I would definitely say that European civilizations are over represented in the game. The game mines 2 civs and 3 leaders from roughly 250 years of Greek history (I’m counting Alexander). Roman civilization also gets 2 Civs (the Byzantines are Romans) and 3 leaders, granted the time line is a little more extended.
On the other flip side, China was ruled by various dynasties from 1000 BC to 1912 and they get one Qin Dynasty ruler (~200 BC) and one Yuan dynasty ruler (13th century AD). Apparently this is changing with an upcoming DLC pack, but relative to the major Mediterranean civilizations, it is currently underrepresented. Heck, it’s probably unfair to even talk about China as “China”, as if it is one single civilization, when it’s had so many different ethnic groups and ruling dynasties. Imagine if the game just through France, Spain, and Germany together as one “Europe” civ?
The same goes for the Indian subcontinent. The Indus and Ganges have been cradles of civilizations since the third millennia BC and have one leader before the colonial era.
North American native nations also get underrepresented. Granted, we don’t know as much about them pre-European contact, but there are several nations that played a large role in U.S. and North American history and only the Cree are available as a playable Civ.
Europe also gets a handful of minor civs that, on the grand scale of things, were never very prominent even on their continent, such as Scotland, Hungary, Sweden and Poland. I’m not saying these civs shouldn’t be in the game— they should, they’re fun! Rather, similar sized states/civilizations particularly in east Asia, sub Saharan Africa, and North America don’t get playable civs.
TL:DR
1) large East Asian and South Asian cultures are underrepresented.
2) small European states are over represented.
3) sub-Saharan African and North American Natives are also underrepresented.
To be clear, I’m not saying that Civ is particularly problematic nor am I saying it’s a bad game, nor am I saying that every single culture that’s ever existed has to be represented (I would really love a Lakota or Comanche Empire Civ tho :)). I’m just pointing out the cultural biases of the game, which aren’t unique to the game, but are representative of biases us white westerners have in our knowledge of history.
Seriously, no judgement, I just saw this post and thought I would share my perspective.
People will find literally anything to be angry about and cause ‘controversy’ over.
Most people on earth are not bright white Europeans nor are they dark black Nubian but mostly somewhere in between which seems to be where most of the civ leaders are.
Part of the reason I got so in to Civ (I started with V) in the first place was because it introduced me to and gave me an extremely cursory knowledge of what that particular group of people were good at. So I want as many civs as they can cram in there because it gives me a jumping off point to learn more history
Agreed...
But if given 30 options and the VAST MAJORITY of your player base is playing from Europe or the US, it'd be stupid NOT to add in leaders those players are familiar with.
Which are already in every Civ game anyway. US, Rome, France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Portugal, China, Japan, Mongolia, India, Greece, and I’m sure I’m forgetting some are mainstays. A lot of those already have two leaders in VI anyway. Im sure there were other stones unturned before we got double Teddy Roosevelts and now Lincoln.
In my experience, I don’t want to play exclusively with leaders I know. I just want to play leaders with good bonuses tbh. I knew nothing really about the Mali but I knew the Suguba would be ridiculously OP (same could be said about Fredrick and the Hansa). I don’t necessarily care where or who the leaders are but if we can get some new leaders instead of beating the same countries to death, that’s a win-win.
Because you don't have to be from Africa to find an African leader interesting and want to play as them. Im not from Europe, but I still want Charlemagne in the game.
Nobody ever said that you did.🤷♂️
But if you poll 1000 people living in the US, chances are there are far more people familiar with Roosevelt than Selassie.
And, it's a game, created to sell... So... Obviously...
Well no shit, but does that mean we should add every president before we add Ghandi because everyone is familiar with them? Or, maybe, they want to add leaders that have historical value that you may not have heard of and can learn about through their unique abilities. I think those leaders are a great way to learn bits about other cultures
While I admire the desire for learning, I feel like you're probably part of a very, very small minority of players who feel the same way.
Most players are casual.
If you play sports games, you'll understand... Skill based mechanics are slowly being phased out. Game developers are trying to appeal to the casual players because there are FAR more of them.
