Interesting article in online political magazine about CIV4

[Blackfire13]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102805B.html

It says CIV4 is a great game, but the jist of the article is that it doesnt include the things that make a civilization really durable, like self confidence. In CIV4 the game assumes more technology = more power, while in real life the West racks itself in self doubt, while much less sophisticated countries like some Muslim countries feel God is on their side and have no doubts.

[LlamaGod]

Luxuries make all the worries go away?

[lucifer316]

Originally Posted by Blackfire13

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102805B.html

It says CIV4 is a great game, but the jist of the article is that it doesnt include the things that make a civilization really durable, like self confidence. In CIV4 the game assumes more technology = more power, while in real life the West racks itself in self doubt, while much less sophisticated countries like some Muslim countries feel God is on their side and have no doubts.

hence spearmen beating tanks

see they have it

[LordRahl]

Originally Posted by Blackfire13

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102805B.html
while much less sophisticated countries like some Muslim countries feel God is on their side and have no doubts.

Yup, just another proof that ignorance is bliss...

[lucifer316]

hey LordRahl your signature is missing 8 types of people

[JiggleTheHandle]

Originally Posted by lucifer316

hey LordRahl your signature is missing 8 types of people

I see what type you are.

[LordRahl]

Originally Posted by lucifer316

hey LordRahl your signature is missing 8 types of people

LOL..........

[Blarg]

The last thing you could ever accuse America of is self-doubt.

[Yushal]

Originally Posted by Blarg

The last thing you could ever accuse America of is self-doubt.

Now, now. Lets not confuse W with America. He is the only one who thinks the two are synonymous.

[TheDervish]

Originally Posted by Yushal

Now, now. Lets not confuse W with America. He is the only one who thinks the two are synonymous.

The problem is, more than half the American public voted for him last year.

[The Apple]

Originally Posted by TheDervish

The problem is, more than half the American public voted for him last year.

You mean more than half of the people that voted, voted for W. After-all, 40% of the American public didn't even bother to vote in the last election, so for all we know W might only represent 30% of the American public (he got 50% of the votes, of which only 60% of the nation cast).

Voter apathy for the win!

[TheDervish]

Originally Posted by The Apple

You mean more than half of the people that voted, voted for W. After-all, 40% of the American public didn't even bother to vote in the last election, so for all we know W might only represent 30% of the American public (he got 50% of the votes, of which only 60% of the nation cast).

Voter apathy for the win!

Heh you are correct. I wrote that last post of mine only half awake, so I did not finish my thought. Apathy is death, as Kreia from KOTOR 2 would say :P

[aahz_capone]

voting should be mandatory. If you REALLY don't know/like/care about it, then vote "none of the above". (or blanco as we say in europe)

As to self-confidence in a civ, I assume that's in culture. If your people have a lot of self-confidence, they push your culture harder.

[Varelse]

The opinion of people who don't vote, don't matter. And Bush won because democrats suck even worse than republicans. You want to win stop sucking so bad. And the article is right about the west having no self confidence. We have a 24 hour news media that gets it best ratings out of keeping us insecure and afraid, so we'll tune in more often. If I remember correctly mass media is a tech advance in civ4! It should have the effect of increasing mental health problems and war weariness.

[Martinus]

Originally Posted by Blackfire13

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102805B.html

It says CIV4 is a great game, but the jist of the article is that it doesnt include the things that make a civilization really durable, like self confidence. In CIV4 the game assumes more technology = more power, while in real life the West racks itself in self doubt, while much less sophisticated countries like some Muslim countries feel God is on their side and have no doubts.

I haven't read the article, but from your summary, I am not sure if I understand the point of the author. The West may have more doubts, but I do not see how it gives it a civilizational disadvantage, considering this is this self-criticism and critical approach to ideas that has given the West its edge for the last 500 years at least.

If there is anything that makes the citizens of Muslim countries live in abject poverty and fear for their lives, while losing numerous wars to numerically inferior foe (see all the wars vs. Israel, not to mention US), it's exactly the conviction of God being on their side and all the results of this reasoning.

So as I say, not sure what the author's point was.

[Good Omens]

Let's not let this degrade into a debate about the current political climate. I think it would be an accurate statement to say that, for most of the country's history, there has been a pervasive sense of American exceptionalism. America was a great land to be conquered, American representative democracy was the finest form of government. America was the biggest, the best, the most powerful, the superpower. One can argue whether that impression is accurate or not, but it was an inherent part of the American mindset. The self-doubt and angst which has become increasingly prevelant has really only come about in the last 4 decades or so.

That said, in the game environment, such ideas would be too abstract to be modeled in a meaningful sense. The health, happiness and religion aspects can, however, be assumed to model those aspects, if incompletely.

[Plug]

Any political position can find problems with the way civilization and war (etc.) are portrayed in the Civilization series. I read an article by a Leftist type (not derogatory, just explanatory) somewhere who said that the game encouraged the viewpoint that states can only be successful if they dominate other states. But Civilization is a game, not a political theory treatise or a manifesto, or even a political statement. It is also an abstraction from the real world: after all, how many nation-states do you know of that have been ruled by the same person for the last 6000 years.

It might be interesting to read the viewpoints of political journalists on Civilization IV, but it's hardly important as far as real politics goes. From what I have seen in the last 2 years on this forum there are people of all political persuasions playing Civ, including Fascists, anarchists and Trotskyists.

(Anyway, Civ is quite sophisticated. Look at Chess! There are only two sides ("if you are not with us then you are against us!") and the moral philosophy is black and white (literally! ))

[theim]

Maybe if we beg the programmers, they can program the AI with Game Theory for Civ5. z3r05um4tehWIN!!!!11!!eleventyone!!1!!

And I wasn't aware that becoming wracked and paralzed by self-doubt in the midst of crisis was a virtue.

[dh_epic]

While I'm a westerner and believe a lot in political freedom, civil rights, the rule of law and not men, feminism, liberalism, enlightenment, seperation of church and state, multi-culturalism...

This article does raise some important points.

Civ 4 fails to address why the Islamic world can essentially understand democracy, and then reject it. They point to America, with huge crime rates, divorce at 50% and the AIDS epidemic... and they say "we don't want your democracy". Strangely enough, all the same things that Republicans blame Democrats for, and believe prayer in schools will solve. ... and who knows, the Republicans and Osama Bin Laden might actually be right about America's decline.

It also fails to address how there can be luddite backlash to technology, and future shock. The factory busters after the industrial revolution, the opposition to Darwin and Galileo, and modern day fears about genetic technologies. And who knows, maybe science will wipe us all out. Maybe there's a different kind of reward for staying a simple man.

The game assumes that without external forces to stop you, an empire will grow and grow and grow -- basically giving China zero credit for being the longest standing continuous civilization in the world. The game glosses over the crumble of Mongolian, Roman, and Ottoman empire. And it ignores the ugly decline of Mali and Arabia, and the graceful decline of England and Spain. Maybe the ability to stay standing for 4000 years is worth more than controlling 50% of the globe for a few decades.

I actually think that programming internal factors like decline, backlash, and the evolution of a civilization's cultural character ... those could open up Civ to become an even more interesting game, without losing on the fun factor. The key would be adapting some of these real life factors into fun game choices -- and it would be easy to embellish to make these things fun.

[yendorII]

Originally Posted by lucifer316

hey LordRahl your signature is missing 8 types of people

Originally Posted by JiggleTheHandle

I see what type you are.

LOL. Subtle and yet still hilarious.