Cree Nation unhappy with Civilization 6 portrayal

>Milton Tootoosis, the Cree Nation headman, says the game “perpetuates this myth that First Nations had similar values that the colonial culture has, and that is one of conquering other peoples and accessing their land. That is totally not in concert with our traditional ways and world view.”

>Poundmaker lived in the late 19th century, and sought to negotiate peaceful terms between the Canadian authorities and the Cree people, who were suffering from starvation due to over-hunting of their main food source, bison. Although eschewing violence, he was sentenced to jail for treason following an attempt to engage authorities in dialogue.

>Tootoosis said he was disappointed that 2K Games had not approached any Cree representatives while developing their take on Poundmaker. “This is not new,” he added. “Hollywood has done a job for many decades of portraying indigenous people in a certain way that has been very harmful.”

CIVFAGS BTFO

Who?

chugs: not even once

but can they build casinos?

inb4 underage racist comments

Love it when liberals get reality checks.

>Tootoosis said he was disappointed that 2K Games had not approached any Cree representatives while developing their take on Poundmaker

This is the only solid point Milton has, it was wrong of 2K Games to not discuss the Cree's portrayal in Civilization VI. The other comments, however, are asinine considering the game is built around colonization and conquest. What mechanic could the Cree have that reflects their real beliefs? The Cree can just colonize and maintain developments within the borders of other nations?

I mean, you can complain about not being approached or having a dialogue opened with you, that’s fair. But the rest of the complaints are bullshit, Poundmaker in game has nothing to benefit him towards conquering people or accessing their land, at worst he just claims untaken land which belongs to no one and is unoccupied. And the rest of his kit is *entirely* about cooperation, diplomacy and peace and trade.

If I were a dev, seeing this would just make me think “Ok well next time I won’t include the Cree” if they’re just going to complain. So great success Milton, I guess, your people go further unnoticed.

Honestly, whining about the fact that your basically dead culture is getting any kinda representation because they're not being portrayed to the utmost of accuracy in a game series where Gandhi is an immortal god-king nukes people is kinda hilarious.

No they would conquer and colonize just like everybody else but when a more powerful civ shows up then they become all peace loving and shiet. How do you think Cree became so widely spoken? He's just perpetuating a myth that only whypipo did wars.

They could've just made them a unique Civ like Venice was in the previous game?

They actually did go to actual cree people and had them work on parts of the game, though: They used a native speaker to voice act the leader and used native musicians

So what, is the guy lying, or is he part of some different Cree tribe/nation and is upset that 2K didn’t go to *all* of them?

this shitstorm has me curious now. which civ game is the best place to start?

They actually did consult Cree people, who do they think did the voice over and the music?

This is just some literal who chief butthurt they aren't getting royalties. I can guarantee you this is not about "social justice", it's about money. It always is.

4

>look guys le based shitskin is also against SJW fucking BASED
What an exciting concept for a thread

>civ V
>holy shit best civ game ever, its so good you know?

>civ Beyond Earth
>holy shit this isn't a civ V expansion pack? Pass

>civ VI
>ugly world leaders in cartoon artsyle for everyone, current events, sjw themes

What happened to the team that made civ V? Why did they start sucking?

alpha centauri
Then you can end it there because there hasn't been one up to SMAC par since.

>ugly world leaders in cartoon artsyle for everyone
>he never played Civ IV
Your underage is showing.

Civ is basically a board game with historical flavor. Complaining about accuracy is asinine, and it's basically setting an impossible standard for anyone to represent your culture in their work, which surprise surprise, will just lead to it vanishing even more so from popular culture.

>its so good you know?
*After two expansions
Also, 5 looks so bland and stiff.

I like that nu-firaxis spent every bit of time scraping an archive of D-list leaders to achieve an even gender balance but didn't bother to research

>SJW themes

Where?

>holy shit best civ game ever, its so good you know?
Civ V was hated on Sup Forums when it came out

He's probably angry about the men:women ratio

>The Cree didn't conquer and colonise
That's a lie and you know it. Indians started being all about muh peace and nature when white people got here
Before that they were conquering, killing, and colonising, hence why Cree is a major Indian tribe.

>it was wrong of 2K Games to not discuss the Cree's portrayal in Civilization VI
Why would they ever need to, the Cree are a people not a brand to exploit. 2K already consulted a new Indian nation for Civ V but it turns out they want royalties from the company.
2K does not need to ask other nations for their consent to be put in the game, why are the Cree so above high and mighty World powers

I was told they're using Literal Whos because they want to show lesser known historical figures. Which makes sense until you realize they still have Cleopatra as Egypt and Augustus as Rome.

>holy shit best civ game ever, its so good you know?
About as historically accurate as an actual Civ game.

Civ 5 was a garbage game until it got fixed up by the expansions.

Teddy was a good pick at least

>it was wrong of 2K Games to not discuss the Cree's portrayal in Civilization VI
Did Firaxis/2K approach any other civilization and ask for their input?

Yeah, bully to them for that pick.

ITT: user who doesn't know what he's talking about pretends he does

None of the other civilizations are as much a brand as the Cree.

Just like them picking a horrible person who almost destroyed the nation as the south korean leader just because they could do a fat chick.

I like how white people in this thread continue oppressing and are literally downplaying and ignoring everything the Creed said.

I'm not sure.

I'm a mesoameriboo and I think their representation of the Aztecs in 5 was insanely good on multiple levels.

The sacrificial captives UA represents their use of war prisoners as sacrifice victims, obviously, but it's also conductive to "farming" babarians or other civs's units in wars for culture rather then just stamping them out entirely, which is a real thing the Aztecs did. The floating gardens unique building is meant to represent Chinampas, which was basically artificial islands the Aztecs used for farmland and residential land, and in addition to just representing that, the food bonus also mirrors how fast Tenochtitlan exploded iin population as a city: it was founded in the 1320s but only 200 years later it had a population of 250,000, making it tied for the 5th largest city in the world.

My only beef with it is that they have a jungle start bias, even though the core of aztec territory was hundreds of KM away from jungles, with their most important cities being around a lake basin, so they should have had a fresh water bias instead; and that their unique unit, Jaguar Warrior, is sort of odd as a warrior replacement, since while they used stone weapons, like what the warrior as a unit is meant to be, in terms of actual complexity of their military they were far more in line with bronze or iron age unit types, and the Irqoquous have their unique unit as a iron age swordsman replacement that just doesn't require iron which they could have done for the Jaguar, and obviously the Iroquois aren't closed to as complex or urbanized as the Aztecs were. Jaguar warriors weren't the most elite warrior order either, they probably should have used the Shorn Ones instead.

By contrast, their unique abilities and bonuses in civ 6 are mostly random bullshit

Reservations are literally the projects but rural.

I couldn't care less what a fucking wagonburner thinks about anything, no group of humans has ever failed harder in history.

Korea is irrelevant anyways

>Augustus as Rome.
Trajan is a good choice though

He's right tho, the Cree did not originally inhabit the plains but they aggressively expanded into that region to exploit the bison and fur resources of that region.

The injun is just butthurt because his backwards tribe is being put on the same level like a colonial power with expanding and building.

Vespasian would've been a fantastic "lesser known" Roman Emperor with tons of flavor, he'd be some jolly toga-wearing man sprinkling his conversations with poetry or biting wit.

Fuck, he's even got a canon death quote,
>Oh dear, I think I am becoming a God

true, but I would have wanted Majorian

>Want to make Carthaginian civilization
>Have to somehow resurrect the Carthaginian Thalassocracy and talk about how to accurately portray them before you can even start working on it.
No wonder Native Americans got conquered by Europeans. If they're all this stupid, they wouldn't have stood a chance against 12 drunk white dudes with muskets.

No, most people are just disagreeing with this one person. Also, if you think a video game is 'oppressing' the Cree, you're off your fucking rocker

It's very unlikely that an average person could correctly identify Cree culture when presented alongside Apache, Navajo, Mohave, etc. While it's very likely that said person could identify Japanese, Roman, and Russian cultural highlights.

Do that Cree have a financial interest in their cultural image which exceeds that of the major nations of the world?

>If I were a dev, seeing this would just make me think “Ok well next time I won’t include the Cree
That would've been better. If a group doesn't follow the basic precepts of a 4x civilization, no reason to force it for the sake of gameplay. Just include a more aggressive and expansionist Injun tribe.

Ghandi probably wasn't that into nukes IRL either but hey, video games.

yeah i wonder why their culture is dying

>We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks.

>Proceeds to add one of the worst possible leaders for Korea just because she was a woman
>Proceeds to add a literally who who didn't even have legislative control of her country and lived through the World Wars having to runaway to Britain

Hmmm....

Genghis Khan and Chandragupta were great additions, though. I just wished we got the Mongols both sooner and with another great Mongol leader, like maybe Timur the Lame as the "Mughal" rep, or Kublai Khan.

I bet Ghandi would've been chucking those things all over the place if he had the chance.

This! Where is my representationbucks?

