Petition for the Better Reprentation of Non-European Cultures in Civillization

[MeteorPunch]

I can only speak for those of us at Breakaway, but to have done these after the contract was up, we would not have been paid either. It would have been on our own dime.

That was just a relative comparison I was making. Civ III modders have made hundreds of units, while Civ 4 will have 70-90 (I forget the number).

 

[warpstorm]

How many Civ3 modders are there? At any point in Civ3, PTW or C3C development there were at most a half a dozen unit makers (at Firaxis or Breakaway) working on them.

 

[Iovah]

I think I've been misunderstood on Request 2 on the Tech Tree. I'm not suggesting a different flavored Tech tree for each civillization type, that would make things too uneven, complicated, and restrictive, but instead, I'm suggesting a tech tree that is open to a variety of historical advancement.

The civillization advances that I thought were too Euro-centric were: Alphabet (It should be writting. Not all civillizations had an Alphabet but did have writting.), Feudalism, Chivalry, Priting Press, Music Theory. The main problem isn't really the existance of these technologies, but merely the order and aging of them. China had gun powder weapons in the 8th century before the Europeans, while they developed the Republic in the modern era. Many Civillizations developed an education system before the West (the Middle East and East Asia), but developed Nationalism much later. It should just be open to different models of development.

In response to the question pertaining to the amount of change of the unit art. I beleive the change should have less to do with color of skin as that is hard to see anyway since the skin is hardly visable on many units, and I think race is somewhat not important. Although, it would be nice feature. I simply meant that units armor, weapon, and general appearance reflect the region their from. For example, a Spearmen from the Greco-Roman world would wear their Greek like bronze chest plate, leather skirt, bronze helm, round shield, and long spear. In the Middle east, they would wear a turban, cloth armor (they were generally lightly armored for mobility and the sheer heat), reed shield, and spear. In East Asia, they would wear leather outfits with armor made from tied iron slats, iron helms, square shields, and perhaps a Ge戈 a kind of Spear with a small axe like hook (for triping hoses and knocking people off horses). In Europe they would look like Celtic warriors with wooden shields, perhaps chail mail or cloth armor, and a long spear. In the Americas, they would wear cloth armor, and a stone spear or an Atlatal. The characteristics of all these units would be the same. Even carrying the same name and place on the tech tree. Only their appearance in the game would be different.

The problem with leaving this to modders is: 1) modders only do mods on what they want to do. So we'd be left with random units, but no uniformity 2) Quality issues; some modders are better than others 3) It'll take time.

I think Civ 4's development team should be responsible for this art work to insure quality and access. If it is too late for them to add these suggestions in, they can post release online. Many games add units and features in after the games release and do various add ons.

 

[korossyl]

Europe has dominated history since the rise of Alexander the Great. Many other civilizations have lasted for millenia, and have made great scientific advances, but there's a reason that most non-European parts of the world are trying to emulate the European (or American) model with European technology, governing style, and economics. Even the term "developing country" means "developing towards a greater resemblance of Europe."

Yeah, it's not fair, but it's true. I have no desrie to see the same amount of civilizations representing, say, South America as I do for Europe.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

I think I've been misunderstood on Request 2 on the Tech Tree. I'm not suggesting a different flavored Tech tree for each civillization type, that would make things too uneven, complicated, and restrictive, but instead, I'm suggesting a tech tree that is open to a variety of historical advancement.

I think they are already doing this. The elimination of Ages and other changes make it so that you can probably go most of the game with discovering some of the "early" techs (for instance, any sort of representative government)

The civillization advances that I thought were too Euro-centric were: Alphabet (It should be writting. Not all civillizations had an Alphabet but did have writting.), Feudalism, Chivalry, Priting Press, Music Theory. The main problem isn't really the existance of these technologies, but merely the order and aging of them. China had gun powder weapons in the 8th century before the Europeans, while they developed the Republic in the modern era. Many Civillizations developed an education system before the West (the Middle East and East Asia), but developed Nationalism much later. It should just be open to different models of development.

Alphabet - I believe Writing now precedes Alphabet, so this change might already be made.

