What Native American tribe do you expect/want?

[Nujabes]

^ Political correctness in action.

I don't use emoticons ever, but this deserves a

If someone complaining that a civ doesn't match "history in the traditional sense" doesn't trip your intellectual alarm, I'm suspicious of your critical thinking skills. Going along those lines, we wouldn't even have a lot of the civs we have now.

 

[fat_tonle]

In other words, you have a pre-conceived framework to exclude Native American civs, then re-phrase the criteria of the framework to show why the civs you don't like aren't "worthy" enough to be in the game.

The game itself sets its own standard for what is acceptable as a civilization: it has discovered Agriculture (the only prerequisite technology), and have a distinctive enough presence to provide a UA and a UU/UX. Anything else beyond that is your own bias that you have to deal with.

I didn't rephrase anything. My previous quote was misinterpreted to mean I only want one native american civ. I am not considering South and Central American native powerhouses that should be in the game. I take issue with multiple natives from present day US and up because a dominant culture never arose and it becomes a matter of picking and choosing. Sioux or Iroquois? Or Shawnee vs Cherokee? Why one over the other?

People argue we need more diverse gameplay. That's why you have suggestions like Inuit and the works. Well, the Eurocentricities have barely given any diverse gameplay. Just some fancy European UU's and redundant UA's that grant bonuses for the sake of it. It doesn't really encourage a certain play style one way or the other. Spain, great UA. Encourages colonization. Now England. Some arbitrary naval buff, and an extra spy. That's not encouraging unique game play. Poland with some stable bonuses. Didn't we give that to the Huns already? I don't really see the diversity there. I don't have a problem with Poland as a civ, but they don't bring anything new to the table and they don't hold a candle to the English or Spanish empires.

At the same time, you can add Inuit and make this great Artic civ that dominates frozen world maps. That's all well and good. But do I really want to see a metropolis in Antartica? No. It's not historically accurate, and I deem that aspect very important in a game like this. At the same time, NA civs should not be barbarians either. I would like New World exploration to be incorporated realistically into the base game at some point, not just as a scenario or a spin off game. It's a major sticking point in history. But yes, that is my personal taste more than anything.

 

[ldvhl]

Point granted. To be fair, every game, by definition, is an alternate history. Expectations of historical accuracy can't be too firmly held to.

 

[SkaisonFire]

This is why history doesn't do things "in the traditional sense" any more. I sincerely recommend you read a book by Edward Said. Industrial Europe and romantic classical empires aren't the be all and end all of history. In fact that construction of history was based on justification of colonisation the "lesser" places.

I've actually been rather pleased with the direction they've been taking with civs. More native america, african and asian civs are so deserving.

I love the arguments by "euroncentrism-haters":
"Things weren't like your european historybooks man"
"Well why do you think so?"
"I read it in a european book!"

Personaly I think the point of adding more civs to the game is for the sake of diversity and gameplay, and when you look at europe with civs ranging from russia to england to venice to spain, europe is just a very diverse place.

I do think there should be lots of different civs to play, but not because they "earned it" like some sort of civilization walk of fame.
If firaxis has a fun, creative way to integrate a less know civ then that's a good thing, but it shouldn't mean they should force all the tiny civs in the game just because "they're so small and they should also get a chance to play"
If making CiV a fun game recuires having lots of europeans then so be it!

Feeling a little bit like braveheart here, maybe I got a little bit carried away...

 

[fat_tonle]

Point granted. To be fair, every game, by definition, is an alternate history. Expectations of historical accuracy can't be too firmly held to.

I don't interpret alternative history as reinventing history. How can you make every civ "westernized" with modern buildings, gunpowder, ships, and the works if the technology was unknown to that civilization for many centuries? And if we are going to give every civ the ability to research and build those things, I don't have a problem with it. But it becomes redundant after a while if the gameplay features are not vastly expounded upon.

Now bring in a new mechanic in Civ VI. We already introduced CS's. Maybe uncontacted CS's tech up logarithmically slower than CSs sandwiched between multiple base civilizations in the game. This is a feature that could accurately depict peoples from uncontacted or unexplored areas of the world. I think you can vastly improve the depth and intricacy of CS's while reducing the need for new civilizations to represent these cultures or parts of the world.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I take issue with multiple natives from present day US and up because a dominant culture never arose and it becomes a matter of picking and choosing. Sioux or Iroquois? Or Shawnee vs Cherokee? Why one over the other?

