Okay, but seriously, what exactly IS a civilization?

[Krajzen]

Yeah, just naming every playable faction "culture" would be the best solution, it would just by default include every human society ever, fully consistent solution. In the end it is a video game which wants to display maximum amount of history and human diversity possible, so it should take precedence over my personal reluctance to include tribal hunter - gatherers or someone's reluctance to field my hotly anticipated civilization of Italy (hell I'd like to see Austro - Hungary under Francis Joseph I, I'd argue there is zero reason to disqualify that if Gran Colombia went into the game which was much more artificial and ephemeral entity - multi-ethnic empire of Vienna was very much its own coherent cultural reality, not as it is sometimes depicted inevitably declining chaos).

The problem is, the series is named "civilization" so its factions will be named civilizations until Sun explodes, which doesn't make much difference if we simply assume above, it is just somewhat jarring in historiographic pedantry of terminology

I'd be happy to get rid of the term "civilization" in the study of history and cultures. It has precious little value and serve mostly to justify theory of ethnic superiority.

"Civilization" is useful anthropological notion if defined around notions of certain socioeconomic phenomena, social complexity, emergence etc, to designate a certain typ of human society which has very spectacular emergent qualities completely absent from other societies. Good luck talking about Neolithic Revolution and ancient middle east without either using that term or inventing its new functional equivalent. There are many things which make Nile Valley inhabitants of 2000 BC live in the extremely different human society than in the year 12 000 BC and some linguistic apparatus is necessary to distinguish that abyss of difference. Whether it is the word 'civilization' or any other word which would probably invevitably turn into its own version of superiority/inferiority dialectics.
The problem of humans loving to construe such notions as other cultures proof of superiority over others due to thinking in terms of essentialism, power, intelligence, racism etc etc doesn't in my opinion detract from the value of researching human history using lens of differing levels of social complexity. I don't think that there is necessarily an academic contradiction in saying that indigenous Australians didn't develop civilization while saying their culture was not in any way 'worse' or 'more stupid' than Western. The fact that such discourse happens in practice, and denial of some people developing civilization is semantically very close to denying their worth and dehumanizing them, is, well, yet another of countless things ruined by suprematist attitudes.
In practice this means that I may agree with the retirement of the word for 'pragmatic' purposes of avoiding racist semantics, I am just salty about it because I disagree the notion in itself is scientifically barren.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Just mentioning this as I've heard "civilization" used in connection with anthropology a few times in this thread. We (I'm a practicing and publishing anthropologist as well as a writer on civ) don't use that word, nor do we use the world "culture". Civilization is antiquated and falls short of being really descriptive (usually it's like "did x people do what the Sumerians did?" which doesn't work when you go to radically different places - e.g. Inca and writing), "culture" is overly vague. We've simply dropped attempts at such categorization, and the discipline is more nuanced and specific for it.

 

[Evie]

Mind you, culture being a vague term is precisely why I used it in defining what I see as potential civs for the game. I feel being more specific might exclude interesting options down the road, lol.

 

[reddishrecue]

What about "cradles" of the world? There's many ancient civilizations in the world that started many good things throughout the earth.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Is not ironic to want cultures that do not fit the old model of "civilization" in a game were urbanization, expansionism, religious proselytism, industrialization, globalization, etc. Are ways to win?

- Incas were urban, imperialistic, stratified, etc. Quipu pretty much covers writing. It is not difficult to see them fit in the same abstraction that models Babylon or China.
- Mongols like any other Eurasian Steppe culture were in synergy with the urban societies, time to time conquered urban centers, their populations and assimilated their ways. Again there is not a real problem to fit them in the game.
- Meanwhile different native groups have already show their disagreement with their representation as what games want you to do to win.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

What about "cradles" of the world? There's many ancient civilizations in the world that started many good things throughout the earth.

