The question is where the balance between them should sit, and what that balance should look like in terms of specific civs and leaders. No one, for instance, is advocating a roster made up entirely of European imperial powers or a roster made up entirely of distinctive but small civs from elsewhere in the world. In the context of civ, it's more likely to reframe a nuanced debate in more binary, less informative terms. In extreme cases, this becomes a distraction tactic to avoid having to defend the indefensible. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that it's intentionally unhelpful, creating a strawman-like composite to avoid engaging with the specifics of the questions and scenarios actually being debated. "PC" is really too broad and ambiguous a term to be helpful in facilitating discussion.
#Civ 6 wiki cleopatra Pc#
But I also understand gameplay design and just average player knowledge are constraints that have to be dealt with - we're not going to see 3 separate caliphates in game.īut yeah, no I don't think Civ 6 is PC nor striving to be really, it's just existing within this ever-changing socio cultural landscape and how one makes of that landscape and where civ fits into is is up to them It still has its issues for sure - as someone who originally started out undergrad as an Islamic archaeology student, the clumping of 700ish years of Islamic civilizations from North Africa to Iraq under Saladin-led "Arabia" irks me to no end. There are only a few instances where civ has made me truly go "oh my" (um Civ 4's Native America Empire anyone?!) and Civ 6 is definitely lacking in that regards. I guess the take away is that Civ, even if it's an everyday game, is partaking in a larger social conversation and I don't think labelling it simply as "PC" or "offensive" accurately describes that process. And it's also the reason why we have Ba Trieu, certain historians (and a good number of Vietnamese historians at that) have sought to craft Vietnam as more matriarchal or accepting of women than neighbouring nations like China, even if this idea is a 20th century invention directly linked with Vietnam's modern nation-state building and post-colonial identity (I'm definitely more in the camp that Vietnam was more alike to its neighbours than the exception to them in regards to historical treatment of women based on my own studies of Vietnamese women's historiography). It's why we likely won't ever see Winston Churchill leading England again - his legacy is now being more criticised extensively regarding his role in an Indian famine that killed millions on top of other stuff, he's no longer the clean-cut leader of the UK through WWII.
where do we begin there lolĬiv is pop culture based, and that pop culture is obviously in conversation and being shaped with social forces. Literally no woman leader gets in without pages worth of "only bc she's female you're ignoring HIStory!!!" and likewise I remember years ago a post describing the Mongols as murderers and destroyers and that's why they should be omitted from Civ but in the same post wanted Hitler to lead a Nazi Germany civ? Like um. I just feel like Civ by nature is going to be both too PC and too offensive or whatever you call it.
0 kommentar(er)