A dominant culture never arose and took over in Europe either. Well, after Rome that is. I suppose you could just have the Roman Empire (so no Greeks), but suppose you want something after their fall. Do you go with England or France? Spain or Germany? Is it just a matter of picking and choosing? Why one over the other?

No one Native American culture dominated the majority of North America after the fall of the Mississippian culture, but that doesn't mean there aren't better choices than others. If it's a matter of having to choose, that's true. Luckily, there are a lot of slots available in order to choose many.

 

[SkaisonFire]

IMO, every time someone complains about political correctness, that person is automatically wrong. It's like the Godwin's Law for the 2010s.

Ahh great now you've got me imagining nazi's arguing over political correctness

 

[fat_tonle]

A dominant culture never arose and took over in Europe either. Well, after Rome that is. I suppose you could just have the Roman Empire (so no Greeks), but suppose you want something after their fall. Do you go with England or France? Spain or Germany? Is it just a matter of picking and choosing? Why one over the other?

No one Native American culture dominated the majority of North America after the fall of the Mississippian culture, but that doesn't mean there aren't better choices than others. If it's a matter of having to choose, that's true. Luckily, there are a lot of slots available in order to choose many.

How are we defining dominant? By Roman Empire or 20th Century United States standards? That's pretty lofty. But that's the underlying issue. Whatever minimum standards you set, it always becomes a matter of picking and choosing. Now we are so far down the depth chart that you just cannot justify the selections based on historical influence or relevancy alone. You start opening the can of worms since now ANYONE can be justified, for better or worse. You can argue that this leads to equal treatment and better representation, but there will still be some sort of bias, be it historically or for creative decisions. Creative decisions which I feel haven't been very creative if you ask me. So if you want to choose this new civ based on this new awesome mechanic to be implemented then lets see it. But for every good example there is an equally bad one. So we just haven't see evidence as to why some of the selections are merited over others. Especially if it's Venice, when we have an influx of Mediterranean trade civs. Now perhaps Shawnee or Cherokee, with a similar UU to the Iroquois assuming the spotted barbarian unit is a potential UU for the last civ.

 

[VermelhoRed]

How are we defining dominant? By Roman Empire or 20th Century United States standards? That's pretty lofty. But that's the underlying issue. Whatever minimum standards you set, it always becomes a matter of picking and choosing. Now we are so far down the depth chart that you just cannot justify the selections based on historical influence or relevancy alone. You start opening the can of worms since now ANYONE can be justified, for better or worse. You can argue that this leads to equal treatment and better representation, but there will still be some sort of bias, be it historically or for creative decisions. Creative decisions which I feel haven't been very creative if you ask me. So if you want to choose this new civ based on this new awesome mechanic to be implemented then lets see it. But for every good example there is an equally bad one. So we just haven't see evidence as to why some of the selections are merited over others. Especially if it's Venice, when we have an influx of Mediterranean trade civs. Now perhaps Shawnee or Cherokee, with a similar UU to the Iroquois assuming the spotted barbarian unit is a potential UU for the last civ.

I don't understand what you are saying, but I think it's because you're not making any sense. :/

 

[fat_tonle]

I don't understand what you are saying, but I think it's because you're not making any sense. :/

I used a lot of common American phrases like "Depth Chart" and "can of worms". You understand those sayings? The rest is pretty universal English...

 

[Nujabes]

I used a lot of common American phrases like "Depth Chart" and "can of worms". You understand those sayings? The rest is pretty universal English...

The words are clear, and there are a lot of them, but they don't seem to cohere or have much of a point.

The conversation about merit on this forum is so, so played out, and it almost always boils down to the speaking individual's knowledge or lack thereof.

 

[fat_tonle]

The words are clear, and there are a lot of them, but they don't seem to cohere or have much of a point.

The conversation about merit on this forum is so, so played out, and it almost always boils down to the speaking individual's knowledge or lack thereof.

Nah. I just think you didn't care for the point I was making, which is clear. We have been getting redundant gameplay features from some new civs so I question why they were added in the first place. But if more colors and flavors suit people, then that may be enough justification for them being in the expansion. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Nujabes]

Nah. I just think you didn't care for the point I was making, which is clear. We have been getting redundant gameplay features from some new civs so I question why they were added in the first place. But if more colors and flavors suit people, then that may be enough justification for them being in the expansion. I don't have a problem with that.