Oh, sure. It's not really about good or bad, it's about descriptive power. If we define "civilization" as "a cultural/political/religious/economic force that had a sizeable impact on the course of world history," then we're fine. That's how I think of it, anyway. Old definitions focused on grain cultivation (excluding Inca, Polynesia), writing (excluding many places), metallurgy (excluding to some degree most of the New World), and a stratified society (arguable). These definitions are fine, but they're arbitrary, and we risk losing sight of interesting places and the wax and wane of urbanism, agriculture, writing and other markers of "civilization"; it isn't that someone "discovers" agriculture and urbanism and it's this irresistible force - cities and urbansim are indeed resisted in many ways, and cities rise only to become abandoned, sometimes by disaster, and sometimes by choice.
"Culture" doesn't have the above assumptions, but it's also tremendously vague. How do we separate culture from politics? From religion? How do we account for the fact that no one person wholly embodies "their" culture? Blending, mixing, etc., have always existed (and will always exist). What is the link between shared material needs and ideological "cultural" innovations?
Even the most recognizable entities pose questions - e.g. the question of where we look for "Greece": do we mean Athens, really? What about Sparta? Thrace? Macedon? Syracuse? Ptolemaic Egypt? The Greek kingdoms in present-day Pakistan? Roman-controlled Greece? The Byzantines? Ottoman-controlled Greece? The wars of independence? The junta? The modern state? What connections (or lack?) are we implying between ancient Greece and modern Greece? Does Alexander fit? Does Cleo fit? Does Justinian fit? As you try to track down what a culture is, you start to make sweeping claims that are either incorrect or narrow the focus until it loses any ability to describe anything (e.g. "Greece is everyone" or "Greece is just Pericles").
Civ-the-game handwaves some of this stuff, and personally I go back to my above definition. "What's significant (and what's fun, and what can we reasonably implement)?" History becomes alt-history as soon as you click "create game". It's my hope that history buffs (or potential history buffs) will remember some of the names, places, units, art, etc., and go and read on their own to find actual history as it unfolded. In my job, I read a *lot* of popular history books, as well as academic sources; it occurs to me that a 'what am I reading today' thread would be cool, but I would fear people would comb it for spoilers and leaks - I am never going to do any of that stuff, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[Evie]

That's a call to expand a flawed model, not a call limit the civilizations, if you ask me.

A game that traps you into an European perception of progress and "victory" is a game that can be perfected.

 

[reddishrecue]

That's a call to expand a flawed model, not a call limit the civilizations, if you ask me.

A game that traps you into an European perception of progress and "victory" is a game that can be perfected.

Europe had some good things... Look at all the things the earth borrowed from that: money, culture, politics, strength and the splitting of the atom.

 

[Evie]

The point is not whether Europe is good, it's wheter Europe should be the lone model

 

[reddishrecue]

The point is not whether Europe is good, it's wheter Europe should be the lone model

I was trying to explain that but without the word good.

 

[shaglio]

History becomes alt-history as soon as you click "create game".

While you said a lot of poignant things in your post, this line here is one that I hope a lot of people will remember going forward. There are too many complaints that would be rendered moot if people took this to heart. For example, I hear a lot of bickering about such things as "It's ridiculous that you can choose Democracy as your government, but then insert the 5 Year Plan policy card." That might not make sense in our current world, but the Civilization series has always been about that "What if . . ." factor.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For example, I hear a lot of bickering about such things as "It's ridiculous that you can choose Democracy as your government, but then insert the 5 Year Plan policy card." That might not make sense in our current world, but the Civilization series has always been about that "What if . . ." factor.

Not to mention in this game there are no term limits, let alone voting, for a Democracy so a 5 year plan is feasible.

Anyways I think that no matter if you call the playable factions civilizations or cultures, the idea is still the same. I do wonder if they would ever change the name what would the various non playabe factions be called if not cultures? I guess distinguishing between major cultures (playable factions) and minor culture (city-states, barbarians, villages) would make the most sense because it's not if the latter have never been considered cultures in history either.

Either way there is always going to be a discrepancy between the big players and the other minor nations of the world and we need to find the best word to refer to each of them.

 

[Krajzen]

