Civilization is racist

[Palfouri]

He forgot the most important part; Firaxis is racist against the Poles, who have never appeared in a Civilization game ever despite being for more notable then most civilizations that get in.

 

[cavilier210]

Yes indeed...hex tiles are just a cruel method to impose authoritarian control.

Cuz squares and diamonds are SOOOO much better

Now I'm being "shapist"

 

[JohnnyW]

Cuz squares and diamonds are SOOOO much better

Now I'm being "shapist"

In tilesets, hexes > diamonds > squares. Orientation matters!!!

 

[Oerdin]

99% of bloggers are dopes who just post stream of consciousness garbage. As someone said "the good thing about the internet is anyone can say anything, the bad thing about the internet is anyone can say anything."

 

[Michl2602]

Real simulation of the ongoing socialogical processes will always stay out of shape for Civ imo. The model used here at least is complex and entertaining enough for me without adding additional complexity.
I think those ideas should go into a new game, which mainly focusses on that. In Civ we'll have to live with the simplifications in use (or something similar), that make socialogical or psychological reactions partially unreplicable.
Probably those (or similar) ideas could get the diplomatic part to the better. But please: The game shouldn't become too hard by implementing less insane counterparts.
I for my part like those simple victory conditions and it's hard enough for me to keep up an entire plan througout a whole game.

 

[NukeEm]

I think this blog over analyzes Civ just a tad... I think, as gamer, this points out that the game does have some issues with immersion and accuracy. I mean, his criticism of the UN was spot on. The UN isn't an "I WIN' building... and I kinda agree it's just dumb to treat it that way. I get it's a game and fun is fun. But when people get together to make a game about history... and rewriting it.. you're either going to pay attention to details and make a game where it feels like you're playing your own history.. or you're going to make a digital board game where people just play to win and immersion is just fluff.

In a way.. I think this is the current divide with Civ5.. Some players want MORE. They want immersion, history that makes sense, diplomacy that makes sense, they want empire management to make sense they want HISTORY.

While on the other hand, there is a group of people who want the "game"... how things come to be matters less. The want a game to play and WIN. They need ways to win. Because winning the game is important.

In essence this article brings to light, for me, the real Civ5 divide... it's the Journey vs Destination.

I've always seen Civ as a "history sanbox" I'm given the tools to make my own history... but even since day one.. Civ has never been able to recreate history that is both fun and challenging and remotely realistic.

 

[Eskel]

I've always seen Civ as a "history sanbox" I'm given the tools to make my own history... but even since day one.. Civ has never been able to recreate history that is both fun and challenging and remotely realistic.

Civ isn't reality sim. However, it does pretty good job at revealing some petty mechanics behind the scenes of real world. Especially, it shows how nations or civilizations compete for resources, how there is not sentiments in real politics, just business, and so on.
It doesnt have to show every single detail to depict it strictly - what is in game is enough to get a general picture.
Thats why I would call the Civilization game cynical and immoral. The life is just like that. That said, IMO some thesis in article addressed in OP are true, but trivial as they present obvious truth as a great revelation (and still some ideas are...just strange).

 

[Androrc the Orc]

The game is "Civilization", not "Racialization". It's about cultures, not races.

 

[Harvestmoon]

None of you guys... this went right over your heads, huh?
Wow, get a Lit degree, I guess. I agree that he made a claim and supported his thesis: Civ V is a modernist deconstruction of highly illegible and subtle concepts. It cuts into little measured mechanics much of the nuances of civilized dialectics and grossly simplifies race, class, cultural and ethnic identity without much regard for how doing so diminishes the idea of the game itself.

 

[esemjay]

None of you guys... this went right over your heads, huh?
Wow, get a Lit degree, I guess. I agree that he made a claim and supported his thesis: Civ V is a modernist deconstruction of highly illegible and subtle concepts. It cuts into little measured mechanics much of the nuances of civilized dialectics and grossly simplifies race, class, cultural and ethnic identity without much regard for how doing so diminishes the idea of the game itself.

