it is laughable if the devs think chinese and tibetian should in the same civilization. Look at celts and britons, franks and burgundians, italians and sicilians. Why cant Tibetians be a separate civs?
Loss of sales in china due to getting banned there is a real risk that no one should consider doing.
Here we have a Chinese player giving an example on how to bypass unwanted political issues and add tibet, which is a good step in the right direction.
Conceding to unneccessary political censorship is not a right direction at all.
Thats a subjective matter what might not be right for people in europe might be ok for asians.
I love the game, i like having more civs and tibethans are on the top of many players lists but adding a desirable civ should not be more important than historical objectivity. If we take the medieval history of Tibeth from CCP textbooks this is only legitimising and “selling” this false ideology only to get another desireble civ in the game.
[Poll Which civs would you like to see in the game? (All popularly requested civs included)]([Poll](Updated) Which civs would you like to see in the game? (All popularly requested civs included))
Here, you can see that the nation that the players voted to add the most is Tibetans. The purpose of passing political review is to ensure AOE sales and developers’ income.
There is a Chinese proverb called “The winner is the king, and the loser is the bandit.” History is written by victors. However, the authors of Chinese history books believe that history cannot be tampered with, but he can take it out of context and beautify it with rhetoric and words.
This is not a false ideology, it is a political method. In the same way, our goal is not to tamper with history, but to avoid sensitive parts and find ways to make this game more complete. And guarantee the sales of AOE and the income of developers.
Do you know what you are writing here?
You actually made clear that and why tibetians can never be added in aoe2.
The political implications are just too threatening.
History is written by the winners argument is well known. Its usually used to to explain certain falcifications. Yet in modern day history is a science aiming at objective knowledge based on certain facts. It is not something to be negotiated about.
And yes interpreting and changing historical events to serve certain agenda so history is used as political tool does in fact mean there is a false ideology.
The number of possible sales argument means nothing when we talk about historical objectivity and not giving up to CCP ideology. It only makes things look worse.
It is really ridiculous to rationalize the political censorship. Why do other players need to follow the censorship? Even steam and Nintendo developed a Chinese specialized version respectively for Chinese players. But they just still crave for games in non-specialized version. We can still see considerable number of Chinese players.
I mean even the game is banned in China, the potential players will still find a way to buy the game. Do not rationalize the censorship.
Good thing devs are not thinking like you and risking the game.
You mean AOE2 is banned in China?
Mr.Yo is Chinese player, top seed
I meant to say ‘even if’
if the game implies that Tibet is not part of China, then the game may be banned from being sold in mainland China.
You do realise the problem is the censorship but not the Tibetans as a different civ? It is way more reasonable to ask the Chinese government to lift the censorship rather than apply censorship to aoe.
If this is the case, I don’t find it good at all but very worrying. The progress of developing is hindered by the censorship.
I’m very sorry that the Chinese government’s political censorship system has troubled players around the world, but it is impossible for the Chinese government to cancel the political censorship system on Tibet. I personally think that this is not just a political issue, but a nation’s emotional issue. You need to know that the national consciousness and national consciousness of East Asians is different from Europeans.
For example, the Koreans, whether they are the people of North Korea or South Korea, or even the Korean people in Northeast China, they all hope that Korea is a whole, is one country, and not two independent countries. This is the national sentiment of East Asians, but politics hinders them. The Vietnamese people have done it. They are now a multi-ethnic whole and a united country.
Can we merge all the Germanic nations into one country? No, they will seek independence. East Asia and Europe have different histories, and their people have different thoughts and cognitions about countries, territories, and nations.
All we can do is discuss how to bypass the Chinese government’s political censorship. Sorry again because my government
No one knows the Chinese government censorship system better than Chinese players, so as a Chinese player, I am trying to help AOE officials to add Tibetans, and trying to help players have the opportunity to choose Tibetans. If AOE officials have the idea of adding Tibet.
In the end, the actual situation. This post is discussing politics and territories, and complaining about the Chinese government, which makes me feel sorry and sad.
Ok let me ask you that question. Why should the aoe devs ask chinese gov permission for adding a specific civ?
Because they didn’t asked any other government. They didn’t needed to ask germany for adding teutons. They didn’t needed to ask russia for adding tatars.
Do you see what’s the problem?
Just do what valve and Nintendo did. Make a Chinese specialised version, separating the Chinese players and other players. Other players are unaffected and problem solved.
Or we just decide that we accept that “one china” policy.
There is one china out there, there is one china in the game. Problem solved. No political implications.
And btw, just to mention this. By doing this the devs actually do the people in china a favor. Maybe they don’t see it like that, but it actually makes playing the game easier for them. It’s basically in all peoples interest to not separate the chinese civ under the given circumstances.