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?