Feudalism - I don't believe this is solely a European thing. The major Asian civilizations certainly had feudalistic societies.

Chivalry - Point. Maybe keep it, but rename it for each culture group. For instance, the Asian equivalent could be Bushido (yes, that's japanese, but you know what I mean here).

Printing Press - I know very little about how other countries adapted/formed alternatives to this type of technology, so it's difficult for me to say.

Music Theory - Same as PP, but I have to imagine that other regions had some form of MT.

Overall, since you're main point is when these technologies occur and the technological progression is a whole, I think Civ IV might have already incorporated a system that will please you more than Civ IIIs.

In response to the question pertaining to the amount of change of the unit art. I beleive the change should have less to do with color of skin as that is hard to see anyway since the skin is hardly visable on many units, and I think race is somewhat not important. Although, it would be nice feature. I simply meant that units armor, weapon, and general appearance reflect the region their from. For example, a Spearmen from the Greco-Roman world would wear their Greek like bronze chest plate, leather skirt, bronze helm, round shield, and long spear. In the Middle east, they would wear a turban, cloth armor (they were generally lightly armored for mobility and the sheer heat), reed shield, and spear. In East Asia, they would wear leather outfits with armor made from tied iron slats, iron helms, square shields, and perhaps a Ge戈 a kind of Spear with a small axe like hook (for triping hoses and knocking people off horses). In Europe they would look like Celtic warriors with wooden shields, perhaps chail mail or cloth armor, and a long spear. In the Americas, they would wear cloth armor, and a stone spear or an Atlatal. The characteristics of all these units would be the same. Even carrying the same name and place on the tech tree. Only their appearance in the game would be different.

I think this would be a good thing too. After all, we have different graphics for the different cultural groups for temples, etc., why not units? But I'm wary of some pitfalls:

1) Hard on player - There needs to be some sort of similarity between the units. I think making the look of a European bowman different than a Native American one or an Asian one is a great idea. However, there needs to be some sort of commonality between them, where I can look and see that it's a bowman and not a longbow archer or a uu. Without some sort of commonality, there'll be too many units for anyone to track. Forcing people to right click and consult the civilopedia too much will get annoying.

2) Making stuff up - For units close to when the civilization was dominate, customizing the unit won't be a problem. But who knows what an American spearman would look like? Or an Aztec cavalry? I don't want Firaxis to have to make up what a "Roman" tank would look like or a "Summerian" fighter plane or a "Russian" chariot or any other unit that's just conjecture. Sure, there are some similarities that you can apply (giving the Japanese pike armor like the samurai), but at some point, you will have to accept some overlap and, in the modern age, some generic looking units.

Again, I like the idea, but we have to be careful about going too far with it.

I think Civ 4's development team should be responsible for this art work to insure quality and access. If it is too late for them to add these suggestions in, they can post release online. Many games add units and features in after the games release and do various add ons.

I think Civ IV should churn out a complete game themselves too. But, realize that by asking for this differentiation to be part of a complete game, you're dramatically increasing the workload, both on the programmers and on your system. The programs for unit art will have at least double, if not five times, the amount of work they do now to make this happen. Your system will have to keep track of a far greater number of kinds of units, slowing down performance. I think it can be done, but we need to be aware of what the tradeoffs are.

 

[seveb33]

I, for one, could not really care less what units look like. If they look different, great, but gameplay over graphics. I do hope the tech tree is more open different directions rather than constantly bottlenecking. But my hope is for a wider range of choices as opposed to (geocentrism?) Some of the advances may seem eurocentric, and so be it. The world is getting smaller, and western culture is currently most dominant. Not that that might not change.

I think the idea of the game is not to "be" a certain group of people from history, but to cultivate your own civilization. If I am the Roman's (or Chinese, or Mali), I don't think of them as THE ROMANS from history, but a tribe I rule that will take its own path through history. The names are just a way to keep tabs on the tribes and add a small amount of differentiation.

 

[Iovah]

Europe has dominated history since the rise of Alexander the Great. Many other civilizations have lasted for millenia, and have made great scientific advances, but there's a reason that most non-European parts of the world are trying to emulate the European (or American) model with European technology, governing style, and economics. Even the term "developing country" means "developing towards a greater resemblance of Europe."