Gameplay features have rather little to do with the civilization chosen and everything to do with Firaxis' mechanic decisions, which is why that big block of text seems rather meandering. They could choose the most dominant, influential civilization imaginable and still make it redundant and/or unfun to play. You've gotten rather far away from your original point, and we've all gotten away from the subject of the OP.

 

[fat_tonle]

Gameplay features have rather little to do with the civilization chosen and everything to do with Firaxis' mechanic decisions, which is why that big block of text seems rather meandering. They could choose the most dominant, influential civilization imaginable and still make it redundant and/or unfun to play. You've gotten rather far away from your original point, and we've all gotten away from the subject of the OP.

I don't see where or why you are differentiating gameplay and mechanics. Mechanics dictate gameplay. The two cannot be kept separately. I already mentioned Poland, which to my understanding is another horse based civ with extra bonuses for pastures and resources. They were obviously put in by popular demand, otherwise Hungary could have easily replaced them. Zulu, which is basically replacing Germany as a warmonger. I don't see where the new mechanics are coming into play. Clearly, you are mistaken if Fixaris is not choosing civs based on historical influence and potential sales that sometimes go hand in hand.

 

[codepoet]

I don't use emoticons ever, but this deserves a

If someone complaining that a civ doesn't match "history in the traditional sense" doesn't trip your intellectual alarm, I'm suspicious of your critical thinking skills. Going along those lines, we wouldn't even have a lot of the civs we have now.

There are two ways to define "civilization".
One is synonymous with "culture"
One is about advancements in human society; building things, technologies, war... impact on other people.

Which do you think the game is focused on?
This is the crux of the debate on who merits inclusion.

Take the Sioux. There is a reason they've only been in one Civ game (separate) and grouped into a larger (despised) conglomeration culture in another... they're nomadic. It means they did not build lasting things. Now why were they included at all? Because they impacted other people (Battle of Little Big Horn, etc.) That's why the Aztecs have been in every incarnation of the game... they built lasting things and impacted many other peoples.

Does that help clear up "history in the traditional sense"? And my reaction about political correctness? How was it not? It was an argument to a false authority (logical fallacy), and you bought it (based on your post). Something about a world view dying in the 50's? Go read that post again and see the post from fat_tonle just above it, which was obviously not read. In any case I am done with subject. Apologies for the tangent.

 

[Nujabes]

^^Nothing like people that post big responses and then say they're done and leave. I also like how you complain about logical fallacies after you began your post with a false opposition and a basically fabricated definition of civilization that splits two aspects of societies that Firaxis has been very to clear to bring to the game in comparable proportions. By your definition, culture is not an advancement of human society and does not impact other people, which flies in the face of this game's representation of culture, particularly in this latest expansion.

I don't see where or why you are differentiating gameplay and mechanics. Mechanics dictate gameplay. The two cannot be kept separately. I already mentioned Poland, which to my understanding is another horse based civ with extra bonuses for pastures and resources. They were obviously put in by popular demand, otherwise Hungary could have easily replaced them. Zulu, which is basically replacing Germany as a warmonger. I don't see where the new mechanics are coming into play. Clearly, you are mistaken if Fixaris is not choosing civs based on historical influence and potential sales that sometimes go hand in hand.

I'm not differentiating gameplay and mechanics, I'm differentiating gameplay and the civilization that brings that gameplay into the game, which is basically little more than flavor or window dressing in terms of mechanics.

 

[True_Candyman]

Ok this is getting out of hand, lets leave this whole thing and get back to the topic of the thread before moderation has to step in.

The whole mood has shifted and it's no longer enjoyable, so here is a partying banana to lift everyone's spirits.

 

[Nujabes]

The whole mood has shifted and it's no longer enjoyable, so here is a partying banana to lift everyone's spirits.

Yeah, yeah. People can PM me if they have something to say, otherwise let's bring it back to a potential Native American civilization.

 

[Joe Hoofer]

Well, I think there's a lot of potential for NA civs, if not at least City-States. Look at the cultures in the US alone:

I think the arguments about natives being too small for historically accurate civs are a bit silly. Heck, they've let the Maya and Zulus in. Why not the Cherokee, Chinkook, Navajo, or Apache cultures?
Besides, the only reason they were so small was because of downright apocalyptic plagues the European explorers brought. That, and the genocide. Without those events, they could've formed major civs.
I mean, look at Cahokia! That was certainly a city. And in the Northeast, they fought off the Vikings. That's impressive.

 

[Nujabes]

Keep in mind that we're restricted alphabetically to I believe to something between Por - Zu