Oh, sure. It's not really about good or bad, it's about descriptive power. If we define "civilization" as "a cultural/political/religious/economic force that had a sizeable impact on the course of world history," then we're fine. That's how I think of it, anyway. Old definitions focused on grain cultivation (excluding Inca, Polynesia), writing (excluding many places), metallurgy (excluding to some degree most of the New World), and a stratified society (arguable). These definitions are fine, but they're arbitrary, and we risk losing sight of interesting places and the wax and wane of urbanism, agriculture, writing and other markers of "civilization"; it isn't that someone "discovers" agriculture and urbanism and it's this irresistible force - cities and urbansim are indeed resisted in many ways, and cities rise only to become abandoned, sometimes by disaster, and sometimes by choice.
"Culture" doesn't have the above assumptions, but it's also tremendously vague. How do we separate culture from politics? From religion? How do we account for the fact that no one person wholly embodies "their" culture? Blending, mixing, etc., have always existed (and will always exist). What is the link between shared material needs and ideological "cultural" innovations?
Even the most recognizable entities pose questions - e.g. the question of where we look for "Greece": do we mean Athens, really? What about Sparta? Thrace? Macedon? Syracuse? Ptolemaic Egypt? The Greek kingdoms in present-day Pakistan? Roman-controlled Greece? The Byzantines? Ottoman-controlled Greece? The wars of independence? The junta? The modern state? What connections (or lack?) are we implying between ancient Greece and modern Greece? Does Alexander fit? Does Cleo fit? Does Justinian fit? As you try to track down what a culture is, you start to make sweeping claims that are either incorrect or narrow the focus until it loses any ability to describe anything (e.g. "Greece is everyone" or "Greece is just Pericles").
Civ-the-game handwaves some of this stuff, and personally I go back to my above definition. "What's significant (and what's fun, and what can we reasonably implement)?" History becomes alt-history as soon as you click "create game". It's my hope that history buffs (or potential history buffs) will remember some of the names, places, units, art, etc., and go and read on their own to find actual history as it unfolded. In my job, I read a *lot* of popular history books, as well as academic sources; it occurs to me that a 'what am I reading today' thread would be cool, but I would fear people would comb it for spoilers and leaks - I am never going to do any of that stuff, intentionally or unintentionally.

I have mad respect for you people in Firaxis struggling to deal with the balance between all those great questions and problems of humanity (with all those academic theories and approaches also competing with each other) while also trying to create an easy - to - learn - fun - to - play videogame at the end of this process, my head would explode at the earliest conceptual stage of 'what approaches to human history are we basing this game on', even before translating it to gameplay mechanics

 

[reddishrecue]

I have mad respect for you people in Firaxis struggling to deal with the balance between all those great questions and problems of humanity (with all those academic theories and approaches also competing with each other) while also trying to create an easy - to - learn - fun - to - play videogame at the end of this process, my head would explode at the earliest conceptual stage of 'what approaches to human history are we basing this game on', even before translating it to gameplay mechanics

I agree with this. It must be so complicated to make such a large game and its enhances.

 

[BuchiTaton]

That's a call to expand a flawed model, not a call limit the civilizations, if you ask me.

A game that traps you into an European perception of progress and "victory" is a game that can be perfected.

CIV franchise gameplay is deeply rooted in the old fashion view of "civilization" and the whole "progress" through eras, techs, goverments, etc. There is not aspect of the game that is not mainly based in the western historical development from the amount of western civs to the "Rock Bands" (like if Rock was the only natural outsome as the global genre of music ).

I would not expect a lest western centric way to play and win if the game keep giving priority to civs like Australia, Canada and Scotland.

 

[Evie]

I would expect it even less if we only allow civilization that *fit* that westerm mold in the game.

You don't make progress by doubling down on the old ways.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I would expect it even less if we only allow civilization that *fit* that westerm mold in the game.

Firaxis are the ones that allow it, and they are doing it since many years ago. Are some native nations the ones that do not want to be in.

You don't make progress by doubling down on the old ways.

I wonder who is this for

Lets talk about ideas for different ways of civs:
- Cereals? Staple food!
Many people have already suggested more deep systems about food. I also did, and it include the initial gameplay where you find either an "Agrarian", "Pastorial" or "Maritine" source of food. Each of these options gives you bonus and mechanics related to your early kind of society. Also there are many different kinds of "Breeds*" that are better for specific terrains, like Potatoes, Sorgum, Rice, etc. It would be also possible gain copies of breeds like Horses, Coffee, etc. To introduce them in new regions. Unique breeds are related to "nations" (minor civs) that provide these resources (like Vanilla from Totonacs or Clove from Molucans). The variety of food is also related to the health of your nation.

See different gameplay, more bonus, terrain/climate strategic, flavor for non playables, way to broke monopolies, etc. For example: As Ottomans you start in Neolithic* Era when you have time to wander around and find either Horses, Camels, Reindeers, Goats, etc. That provide you the option to turn into a Pastorial society, these choice gives you the ability to create Camps that produce food and unique Raiders militar units, these camps are of course relocalizable and provide territorial control. This example dont need more changes to the rest of CIV model, it provide more flavor and still fit the need of industrialization in later eras and of course is usefull for agressive and militaristic civs/players.

- Writing? Andean Quipu! Game abstraction, there is not need to recreate the game just for Incas when 99.9% of players dont doub Incas were a civilization. In any case Quipu can be adde in game as a "Tradition" (tech like bonus unique to both minor and main civs and that can be gained from accepted their POPs in your civ). There is, now players know about Quipu in a easy in-game way.

