So, Is Civilization 7 Actually “Woke”?

by

Ever since it was unveiled, there’s been a continuous discussion revolving around whether Civilization 7 incorporates contemporary progressive values, often referred to as being “woke.

As a dedicated fan, I’ve noticed the heated debate surrounding Firaxis’ alleged promotion of a progressive agenda. On one hand, some people believe this to be true, while others argue that the controversy has been blown out of proportion. Unfortunately, this polarizing discussion frequently overshadows the actual gameplay improvements and the quality of the game itself.

A significant point of contention in the discussion revolves around featuring Harriet Tubman as a playable character. In the past, Civilization (Civ) games have incorporated historical military and political leaders, yet Tubman is undeniably distinct compared to typical selections due to her unique role.

Harriet Tubman, hailing from the United States, was a tenacious abolitionist and valiant freedom fighter. Born into the shackles of slavery in Maryland, she managed to break free in 1849. Once free herself, she dedicated her life to aiding others in their escape, often placing herself in peril as a guide on the Underground Railroad. Furthermore, she was a vocal proponent for women’s rights and social justice not just during, but long after the Civil War concluded.

In her era, Tubman was viewed as a runaway and a criminal according to U.S. law due to her persistent defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act, a law that forbade helping enslaved people flee. She undertook numerous rescue missions, well aware of the potential for arrest and harsh penalties, which made her a target of interest by the authorities.

Today, many people are unaware that Harriet Tubman served not only as a conductor on the Underground Railroad but also worked for the Union Army as an intelligence gatherer, guide, and even strategist in planning operations like the Combahee River Raid of 1863. This daring operation resulted in the liberation of over 700 enslaved people and disrupted Confederate supply lines, actions that are now widely seen as courageous and ethically sound from a contemporary perspective.

Some commentators argue that while Harriet Tubman was indeed significant, she didn’t fit the conventional definition of a national leader. Instead, her inclusion seems more about promoting diversity rather than a historically sound choice. However, it’s also worth noting that Firaxis is often praised for their innovative approach to leadership, acknowledging individuals who shaped history in unique ways.

In the spirit of Civilization VI’s innovative approach, it introduced a broader array of “leadership figures” compared to its predecessors. The intriguing point here is whether incorporating Tubman is about acknowledging her rightful historical recognition or simply capitalizing on today’s cultural trends. As a fan, I find this an engaging discussion!

In other words, while Firaxis Games hasn’t stated it outright as a political matter, the conversation suggests that opinions about “wokeness” in gaming can vary greatly. Interestingly, the choice of leaders in the Civilization series has historically been quite flexible, featuring figures who may not have been conventional heads of state but still played significant roles in shaping their civilizations.

Leaders such as Joan of Arc (from Civilization III and VII), Hannibal (from Civilization II, III, and IV), Theodora (from Civilization III, V, and VI), and Ben Franklin (from Civilization VII) have been featured in previous versions of the game. Therefore, the inclusion of Harriet Tubman is not introducing a completely new concept.

In simpler terms, the latest Ages system faces criticism because instead of leading one civilization from its inception to maturity, players are required to switch civilizations at different stages. For instance, a player could initially play as Rome, subsequently transition to the Mongols, and finally end up playing Prussia in the final phase.

As a dedicated fan, I can’t help but feel that some aspects of this game’s latest update seem to diminish the unique national identities that have always been a cornerstone of the Civilization experience. Instead, it appears to be pushing a more globalist perspective, which, for purists like myself who appreciate diving deeply into a single civilization, can feel like a detachment from what made this game truly special. In essence, the new direction feels like it’s diluting the very essence of what has set Civilization apart over the years.

Interestingly, Civilization 7 draws criticism from various perspectives. Some argue that the game continues to emphasize Western history excessively, focusing on European and American figures while overlooking lesser-known civilizations. On the other hand, others find the emphasis on diverse leadership to be excessive, resulting in representations that appear somewhat contrived.

As a gamer, I’ve noticed that the ongoing discussion about Civilization 7 isn’t just about what’s new. Even back in Civilization 5, Firaxis was moving away from a overly U.S.-focused gameplay by introducing leaders hailing from Africa, South America, and Asia. However, despite Civ 7’s apparent commitment to inclusivity, not everyone seems content with the final product.

As a gamer, I’ve always appreciated how the Civilization series stays relevant to our times. Going way back to the original Civ 1, it tackled topics like climate change, something that might be considered overly politically correct or “woke” in today’s gaming world.

Firaxis Games has traditionally woven socially and politically relevant themes into their games. However, currently, discussions revolve around whether the games are subtly incorporating contemporary ideologies within their gameplay mechanics and leader options, rather than focusing on their educational value.

Straightforwardly, Civilization 7 doesn’t appear to push a specific ideology. Rather, it builds on the tradition of presenting diverse historical perspectives and improving gameplay elements, which can be subjectively interpreted.

Amidst the uproar over being “woke,” the true condition of Civilization 7 often gets overlooked. The game has faced criticism not just for its leader selections, but also due to technical glitches, an unrefined user interface, and somewhat jagged gameplay mechanics.

As a die-hard fan, I share the sentiment with many others that what’s missing isn’t just representation, but the sense of completeness and immersion that we felt in the earlier versions of this game.

Read More

2025-02-18 08:42