A Theory on Games as Propaganda, RE: Civilization
Games are an amazing vehicle for propaganda, whether it is Watch_Dogs doing the superhero gambit with the surveillance state (making the character immune to its negative effects but providing the spoils of a world set up that way). Games are usually played alone, made to appeal especially to kids and young adults. The way they are designed pushes aside parents, perhaps deliberately. Whether it is with mechanics where they can't compete - everything from quick time events, penalizing you for being old, to newbie-unfriendly skill based play where they can't compete or interact in any compelling way if they haven't played a similar amount as the child, which they haven't or can't, serving to separate the kid from the parent. Or subject matter uninteresting or unappealing to parents, especially women; violence is a most common way of pushing mom away. In the rare case where they do sufficiently appeal to parents, video games still generally represent time away from parents... to the point where they can facilitate parental neglect. Whether they just need the kid out of their face or they need to go make lunch, video games often happen at a time when the parents aren't there. This leaves the kid vulnerable, alone & having quality time with this sort of propaganda.
Many of today's parents grew up with video games. I'm a bit disappointed that my stepdaughter enjoys dinky little time management games more than strategy or RPG games, but these things are not foreign to me. These movements happen from time to time. There have been many moments in history, in different places, sometimes more than once in the same place, where there was a jump in literacy in a single generation.
I have little doubt that, in those times, there were people worried about what the kids were reading, while the parents were excluded, and about how some parents would throw a book at their kid to get them out of the way, thus leaving the child alone with the book and possibly dangerous messages.
Many games have an initial message of one thing, but then through the mechanics of the game itself express something entirely contradictory. Civlization is one of these games. Initially it is hailed as a celebration of all of mankind and our progress; but play a few games and you'll realize it's cloaked nationalism. Just as a man in the Crusades would be told their immortal soul endures in order to coax them into giving up "just one body" for their religion, indefinite replayability after "game over"s has a similar persuasive role, convincing players to cast aside the shame of defeat by iterating in the skinner box. It also doubles as punishment, describing behavior you shouldn't want. Concordantly, on the other side of the coin, optimal play introduces many of the deepest values that the game is politically heralding. As you learn the game more and more, political points are expressed gradually through what the player learns IS optimal play. And the worst part is, the player often doesn't even know it's happening. Your comfort with the mechanics occurs alongside your discomfort with their oft unsavory political message, masking it also among the pleasures of winning a contest; you might not even see it.
Well, game over should never mean you have to buy a new game. Being able to restart is an obvious byproduct of buying a game you can lose.
There are so many ways to play the game that it's hard to tell what you think they are pushing politically. From doing CS quests to killing everyone else on your continent, from building a strong foundation in religion to focusing on culture, from grabbing every bit of land you can to raising one city to 100 population, there are a lot of ways that can be successful, and suboptimal play does not mean losing, at least not up to Immortal, where I now play, and where I still feel I have a huge number of choices, but, you get to specifics coming up, so let's take a look.
Just a few of the sketchier values embedded in optimal Civilization play off the top of my head, that reflects as a justification for nasty treatment of people*:
-(many civs) Nomadic tribes disinterested in conquest, science, and cultural control are animals. Send them on the trail of tears; they are barbarian heathens who are to be attacked and murdered like wildlife. They also exist only to pillage your farms and spoil empires like you. Kill them immediately.
Barbarians occur in one of two situations. Where there is free land, mostly early, or when your people are so unhappy they rise against you.
In the first case, for political correctness, it should be seen as a victory that not every unit is considered barbarian. It's only been about 100 years that Western ancient history has been anything more than the Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the barbarians. Carthage, Tyre, all of the Celtic and Germanic tribes (which were often simply grouped, and the Celts actually normally still are), etc. were "barbarians." The Huns? Barbarians. Of course, the ancients saw them like that. In Greece, any non-Greek was a barbarian (Alexander reached India...India was full of barbarians).
Of course, you could make the claim Rome did not often kill barbarians. Rather, they enslaved many. Others, they just took over in the area and romanized them.
Later, if there is still free land, the barbarians rarely attack. You still kill them of course, as you would any major civ. They end up treated no differently.