Yeah, I'm going to go out and spend thousands of dollars to understand a post, to your "intellectual" standard, yet is ultimately pointless. I guess now you're going to start throwing around phrases like "Intellectual Checkmate".

Condescending, much?

 

[Harvestmoon]

Butthurt much?
Get an eduction to better yourself. As an added extra, you can understand posts that put forward substantive criticisms.

 

[esemjay]

Butthurt much?
Get an eduction to better yourself. As an added extra, you can understand posts that put forward substantive criticisms.

You still sound like a douche. Thanks for assuming that I either don't have an education, and that I'm not pursuing one. And for saying it like you can just walk to the store and buy some education.

 

[Harvestmoon]

Thanks for presenting your counterpoint as though you didn't have an education and didn't want one. Your inflated sense of irony does not make you intelligent.

I stand by my first post. If you don't like the critique because you disagree with it, fine, but you can't say he doesn't support his point, and you shouldn't dislike his critique just because you can't understand it.

Moderator Action: Flaming other people is not allowed here.

 

[esemjay]

Thanks for presenting your counterpoint as though you didn't have an education and didn't want one. Your inflated sense of irony does not make you intelligent.

I stand by my first post. If you don't like the critique because you disagree with it, fine, but you can't say he doesn't support his point, and you shouldn't dislike his critique just because you can't understand it.

I still refer you to my first point. I understand what he said, and given the subject matter- I stand by my point that his argument is irrelevant. Was the post intelligent? Yes. Was it meaningful? No. It's the exact same type of logic that is applied to justify not selling "Medal of Honor: Tier 1" on military bases.

Also, to your "suggestion" that I don't have an education, and that I don't want one: I am, in fact, currently enrolled in two universities and actively pursuing degrees in Communication Technologies, as well as Intelligence Operations. I just don't patronize the people around me for not pursuing the same degree that I am.

 

[Harvestmoon]

I made no suggestion. Your posts painted all that up. In your pursuit of ironic tone, you left out those details you might have wanted me to have when judging you by your posts.

As to whether or not the criticism was meaningful, I disagree. He made a claim and he supported it. The meaning was the support of the claim. Civilization V is (as the earlier incarnations of the franchise) a simplification of a very subtle and complex network of cultures, races, technologies, et al. He supported the claim.

I don't see how you can avoid reaching that same conclusion, within the context of the critic's thesis.

And I don't patronize people for not seeking a Lit degree. I ridicule people for lambasting a critique because they don't understand what it's saying.

Keep up, Mr. College. You'll get there.
(now THAT was patronizing).

 

[esemjay]

I made no suggestion. Your posts painted all that up. In your pursuit of ironic tone, you left out those details you might have wanted me to have when judging you by your posts.

As to whether or not the criticism was meaningful, I disagree. He made a claim and he supported it. The meaning was the support of the claim. Civilization V is (as the earlier incarnations of the franchise) a simplification of a very subtle and complex network of cultures, races, technologies, et al. He supported the claim.

I don't see how you can avoid reaching that same conclusion, within the context of the critic's thesis.

And I don't patronize people for not seeking a Lit degree. I ridicule people for lambasting a critique because they don't understand what it's saying.

Keep up, Mr. College. You'll get there.
(now THAT was patronizing).

I gathered what the point was. The fact is: Regardless of how brilliant any of the points were, I don't care. You can do the same type over-analysis with almost any game on the market. They did it with Medal of Honor here on base.

The truth is, when you try to make an intellectual judgement on a game, it's a moot point for the simple fact that it's about a game. If the points were about a book, about a show, about a movie, about the education system... or even about a simulator... they would be easier to accept. However, in the context of a game, they lose their meaning; for the same reason that the majority of people who play shooters don't care that media often makes shooters sound like murder simulators.

