[R&F] Philosophy of Civilization Choice in R&F

[Vasire]

I like the civ choices in R&F. Too many people just want to see the same bag of civs over and over again. Yes, they were important in history, everybody gets that. However, not having them in the game does not deny that. Nor does having a civ in the game mean that it was super important to history. Nor does having one civ in the game and one civ not in the game mean that the former civ is more important than the latter.

I have a counterargument. For me the civs in the game are like heroes from a huge book series being portrayed in a movie adaptation. Yes, there were hundreds of characters in the book but I want to see the main heroes in the movie! And I understand that without a doubt the Ottomans and the Babylon are being set aside in order to be sold as a separate DLC or be the face of the next expansion. But I always disliked Firaxis's habit of rotating the Native American tribes (where are my iroquois??) and right now it looks like the Mapuche are taking the place of the Inca. If that is the case I will be very sad.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The civ roster needs not, and should not, be a toplist of the most important civilizations in world history. It should be a collection of interesting and diverse civilizations which represent many different parts of the world and its history, and provide a diverse set of playstyles and themes.

That's where the franchise came from though, the World History Heavyweights duking it out for supremacy on the game board (with a few questionable choices thrown in). I'm am all for the evolution of the game with adding new civs over the years (mostly due to the ability to add expansions, unique civ abilities, etc). I think it's been a good thing for the longevity of the series, and it's certainly kept my attention. I applaud their goal of including underrepresented areas and civs and finding cool new choices.

However, at the same time it's best we don't forget the original goal and where the game came from. Having the "most important" was kind of the whole point, and thereason we have a game in the first place.

 

[leandrombraz]

I'll add Firaxis official explanation on how they chose the leaders

People often ask how we select new leaders and civilizations to include in expansions – and we have nine new leaders and eight new civilizations which will be revealed over the coming weeks with Civilization: Rise and Fall. Well, it is a collaborative process that involves the whole team from art and design to production and even our legal department. We also ask ourselves some core questions as we select potential leaders:

• “Is this region of the world represented?”
• “Is this time in history represented?”
• “Is this represented/revered in previous Civilization games or totally new?”

We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks. We also look for leaders whose history makes them particularly well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems.

Source


They are going for diversity and region/era representation. I think the point about previous Civ games mean they tried to balance both Civs that was in previous games and new Civs. Then there's women representation, which gave us 3 female leaders and gameplay representation, leaders/civs that fit the expansion systems.

 

[Anno]

I would never fault someone for advocating that their own culture be added to the game. Outside of that I really don't care much. I lean towards wanting them to add new Civs rather than just recycle the oldies, but I'd obviously prefer both by the time the game is done.

 

[Haig]

I havent forgotten how BORING many of these "fan requested" civs were in Civ 5. Especially Babylon and Ottomans.

Ottomans get two UUs and ability to capture enemy ships.

"I need my ottomans back!' I dont if they are as dull in Civ 5.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I havent forgotten how BORING many of these "fan requested" civs were in Civ 5. Especially Babylon and Ottomans.

Ottomans get two UUs and ability to capture enemy ships.

"I need my ottomans back!' I dont if they are as dull in Civ 5.

Inca was the absolute best civ though (powerful yes, but I mean in terms of fun).

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I’m not disappointed in the civ choices but it’s obvious to me there is a bit of political correctness in these choices. Firaxis is making a statement that even the little guy has the potential for greatness. It reflects what is happening in the world today where society is beginning to recognize the importance of disenfranchised peoples. Generally the people in power get most of the recognition for the important events that have occurred throughout history. This is natural because history is written by the people in power.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I havent forgotten how BORING many of these "fan requested" civs were in Civ 5. Especially Babylon and Ottomans.

Ottomans get two UUs and ability to capture enemy ships.

"I need my ottomans back!' I dont if they are as dull in Civ 5.

Yes, they did.
But I'ts not Ottoman's fault, but the result of their bad design in a game.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I’m not disappointed in the civ choices but it’s obvious to me there is a bit of political correctness in these choices. Firaxis is making a statement that even the little guy has the potential for greatness. It reflects what is happening in the world today where society is beginning to recognize the importance of disenfranchised peoples. Generally the people in power get most of the recognition for the important events that have occurred throughout history. This is natural because history is written by the people in power.

Is it "political correctness" or desire for variety? How many white dudes in a military uniform do we need?

 

[Martinus]

In terms of civ abilities, I am actually looking most to Scotland and Georgia, as I like both highly developed cities (so production will help) and I like playing a "peaceful warmonger", i.e. curbing other warmongers and liberating city states and more unfortunate civs, while working towards a cultural or a scientific victory. Both Scotland and Georgia have bonuses for that.

