Something Not Eurocentric?
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:24 am
Strategy games tend to be super Eurocentric, and I am finding it boring. I mean, sure there are difference between English and French Knights but unless you're playing the 100 Years War it's pretty damn irrelevant set of military differences. Then you look at something like Civilization where 'India' is treated as a country, instead of a huge subcontinent with people who are barely even related to each other. How many games featuring Persians have them as anything other than 'bad guys'?
Now I am personally averse to the 'Greco-Roman' narrative of the West in general, but it's really just boring to play the same civilizations of nearly identical arms and equipment over and over. And the actual differences between, say, Lombardy and Germany are almost never represented because the level of political detail is ignored in favor of 'kill things and rob them' D&D playstyle in most game.
Tabletop games tend to do better in this regard, whether it's DBA or Field of Glory there are detailed and historical approaches to Persian armies and differentiation between various states in 'China' (sort of an anachronistic word in the ancient world).
I'm not saying this because of some political correctness issue, I can perfectly well understand why Europa Universalis is Eurocentric, because real history at that point was Eurocentric, too. But I am so tired of playing video games that will distinguish between the Dutch and Flemish (WTF?) and then divide all of Asia into 6 countries - assuming they even let you play Asia!
I am very interested in the Iranic peoples, from the Sarmatians to the Il-Khan, and most strategy games - no matter how global - have extremely generic and detail-less 'Persia' whose sole historical source seems to be Greek propaganda.
I guess, in some sense, this is just one of those 'Western armchair general' cultural things, where Rome, Napoleon, WW2 and England constitute 90% of their subject matter; which is also a pet peeve of mine - of that list Rome is the only one I'd actually be interested in playing around with whereas WW2 just gives me flashbacks of stock footage pretending to be a program on the History/Hitler Channel.
In any case, two areas I would REALLY like to see covered in a detailed strategy/grand strategy/tactical computer game are: The Ancient Near East. And I mean ancient. Not Roman, not Alexandrian; but 3200-500BC. The city-state god king politics and loose control/dependency on foreign support in these extremely NON-NATION STATE empires would be a wonderful change from the autocracy most video games portray the ancient world as (ancient political power was able to summon less men than a modern state's post office); trying to figure out what is going on in Nissapur presents plenty of 'written order/chain of command' style opporunities quite outside of the battlefield.
Likewise, and related, any game that puts detail into the Aryan plateau and that area of Central Asia would be quite welcome. I really enjoy Iranic peoples, both their arms and their art, and would love to play around with Satrapies; or even the Il-Khanate or Shah of Kwarizma. Just anything that would acknowledge that Persia is anything than a freakin' desert. Ancient games in general fail to portray how much more fertile Anatolia and the Near East used to be, which really screws up the historical reality in a game where Sugadu/Sogdiana should be richer than all of Europe put together.
There is the _Romance of the Three Kingdoms_ series, but that game is very mythical in its orientation - it's basically turn-based Dynasty Warriors with an RPG interface. Many Chinese/Japanese themed games, other than Shogun: Total War are focused on a bunch of mythical/mystical stuff (which was probably invented by Westerners, see Egodeath.com) whereas I would just like to play a nitty-gritty zero propaganda game set in Asia.
Also, I'm not saying I am not interested in Europe - post-antiquity Europe and its armored conrois are a favorite subject of mine; I am particularly fond of the Lotharingian and Occitan chevaliers, but I think that maybe the entire rest of the planet might be worth researching and playing.
Now I am personally averse to the 'Greco-Roman' narrative of the West in general, but it's really just boring to play the same civilizations of nearly identical arms and equipment over and over. And the actual differences between, say, Lombardy and Germany are almost never represented because the level of political detail is ignored in favor of 'kill things and rob them' D&D playstyle in most game.
Tabletop games tend to do better in this regard, whether it's DBA or Field of Glory there are detailed and historical approaches to Persian armies and differentiation between various states in 'China' (sort of an anachronistic word in the ancient world).
I'm not saying this because of some political correctness issue, I can perfectly well understand why Europa Universalis is Eurocentric, because real history at that point was Eurocentric, too. But I am so tired of playing video games that will distinguish between the Dutch and Flemish (WTF?) and then divide all of Asia into 6 countries - assuming they even let you play Asia!
I am very interested in the Iranic peoples, from the Sarmatians to the Il-Khan, and most strategy games - no matter how global - have extremely generic and detail-less 'Persia' whose sole historical source seems to be Greek propaganda.
I guess, in some sense, this is just one of those 'Western armchair general' cultural things, where Rome, Napoleon, WW2 and England constitute 90% of their subject matter; which is also a pet peeve of mine - of that list Rome is the only one I'd actually be interested in playing around with whereas WW2 just gives me flashbacks of stock footage pretending to be a program on the History/Hitler Channel.
In any case, two areas I would REALLY like to see covered in a detailed strategy/grand strategy/tactical computer game are: The Ancient Near East. And I mean ancient. Not Roman, not Alexandrian; but 3200-500BC. The city-state god king politics and loose control/dependency on foreign support in these extremely NON-NATION STATE empires would be a wonderful change from the autocracy most video games portray the ancient world as (ancient political power was able to summon less men than a modern state's post office); trying to figure out what is going on in Nissapur presents plenty of 'written order/chain of command' style opporunities quite outside of the battlefield.
Likewise, and related, any game that puts detail into the Aryan plateau and that area of Central Asia would be quite welcome. I really enjoy Iranic peoples, both their arms and their art, and would love to play around with Satrapies; or even the Il-Khanate or Shah of Kwarizma. Just anything that would acknowledge that Persia is anything than a freakin' desert. Ancient games in general fail to portray how much more fertile Anatolia and the Near East used to be, which really screws up the historical reality in a game where Sugadu/Sogdiana should be richer than all of Europe put together.
There is the _Romance of the Three Kingdoms_ series, but that game is very mythical in its orientation - it's basically turn-based Dynasty Warriors with an RPG interface. Many Chinese/Japanese themed games, other than Shogun: Total War are focused on a bunch of mythical/mystical stuff (which was probably invented by Westerners, see Egodeath.com) whereas I would just like to play a nitty-gritty zero propaganda game set in Asia.
Also, I'm not saying I am not interested in Europe - post-antiquity Europe and its armored conrois are a favorite subject of mine; I am particularly fond of the Lotharingian and Occitan chevaliers, but I think that maybe the entire rest of the planet might be worth researching and playing.