When they are rebels, you are putting down an uprising. I'm sure I don't need to point out the violent putting down of recent uprisings, and, what's more, you assume these people are being killed, while there's nothing to suggest your army isn't using rubber bullets and tear gas (the combat animations have nothing to do with the 5 years of fighting that happens, after all) to put down the mobs that are crossing your country and burning farms, looting trading posts, and murdering miners.
What's more, notice that the barbarians are at a state of constant war with others and make no attempt at any peace deals. If you were president, and an enemy declared war on you, they come in, kidnap and kill your people, attack your cities, and they are unwilling to even talk, what would you do?
-(Civ4) Slavery is essential for being a competitive civilization. Whip your population frequently.
Slavery, or variations of it, exist to this day. Today's form of slavery, working full time and not making enough to live, may be even worse than many forms in the past.
Don't mistake all forms of slavery as the same thing, and don't assume that just because it's not called slavery that the purpose (nearly free labor) isn't the same.
In Brazil, after slavery was abolished, many former slaves stayed and worked for their former masters. In Rome, slaves were people, not simply property, and a master who killed a slave could be tried for homicide. In reality, every people has had it's slaves, no matter if we call it that or not. After all, what is the real difference between a serf and a slave? A minimum wage worker and a slave? They can go somewhere else?
Maybe, unless, as in some countries, employers can impose massive fines on people who are quitting. Fines they can't pay and so must stay in their current job, often making less now that they have a fine to pay off too.
Methinks your political views are clouding your view of the terrible conditions in which some people work in this post-(legal)-slavery world, the not-so-terrible conditions of slaves in some societies in the past, and, above all, the importance it has played in human history.
As a note, I'm glad slavery was taken out of Civ5, because, as I mention here, the forms it took throughout history were massively different and don't all belong under 1 heading. There's no way we should look at slavery in which slaves had rights and were treated as family members and slavery where slaves were objects and slap the same label on them, just as we should not act as if a worker in a factory in Thailand and a paper pusher for Donald Trump are in the same boat as "working class."
-(Civ5) Having people work in a salt mine gives the greatest possible yields for society.
Actually, most natural wonders are better.
Salt has been massively important for people though. You can't possibly think that the likes of dye or incense have done as much good for society as salt. I'll take a preservative for my food over fur coats or whale oil any day.
-(many civs) Sometimes it is not just important that your people starve, it's essential. Members of your society starving and dying was often absolutely necessary in order to win and is always the lesser of two evils (the alternative on higher difficulties is "game over").
You imagine that a city is starving and then people die? I always imagined that a city was starving and when the food ran out, people moved away.
If you assume the population drop comes because you lock up thousands of your people and don't feed them, that is pretty bad.
Of course, it's very very rarely good to actually run a city out of food anyway. I've only done it maybe once or twice. It seem like every game I end up with some city starving itself, though, and I have to force it to work food.
-Wonders provide a direct boost to your peoples in some way, not the leadership. They aren't a cost paid by the people to better intimidate them and deepen loyalty, they're FOR THE PEOPLE'S OWN GOOD DAMNIT.
I understand, I believe, that you are being ironic, but...could you elaborate? I'm curious as to how you think the CN tower or Hubble telescope was built to intimidate the people and deepen loyalty.
As an American, the Hubble telescope and Statue of Liberty never intimidated me (was the Statue of Liberty meant to intimidate the French?) And I have known many Canadians, none of whom seemed scared of the CN tower. In Brazil, the Christo Redentor was always pushed by religious people (first to honor the daughter of Pedro II), and was finished right after one of the (maybe still the single) most popular president/dictators in Brazil, so, again, nothing scary about it.
Some of the ancient wonders were huge points of pride.
If many of them benefit(ed) people directly in some way is often more questionable. Some did (Library of Alexandria) and some didn't (Statue of Liberty), but in every case, those wonders are small works compared to the effort put into other things.
The irrigation systems around the Nile took SEVERAL TIMES the amount of manpower of the pyramids. The Colossus doesn't even start to compare to the aquaducts. In Rio, you might have the Christ statue, but you have a dang floating bridge that connects two major cities, and in the south of the country, there's a dam that provides a good part of the electricity 3 countries use.
Very very little effort goes into wonders by comparison (and note each of those mentioned have been on a 7 wonders list).