Yeah, it's not fair, but it's true. I have no desrie to see the same amount of civilizations representing, say, South America as I do for Europe.

Korossyl. I don't want to address this much, but all offence is intended when I say you clearly show how ignorant you are. Perhaps, you should spend less time on the East coast of the U.S. playing Civ 3 and actually leave your tiny isolated provincial world and see for yourself these different places. European civillizations have not dominated history since Alexander the Great. China, Japan, India, and the Middle East were technologically, militarily, culturally, and politically more advanced than Europe for most of the Ancient and Medieval period with the exception of short period of Roman history. Furthermore, the non-European world is much more populous than the European world. Europe hegemony over the world was mostly a 19th Century and 20th century advent that is now crumbling away. Considering I have a degree in Chinese history, I can easily say that China was more advanced than Europe until the middle of the 18th Century. Some Chinese technology made before the 10th Century would not be made in Europe until the 19th Century (the first steam boat, contrary to common perception, and bulkheading for example) I also hate to burst your bubble, but the rest of the world is not trying to emulate Europe or America. They just want the economic and technological equality.

Sorry about that everyone. I generally don't like to get petty, but ignorant Euro-centricism and people having an ignorant conception of their own superiority make me mad. However, a problem with our country (the U.S.) is Americans in general are very provincial and isolated. Few even venture to learn foreign languages, while most people on the planet speak several languages. I'm not anti-Europe. I just don't like bigotry and ill-placed confidence of superiority.

 

[Iovah]

On to the real matter:

I agree that the quality of the game play is the most important, and art work is more so a secondary objective, but I think art work would improve the ambience of the game.

I agree with Crazy Eskimo that we cannot take this too far and tha units should be identifiable as a certain unit type. I think this isn't too hard to choose as generally we define the units we see by the weapon they wield and if they are riding a horse (or Elephant). That's something easily determined. I don't think units need to be invented. Most weapons are universal. For those that were not universal, well, we did say we would classify unit flavor sets by civillization flavors, so although, Russia may not have had Chariots, the Britains, Gauls, and Celts did. That Chariot can become universal for that region. In the case of cavalry in Latin America, how about native American cavalry? In the case of a Roman tank, how about Italy? or modern equivalents for that region. However, I think that modern units can be standard across the board. Only ancient and medeival period units should have flavors. Unless they want to flavor modern units.

Chivalry is basically a Warrior Code, so Chivalry really isn't necissary. And Bushido (the way of horse archery, NOT samurai (Well Bushi actually means warrior), real samurais were actually horse archers) was far from Chivalry, and is more colored in modern perceptions of the 19th and 20th Japanese perception of 14th and 15th century warriors so that it seems to the modern person to be similar.

Feudalism was not in East Asia. The word Feudalism is used to describe China and Japan for a lack of a better word in English. It was nowhere near the system in Europe that defines Feudalism.

Sorry, but East Asia is my expertise, so I talk about that alot.

Anyway, people seem to have a good common idea on general things here, and specifics aren't neccissary for us to determine at this moment. Our goal should be for now to get our message to the creators of Civ 4. Any ideas?

Also, I have a non-related question. I'm leaving for China in less than a month, and won't be back for several years. Does anyone know how I can get Civ 4 abroad? Is there a release date for China?

 

[Invisible Rhino]

Europe has dominated history since the rise of Alexander the Great.

This my friends is what happens when people take high school history classes seriously....

"Hmmm my history book only mentions Greek people in ancient times. They must have been the only ones that mattered." There was a guy who stopped Alexander and he took over a massive country just past the Greco-Bactrians....maybe you've heard of it, it's called India.

This is all an example of outdated circular reasoning it goes "Europe is all that matters Only Europeans have effected Europe (once we re-write the history books to make it look that way. Therefore, only Europeans have effected the world that matters."

Needless to say, intelligent people don't fall for garbage like this without checking it. Actual recorded history doesn't support such views at all.

