Is the civ series too eurocentric?

[Kyriakos]

I think a good compromise is to have 10 greek civs, 5 greek-roman, 1 roman, and a couple (ok, 3 may be more fair) "barbarian" civs which can develop to a pool of generic west euro, asian or american civs.
Tbh the "roman" one isn't needed either. Lump it with the barbs ---> later civs. No need to be so focused on the med afterall.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's hardly reasonable. Now, call it 12 Greek, 3 Greek-Roman, you might be getting somewhere.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, while we're throwing ideas around I also think the current timeline is unacceptable. It should really be a culture-mooching era, fascist-collectivist era, expansion era, era of barbarian governance, and finally a feta cheese era.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Meh, i don't like feta, or cheese in general. It is haram.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I suspect there is growing discontent about the Western-centric nature of Civ only because the US and Europe are becoming more diverse and less Western in terms of their population's known origin. So even a less Western-centric game would only be so because of Western-centrism itself

 

[halfhalfharp]

Inevitably eurocentric, I guess.

For a large portion of history and well-known powerful nations are normally recorded in European hands.
And this game was made in a western society. The reputations of civilizations are normally based on history from an european view.
If it was produced in Asia, the case will surely be different.

But it is not that serious, as they have been trying to add in other non-european culture too.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Holy necro Batman!

EDIT: huh, completely forgot I started this thread

 

[halfhalfharp]

Holy necro Batman!

EDIT: huh, completely forgot I started this thread

Sorry for that.

Oh wow, all the threads from this forum are 2016... sorry for digging graves.

 

[Mouthwash]

Takes me back, so I appreciate.

 

[thecrazyscot]

The discussion is still relevant though, as the question pops up on the regular!

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Inevitably eurocentric, I guess.

For a large portion of history

Not that large. Mostly just after the 1400s and the industrial revolution. There's a lot of stuff that happened before that.

and well-known powerful nations are normally recorded in European hands.

Well known European nations in European records...

And this game was made in a western society. The reputations of civilizations are normally based on history from an european view.
If it was produced in Asia, the case will surely be different.

I don't think it would be that different if it was produced in Asia. Europe and our colonial off-shoots are still the biggest markets for video games and a Japanese dev studio would cater to that.

But it is not that serious, as they have been trying to add in other non-european culture too.

Well, it's a mixed bag. I was pretty disappointed that they neglected Southeast Asia and America in the base game, but at least it had Kongo. Now I'm a bit bummed that they didn't include Mali, Ethiopia, Inca or Maya in R&F, but at least we have the Cree.
And Georgia which is in the European periphery, but still in an unrepresented region and feels more "foreign" than Carthage or the Byzantines.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kyriakos]

The globally important civ of the Cree, huh?

 

[halfhalfharp]

Not that large. Mostly just after the 1400s and the industrial revolution. There's a lot of stuff that happened before that.



Well known European nations in European records...



I don't think it would be that different if it was produced in Asia. Europe and our colonial off-shoots are still the biggest markets for video games and a Japanese dev studio would cater to that.



Well, it's a mixed bag. I was pretty disappointed that they neglected Southeast Asia and America in the base game, but at least it had Kongo. Now I'm a bit bummed that they didn't include Mali, Ethiopia, Inca or Maya in R&F, but at least we have the Cree.
And Georgia which is in the European periphery, but still in an unrepresented region and feels more "foreign" than Carthage or the Byzantines.

[/QUOTE]

Emm how do you define "european" then? For I consider greek and roman sources as european.
The main historic sources about classical world were from their hands. If you take into, e.g. chinese and Arabic history accounts, you will get a lot of extra asian nations which names you never dreamt of.

And Tomyris, Saladin, Cyrus and many others also got their portrait largely based on european sources. And I also take into account that it is a form of eurocentricity.

And please, Carthage is not European, although most of its sources were still written by Greek hands, unfortunately.

You forget... there is still a 1.5 billion market in Asia, named China, and a island nation full of nerds named Japan. Thus it will certainly be different.

 

[Kyriakos]

At least Civ6 has Poland as a starting nation. And Norway. And Brazil. Though it is still missing other similar notables like Finland, Nigeria, S. Africa (the country), Australia, Mexico, Singapore.

 

[Imaus]

When the game is putting arguably smaller, regional powers like Poland, Norway, Scotland, Australia, Georgia and the like into mix, yea, it feels that way at times.

One point of improvement has been Asia. Indonesia and the Khmer seem to be new expansion civs at the least, in addition to the Chinese-Korean-Japanese-Mongolian crew. Add in Persia, Arabia, Turkey and India - that's ten Asian civs right off the bat. Polynesia helps.

Africa is a place that could benefit from just seeing the 'big five' - Egypt, Carthage, Zulu, Mali, Ethiopia. CiVI gave us Congo; neat, that fills Central Africa nicely (though maybe Uganda/Somalia/Kenya-with-Azania might come around in the future; or the Ashanti instead of Mali - or add both to counter Congo/Ethiopia and Mali, respectively). That bumps Africa up to eight.