clyde

Empire Perspectives of Sid Meier's Civilization and other Historical-World Strategy Games

Recommended Posts

Is there much historical about it other than using the names of famous leaders and assigning them some basic behavioral traits? there is no regard for earth's chronology, or geography, on any of the map's i've played?

 

Augustus Caesar facing off against Haile I Selassie? There is like 2,000 years between them! 

 

I understand the criticism about decontextualizing things like that, and it is worth considering.  I also think there is some fun and value in looking at the strength these leaders gave their people, even if it's a bit of a cautionary tale, like the benefits of totalitarianism.

 

I find the Paradox method is a bit more problematic, encouraging you to assassinate wives that fail to provide sons, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to point out that this is the sort of stuff I put up with every day as a scientist (if you call having a chemistry degree being a scientist at least.) When's the last time you saw a game accurately model science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the Paradox method is a bit more problematic, encouraging you to assassinate wives that fail to provide sons, etc...

 

But isn't that actually grounded in historical fact? Sure I feel uncomfortable about the marriage mechanic in Crusader Kings, but a lot of that discomfort comes from the frankness with which it's presented. I appreciate that the game doesn't try to hide the very real truths of what a medieval patriarchal society would have entailed. I find that a lot less worrisome that what Civ is doing, personally. Not that I think there's anything necessarily wrong with Civ -- the game doesn't give off the pretense of being a realistic history simulator -- but I think that some of the criticisms brought up in this thread are worth considering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that actually grounded in historical fact? Sure I feel uncomfortable about the marriage mechanic in Crusader Kings, but a lot of that discomfort comes from the frankness with which it's presented. I appreciate that the game doesn't try to hide the very real truths of what a medieval patriarchal society would have entailed. I find that a lot less worrisome that what Civ is doing, personally. Not that I think there's anything necessarily wrong with Civ -- the game doesn't give off the pretense of being a realistic history simulator -- but I think that some of the criticisms brought up in this thread are worth considering.

 

Oh absolutely, and I don't condemn anybody for their entertainment, but if I'm considering the implications of these things translated to a video game, then the Paradox version rewards you for perpetuating these problems. Other than the user taking it upon themselves to consider the moral implications, the real world context stripping seems similar to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a similar discussion back when the gods & kings expansion came out after i tried to articulate some of my issues with the way Civ models history

 

http://www.idlethumbs.net/forums/topic/7887-episode-175-gods-and-kings/?p=197471

 

 


Fundamentally I don't think Civ has always been a representation of our world not a simulation, and one that presents a very specific view of the world. Its focuses on the idea of what it means to be a civilisation not the nitty grity (that's where paradox has carved out more of a niche it seems).

To me through Civ I-IV that view stayed relatively constant, it was a world of superpowers (depicted from the view point of what was the worlds only superpower). There was no limit to what you could achieve these superpower nations, they were by their very nature capable of anything.
Sometimes a civ could just completely break the system in a radical way, they could even break the world itself with global warming.

In Civ V It just feels to me there are far more checks & balances in place to stop that happening. In addition there is a feels like there is a far greater interdependency on other nations thanks to the introduction of city states and the way resources are now far more limited.

To put it simply in when I play Civ5 I no longer feel I am controlling a superpower.

So I personally don’t think the statement Gormongous made went far enough.

To me the recurrent theme of Civs I -IV was the growth of superpower civilisation, and while this still is present in Civ V I feel the picture it paints it is a strangely neutered version of a superpowers.

To me looking back original Civ was the product of a time where Americas ascendancy in world affairs seemed unchallenged. After the Berlin wall fell it wasn't just a Superpower it was the only superpower, or to put it another way, America was the only empire that had stood the test of time.

 

 

The things is, as far as I'm concerned it fine to have a superpower simulation game, after all its just one lens and there are other companies out there like Paradox (who has European take on the theme that focuses on the interrelation of nations) producing game that apply different ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh absolutely, and I don't condemn anybody for their entertainment, but if I'm considering the implications of these things translated to a video game, then the Paradox version rewards you for perpetuating these problems. Other than the user taking it upon themselves to consider the moral implications, the real world context stripping seems similar to me. 

 

I see your point there, that all historical games are problematically reductive, but I think there's a big difference between placing a player in a historical milieu that could potentially demonstrate why certain immoralities existed, and just sanitizing that milieu to preempt the discussion altogether.