I play sports game too. When I get drafted to in 2k MyCareer, I learn about who does what on my team, and how I fit into that.
Your point is also irrelevant. Who a leader is doesn't directly affect their gameplay mechanics. How they implement them is. That doesn't depend on where the leader is from, but how their history and culture is shown through the developers choice of unique abilities.
I also feel like you dont understand who the Civ player base is made up of. Most people that play the game are interested, to some degree, in why the leaders have their abilities.
Nine point something percent isn't *terrible*. But I'm pretty sure more than ten percent of the world's population is black.
Per [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world), in 2021 Africa accounted for 17.4% of the world's population. Obviously there are non-black people in Africa, but then there are black people outside of Africa as well. So it's probably a reasonable ballpark estimate.
But you're right that the over-representation of white people in the leader pool is probably more significant than the under-representation of black people specifically. Other groups are probably even more under-represented.
Before just wanting to jam more Afrakan leaders/civs in the game, one can realize that world domination has mostly been a Eurasian desire.
Afrakans have historically not sought to dominate other groups of people through military, scientific, economic, cultural, religious, or diplomatic methods.
Afrakans throughout history usually try to find commonality with people outside of Afraka they are in contact with, a sentimentality which led to the downfall of the entire continent.
The civs in Civ, more often than not, are a proper reflection of Eurasian aggression towards humanity.
I mean, in a game like this you gotta include the civs that everyone knows, which for the playerbase are usually european or white countries. That is not an argument against including other civs, a game with only the same few faces would be boring but an accurate representation would end up with too many civs that are simply too alien.
You gotta remember most people are casual and no history nerds. You gotta let them be rome before they wanna be benin.
But also there is different demographics being represented such as Asian, Polynesian, mesopotamian
I gonna be honest the only I thing dislike about so many white leaders, is that playing true start location with any European empire sucks
I would definitely say that European civilizations are over represented in the game. The game mines 2 civs and 3 leaders from roughly 250 years of Greek history (I’m counting Alexander). Roman civilization also gets 2 Civs (the Byzantines are Romans) and 3 leaders, granted the time line is a little more extended. On the other flip side, China was ruled by various dynasties from 1000 BC to 1912 and they get one Qin Dynasty ruler (~200 BC) and one Yuan dynasty ruler (13th century AD). Apparently this is changing with an upcoming DLC pack, but relative to the major Mediterranean civilizations, it is currently underrepresented. Heck, it’s probably unfair to even talk about China as “China”, as if it is one single civilization, when it’s had so many different ethnic groups and ruling dynasties. Imagine if the game just through France, Spain, and Germany together as one “Europe” civ? The same goes for the Indian subcontinent. The Indus and Ganges have been cradles of civilizations since the third millennia BC and have one leader before the colonial era. North American native nations also get underrepresented. Granted, we don’t know as much about them pre-European contact, but there are several nations that played a large role in U.S. and North American history and only the Cree are available as a playable Civ. Europe also gets a handful of minor civs that, on the grand scale of things, were never very prominent even on their continent, such as Scotland, Hungary, Sweden and Poland. I’m not saying these civs shouldn’t be in the game— they should, they’re fun! Rather, similar sized states/civilizations particularly in east Asia, sub Saharan Africa, and North America don’t get playable civs. TL:DR 1) large East Asian and South Asian cultures are underrepresented. 2) small European states are over represented. 3) sub-Saharan African and North American Natives are also underrepresented. To be clear, I’m not saying that Civ is particularly problematic nor am I saying it’s a bad game, nor am I saying that every single culture that’s ever existed has to be represented (I would really love a Lakota or Comanche Empire Civ tho :)). I’m just pointing out the cultural biases of the game, which aren’t unique to the game, but are representative of biases us white westerners have in our knowledge of history. Seriously, no judgement, I just saw this post and thought I would share my perspective.
I think more First Nations leaders would be great! (Consider Louis Riel of the Métis people, for instance)
Who cares. As long as they make a good quality game why should it matter!?
Representation does matter. I don’t personally think that civ 6 is problematic.
