• BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago
    • Civilization 1: Released 1991, civs included Aztecs
    • Civilization 2: Released 1996, civs included Aztecs and Sioux
    • Civilization 3: Released 2001, civs included Aztecs, Inca, Iroqouis, and Mayans
    • Civilization 4: Released 2004, civs included Aztecs, Inca, Mayans, and Native American
    • Civilization 5: Released 2010, civs included Aztecs, Inca, Iroqouis, Mayans, Polynesians, and Shoshone
    • Civilization 6: Released 2016, civs included Aztecs, Cree, Incans, Maori, Mapuche, and Mayans
    • This clown: “The Cultural Bolshevists Marxists are trying to RUIN CIV by adding Native Americans!”

    SMH at these fake gamer boys trying to push their politics into our hobby

      • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        2 days ago

        My favourite “civ is woke now” argument is that district placement emphasizes the local geography’s influence on your civilization, which is marxist and woke. And like… how the fuck were you playing civ before? Even without civ VI forcing you to be more mindful of it geography is obviously always huge in a 4X. It’s literally the first 3 Xs! And it’s the 4th X in any game with remotely interesting combat.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          2 days ago

          Could you help me try to understand how district placement emphasizing the local geography’s influence on a civilization is somehow woke? I can’t make the connection at all. If you’ve seen that take, could you elaborate?

          • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            34
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            They think the idea that geography and/or climate can shape a civilization is woke. Their idea is that civilizations and culture are something that I guess exists a priori as “good” or “bad”, and “developed” or “undeveloped”. The very idea that a bad crop yield or lack of local resources can shape how a society develops apparently contradicts with the reactionary worldview.

            • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              28
              ·
              2 days ago

              What the fuck do they think shapes a civilization? Some magically scarce yet potentially infinite “willpower” resource? Or is it calipers time and “build pyramids” is just in the Egyptian genes (or aliens, if they’re that white in their beliefs about how nonwhites can’t build stuff)?

        • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 days ago

          Silly Marxist, history is about who believes hardest in the idea of race and the nation and brings it into being. Everyone else loses and has their stuff taken from them, and rightly so.

    • DamarcusArt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      And not just that, multiple civ haves have had F*male Leaders! The whole series is completely gone woke!

      • DamarcusArt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, it was…a very strange decision. They have Sitting Bull as their leader, Dog soldiers as their unique unit and Totem poles as their unique building. It’s uhh…not great.