Many other civilizations have lasted for millenia, and have made great scientific advances, but there's a reason that most non-European parts of the world are trying to emulate the European (or American) model with European technology, governing style, and economics.

I'm sure Uncle Sam loves you. It's called propoganda. Look into it. If you actually visit these countries you will see its a complete farce. America's economy, along with western Europe is not actually doing so hot at the moment whereas countries like China and Brazil are looking forward to huge growth.

Believe me, nobody is trying to emulate the American government. Heck the American government doesn't even want to act like the American government

Even the term "developing country" means "developing towards a greater resemblance of Europe."

Because Europe came up with the definitions.....just like the western definitions of religous fanatacism only seems to apply to Islam and the western definition of corruption doesn't apply to the corruption that has been around in America and Europe as far as the records go back.

Yeah, it's not fair, but it's true. I have no desrie to see the same amount of civilizations representing, say, South America as I do for Europe.

I feel sorry for you. Sadly you represent the uneducated masses and computer games are targeted for the lowest common denominator, so you will likely see your wish come true.

*end rant here*

Back to the real point, a problem : What about civilizations who represent a vast range of skin colors like say, America? What then? A random chance for each skin colored unit? That would be the only way to show that America is composed all sorts of people of various different backgrounds. You certainly can't tell me the American army isn't one of the most diverse in terms of appearance of any ever assembled.

Now being the type who thinks everything should be optional I want a few choices

A) Uniform skin color for all, in which all units are a sort of nuetral brown.

B) Historical skin colors, in which Japanese are light skinned Asians, Malis are the tone of west Africans, etc. Multi-ethnic civs like the Americans would have random colors.

C) Random National Skin colors, in which it is random what color a civ's units are, but they are all the same color.

D) Completely Random Skin Colors, in which every unit is random.

That would make me happy

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

On to the real matter:

Chivalry is basically a Warrior Code, so Chivalry really isn't necissary. And Bushido (the way of horse archery, NOT samurai (Well Bushi actually means warrior), real samurais were actually horse archers) was far from Chivalry, and is more colored in modern perceptions of the 19th and 20th Japanese perception of 14th and 15th century warriors so that it seems to the modern person to be similar.

"Bushido", literally meaning "The Way of the Warrior," is not "the way of horse archery." Real samurai weren't just horse archers. They were an elite military caste and were trained in a wide variety of weapons. The samurai were the upper echelons of a part of a highly complex feudal system consisting of a vertical hierarchy where you have the most elite samurai, the daimyos who also were the rulers of various fiefdoms, at the top and then progressively lower ranks of samurai beneath him. It's not necessarily the same as European feudalism, but it's not too far off either.

The notion of "Bushido" existed in the earlier periods of Japanese history, particularly in the times when the samurai dominated the cultural and political sphere of Japanese civilization, from the Gempei War (at the end of the Heian Period) towards the Azuchi-Momoyama Period. However, it was not codified until the Tokugawa Period when the samurai generally became literati and bureaucrats. "Bushido" was also influenced by the ideas espoused by the Neo-Confucianist movement which was very prominent in the Tokugawa Period.

By the way, East Asia is also my area of study. Most of my focus is on Japanese culture (particularly Tokugawa Period culture), though. I'm a bit into Chinese history and culture myself (since I am Chinese myself), but I'm afraid my knowledge is a bit lacking in that area.

 

[Iovah]

RE: Ogedei the Mad
On Bushido. Yes, you're correct that "Bushido" means "Way of the Warrior", but my rendition of Bushido into the "Way of the Horse and Arrow" - "Kyuba no Michi" (马箭的法 in Chinese characters). The Japanese concept of the Warrior before the 18th century was the Horse archer. The sword was generally not seen as a Bushi's principle weapon until the Tokugawa period when all these samurai had no wars left to fight and became an urban cast. So they began using the sword and so forth was born the ideal of the Samurai with the two swords. Before the Tokugawa, horse archery and aristocratic personal warfare (declaring one self, reciting one's llineage and challenging an individual into combat) was seen as the ideal warrior. That's why I call "Bushido" the way of horse archery, because the concept of the warrior before the 18th century in Japan was the horse and bow, not the Samurai with a sword (in fact the word samurai comes from the 18th century, they were called Bushi 步士 before that). Although the Bushi were trained in all martial arts, Horse archery was considered the most becoming way of a warrior, while swordsmenship was seen as less becoming because it doesn't require the amount of skill of a horse archer. I call it "The Way of horse archery" merely as a device to drive people's conception in a different direction although its misleading. I am aware of the history.

