An important work to read is Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler.
For a game to function, it needs to have clear winning and losing conditions. So in that sense, there is a universal set of metrics to determine who wins. However, I don't necessarily see that as promoting universalism. I see that as a necessity for the game to function. You can go for many different types of victories: domination, cultural, science, diplomacy... and even more in other 4x games: expansion, wonder, etc. Different cultures pursue different "win conditions"... but of course there aren't clearly defined win conditions in real life and there is no hivemind overlord in charge of the goals of any culture.
Civ is more open and less Eurocentric than Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings. In Europa Universalis, if you don't Westernize by the 1700s, you will lag behind in tech and lose wars... but that's also the reality of how history actually played out. You can still play as the Mayans and Aztecs and invade Europe, but it's more realistic and less feasible than in Civ.
Do you listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History or Daniele Bolelli's History on Fire?
That Civ is not as eurocentric / western bias, etc. as Europa Universalis or Crusader Kinds does not mean that it is not also centric in that way. I consider that point shown at this point.
I haven't listened to Hardcore History yet, it's on my "must watch" list. The other I haven't heard of.
One small point which I don't want to make too much of: a game functions on rules, but it need not have clear winning or losing conditions in order to be a game. A good example of this is the original SimCity, which was just a sandbox. "Winning" is the continued survival of your city, which has parallels to real life, in that there is no defined way to win, you are winning as long as you continue drawing breath. Civ of course is very different.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit