First, thanks for making the video. With all the screen shots and gameplay video from all members of the franchise, that must have taken a significant amount of work.
If each of the games in the series is an attempt at a history simulation -- using various game mechanics as approximations -- then I would propose that much of human history has been thoroughly infused with imperialism. The Roman empire, the Mongol empire, and other empires through the 1800s all expanded by force of arms, and by taking land and resources from their rivals. It is only in the 20th and 21st centuries that some of the non-imperial methods of advancement were prominent. Culture could spread through travel, commerce, and the rapid communication made possible by radio and television. There were no venues like the UN in earlier times; there was no way for the emperors of Europe, Asia, and meso-America to talk and negotiate and "end the game" sooner.
What I'm trying to say is: if Civ 1/2/3/4 all encouraged and motivated the human player to exert military dominance during the period of 2000BC - 1800AD to try to win, that's OK. That's what empires actually did during those times to advance themselves. We can quibble about specific game mechanics, and whether they make the game more or less fun to play. But like "Risk", "Monopoly", and even chess and Go, the games in the Civ franchise are based on dominating one's opponent(s).
I played Civ5, though not including the final expansion (BNW). It always felt constrained. My favorite joke about Civ5 is that developing a civilization with only 4 cities is not -- in the words of Civ1 -- "an empire that will stand the test of time" ... it's just simulating the US state of Ohio!
Indeed, an "empire" almost by definition will include the lands of more than one nation. It should not be surprising that an "imperialist" strategy is needed to build an "empire that will stand the test of time."
My last comment is purely about game mechanics, and "making sure that the other player doesn't win." It's been argued that all 4 of the first Civ games were truly developed as single-player games, and that the ability of multiple humans to play in the same game was grafted on. Given that design, the AI players in each of those games were sometimes trying to win on their own, and sometimes trying to stop the human player from winning. Unlike real human history, the game has an endpoint. If the AI can eliminate the human player, then the game ends -- in 1000BC, or 500AD, or 1776AD. I've seen some very foolhardy attacks launched by AI "empires" against the human, not because it would help the AI achieve its own victory condition, but because it will stop the human. I don't think that makes the strategy more or less "imperialistic"; I think it makes it more like a game, and less like actual history.
If each of the games in the series is an attempt at a history simulation -- using various game mechanics as approximations -- then I would propose that much of human history has been thoroughly infused with imperialism. The Roman empire, the Mongol empire, and other empires through the 1800s all expanded by force of arms, and by taking land and resources from their rivals. It is only in the 20th and 21st centuries that some of the non-imperial methods of advancement were prominent. Culture could spread through travel, commerce, and the rapid communication made possible by radio and television. There were no venues like the UN in earlier times; there was no way for the emperors of Europe, Asia, and meso-America to talk and negotiate and "end the game" sooner.
What I'm trying to say is: if Civ 1/2/3/4 all encouraged and motivated the human player to exert military dominance during the period of 2000BC - 1800AD to try to win, that's OK. That's what empires actually did during those times to advance themselves. We can quibble about specific game mechanics, and whether they make the game more or less fun to play. But like "Risk", "Monopoly", and even chess and Go, the games in the Civ franchise are based on dominating one's opponent(s).
I played Civ5, though not including the final expansion (BNW). It always felt constrained. My favorite joke about Civ5 is that developing a civilization with only 4 cities is not -- in the words of Civ1 -- "an empire that will stand the test of time" ... it's just simulating the US state of Ohio!
Indeed, an "empire" almost by definition will include the lands of more than one nation. It should not be surprising that an "imperialist" strategy is needed to build an "empire that will stand the test of time."My last comment is purely about game mechanics, and "making sure that the other player doesn't win." It's been argued that all 4 of the first Civ games were truly developed as single-player games, and that the ability of multiple humans to play in the same game was grafted on. Given that design, the AI players in each of those games were sometimes trying to win on their own, and sometimes trying to stop the human player from winning. Unlike real human history, the game has an endpoint. If the AI can eliminate the human player, then the game ends -- in 1000BC, or 500AD, or 1776AD. I've seen some very foolhardy attacks launched by AI "empires" against the human, not because it would help the AI achieve its own victory condition, but because it will stop the human. I don't think that makes the strategy more or less "imperialistic"; I think it makes it more like a game, and less like actual history.