It's nice to meet another East Asian historian. Where do you go? How long have you been studying?

To be honest, I don't like Japanese history too much. Especially, modern militarism. I concentrate on modern Chinese history and language, and so, I kind of have an anti-Japanese history disposition because their imperialist and militarist past. Most of my Chinese friends are violently anti-Japanese and to somedegree racist against Japanese. I guess it affects me. Not that I have a prejudice, but Japanese history makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Iovah]

As to skin color:

I don't think this should be a major issue because of these problems:

1) Most states are not as racially diverse as the U.S.
2) Skin color is not something easily visable in the game as there is little exposed skin.
3) Sometimes skin color is ambigious as to their race. Some Africans had extremely light skin that they appear Caucasian, while some Caucassians have very dark skin and appear African.
4) The difference between skin colors isn't that great in terms of color. The only differences that would be noticable in the game would be the difference between African and Caucassian, but Caucassian, Middle Eastern, Asian, and American skin tones would be almost indistinguishable.
5) having a variety of skin tones makes it too complicated and we risk being rejected as too extreme by the creators.

However, this being said, I do support that race should be somewhat visable, but a variety of colors isn't necisary among each individual Civ. Each of the 5 civ flavors varieties should have a slightly different skin color for its units. Europe: Pale Greco-Roman: Tan Middle East: Olive to a brown East Asia: Pale Americas: Bronze. So i do support race in the presentation of flavored units, but not a variety of races in each civ type. 1) it's impractical for the designers who will gasp in horror at the request 2) most states don't have alot of visible racial variety. Most racial variety is not visible, but is more so defined in terms of linguistic and psychological terms.

 

[Belcarius]

Petition for the Better Reprentation of Non-European Cultures in Civillization 4

I wish to muster support to petition the creators of Civillization 4 for a better representation of non-European civillizations, and to show support for a game that does not take an entirely Euro-centric point of view. I hope to receive help from others in trying to formulate realistic and practical ideas to spread out the games design and concept to a more global appeal. My request are simple:

1 - Unit art that is flavored for different Civillization types. So that the Middle Eastern, Asian, and American Civillizations don't have Spearmen that look like Greeks, Pikemen that look like Medieval Pikemen, and Knights in regions that did not have European Knights.

2 - Spread the proportion of Civillizations away from Europe and to other, less represented regions of the planet.

3 - A Technology Tree that does not reflect European historical development, but instead, open to various modles. For example, Chivalry leading to the formation of a knighthood was almost entirely a European event.

These are very simple suggestions for change that I'm petitioning. Suggestion 3 may already have been implemented from the way it sounds, but I want to make sure. Suggestion 1 will probably be the most difficult, however, it's not too complicated. The base unit will be the same with the same characteristics. Simply the Art Work will be changed to reflect the civillization it originated from, so that they don't all look like they are of a European and American origin.

I ask for support from the Civillization community and any assistance in formulating and sending a petition to the creators of Civillization 4. I am open to suggestion, but we cannot risk making complicated suggestions; otherwise, we will end up being ignored by the creators as going too far from the original idea.

I beleive that this will be advantageous not only to the appearance of the game play and more internationally sensitive, but also, since the video game has greatly expanded into other countries, this will make it more appealing to non-Western markets as well as the West. After all, the fast expanding video game market currently is China. When I was in China 2 years ago learning Chinese and showed my Chinese friends Civillization 4 game, he exclaimed, "???????" - "They're all Europeans!" even though I was playing as China. So it could broaden the appeal of the game in their advantage to make minor changes to make Civillization 4 better represent other cultures of the world.

I think there is some merit in what you are suggesting, but I have a few problems with it.

