross was very distinctive (indeed , the red cross is related to Templar Order , that in Portugal -as opposed the rest of European countries- had not been disolved , )

Even Civ V Nau design did respect the historical accuracy ..

Nau_(Civ5)

Do anyone still deny Civ VI 's wokery???

They could have put blank sails if did not want to respect the historical accuracy

The final outcome is pretty awkward and pretty deliberate ...

So, to summarize all of this, it seems that Civilization 6 walks on a tightrope while also having to balance plates on their fingers. One little nudge to either side and they will fall prey to either side of the political extremes. And that's fine. No matter what Firaxis tries to do, there will always be that vocal minority that turns on a siren whenever they see something that doesn't conform to their political beliefs. This is a fact for everything and everyone in the world. Even if Firaxis does cave to one side for one reason or another, the situation won't get better for them because once they are given an inch, they will demand a foot or a mile as well.

So, in my honest opinion, the best thing that Firaxis can do is ignore them whenever the minority plays the siren and focus on making their games better and more enjoyable. It will be best for everyone should they do so.

Thank you for attending my Tedx Talk, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So, to summarize all of this, it seems that Civilization 6 walks on a tightrope while also having to balance plates on their fingers. One little nudge to either side and they will fall prey to either side of the political extremes. And that's fine. No matter what Firaxis tries to do, there will always be that vocal minority that turns on a siren whenever they see something that doesn't conform to their political beliefs. This is a fact for everything and everyone in the world. Even if Firaxis does cave to one side for one reason or another, the situation won't get better for them because once they are given an inch, they will demand a foot or a mile as well.

So, in my honest opinion, the best thing that Firaxis can do is ignore them whenever the minority plays the siren and focus on making their games better and more enjoyable. It will be best for everyone should they do so.

Thank you for attending my Tedx Talk, ladies and gentlemen.

Well at least we know that at least one European male is here to stay in all games and his name is Alexander.

Anyway I feel like that those comments are not reasonable or truthful at all, and really only damages the credibility of the one that makes those comments.
I mean right before Firaxis gave us Ba Trieu, a female, leading Vietnam, whose not European.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Thanks, William, for this summary. I think it's very true. You could also add on the balancing act of "more non-Western inclusion" vs "people who do not want to be represented in the game".

Politics in history is a dicey topic. There is always going to be politics in history - victors write histories, of course, but they also burn libraries. Some victors don't write, too, which changes things (Sea People, anyone?). Clearly the "liberal/conservative" split is not really reflective of clear ideological positions, and I think "politically correct" is begging for a straw man argument. You might say that history buffs lean conservative (focusing on narratives of people or peoples). Professional historians lean the other way (focusing on processes and change). Nationalists are similar in a few ways, but nationalism can read conservative when it's a nation or empire, and can read "liberal" when it's a minority or indigenous group.

There are more fine-grained biases, too. Who kept records, and on what material? Chinese and Roman records are fantastic. Khmer or ancient Siamese records need to be bolstered with travelers' accounts (which are unreliable - see the Srivijaya controversy). The Harappan script is not translated. Many people left no written records at all.

Related, what foci does professional history and popular history like? Want a history of World War II? Take your pick. Rome? Here's tons. Plenty of historians read Latin, many read Greek. But Pali? Fewer. Ancient Cambodian? Fewer still. I used to work in the library at Cornell with their collection of palm-leaf manuscripts. I couldn't read any of them (mostly in Cambodian script but Pali language), but could at least categorize them away in files awaiting others to translate. Elsewhere, in Loei, I remember seeing palm-leaf libraries in temples in un-air-conditioned space, in Lue script, which few people read. That is to say - this history exists, but there are only a handful of programs that teach the respective languages, and it is not a prestigious job. Undergraduates have heard stories about Rome, so they want to take courses on Rome, so courses on Rome get popular in departments, so departments hire historians of Rome. Someone who works on Lue history will struggle. People want to hear the story they already think they know - thus the pushback when they get something that isn't that.

Nationalism is another thing, especially in smaller countries. In many places, the purpose of history is to make pride in your country not to, as professional historians do, deconstruct the idea of "country" as a fiction, a moment in time that is not inevitable. For nationalists, history is an unfolding of "the glorious X people" - it IS inevitable. So it means a lot how that inevitability links up with what is portrayed on the screen. But often that means distorting "real" history.

I would say the line we have to walk is between history as a narrative and history as a process. Who leads a civ is important for people who focus on narrative, but at the end of the day is not as important to the unfolding of history.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

First, I shall start with arguments with far-left points if you pay attention to what they have said before.

Let's start with statements from @GenyaArikado, a fellow CivFanatics user. A while back, when the leak of the March Pack was first released on March 9, GenyaArikado made some dubious claims about Firaxis being 'sexist" for including a male Leader, Joao III, instead of a female Leader, who deriving from his previous posts would probably have meant Luiza de Guzman. He also stated that Firaxis has observed a 1:3 ratio in Female to Male Leaders in previous expansions and that they could have chosen to keep to that route.

Another opinion I could find is that of Konrad Curze, a non-CivFanatic whose claims I found on Youtube. In the link to the video below, you can find his comment if you scroll to the bottom of the comment section.

As we can see, Konrad Curze has the view that politics are important in all matters of life, if to paraphrase him. He is also of the view that the addition of Portugal into the game is an attempt by Firaxis to bring back the alt-right fan base by including another "White" or "European" Civilization.

@onepurpose, another fellow CivFanatic, created a thread on March 25, 2021, titled "Nau Design." In it, he claims that because Firaxis chose to place X's on the sails of the Nau instead of a Templar Cross, it was Civilization ignoring historical accuracy and being "woke" for the sake of it, if you paraphrase it.
.

My god, I found all three of these cringe.

I don't think Civ 6 is PC at all or anywhere near it. The only leader I had a real gripe with was Catherine de Medici. I think Portugal frankly may have been a bit overkill (I'm talking representation here, they did a nice job differentiating them from Spain) but in no way shape or form do I consider that some signal to white supremacists lol.

I would definitely have liked to see some more representation from NA Indigenous groups and African Civilizations but I noticed Firaxis really expanded our options in Asia which I appreciated. I would like to see the Mughal Empire one day though.

If anything, if the game was hyper PC, they couldn't include Gandhi either due to his racism and questionable sexual interactions such as sleeping naked beside his grandniece in an attempt to test his "sexual restraint".

Moreover, I find the term (PC) to just be a reductionist buzzword. Like another poster above put it, its just a word people use when they don't want to actually engage in a dialogue. It is basically the 2021 version of saying "I don't like it, so it is stupid".