-Science is GOD. There is nothing more important than science, it is the purest representation of agency and power possible, and that matters most. You can't win wars without it. You can't have a prosperous civ without it. Even a hippy cultural civ races to airports & the internet as fast as they can for tourism's sake (something only added to the game with tremendous guilt after we treated the devs like we were north koreans & they were Kim Jong il).
From the earliest times, science has actually been one of the most important defining differences in the power of civilizations in a number of ways. I doubt the people who didn't have the technology of spears won many wars against those that did. You realize how important agriculture was for cities to even form, but how about pottery? Before it, if you lost your teeth, you would starve, as you would be unable to bite off anything. I assume you aren't suggesting without new construction techniques you could have a prospering city in real life. Science is key to all of this.
The Mona Lisa was an experiment in a new painting technique. Cave paintings took technology. Mining techniques allowed blocks of stone and marble to be used as materials for artists. The alphabet was a key piece of technology for passing information (and thus, culture) easily on to others, as were ink, the codex, paper, the printing press, and computers...and a HECK of a lot more not mentioned. Language itself is a technology.
Look around, and you're unlikely to see anything on Earth that ISN'T science. Grass? Most likely it was planted. So was that tree. Look up and you might get away from it, but remember that the fast moving star up there is probably the ISS.
-Cultural Civs are necessarily small and helpless in game, as policy costs increase as your civ expands. Until BNW, this created the implication that cultural civs are merely the losers unfit to rule, complaining about the other broad, more successful empires. In fact, losers in multiplayer games often attempt a desperation cultural victory as passive/aggressive vengeance, while hoping the final wars stalemate.
The best way to a culture win was always to puppet the heck out of everyone else before BNW. Austria was one of the best culture civs because of that.
-Even the dubious BNW 'hippy' culture victory is cultural DOMINANCE & influence. One culture to rule them all. Not "at worst" Blue jeans and pop music, but ONLY blue jeans and pop music. Not transcendence of cultural boundaries, where objective reality is increasingly axiomatic with minimal or no culturally relative axioms weighing down society, compassion and empathy replacing need for nationalism.
The victory for science isn't when your ship lands (now). The victory for domination isn't when everyone else is wiped out (heck, CS's still get to control their capitals, even). Diplomacy isn't won when every last person is on board with your rule.
Why then, would culture be won only when your culture is the only one? You win culturally at much the point Greek culture had on Rome, it seems, which is influential enough that if everyone is like that, no one is really standing on their own two feet anymore, everyone is heavily reliant on you.
You could complain about the old Utopia project though, as if everyone is going to buy into what you're selling just because your people believe in a lot of political, religious, and economic things and they don't.
Darius I of Persia once noted that at the eastern bound of his empire they practiced endocannibalism, eating the dead as a rite of death's passage. At the western bound, the greeks cremated the dead. Both thought the other's practice was disgusting and unacceptable. This realization set him free; made him realize what's really important. That's cultural progress. In civ 5, you would be rewarded for the social policy "cremation" and then rewarded again for the policy "endcannibalistic funeral."
According to this story, Darius only gained understanding when exposed to both. Having both is better than having only one, and, thus, everyone was "rewarded" for one or the other, but he was better off by being in the middle and having both, making it more logical, not less.
Very very few SP's in the game go against each other. I'm not sure I can think of a pair that is really mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, this provides ethos to tell innocent & ignorant people "how it was," while showing them just the parts of history they want them to see. The dismissive jedi mind trick hand waving vibe to all else is quite unsettling. The premise carries tremendous responsibility; maybe some of this stuff shouldn't be in our entertainment.
Our educational systems carry the same problem. You could spend your whole life and never learn history as it was.
There is no history as it was. History doesn't even work like that. Certain things happened, but from our cultural view, we can't say we can understand even those events about which we know as "as it was."
My stepdaughter never saw India when studying ancient history. She never saw medieval Africa. She'll only see the atomic bombs when she looks at Japan in WWII in school.
When I was in school, the "dark ages" were presented as a time of ignorance and lack of technological development.
This is not history as it was, and this is education.
And civ doesn't go as far out there as some other entertainment that uses history. The History Channel has some series that talks about aliens.
However, you'll never find a way to present history as it happened, even in some small way. If you could make the game exactly as you wanted, no single other person in the world would think it was perfect, because history isn't fact. History is not an exact science like physics or math. History has no correct answer (on the scale we're talking about, there is obviously a correct answer for some facts).