Firstly, the game is not as Euro-centric as you make it out to be. In civ 3, only 6 out of the 16 nations were directly european, and you could call the Americans 'European' as well. In Civ 4, of the 18 civs we know about, six are European (and again you could possibly count the Americans). Civ 4 proportionally will have 6/18 europeans, 4 arabs, 1 african, 2 native american and 4 asians. There are some areas where they do need to put more tribes in - I'm disappointed that the africans only have one and there are no more Indians (as in Native American Indians). Also, you should be careful about trying to conglomerate european cultures. The English are very different in cultural terms to the Romans.

Second, there is also the fact that we have much more historical evidence for European cultures than we do for others. That is why the tech tree generally follows their line of progression, because they have the most access to information in that area. Civ is first and foremost a historical game, so it is best if they stick to what we know most about.

I strongly agree with your first point. I would love to see the different nations have units look different like in Rise of Nations; it shouldn't stop at cities and improvements.

The second point I would like to see, but I think that they are better to limit the number of civilisations to a smaller number to keep them balanced. That would mean that if they were to take away favourites like the Germans and replace them with say the Melanesians, many people would be very annoyed. People like to really get into Civ. And some of those people would be really hanging out to re-create their favourite ruler's reign - and most of those are europeans. So it would be nice if they could do it but I don't think it will happen, and it's not worth complaining about.

The third I've touched on already, and I don't agree with it as you may have gathered.

 

[rhialto]

RE: Ogedei the Mad
On Bushido. Yes, you're correct that "Bushido" means "Way of the Warrior", but my rendition of Bushido into the "Way of the Horse and Arrow" - "Kyuba no Michi" (马箭的法 in Chinese characters)...

...(in fact the word samurai comes from the 18th century, they were called Bushi 步士 before that)...

Hmm, if I am to believe your kanji choice, then a bushi was truly a foot soldier who fought without any help of a horse. But if I am to believe my Japanese co-workers, then your kanji choice is utterly wrong. Decisions, decisions.

 

[Iovah]

RE Belcarius:

You've seriously mis counted. There are are 13 European Civs as of Civ:Conquest and 13 out of 31 accounting for 41% of the civillizations. Don't Beleive me. Here's a list: European Civs (13)
Rome, Greece, Germany, Russia, America (although it's in America, it's based on European Civ. And is not a native American state.), France, England, Spain, Scandanavia, Celts, Netherlands, Portugal, Byzantines (Ambiguous, but it's based on Rome, so I classify it as European).
Middle Eastern Civs (8)
Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Ottomans (amb.), Arabia, Carthage, Sumeria, Hittites
Subsaharran Africa (1)
Zulu,
Americas (4)
Aztec, Iroquois, Inca, Maya
Central Asia (1)
Mongols, (you could possibly place the Persians and Ottomans here as they originated here and moved West)
South Asia (1)
India,
East Asia (3)
China, Japan, Korea,
Austro-Asia, South East Asia (0)

Your second point is extremely false if you look at the Middle East and Asia. It's actually the other way around. There are more written records from Inia, China, Japan, Persia, and the Caliphates of the Islamic world that Europe up until the relatively modern times. Europeans were mostly illiterate, while Asia and the Middle East was much more literate, with a beaurocratic class. It only seems that the West has more historical evidence than Europe because we learn history in the West. When you go these other places, you'll discover they have much more in terms of records like the ORIGINAL census. In Ancient China, one can actually tell who was living where in many regions of Han China (208 B.C. - 220 A.D.) and even major production companies because the actual records still exist. Even the Roman census does not exist in its orgininal form, but is instead passed down from later historians.

I'm not trying to say Europe is less by this. What I'm saying is that Europe is only one part of the world, and no part of the world is better, but Europe is over represented in a game called "Civillization". Civillization is a widespread social structure found through out the world and every region, so why is it that our "image" (literal and figurative in this game) is based heavily upon one region as repreented by technology and unit art. The technology aspect may already been implemented, but I have no way of knowing. I have never played Civ 4. I want to make sure it's implemented.