 

For example, in Civilization IV at least, slavery is an early and effective option for government that you can take at any time and switch out of again whenever it becomes inconvenient, with no ingame commentary or consequences whatsoever. That's orders of magnitude more problematic that roleplaying the wife-murdering of a petty medieval lord, for which the game often punishes you pretty hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that actually grounded in historical fact? Sure I feel uncomfortable about the marriage mechanic in Crusader Kings, but a lot of that discomfort comes from the frankness with which it's presented. I appreciate that the game doesn't try to hide the very real truths of what a medieval patriarchal society would have entailed. I find that a lot less worrisome that what Civ is doing, personally. Not that I think there's anything necessarily wrong with Civ -- the game doesn't give off the pretense of being a realistic history simulator -- but I think that some of the criticisms brought up in this thread are worth considering.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say here, at least partly because the paradox model is based on European civilisation that has always seemingly developed a lot more like the model based interaction and consolidation of power and impermanence. Both of the systems are based on the perspectives of the civilisations they come from.

The main difference I feel is that paradox's model postulates that empires are inherently unstable, you can never truly win history like you do in Civ.

 

I just wanted to point out that this is the sort of stuff I put up with every day as a scientist (if you call having a chemistry degree being a scientist at least.) When's the last time you saw a game accurately model science?

 

Have you ever took a look at Fate of the World? I'd be interested to know if you think the way they try and base their model of gameplay around different scenarios of how climate may affect civilisation is any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if it's not intended to model history, then why make it a historical game at all? Whenever you pick a historical theme for a game, you invite the criticism that your game does not do justice to that historical theme. That's a valid criticism, in my view. It's great that Sid Meir likes fun, but history is a fraught subject for many people and may not be that great a topic to be made into a game. I understand that point of view. I feel the same way about many war games (not that I cast any judgment on those who do enjoy those games).

 

Ultimately, I think it's OK to be grossed out or bothered when a heavy subject gets turned into an object of fun; it's not like Alex Covic is saying that no one can enjoy Civilization, just that he doesn't enjoy Civilization. 

 

I certainly was not claiming that one can't critique the presentation of the game. That's completely fair, and I am not concerned about whether or not anyone else likes Civilization as a game, or it's presentation of historical-like events.  However when people make a critique is that Civilization does a poor job of modeling history, or that it is making some definitive claim about "this is how civilizations work", then they have opened themselves to the criticism that they misunderstand what the game is.

 

Put another way, I just think it is weird when I see criticisms that seem to ignore that the map is not the territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never tried it, but I am intrigued. Predicting future events based on current facts tends to start sliding away from science (you can't exactly run reproducable tests on such a large thing like climate change.) I like sci-fi, especially if they have some basic scientific grounding to stand on. My (half hearted) complaint is more about the simplification of science we already understand pretty well. What comes to mind for me at the moment (because I've been playing a lot) is Minecraft with the IC2 mod, which does a fair job of putting in a bunch of new machines including some chemistry equipment such as an Electrolyzer, but oversimplifies it all as a fire-and-forget process. At the same time, I realize that no one really wants to play a game where all that science is acurrately modeled (not even me really, I ended up in IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put another way, I just think it is weird when I see criticisms that seem to ignore that the map is not the territory.

 

If the map shows certain things but not others, bigger or smaller than they really are, it's fair to critique the mapmaker, whatever his intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the Paradox method is a bit more problematic, encouraging you to assassinate wives that fail to provide sons, etc...

 

I think what's really problematic about Paradox's approach is that they attempt to describe what the world was like in a given year but don't take the responsibilities that come with that scope seriously. For example, look at their map of Africa from the starting scenario of Victoria II:

 

http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo219/CanOmer/V2_Political_1836.png

According to Paradox, on 1 January 1836, only eight states existed in sub-Saharan Africa: Ethiopia, Liberia, Zanzibar, Madagascar, the Sokoto Caliphate, the Zulu Kingdom, the Orange Free State, and Transvaal. This is utterly and completely wrong. Africa at this time should be teeming with states, especially West Africa and the the area around the Great Lakes. Where's Bornu? Where's Buganda, Bunyoro, Rwanda, the Asante, Benin, Oyo, Dahomey, Mthwakazi, Fouta Djallon, Bamara, Cayor, Waalo, the Mossi Kingdoms, Darfur, or Ouaddai? And why are the two Boer republics in there when neither had been established this early? How could there be so many omissions, all concentrated in one part of the world, from a company that puts so much effort into historical research?

 

From someone else I might call it unfortunate ignorance, but when you look at the comments Paradox staff have made on their own forums about this (e.g. "'states' that was conquered by basically a random guy with a machine gun will be represented as 'not a state'.") it's difficult not to see some actual racism behind these choices. And for a whole lot of gamers, this deeply distorted picture will be their first real glimpse of nineteenth century African history.

