Rename Civ Eras- they're too Eurocentric!

[sir_schwick]

There are a couple key differences between Civ and reality that are unreconcilable. For example, in reality, people aren't playing to win, but playing to survive and prosper. If you imposed a distinct time limit and everyone cared about some kind of measurable score, the world would be a pretty weird place.

Related problem IS the whole "foresee the future" problem. Not only do players have the ability to see / memorize the evolution of technology, but they have the a priori knowledge of history, competition, expansion, the map size... You KNOW that in the 20th century, land is gonna run out, so you expand as much as possible in ancient times. Of course, the Meso-American and Native American peoples didn't know or care too much about this.


I'm not really saying that's a problem that you need to solve. What's important is that there's a level playing field, and everyone can make an impact and change the direction of history... that you can see the world in 1940 and think "whoa, imagine things turned out this way". You don't get that feeling in Civ (yet).

Right on brother. Personally I thought SMAC did a good job of simulating these factors, even if it was not in an Earth based setting. Unfortunately SMAC also demonstrated that the game-playing public did not like the way SMAC played out, and the two of us and those who share our opinions must hope that SMAC 2 is made.

 

[dh_epic]

Isn't that exactly the point, though? It seems like the world history books they're reading are from your grade 11 "ancient civilizations" class. And everything else is just fuzzy intuitions about how great things are now in the western world.

 

[warpstorm]

You don't need freedom to have economic prosperity if you've got a cheap labor pool (that you don't care about). Many societies over time have shown that this works.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Depends on whose prosperity you're concerned with.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, I'd like to think history has said a few things about this before. Economic prosperity doesn't belong necessarily to the free. Whose prosperity is the better question, because as of now, in Civ, the prosperity belongs to everyone, because prosperity belongs to the Democracy government.

The real point, the bigger point outside this thread... Eurocentricism wouldn't be such a problem if it didn't mean that it endorsed or favored one playing style. If Civ 4 genuinely rewarded non-expansionist, non-militaristic playing styles (with something other than "challenge yourself to win peacefully" -- challenge is not the kind of reward i'm talking about) ... Civ 4 would be a genuinely great game, with an appeal across a wider audience.

I think they can do it and make it an overall fun INCREASE, not decrease.

 

[Matternich]

Gatsby-
The split ages are not entirely invented by Firaxis. They do exist as independent historical terms used to broadly describe the rise of humankind from savage to civilised man.

I like your idea of basing the ages on resources- stone/iron ect but doesn't this dehumanise the rise of civilisation by linking it to resources alone omitting and broadly describing things in the same way you criticise?

I have to defend the firaxian use of terms a little at least.

It's true they really are called Ancient times- you can actually take a degree in ancient history. The reason why they cover such a vast time period is because that part of our developement was a long slow struggle where very little was happening on a yearly basis.

Again the middle ages is a valid label but I think your argument succeeds best with this age as the tail end contains anomolous items such as Smiths trading company and physics. They don't seem to be in the right place somehow.

Because the industrial revolution changed the face of the world and humankind it was the dawning of a new age. We are no longer in the industrial age anymore than we are in the stone age and yet we still use stone and pottery.

And believe it or not as arrogant and as crazy as it may sound the term modern and modernism does apply to our age. In fact there are even concepts such as postmodernism cementing this label.

As for being Eurocentric- it's not Europes fault that its nations bullied, butchered and contanimated every other civilization they came into contact with and made almost every significant social/sceintific/cultural contribution to civilization right up until the C20 th where thing sprawled a little. The game itself, the way we record history, even way we think is drawn from a Eurocentric viewpoint.

In fairness there is room for improvement on the age name thing. Maybe a simple division of the ages would work along the lines of Aussie Worker's description.

 

[douche_bag]

you're all nuts

 

[Jon Shafer]

Thank you for that profound theory.

 

[sir_schwick]

Matternich-

I agree that we view our history through a Eurocentric perspective. What we are saying is that it would be interesting to play civ and not know who will come out on top, whether it be East/West, North/South. I personally would like to see a fluid tech tree, or unique tech trees for various civs. Also, eliminate the eras, they reduce the fun and lead to more Eurocentrism.

As for being Eurocentric- it's not Europes fault that its nations bullied, butchered and contanimated every other civilization they came into contact with and made almost every significant social/sceintific/cultural contribution to civilization right up until the C20 th where thing sprawled a little. The game itself, the way we record history, even way we think is drawn from a Eurocentric viewpoint.

I think the term contaminated is about right. Really we destroyed way more advanced cultures and replaced it with ****ty European culture. The Europeans had it were it counted, weapons, which is a true testament to the nature of man. Don't forget about the Chinese though, they controlled their side of the world for a very long time, except for a couple times in the last 500 years.

 

[Dr. Broom]

Matternich-I think the term contaminated is about right. Really we destroyed way more advanced cultures and replaced it with ****ty European culture. The Europeans had it were it counted, weapons, which is a true testament to the nature of man. Don't forget about the Chinese though, they controlled their side of the world for a very long time, except for a couple times in the last 500 years.