 

[korossyl]

Well. At least people usually try to put on at least a show of civility. But no offence taken. To address some of the ad hominems:
(a) I am currently working towards my major in history and international politics. This involves taking many courses on non-European cultures and history. "Living in America," apparently contrary to popular belief, is not synonymous with "living in a sheltered and easily burstable bubble."
(b) English was the second language I learned. The first was Hungarian. Hungary is my heritage, and growing up, I spent at least as much time immersed in that culture as I did in America. I hold myself as being moderately knowledgeable about this non-American culture, and devoted considerable time last Summer to producing this site. I know some amount of German. I am currently learning Russian. I'm also working on Japanese.
(c) My views may or may not coincide with one certain point of view that is classified by some as propaganda. To disagree with me is to espouse another view that is also supported by propaganda. Propaganda is everywhere; I have arrived at my conclusions based on the study of all pertinent materials to the best of my abilities and have drawn a conclusion that is opposed to what many people hold, especially in my area. That alone does not make me right. Neither does it make you correct that there is propaganda supporting my claims.
(d) I do not see why I am being lectured on being "uneducated" by someone who either cannot or does not close parentheses, spell "affected" correctly, or use proper grammar.


Now, for some proper arguments:
Firstly, of course there were immensely important non-European cultures of the Ancient era. Akkad and Sumer, the first great civilizations; Egypt, from which Greek culture is ultimately an offshoot; Persia, as mentioned, that conquered India and was constantly at war with its European neighbor. I'm not saying, by any means, that Europe is the only continent of any importance. Only that it was dominant. And even this is not an unqualified statement; what would Civ4 be without the Chinese, Japanese, or Indians? Or the Aztecs? Or the Mali and Egyptians? All of these civilizations have a deserved place in history and in a game like Civ.

It's just that Europe excelled to greater heights than most of these. Yes, I define "success," at least on the global/historical level, in terms of money, technology, and power. Add to these the arts and philosophy and basic concepts of morality (regarding the latter: I'll be the first to admit my concept of this is based on European ideals). For some reason, Europe has managed, as said before, to excel in these areas. Certainly some other countries or regions made progress at different times in different areas, but in the end, Europe pulled far ahead.

This, for better or for worse, has created a Euro-centric world today. America is at the hear of it as the only true superpower, and despite its growing unpopularity, its position as such is unlikely to change any time soon. Yes, the world tries to emulate it. Certainly not in all areas, but there's a reason why nearly all world leaders wear ties and "Western business attire." The UN's constitution is based on European models of government involving committees, parliaments, and bureaucracies, and its charter of human rights on classically Christian concepts. Kofi Annan wears a suit and tie to his office in the middle of New York City.

Once again, this does not mean that Europe is all that matters. Just that it has had the greatest importance in history. This is not a fringe opinion or an unfounded conclusion. At the very least, it calls for reflection and debate, not name-calling and hurling of insults.

 

[Iovah]

I said Chinese characters not Canji. Although Canji are Chinese characters, they sometimes have different meanings, some Canji were invented by the Japanese, while many are not used. I can't speak Japanese, so I don't know the exact Canji. I know Chinese. So I wrote the Chinese term because often they are the same, but not always. In Chinese Bushi is written 步士 which is also pronounced Bushi, and Samurai is 武士 or 武诗 (same pronunciation in Chinese Wushi, though different meaning), and Kyuba no Michi (马箭的法 Majian de fa) is Chinese. I don't know Japanese but I do no that no Michi is the equivalent of Chinese 的法 de fa, "Method of", but perhaps this phrase it written in Katakana and no Canji.

Anyway, we're really getting off track. Let's keep to the subject at hand: The Better Representation of Non-European Cultures. Alot of people have written in this thread, but none have proposed how we can get our voice heard. Any Ideas?

 

[warpstorm]

I said it before, I'll say it again. It is too late. Making the art assets takes many months. They have to be well past (probably by a whole year) the point of no return on the civ list they've chosen as well as art styles.

An easy way is to just ask the developers (preferably over beers).