This explains the "powerful woman" focus of their Rise & Fall video. Shit.

Because their culture is shit and deserves to be eradicated. The only Native American culture even worth preserving was the Incan civilization.

It's full retard how they sucked themselves off over having alternative leaders then used Genghis instead of Kublai who had probably the most fascinating story of all the Khans.

>implying having fought for resources is the same as conquering and colonizing regions
Yes, they fought and had wars, literally every society has, but that in no way is equal to being an empire or trying to build one, and then becoming hippies when eurofags showed up.
Native Americans migrated often and 'land ownership' was hardly even a concept for them, conflict with other tribes over resources was common partly because of this, simply because there were little definite borders, and little trade between tribes relatively, so it's not like you could reach an economic agreement to stop your people from starving

Listen to me: fuck natives.

Ghandi was really into effective action, which is why he advocated peaceful protest to use Britain's large press industry against it, while avoiding its overwhelming military power. He was also big into citizen rights to own guns. If he had nuclear weapons, he might have been the kind of person to use them first.

They simply picked a bad tribe to portray on Civ, several tribes were pretty aggressive in their ways.

Look at these hippies man

It's not full retard, it's lazy. Every game that goes the "strong and diverse" route is just poorly researched.

I wish the "9 new leaders" part actually meant we were getting 9 alt leaders. As much as India deserved Chandragupta should've been Ashoka first, but I digress, I feel like America, England, France, Rome, China, Japan, Germany, Arabia, and especially Poland deserved to have some representation of other parts of their civ. Greece being represented by 2 of their most influential city states was a great idea, but they're going nowhere fast with it. We're at the 1st of presumably 2 expansions and only have 2 alt leaders out of a total of like 33.

...

Too bad that the Incan where already in decline and that Pizarro made the conquista instead of a more civilizated man like Cortés.

Is there actually a difference between tribes?

>Civ 5
>best game
I only play it because its what my casual friends know.

It is interesting that this apparent rejection of the concept of land ownership doesn't seem to extend to their reservations. Complaining about how much of a heresy portraying the Cree owning land is when they currently own land is why this is fucking stupid

>just poorly researched
If they're pulling out nobodies, it's very well-researched. A poor inspection of history would simply provide the best known icons.

Every empire has its weak periods. If England got visited by, say, a Polish invasion in the late 1400's, they would've been a Polish vassal. Good thing they recovered from their slump instead of getting niggered.

The Incans were pretty much the only American civilization with any sort of staying power. They were the Romans of the New World. If Rome had made first contact with a new civilization with the technology the Spanish had, they would've crumbled too.

>Those three questions

Yeah, which is why they've used Augustus and Cleopatra to represent Rome and Egypt when they've got dozens of other people for each?

Or maybe don't add fucking literal nobodies as rulers in your fucking game?
Also this guy is retarded if he thinks that his people wouldn't rape and pillage if they could get away with it.

What a fucking dumpster fire this game turned out to be, every fucking week it's something new.

I agree that the alt leader idea is a cool idea, I did not realize it until I noticed there was Sparta Greece and Athens Greece.

Though I am sad just cause I like new unique civ abilities and the music which is fantastic

If there is, the inability of a common man to tell the difference between them shows how weak the Cree brand is. If there isn't, there's no brand for the Cree to be upset about.

Yes, there are many significant differences in lifestyle, architecture, diet, language, and belief.

Literally what?
They have to own land now, as per eurofags definition. They got raped and forced onto reservations, literally forced into land. They ofc had to adapt to the society that conquered them. I guess you're just actually fucking retarded, user, I'm sorry

>If they're pulling out nobodies, it's very well-researched.

Not in this day and age of Wikipedia, user. All you've got to do is know how to search and where.

They actually are using Trajan to represent Rome. One of the few great leader choices they made in Civ VI, along with Teddy Roosevelt, Alexander the Great, Pericles, Peter the Great, Montezuma, Pedro II, Philip II Qin Shi Huang, and Jayavaraman. I can't speak much for Australia, but the rest of the leader choices were really poor. Especially Jadwiga, Cleopatra VII, Catherine de Medici, Victoria, and Saladin. As much as I respect Saladin, he was Armenian, and should not be leading the Arabs. It'd be like having a Kim Il Sung lead the Unified Korea civ.

Which is more research than saying "Rome equals Caesar", "Russian equals Stalin", "USA equals Washington", etc.

If they were smart, they would give individual leaders their own music, too. Well, it wouldn't exactly be smart to waste all that money, since the music in VI is bar none the best in the series and must've cost an assload.