Damn what the hell is wrong with European culture? In a lot of ways the Europeans helped their colonies by bringing them more advanced sciences and social structure as well as militaristy protection. If the name Middle Ages bothers you that much you can just mod it right? Well I don't really know if you can now but with Civ IV you likely can since they are putting emphasis on easier and better modifying capabilities for players. I would really put this whole thread in the nitty-gritty that really doesn't affect the game.

 

[sir_schwick]

Damn what the hell is wrong with European culture? In a lot of ways the Europeans helped their colonies by bringing them more advanced sciences and social structure as well as militaristy protection. If the name Middle Ages bothers you that much you can just mod it right? Well I don't really know if you can now but with Civ IV you likely can since they are putting emphasis on easier and better modifying capabilities for players.

When I said that I meant between 500 and 1550. Europeans destroyed or decimated Moorish, Incan, Aztecs culture. THese cultures were all way more advanced in Science, Medicine, Art then the Europeans. They simply did not have the weapons technology. Europeans did not hlep their colonies post-Enlightenment era in the long run either. Been to Africa lately? What about the Middle East? I guess South-East Asia did not turn out so bad. A couple French guys did get Dien Bien Flu, but the Vietnamese do not seem bad off. You really consider the caste system that was in British India a social advancement?

As for Latin America, I blame most of that on the US, even though it has made a me a very well-off person. I'm not saying aggressive colonization is wrong. It is just not accurate to say that colonalism helped the colonies in superbly beneficial ways.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think Civ Ages are the problem. I don't think many people are focusing on that anymore either.

And there is nothing helpful about a superiority complex. You should see some of the quotes from the colonizers of 300 years ago.

But we digress. The real issue is that Civ should allow for the world to turn out differently. This is the imagination that every player has when they pick up the Zulus and try to win the game, and the disappointment they feel when they see the same skyscrapers and riflemen as anywhere else. Allowing the world to turn out differently also means that there's some genuine depth to the strategy and values you can give your nation, instead of "win the expansionist race".

 

[Matternich]

I'd really like to see a multi directional tech tree which doesn't follow a straight line- sort of going off wherever instead of just one or two tech forks. But is it feasible?
There are opportunities for different civs to come at techs from different start points. Sir swichks case in point with China is a good example- they had gunpowder way before any other civilisation. Also The Hebrews (Israelites?) which could well be a new civ, had Monotheism pretty early too. Under the right theoretical conditions, which civ provides, what exactly would these have evolved into? Unfortunately history hasn't allowed for many of these exceptions. Once the fierce competative melting pot of Europe started boiling down every other nations culture into terms they called superstition and barbarism there was no new 'tech' flavours.

As for the Zulu, a C21st zumba stick which vodoo Zoot troops go around healing and causing the heads of other nations military to shrink into small sickly orchids would be great but is it civ? Following a 'what if' tech tree will only see more fantastical elements like the end game with its speculative scientific predications.

The only other solution is the much craved introduction of 'flavours', like the way 'Rise of Nations' takes Aztec architecture and produces city blocks with the stepped pyramid/temple design. But you can't flavour a tech- steam power is steam power and is needed before electricity- it's a linear thing by nature. How can you get round that?

 

[Stid]

i love the idea of different ages bt they certainly need re-structuring such as changing modern to nuclear age and so on.as the ancient age goes on for so long then perhaps reseach should take 10 or so turns to show development times more precisely.i also reakon the changes in cities for different ages look cool and it also shows u how developed a rival civ is.and whats all the crap about eurocentric eras? what do asians or africans call the age we live in? its exactly the same.sure they hav different units but so do each individual country even if they're in the same continent.if they had diff units for each civ now that would be cool

 

[dh_epic]

I agree with everything you're saying, Matternich, with the exception of the zulu example. I mean, the big powers now are generally Christian and you don't see people running around resurrecting people from the dead. But there IS a value system that affects the decisions. I do think that the visuals are a pretty good start, though.

Still, some civilizations really do progress heavily in the sciences while being culturally conservative. Many others had it the other way around. I think a bit more flexibility in the tech tree could pull this off. But I'm more interested in the gameplay strategy.

Which brings me to Stid, everyone acknowledges we are in the modern age and it was preceded by the industrial age. That's not where the contraversy lies. They divide it up differently. In European civilization, the crumble of the roman empire and advent of Christianity is one step, then industrialization as the next step, then post world war 2 as the next step. In Africa, the biggest events were the arrival and eventual uprising against the colonizers. Europeans could organize their history by Africa's eras (they do roughly correspond), just as much as Africa can organize their history by Europe hallmarks.

Still my point isn't about the age names so much as the events that are possible. The big events in Civ 3 ARE technological, whereas the rest of the world divides history up by other events. By opening up a variety of game strategies, the world really can turn out totally differently, not to mention the game becomes a really rich, strategic and fun experience.

Rome crumbles, but the world reaches a steady state of cooperation by 700 AD, with Buddhism as the world religion, a cold war in 1400 AD between China and India as they peacefully occupy elements of the new world while avoiding genocide. America is a small island nation that is an economic powerhouse, only to be aborbed into China's culture. There is a sudden surge in war after 2000 when oil runs out. Crazy stuff like that.