 

[Iovah]

RE: Korossyl

This isn't the place to discuse this. If you want to go on about the illusion of European domination, success, and superiority, you can e-mail me at iovah111@hotmail.com. Maybe you shold consider changing majors because you don't seem very knowledgable and global in perspective for someone in international politics.

This Thread is getting way off topic. No more post going over definitining almost insignificant details or ranting. We need solutions!

RE Warp Storm:

Do you have any expertise in unit modeling? You say it's too late, but I'd like to know for waht experience you come to that conclusion? From just suposing or from actual experience making units. I'm not doubting what you said. I just want to know what makes you think it's too late. I don't think it would be too difficult to make 30 or 40 odd units and art in a few months and programing, or leaving it for an internet update.

So,... How can I meet these people for a beer? hehehe

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

I'm staying out of "European Dominance" discussion. I've already stated my reason why I feel Europe has more civs in the game. I do think there is so inequity and would like to see this addressed by leaving the Eurocivs in and adding more from other areas. Will this result in an equal amount for each region? I doubt it, but it'll be a little more even.

Re: Skin color - At the very least, one skin color per culture group. At most, one skin color per civilization, with the color going to the majority population for that civ. However, if it were possible to work out a varying skin color to the few racially diverse civs (such as America), that'd be even better (but homogenous civs like Japan should just have one).

For those that were not universal, well, we did say we would classify unit flavor sets by civillization flavors, so although, Russia may not have had Chariots, the Britains, Gauls, and Celts did. That Chariot can become universal for that region. In the case of cavalry in Latin America, how about native American cavalry? In the case of a Roman tank, how about Italy? or modern equivalents for that region. However, I think that modern units can be standard across the board. Only ancient and medeival period units should have flavors. Unless they want to flavor modern units.

A lot of this gets into the the debate of "Does Modern Roman = Italian? Does Modern Incan = Peruvian?" For the most part, I say no, but you managed to resolve that with the idea of flavoring only ancient/med units. For those civs that never really had medieval units, enough info can be drawn from their ancient units to flavor the medieval ones. The Cultural grouping idea also works, I think.

Chivalry is basically a Warrior Code, so Chivalry really isn't necissary. And Bushido (the way of horse archery, NOT samurai (Well Bushi actually means warrior), real samurais were actually horse archers) was far from Chivalry, and is more colored in modern perceptions of the 19th and 20th Japanese perception of 14th and 15th century warriors so that it seems to the modern person to be similar.

I think Chivalry is necessary, but only for gameplay issues (don't want knights,etc. coming with Feudalism). I paired it with bushido, not because the two parallel each other, but because I felt it could stand in for Chivalry. Both were social codes than were supposed to govern the elite warriors of both societies. That makes them roughly analogous enough for me.

Also, I know that horse-archery was a big part of who samurai were. But swords were also an important part as well. Arma, in an article about the matchup of a knight and a japanese samurai, indicates widespread sword usage as early as the 1200s (on a sidenote: the article indicates there's too much variation to come to coherent conclusion). James Clavell, in his very fine fiction novel, Shogun, has the sword as important part of being samurai in 1600, and my understanding is that he is well regarded as being knowledgable about that region's history. I'm not saying the bow wasn't important to their combat style, for it was. I'm just saying that the prevalence of the bow doesn't mean the sword was absent either.

Feudalism was not in East Asia. The word Feudalism is used to describe China and Japan for a lack of a better word in English. It was nowhere near the system in Europe that defines Feudalism.

From dictionary.com:

feu·dal·ism n.
1) A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.
2) A political, economic, or social order resembling this medieval system

While this definition does indicate that feudalism does primarily refer to Europe, I do think that the Asian systems (and I'm primarily speaking about Japan, because that's what I know best) resembled it enough, through the aforementioned qualities, that it could apply to them as well.

Besides, isn't part of fun diverging from history? Having the Japanese build the pyramids, transition to communist government and wage bloody war on the Zulu? Couldn't developing feudalism fit in there as well?

Sorry, but East Asia is my expertise, so I talk about that alot.

Better than talking alot about stuff you don't know.

Anyway, people seem to have a good common idea on general things here, and specifics aren't neccissary for us to determine at this moment.

We do seem to be pretty close.