Rename Civ Eras- they're too Eurocentric!

[sir_schwick]

1)

2) After all European colonialism has not been a primary root in many of the hot spots of poverty and war in the world. I'm not saying the Europeans are only guilty party in history, but my sentiment is civ should be more open ended.

3) Not being reasonable to multiple-perspectives of history is ignorant.

4) A scroll bar would probably solve the issue of how to display one large tech tree. If you really wanted to aid the creating history aspect of the game, let players name eras as they go along.

5) While set in Europe, Medieval: Total War is not Eurocentric in a condescending way. It is accurate and fair to all parties involved. While not having the same sales of Civ, Creative Assembly is producing the third game(fifth if you count the expansions) in the series.

6) Let the game begin.

 

[dh_epic]

Taking responsibility for the most recent posts, I didn't resurrect this thread because I was trying to be politically correct. I was trying to be intellectually correct -- trying to provoke some genuine thought.

There's no divergent gameplay in the so called "middle ages". Which I think is a much more interesting problem than "what should we name the ages" (which I really don't care about).

You could really have a compelling game if there were genuine differences between the Civs -- not simply having one that Civ is further along than another. (Although I have no problem saying that many nations have been further along than others. Again, there is no interest in political correctness here.)

 

[Elgalad]

2) I assume you are referring to the invasion of the Golden Horde, the sack of Constantinople, Aztec ritual human sacrifice, Indian caste society, Moorish slave trade, Japanese 20th century Imperial ambitions, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, or more recently the genocide in Rwanda and various other African nations (oh wait, were those due to European Inaction?), the war in Indonesia, Tiananmen Square, etc, etc, etc.

3) Being reasonable to disparate historical perspectives does not require one to accept that all are equally valid and true. Weighing their merits by the proven successes of historical evolution requires honesty, not ignorance.

4) I can see the benefit of the scrollbar but prefer the SMAC system to either that or the current Civ 3 one of multiple screens. I don't think specific tech research should be possible and would rather have a system where the civ invested in various 'fields' of research and fate has a role in which techs appear first.

5) I have not played the Total War series games, but from what I understand they dont represent World politics/conflict, but rather Regional ones (Medieval Europe, Japan, and now Rome). Eurocentrism in the case of Shogun: Total War would be pointless.

6) I'd rather be Playing the game itself going to do that now! My first real c3c game as England awaits..

-Elgalad

 

[sir_schwick]

2) I already admitted that no civilization is without blood on its hands. The Europeans were not even the worst. As for the African issues, I don't have the material I read on the subject but will try to find it.

3) But why does civ have to follow Eurocentrism? A more open system would lead to more interesting variety of civ games. Personally I think civs should only unique look, and names, and such and the player gets to customize the civ according to conditions as the game persists. This would allow you too experience being the "Japanese", but this time you could say, 'this is how the japanese would have progressed(kicked ass) if they had been in a landlocked desert.'

4) I have always supported 'blind research' but have gathered that many players do not like the control they lose.

5) No they do not, but Medieval: Total War was not terribly biased to those on the European continent compared to the nations of the areas of Africa, Anatolia, the Middle EAst and the Steepes that would have been involved at the time. I will admit this is not the strongest point.

 

[Elgalad]

Well the whole underlying topic of this thread is the question whether or not the Ages as defined by Civ 3 are Eurocentric. I find it hard to accept that they are. If calling a period of time the 'middle ages' implies somehow that only Europe has had a era between (in the middle of) the age of antiquity and the industrial age then I must be missing something. It sounds culture-neutral to me. Given that there are 5 civilization culture subgroups, each with their own city, citizen, and palace artwork, it's hard to accept the argument that Civ 3 suffers from a Eurocentric bias. But even if it does I do not see the problem, since as others have stated the game's target audience is primarily Europeans and North Americans. If the game developers think there is a chance that Asian sales would be greater than European/American ones, there's no question in my mind that they would have made the game Asian-centric. Heck, look at Lineage II!

I guess what I'm really getting at is that Civilization games should be fun. It's difficult, no it's Impossible to create a game based on world history that spans such a time period as Civilization does without giving the appearance of some form of bias. There have been outcries about why America was included, or the Iriquois and the Zulu. Was it Eurocentric/American jingoism in the first case and political correctness in the others? Or were they included because people Like to play them and they help balance the other civs out. I am far more inclined to believe the second reason.

As for the other thing, I am all for giving Civs/Tribes random or chooseable traits and bonuses. Keep their art sure, keep their city names, keep their leaders, but allow them to be different in ever game. Replayability is the key after all to making a game a classic!

-Elgalad

 

[sir_schwick]

As for the other thing, I am all for giving Civs/Tribes random or chooseable traits and bonuses. Keep their art sure, keep their city names, keep their leaders, but allow them to be different in ever game. Replayability is the key after all to making a game a classic!

This would probably solve any and all complaints about Eurocentrism, along with a dynamic 'blind' research system.

 

[Babbler]

I don't see what was so great SMAC's technology tree display. Civ3's tech tree display is much because it allow the player to have a feel on what is going on. In fact, SMAC need that diplay more than civ, due to the SF theme of game.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually I liked how you could not map out the SMAC researc easily as it added to the 'blind research' concept. I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are one of those players that found 'blind research' annoying rather than interesting.

Also, to ammend my post above, I liked how you could use custom races in MOO2, but still use a species art and names you liked.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm a huge fan of blind research and other aspects that make the tech tree feel like a living breathing evolution of a Civilization, as opposed to a race (with the hurdles defined by the Western World).

And, for the record, the Middle Ages or Medieval Era is considered Eurocentric because it assumes there was nothing historical of consequence in that age except that it took place between the Industrial and Classical Eras. A lot of other civilizations define those formative years quite differently -- and the events of those ages apply even less to Europe.

But I really have to insist we get off the topic of whether eurocentricism is a good thing or a bad thing. I think the point I'm trying to make is that letting gameplay truly diverge would be a great thing -- so why not open it up? Make Civ feel like you're truly rewriting history, to the point that when the modern era comes around, it looks like a bizarro world!

- India colonized England
- America embraced communism
- The G8 is a group of fascist nations, who are actually quite peaceful
- China is a tiny, but rich Island
- The Dutch occupy a poor and socially backwards continent, but possess powerful weapons

 

[sir_schwick]

I remember why I really liked Civ 2's big tech tree. You could have Steam Power in the ancient era but still be polytheistic. Steam POwer could have existed in the 2nd century BC. All the engineering existed to create such a device, but slave labour was preferred.

Also, people in the classical times would not have called them that. They would have considered htem the most modern times. Maybe as you finish certain blocks of techs, and moved a little into the next age, you would get to name the previous age. This way you were always in the MOdern Age, and you could see how you develope din the "classical age".