Right now, it's jumping through europe's technological hoops while trying to expand as much as possible. No colonialism, no civil war, no domestic issues, or popular uprisings, no cold war. The events are always the same in every game.

I really want to move this discussion away from the age names (even though that's what the thread starter focused on) and more on opening different gameplay strategies. That would be great for so many reasons.

 

[Dr. Broom]

When I said that I meant between 500 and 1550. Europeans destroyed or decimated Moorish, Incan, Aztecs culture. THese cultures were all way more advanced in Science, Medicine, Art then the Europeans. They simply did not have the weapons technology. Europeans did not hlep their colonies post-Enlightenment era in the long run either. Been to Africa lately? What about the Middle East? I guess South-East Asia did not turn out so bad. A couple French guys did get Dien Bien Flu, but the Vietnamese do not seem bad off. You really consider the caste system that was in British India a social advancement?

As for Latin America, I blame most of that on the US, even though it has made a me a very well-off person. I'm not saying aggressive colonization is wrong. It is just not accurate to say that colonalism helped the colonies in superbly beneficial ways.

Weapons technology is science so they were less advanced in science, art is really opinion and medicine i can believe that. But really, be fair, either the Aztecs or Incans were pretty brutal themselves, Moors invaded parts of Europe (Spain I think) and were just driven out again so Europeans were defending themselves there. I have not been to Africa or the Middle East lately and I doubt you have either but from my understanding their standard of living was bad before Europeans colonized the areas. As far as British India is concerned I really don't know if it is an advancement or not but I wasn't speaking of British India in general but of colonies in general. You sound like Europeans are the only ones who ever oppressed anyone, don't be so ridiculous. What about he Egyptians enslaving the Hebrews? What about the Africans selling their prisoners off as slaves? What about the Mongols mercilessly killing everyone in their path all across Asia and Eastern and Central Europe? What about the Native Americans who killed their people in human sacrifices? What about he way the US put Vietnamies people, entire villages of them, into trenches and murdered them? What about the way China ruthlessly oppresses the people of Tibet? What about the Hebrews and Palistinians killing each other everyday? Dude the list goes on and on don't always cut Europeans out as history's bad guys because that is nonsense.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, don't mean to act like if the shoe was on the other foot they would take the high road. But things would be different if Africans were the colonizers -- philosophical thought and values would be different. The sequence of wars, and more importantly the kinds of peace we would have experienced would have been different. Peace as someone else's colony. Cold war would have happened at a different time, if at all. World wars would have happended at a different time, if at all. Different countries would have been affected by civil war, civil unrest, and civil rights.

I just think the game forces you down one path far too much. The fact that it's a Western (European-American) path is neither here nor there, but worth noting.

 

[dh_epic]

I know this is a dead issue, but something I noticed last night...

I was (re)reading a part of a book on world history.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...33416/sr=ka-2/ref=pd_ka_2/103-9472583-1543011

And there are no "middle ages". The age after the ancient / classical, and before colonialism... it's a huge section that covers Europe from 500 AD to 1200 AD, China from 100 AD, feudal japan, and all the others... and they call it, simply:

"The Age of Divergent Traditions"

Not that I'm crazy about naming the ages at all, but to me, this short title describes the direction I feel Civ ought to take. Particularly when representing the period of time between Monarchy and the Steam Engine. This truly is the time when civilizations carve out their niches, their attitudes, strategies, and specialties -- before the world begins to "shrink" towards globalization.

 

[Elgalad]

1) Resurrecting dead threads is evil.

2) Eurocentrism is good. I do not need to justify that statement: it is a subjective one. I am of European ancestry, case closed.

3) Political Correctness is evil since it forces an unrealistic outcome based upon some arbitrary sense of justice and injustice which does not exist in nature.

4) Ages/Eras/Thresholds in CIV are arbitrary and endlessly debatable, but only exist as tools to incorporate graphics features, allow easier manipulation of many more technologies in the interface than one research screen could, and to provide game milestones/goals which can be good things.

5) Game developers will only add features to a game if they perceive that it will help the game become more successful. Creating a first person shooter called "let's butcher the little kitten" would probably not sell well in most markets (and neither did Postal or Postal 2). Creating a game that enforces so called 'Eurocentric stereotypes' might, since historically such games have sold well in the past (Civ series, et al). Don't look for a game designer who is creating games to provide a living for his family to suddenly develop a sense of UN style multicultural globalism and spend 5 extra years (unpaid) to create a mediocre game that offends noone.

6) The soapbox is free again, knock yourself out.


-Elgalad

 

[Yuri2356]

Would you Anti-Euros rather have Era names like:
"The time at which CivX ended it's nomadic phase and began to settle in permanent and/or semi-permanent steelements."
"The time following the settlement of CivX, during which it made several interesting advances in technology."
"The time at which CivX Began to industrialize, or would have industrialized had it survived long enough to beingin some form of industrialization."
"The time at which CivX attains a level of scientific advancement similar to that which is posessed by most of the larger nations that exist today."

My point being: If you get to politicaly correct, the came will become boring and stupid. Either remove the set ages, or keep them the way they are.