I'll take Sid Meier's History-themed Playset over that any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However when people make a critique is that Civilization does a poor job of modeling history, or that it is making some definitive claim about "this is how civilizations work", then they have opened themselves to the criticism that they misunderstand what the game is.

I'm not sure I really follow you. My point is that when you choose to use a historical theme for your game, it's fair to criticize that theme as inaccurate or deceptive.

 

Here's an analogy. Say there's a WW2 real-time strategy game. In that game you can play as the Nazi's, and they have SS troops that are portrayed as super-valorous ultra-elite soldiers. Someone might criticize that portrayal of the SS as being historically inaccurate and really a distortion of what the SS was actually about. I think that would be a fair criticism. I don't think "it's just a game" or "it's not intended to be a simulation" are very compelling answers to that criticism. 

 

As I understand it, you don't think that kind of criticism is fair when it comes to Civilization, because Civilization isn't really about history and so it shouldn't be criticized for poorly portraying history. I don't agree; to me, Civilization obviously sets out to explore the course of human history and some of the forces that have shaped that history (geography, economic growth, warfare, religion, etc.). To the extent that the designer wants to use those historical themes in service of the game, I think it's fair to examine how and why those themes are being used. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an analogy. Say there's a WW2 real-time strategy game. In that game you can play as the Nazi's, and they have SS troops that are portrayed as super-valorous ultra-elite soldiers. Someone might criticize that portrayal of the SS as being historically inaccurate and really a distortion of what the SS was actually about. I think that would be a fair criticism. I don't think "it's just a game" or "it's not intended to be a simulation" are very compelling answers to that criticism. 

 

I was going to use an analogy about the implications of using the Holocaust as a management sim to make the same point. I'm glad someone else Godwin'd instead.

 

I think what's really problematic about Paradox's approach is that they attempt to describe what the world was like in a given year but don't take the responsibilities that come with that scope seriously. For example, look at their map of Africa from the starting scenario of Victoria II:

 

http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo219/CanOmer/V2_Political_1836.png

According to Paradox, on 1 January 1836, only eight states existed in sub-Saharan Africa: Ethiopia, Liberia, Zanzibar, Madagascar, the Sokoto Caliphate, the Zulu Kingdom, the Orange Free State, and Transvaal. This is utterly and completely wrong. Africa at this time should be teeming with states, especially West Africa and the the area around the Great Lakes. Where's Bornu? Where's Buganda, Bunyoro, Rwanda, the Asante, Benin, Oyo, Dahomey, Mthwakazi, Fouta Djallon, Bamara, Cayor, Waalo, the Mossi Kingdoms, Darfur, or Ouaddai? And why are the two Boer republics in there when neither had been established this early? How could there be so many omissions, all concentrated in one part of the world, from a company that puts so much effort into historical research?

 

From someone else I might call it unfortunate ignorance, but when you look at the comments Paradox staff have made on their own forums about this (e.g. "'states' that was conquered by basically a random guy with a machine gun will be represented as 'not a state'.") it's difficult not to see some actual racism behind these choices. And for a whole lot of gamers, this deeply distorted picture will be their first real glimpse of nineteenth century African history.

I'll take Sid Meier's History-themed Playset over that any day of the week.

 

Paradox has a... difficult relationship with non-white and non-European historical entities -- see, for example, the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa, the art treatment of Berbers & Turks as swarthy Arabs, and the absence of Jews, all just in Crusader Kings II. They have the typical problem of not including in their games mechanics and factors that don't interest them as white male Europeans, which becomes all the more problematic the closer their games get to simulation of an entire world.

 

But that's a different argument, albeit valid. It's not like they're making Muslim and pagan societies operate in a one-size-fits-all way that conforms by coincidence to a Christian standard, which would be more the equivalent of what Civilization does. I think the lesson here is that all historical games (or, to concede a point to sclpls, all games using history as inspiration and theme) are kinda gross, each in their own way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I really follow you. My point is that when you choose to use a historical theme for your game, it's fair to criticize that theme as inaccurate or deceptive.

 

Here's an analogy. Say there's a WW2 real-time strategy game. In that game you can play as the Nazi's, and they have SS troops that are portrayed as super-valorous ultra-elite soldiers. Someone might criticize that portrayal of the SS as being historically inaccurate and really a distortion of what the SS was actually about. I think that would be a fair criticism. I don't think "it's just a game" or "it's not intended to be a simulation" are very compelling answers to that criticism. 

 

As I understand it, you don't think that kind of criticism is fair when it comes to Civilization, because Civilization isn't really about history and so it shouldn't be criticized for poorly portraying history. I don't agree; to me, Civilization obviously sets out to explore the course of human history and some of the forces that have shaped that history (geography, economic growth, warfare, religion, etc.). To the extent that the designer wants to use those historical themes in service of the game, I think it's fair to examine how and why those themes are being used. 