I'm just really fucking salty that In the Hall of the Mountain King wasn't chosen to be Norway's theme. I would love to have a late-game Norway rep with Edward Grieg's greatest work blaring in the background.

Of course, you are right. I am just saying that the conquista was harsher for them than it was for Mexico, since Cortés was always trying to go the easy route and offer alliances and peace with every tribe he met. Most people who went south acknowledged that Pizarro was a cruel barbarian.

Montezuma is overrated. He's not a bad choice, but the Aztecs have other good, arguably better ones, such as Ahuitzotl. Nezahualcoyotl would also be great if you want to include non Tenochtitlan rulers.

I wasn't a huge fan of V at first, but it's grown on me. The aesthetic is nice, and after the expansions it's the most well rounded version. Good leaders too.

You can still choose "lesser known" great leaders. Peter the Great is undeniably the single greatest choice for a Russian leader, even if Stalin, Lenin, and arguably Catherine are more well known. Teddy Roosevelt was a moderately well known President that was one of our greatest. Even for England, you've got a couple of really interesting choices

>Churchill
>Cromwell
>Henry III
>Aethelred the Unready
>Henry VIII
>Alfred the Great
>Richard I
And that's besides the obvious Elizabeth.

The development of the music as the time goes on is the fucking best part of the game

I mean just getting alt leaders is a smart idea on their part to cut down on costs, not saying it is a bad idea, I just like the music

None of whom we know all that much about. Civ VI, and Civ in general, is mostly about personality.

Montezuma was alright as a leader, but his real saving grace is that he was well documented.

Nothing really wrong with Victoria Imo, but de Medici is really stupid. Who the fuck would want to play her over Napoleon or Louis XIV?

>especially Poland

Poland was lucky to get in so early at all, to say that they especially deserve a second leader is going overboard.

Saladin was Kurdish, not Armenian.

I'm honestly shocked Alfred the Great hasn't been included yet, he was a genuinely excellent king dripping with personality.

Actually, I think that after the music, the leader modeling and animation is probably the most expensive part of creating a new civ. The models in Civ VI are fucking gorgeous, and they animate insanely well. Just go talk to Pericles and see his beard interact realistically with the rest of his body as it passes over. Absolutely amazing, and it can't be that cheap to produce when compared to the usual shitshow brainstorming sessions they use to make the abilities for civilizations

If they had one team dedicated fulltime to creating new leaders, it could actually work out really well. Just create a "leader expansion pack" that has like 15 new leaders in it, with no extra features, for $20 or so, and I'd buy it. I want my representation of different parts of cultures like Greece or India get. Imagine America getting Andrew Jackson or James K. Polk, or England getting Henry VIII, or Russia getting Ivan IV, or Japan getting Hideki Tojo, or... etc etc.

they should have not put them in the game, dumbass

But thats exactly what the Cree and other Native tribes did to each other.

Ed Beach, the guy is a die-hard fan of the Wars of Religion, and Catherine is his historical waifu.

Can't blame a man for shoehorning his waifu into his game if you ask me. (That being said, she's a really shitty choice for France)

how do you approach a civilization
do you stop a random german in the street and ask if it's okay to put germany in civ 6

t. Andeaneaboo

Both Mesoamrica and the Andes had worthwhile shit. Even north america proper had some too, such as the Mississippians. The Incans were far less urbanized then the Aztecs, in particular.

>If Rome had made first contact with a new civilization with the technology the Spanish had, they would've crumbled too.

For somebody felliating the Incans so much, you don't seem to know that dieases were a far bigger factor then the technological gap.

You really don't need to know too much about them for inclusion, you just need

>what they looked like
>rough idea of what their personality was
>what they accomplished/were good at.

For both Ahuizotl and Nezahualcoyotl, that still is still known. Tlacaelel would be another geat choice, especially for Civ 6, to have his leader bonus be more abpout human sacrifice since he rewrote aztec religion to focus more on it.

>Montezuma was alright as a leader, but his real saving grace is that he was well documented.
Civ 5 and 6 both use (and appropirately so, he was the better ruler by a good degree AFAIK) Montezuma I, not Montezuma II; there's not that much more we know about him then the ones I mentioned.

Did Mr. Tootsiepootsie not know that this the game where you can instigate nuclear armageddon as Gandhi?

Victoria's a good leader and all, but for "England"? Nah. She's a German leading the United Kingdom, to an Englishman leading England. It'd be like having Odoacer or Charlemagne lead France, or Frederick Barbarossa leading a unified Germany

Who gets to decide what the ranking and cutoff of "greatness" is?