- Metalurgy? Mesoamericans and Andeans had metalurgy, bronze included. The case of iron is related to sources and tech diffution, that by the way most techs were not discovered more than few times. Mesoamerican and Andean were some of the few regions that actually invented "civilization" by themselves. So are we going to question if England is a civ since they did not invented by themselves agriculture, metalurgy, writing, etc.?

Please people abstract your ideas as suggestion for the game. Aboriginals should be on game? So how can we IN-GAME reconcile their history beyond the same symetric generic design with few bonus and uniques of all civs.

 

[Evie]

If a culture specifically request not to be in the game (and as I recall you're vastly overstating the amount ofmopposition to a Poundmaker there was), then of course that justifies not including that culture. And only that culture. And only because they prefer not to be included.

If anything I would suggest in the short term a lot of work can be done with relatively simple changes:

-Rebalance improvements and terrain management so there is no single optimal strategy, especially not clearcutting.
-Rebalance the tech tree to have more mostly independent branches, and less gateway techs, so civs can advance far without a given tech.
-Rethink victory conditions so their mechanisms are less always centered on European perception of cultural superiority.
-Consider having victory condition with multiple paths like civ 3-4 (X culture in a single city or Y culture empire-wide)
-Rename and relfavor game elements to be less centered on European colonialism/imperialism (eg, settler to migrant)
-Maybe use variable terminology so different civs can have different names (and maybe even graphics) for the same game element.

All of these could change the flavor of civ a lot without needing to introduce much new mechanism. Then new mechanism can be added to round things up, and expand on those base changes, but the above is already a solid start.

 

[Krajzen]

CIV franchise gameplay is deeply rooted in the old fashion view of "civilization" and the whole "progress" through eras, techs, goverments, etc. There is not aspect of the game that is not mainly based in the western historical development from the amount of western civs to the "Rock Bands" (like if Rock was the only natural outsome as the global genre of music ).

I would not expect a lest western centric way to play and win if the game keep giving priority to civs like Australia, Canada and Scotland.

I think here we should separate
arbitrary western stuff that can be safely removed/changed with no great loss (like those "rock bands" which I have always disliked existing in a serious strategy game anyway, or disproportional part of ingame technologies, quotes, images, aestethics, references being annoyingly Eurocentric and white-men-centric)
from
great narratives of history we are incapable of abandoning if a video game like this is supposed to work (constant progress forward, factions continuity across millenia, central government etc) or, even more interesting, because we are genuinely incapable of substituting with alternative. Sure thing, industrial revolution and Enlightenment values and ideologies were European cultural phenomenons - the problem with inventing alternate history instead of them is, nobody can imagine past 250 years of history with them being completely absent or radically different. European 18th century invented industry, democracy, colonialism, nationalism, capitalism, marxism, human rights, transition from agrarian society to something entirely new never seen across past 10,000 years, etc etc. We simply have to follow "European" line of progress past some late era point, because it is unimaginable for us to invent radically different alternate history, without all notions above. This is also one of many reasons why I think the game should have far less later eras in comparision to preindustrial eras, the more span of a game you dedicate past industrial, the more Eurocentric and uniform the game becomes somewhat by necessity.

Unless we want to go very far from the idea of "Civilization" games roughly repeating human history to some wild sci fi - fantasy - alternate universe stuff, with ancient steampunk and medieval soviet communism and millenia - long renaissance stagnation and solar - powered industrial revolution and concrete skyscraper - cathedrals and digital hunter - gatherers, which could be very interesting but it wouldn't be "Civilization" games formula and identity.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Hmm, I feel like the conversation has diverged somewhat from what I intended. Originally, I wasn't really asking "Where do we make the divide between the civilized and the uncivilized", but rather "How granularly can we divide civilizations, before any two given become too similar?" Again, this is mostly inspired by someone pointing out (I don't remember who, where or when), that if all of India is one, single civilization, then so should all of Europe.

Trying to define what a civilization actually is, is fruitless effort in my opinion. Rather, I think all humans who have ever lived, were part of some kind of civilization. Furthermore, I got the impression from the remark I mentioned earlier, that the divide between two civilizations isn't defined by politics, language, religion, cultural customs etc, but by even distribution. So without further ado, I must admit I just lied earlier, I do in fact have a clear cut definition of a civilization:

A civilization is a group of 1 billion people. That's it.

(please note that this is somewhat of a joke answer, as it has lots of obvious issues, but still)