 

So what games accurately represent their theme then? That's where I'm confused. We're leveling historical inaccuracy complaints at a game that isn't trying to be accurate. Should we level the same complaints at mario because plummers can't jump that high?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what games accurately represent their theme then? That's where I'm confused. We're leveling historical inaccuracy complaints at a game that isn't trying to be accurate. Should we level the same complaints at mario because plummers can't jump that high?

Games are often bad at this but it's not like all games are bad. Receiver accurately represents its theme. So does Far Cry 2. I think Spec Ops: The Line does a good job. Thirty Flights of Loving does it extremely well. I think Sim City 4 is pretty good. STAVKA-OKH is a good one also. AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! – A Reckless Disregard for Gravity gets it right. Hotline Miami does a wonderful job. Little Inferno pulls it off. I haven't played Dark Souls but I hear it's great for this sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with a game being inaccurate per se, just as there's not anything necessarily wrong with any other historically-themed work (perhaps a movie or a book) being inaccurate. However, certain inaccuracies can have a normative dimension, in the sense that they appear to promote a particular set of assumptions or ideology. I don't see any normative dimension to Mario's ability to jump, but I do think there is a normative dimension (perhaps unintentional) to Civilization's treatment of history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Receiver accurately represents its theme. So does Far Cry 2. I think Spec Ops: The Line does a good job. Thirty Flights of Loving does it extremely well. I think Sim City 4 is pretty good. STAVKA-OKH is a good one also.

 

I'll pick Spec Ops out of that list as it's the only one that I've really put a lot of time into. In Spec Ops you can get shot hundreds of times through-out the game and survive. That is not acurate. It's also a poor comment to make about a game that is obviously not trying to model realistic combat (even if it's trying to model other points of its theme well.) It's ok at that the Spec Ops folks chose to make the actual combat gamey and unrealistic, which is why it seems to me it's ok that Civilization doesn't attempt to model history accurately.

 

Edit: I Saw Dasein, I hadn't considered that, and it's an interesting point. "A lot of other games do it too," is not an acceptable answer to that point, anymore than it would be to sexist issues. I guess I never saw any harmful normative dimensions to Civ, as any Civ can go any way it wants without restriction. Where I think it would be harmful to start restricting one civ over another or trying to otherwise degeneralize the different groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll pick Spec Ops out of that list as it's the only one that I've really put a lot of time into. In Spec Ops you can get shot hundreds of times through-out the game and survive. That is not acurate. It's also a poor comment to make about a game that is obviously not trying to model realistic combat (even if it's trying to model other points of its theme well.) It's ok at that the Spec Ops folks chose to make the actual combat gamey and unrealistic, which is why it seems to me it's ok that Civilization doesn't attempt to model history accurately.

 

Yeah, but the upshot of inaccuracies in Spec Ops: The Line is that man can survive being shot hundreds of times, maybe that violence is ineffectual. The upshot of inaccuracies in the Civilization series is that the white European experience of history is the true one. Surely you can tell the difference between those two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the upshot of inaccuracies in Spec Ops: The Line is that man can survive being shot hundreds of times, maybe that violence is ineffectual. The upshot of inaccuracies in the Civilization series is that the white European experience of history is the true one. Surely you can see a difference between those?

 

Maybe I'm too white euro-mutt to get what what you mean (not trying to be flippant, just saying I often lack perspective on these matters.) I have a lot of options on how to win in Civilization, I don't understand how one way is more european than another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm too white euro-mutt to get what what you mean (not trying to be flippant, just saying I often lack perspective on these matters.) I have a lot of options on how to win in Civilization, I don't understand how one way is more european than another.

 

Well, beyond the idea of "winning" history, which is a pretty Western idea in and of itself, there's the concept of expansion as profitable and positive, of cultural assimilation as necessary and positive, of scientific progress as inevitable and positive, of religion as an empty opiate, of national character as unitary and manifest, and so on. This is the narrative of the European powers from the Age of Exploration onward, projected onto peoples and cultures that never had these values or behaviors, yet success in the game depends on embodying them and excelling in them. It's revisionist in an innocent but unfortunate way.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love all the Civilization games and have played the crap out of them. I'm just under no illusions that I'm playing what boils down to a nineteenth-century Western imperialist's wet dream about history, which can feel pretty gross when I'm playing as a "loser" like Mali or Khmer. Why can't I win by having the happiest people or keeping with tradition or something? Why is it always power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, beyond the idea of "winning" history, which is a pretty Western idea in and of itself, there's the concept of expansion as profitable and positive, of cultural assimilation as necessary and positive, of scientific progress as inevitable and positive, of religion as an empty opiate, of national character as unitary and manifest, and so on. This is the narrative of the European powers from the Age of Exploration onward, projected onto peoples and cultures that never had these values or behaviors, yet success in the game depends on embodying and excelling in them. It's revisionist in an innocent but unfortunate way.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love all the Civilization games and have played the crap out of them. I'm just under no illusions that I'm playing what boils down to a nineteenth-century Western imperialist's wet dream about history, which can feel pretty gross when I'm playing as a "loser" like Mali or Khmer. Why can't I win by having the happiest people or keeping with tradition or something? Why is it always power?