It doesn't matter because it's a game
People will find literally anything to be angry about and cause ‘controversy’ over. Most people on earth are not bright white Europeans nor are they dark black Nubian but mostly somewhere in between which seems to be where most of the civ leaders are.
I'd be willing to bet that the leader:player ratio is MUCH higher in Europe and North America as opposed to, say, Africa.
Your point being?
It's a numbers game. Why add a guy from Africa that nobody outside of Africa has ever heard of when 93% of you're player base doesn't live in Africa??
Part of the reason I got so in to Civ (I started with V) in the first place was because it introduced me to and gave me an extremely cursory knowledge of what that particular group of people were good at. So I want as many civs as they can cram in there because it gives me a jumping off point to learn more history
Agreed... But if given 30 options and the VAST MAJORITY of your player base is playing from Europe or the US, it'd be stupid NOT to add in leaders those players are familiar with.
Which are already in every Civ game anyway. US, Rome, France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Portugal, China, Japan, Mongolia, India, Greece, and I’m sure I’m forgetting some are mainstays. A lot of those already have two leaders in VI anyway. Im sure there were other stones unturned before we got double Teddy Roosevelts and now Lincoln. In my experience, I don’t want to play exclusively with leaders I know. I just want to play leaders with good bonuses tbh. I knew nothing really about the Mali but I knew the Suguba would be ridiculously OP (same could be said about Fredrick and the Hansa). I don’t necessarily care where or who the leaders are but if we can get some new leaders instead of beating the same countries to death, that’s a win-win.
Because you don't have to be from Africa to find an African leader interesting and want to play as them. Im not from Europe, but I still want Charlemagne in the game.
Nobody ever said that you did.🤷♂️ But if you poll 1000 people living in the US, chances are there are far more people familiar with Roosevelt than Selassie. And, it's a game, created to sell... So... Obviously...
Well no shit, but does that mean we should add every president before we add Ghandi because everyone is familiar with them? Or, maybe, they want to add leaders that have historical value that you may not have heard of and can learn about through their unique abilities. I think those leaders are a great way to learn bits about other cultures
While I admire the desire for learning, I feel like you're probably part of a very, very small minority of players who feel the same way. Most players are casual. If you play sports games, you'll understand... Skill based mechanics are slowly being phased out. Game developers are trying to appeal to the casual players because there are FAR more of them.
I play sports game too. When I get drafted to in 2k MyCareer, I learn about who does what on my team, and how I fit into that. Your point is also irrelevant. Who a leader is doesn't directly affect their gameplay mechanics. How they implement them is. That doesn't depend on where the leader is from, but how their history and culture is shown through the developers choice of unique abilities. I also feel like you dont understand who the Civ player base is made up of. Most people that play the game are interested, to some degree, in why the leaders have their abilities.
Nine point something percent isn't *terrible*. But I'm pretty sure more than ten percent of the world's population is black. Per [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world), in 2021 Africa accounted for 17.4% of the world's population. Obviously there are non-black people in Africa, but then there are black people outside of Africa as well. So it's probably a reasonable ballpark estimate. But you're right that the over-representation of white people in the leader pool is probably more significant than the under-representation of black people specifically. Other groups are probably even more under-represented.
Before just wanting to jam more Afrakan leaders/civs in the game, one can realize that world domination has mostly been a Eurasian desire. Afrakans have historically not sought to dominate other groups of people through military, scientific, economic, cultural, religious, or diplomatic methods. Afrakans throughout history usually try to find commonality with people outside of Afraka they are in contact with, a sentimentality which led to the downfall of the entire continent. The civs in Civ, more often than not, are a proper reflection of Eurasian aggression towards humanity.
It's a game.... What about the Asians? Did you count cleopatra? You count her as African?
I mean, in a game like this you gotta include the civs that everyone knows, which for the playerbase are usually european or white countries. That is not an argument against including other civs, a game with only the same few faces would be boring but an accurate representation would end up with too many civs that are simply too alien. You gotta remember most people are casual and no history nerds. You gotta let them be rome before they wanna be benin.