In terms of "real world" interest, I am looking forward to Chandragupta the most, as I love Indian culture and always wanted an Indian leader who represent the period of its greatness.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

@SammyKhalifa I’m not talking about race. I’m speaking for civilizations that get less recognition. The Mapuche, the Cree, the Scots, Scythia, Nubia, Kongo. Groups of people that had less power historically.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Is it "political correctness" or desire for variety? How many white dudes in a military uniform do we need?

Expecting Inca or Maya over Mapuche is a sign of white man supremacy and a disgust for variety? Nice to know
I love to see a black woman in a game, but only if she represents decent Civ and interesting gameplay. Nubia is a great example.
Variety just for variety leads to absurd.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

@SammyKhalifa I’m not talking about race. I’m speaking for civilizations that get less recognition. The Mapuche, the Cree, the Scots, Scythia, Nubia, Kongo. Groups of people that had less power historically.

Gotcha (which don't get me wrong I'm okay with for the most part).

 

[Lord Lakely]

I havent forgotten how BORING many of these "fan requested" civs were in Civ 5. Especially Babylon and Ottomans.

Ottomans get two UUs and ability to capture enemy ships.

"I need my ottomans back!' I dont if they are as dull in Civ 5.

Any civilization with a rich history will have something interesting to offer. There is no excuse towards making the Ottomans dull.

 

[Martinus]

Their Civ choice remains far too Eurocentric for my tastes. There are now as many Civs from the British Isles as there are from Sub-Saharan Africa. That's not the approach I was expecting when they said Civ6 would be the more diverse.

As far as I can tell, there is Kongo, Nubia and Zulu, so one more than the British Isles.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Expecting Inca or Maya over Mapuche is a sign of white man supremacy and a disgust for variety? Nice to know
I love to see a black woman in a game, but only if she represents decent Civ and interesting gameplay. Nubia is a great example.
Variety just for variety leads to absurd.

I want to see the inca as much as anyone but I don't really see it as "Political Correctness" as much as firaxis stretching out their income stream. It's totally okay to me that an entire continent should get more than 1-2 civs.

 

[True_Candyman]

I’m baffled as to why they don’t make more.Slap in some procedural generation and focus in on homing and customising the core favourites. People get to play whatever Civ they like under the sun, but if it’s sealand it’s probably got some generic treats, albeit in a unique combination

This doesn’t have to be either or, Firaxis are just limiting themselves and the growing expectations of their audience but living in their little box

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I want to see the inca as much as anyone but I don't really see it as "Political Correctness" as much as firaxis stretching out their income stream. It's totally okay to me that an entire continent should get more than 1-2 civs.

You are right. My biggest problem with Mapuche is timing, and a risk they obsolete some Civs most people want to have.
(yes I know DLC, but as far Firaxis won't announce any I assume none are in plans)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

• “Is this region of the world represented?”
• “Is this time in history represented?”
• “Is this represented/revered in previous Civilization games or totally new?”
• We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks. We also look for leaders whose history makes them particularly well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems.

Quoted from the source directly from them
Let's see the criteria:
Cree, Mapuche, Zulu, and Georgia directly fit the first criteria. Places in those areas were lacking or completely new as in the case of the Caucasus region. Also most of Canada and parts of Chile/Argentina have never been represented in a game before.

The second one is harder for me to pinpoint especially since they went really medieval in this one with Genghis, Tamar, Seondeok and Robert as leaders. One could argue that the Cree and Mapuche could start better in the ancient era, especially the former but still. I don't know if they particularly followed this one other than picking the alternate leader, Chandragupta, for India.

The third is easy. Korea, Mongolia, the Dutch, Zulu are definitely revered in previous games for obvious reasons. The Zulu more by the general public. One could say Scotland is a "Celtic" nation but for this instance I'm going to put it in the second half of newcomers with the Cree, Mapuche, and Georgia although, regarding the Cree, we were expecting a NA Tribe, but not one from Canada.

As for females we got three: Seondeok and Wilhelmina from classic Civs giving them a new twist and Tamar of Georgia which fits in with the new ages system.
These were the best choices to go with female representation from the above list, because it is my opinion, that most of the time they decided to go with a particular nation before looking at the different leaders. Georgia might of been the exception. I'm 99% sure that Shaka will be back and it would have also been hard to replace Genghis as well, although more possible.

 

[God of Kings]

It's great to see new civs show up for the first time in the series, even if it means legal issues with some of their descendants.

The Cree and the Mapuche would benefit greatly from R&F, given how many in the Civ community had never heard of them, but had great struggles.

Thanks to Civ, the accomplishments of the Cree and the Mapuche are being recognized. Poundmaker is going to be exonerated. Lautaro is considered equal to Bernardo O'Higgins as the greatest Chilean general.