Isn't saying you want to "win" by being the happiest basically the same thing? I mean, Civ has added numerous additional victory conditions over the years. I could easily imagine them adding a happiness-based condition. Would that actually address your underlying concerns in any meaningful way?

When I play Civ I don't even try to win. Often I do, and that's cool. But sometimes I don't. I just hang out participating in the simulation and bolstering my culture, which is the thing I enjoy. I'm super non-expansionist and non-aggressive, and I go out of my way to maintain positive diplomatic relations when possible (which is obviously not always). It may not be a common method of play, but it's satisfying to me and as far as I'm concerned it's a totally legitimate usage of the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not deeply knowledgeable on world history, but are there examples of societies/nations with the means to expand, that opted not to? Or where scientific advancement has not been viewed as generally good? Reading The Name of the Rose and Wolf Hall, they talk about the early pre-christian Islamic Societies valuing science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the basic perspective of Civilization is the troubling part. The player acts as a sort of uber-dictator, charting the course of a nation state, always in competition with other nation states for wealth, prestige, territory, and resources. It makes nations the primary unit rather than cultures or societies or individuals. Culture, religion, and government are all essentially window-dressing. People don't matter, only the nation-state matters. That is a very particular view of history, which is sometimes called "realism", and which has a pretty ugly history in the real world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't saying you want to "win" by being the happiest basically the same thing? I mean, Civ has added numerous additional victory conditions over the years. I could easily imagine them adding a happiness-based condition. Would that actually address your underlying concerns in any meaningful way?

When I play Civ I don't even try to win. Often I do, and that's cool. But sometimes I don't. I just hang out participating in the simulation and bolstering my culture, which is the thing I enjoy. I'm super non-expansionist and non-aggressive, and I go out of my way to maintain positive diplomatic relations when possible (which is obviously not always). It may not be a common method of play, but it's satisfying to me and as far as I'm concerned it's a totally legitimate usage of the system.

 

It was made as a flippant comment to show how the Civilization games privilege certain playstyles, but I actually think it would somewhat. I think the series made a big step forward in Civilization V by including city-states, which aren't in the game to "win," and by making smaller civs viable, at least for certain playstyles. It's a far cry from the previous installment, which I feel was a better game in general but all about bigger being better.

 

If Civilization VI not only recognized your playstyle as legitimate but sometimes even preferable, Chris, that would go a long way towards breaking up (or at least qualifiying) the Western narrative of expansion, conquest, and profit that the previous games have presented as normative. It's still unfortunate to some extent that Civilization is a game where someone has to win, but small changes would still count for something, especially since I think we've established already that no historical game is ever going to be wholly unproblematic.

 

I'm not deeply knowledgeable on world history, but are there examples of societies/nations with the means to expand, that opted not to? Or where scientific advancement has not been viewed as generally good? Reading The Name of the Rose and Wolf Hall, they talk about the early pre-christian Islamic Societies valuing science. 

 

Early medieval Islam, especially in Andalusia, valued knowledge more than science, per se. Scientific progress, when it happened, was seen as a refinement of existing knowledge, not the discovery of new knowledge, which was not known in the Quran and therefore somewhat blasphemous. "Innovation" is by and large an invention of the Italian Renaissance, before which time the word was unreservedly pejorative.

 

As for expansion, I could cite some of the sub-Saharan kingdoms of Africa, which were wealthy but more interested in trading with their neighbors than conquering them, but the obvious example is China. I was really fascinated to find out recently that the Jesuits that visited during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries didn't get much out of Chinese maps of the Far East, not because they were crude or inaccurate, but because China, once unified, didn't see much point in recording anything beyond its bounds, let alone conquering it. Thus the small kingdoms of southeast Asia, the tribes of Mongolia, and the kingdoms of Korea existed for centuries more or less unmolested.

 

Not every nation saw the need to become a world power. For some, it was even considered a step down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now