I start to read it, and the first response is "Someone wrote an article analyzing Civilization 5?" Immediately, the article begins to lose impact, because I don't take the game serious enough for any serious analyzation to matter. I'm not worried that children will walk away thinking that Indians are only good for reproducing, or that Native Americans are only good at running through forests, or that any civilization is less important for not being included in the game.

It's a game, and I trust that people will understand: to be a successful game, it must have lasting appeal. In order to have lasting appeal, it must have replay-ability. In order to have replay-ability, there must be something different between playthroughs. That "something different" is cultural traits. It is part of what makes a game fun.

The initial response immediately led me to the thought that some of the points (while possibly valid) still sounded silly, or to be "reaching" (Hexagons being methods to force organization on a public, for example). In the context of the game, Hexagons are an arbitrary distance system that allows you to play the game with some reference for scale and distance. In other words, the hexagons in Civ5 are no different from miles or kilometers. Understanding this, the statement loses effect with regards to the game. Given that I don't have the same references that the author has regarding the state information- and that I don't see a need to verify or disprove his statements about countries, leaves me at the position that I just don't care.

While well written, the impact to me was that the author either had a lot of time (ex. writing for himself); or was not writing this article for my demographic (ex. writing for a class). Beyond these two observations, it became a moot point.

 

[DaveGold]

As to whether or not the criticism was meaningful, I disagree. He made a claim and he supported it. The meaning was the support of the claim. Civilization V is (as the earlier incarnations of the franchise) a simplification of a very subtle and complex network of cultures, races, technologies, et al. He supported the claim.

I don't see how you can avoid reaching that same conclusion, within the context of the critic's thesis.

And I don't patronize people for not seeking a Lit degree. I ridicule people for lambasting a critique because they don't understand what it's saying.

I'm an Oxford University educated mathematician and I can tell a weak argument when I see one. This game is a model of the real world presented in a format that is playable on a home computer as a recreation in reasonable amount of playtime. As such it is necessarily a simplification of race, ethnic diversity, technology, geography, nationality, politics, social change, and military combat. To criticise a home computer game for not being a perfect simulation is plainly stupid whether it is expressed in fine language or not.

You do not substantiate a claim by providing waffle. You need to provide evidence that has substance that supports your argument.

For one thing, it can give unique insight into the process by which paradigms and practices shape the reality they seek to describe.

This is an example of a statement from the article that looks very finely written but I suspect is totally meaningless. Is it just a collection of buzzwords that have been mistakenly applied? Is he actually saying that the modelling of Indian characteristics in a computer game will shape the population demographics in real life Indian cities?

 

[bryanw1995]

He forgot the most important part; Firaxis is racist against the Poles, who have never appeared in a Civilization game ever despite being for more notable then most civilizations that get in.

problem with the poles from a civ perspective is that they are too often the whipping boys of their bigger/badder neighbors. they've never been a strong world power, and even regionally their apex was probably average at best. any civ that is most famous for being a punchline is probably not major civ material...

edit: whoops, I think I just offended somebody. political correctness is hard work!

@DaveGold: I didn't go to oxford, but I can agree with somebody who did! hear hear!

 

[wapamingo]

I agree with the math guy and the CIA dude.

This game is not a simulator, and will undoubtedly simplify many aspects of human development and cultural characteristics.

I find it amusing that so often persons who lack substance in their argument substitute substance with "high" language as smoke and mirrors. Just by speaking a certain way we create constructs of expertise. Our culture is so funny, that we accept outwardly behavior without question as expertise in given subject manner. Have someone dress up as a doctor, speak as a doctor, and go on TV and we immediately assign them as the expert.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Title topic fail.

Nothing in that represents racism. Nothing...not to mention the assertion about India in a gameplay sense being inaccurate anyway mad: from pop is much stronger than from #cities and there are fewer ways to mitigate it).

The article/blog itself fails too though. There's no practical way to implement 100% real life systems into subsystems of the game. In a game where the AI can't even fight and the controls don't work properly, we're worried about how globalization doesn't create complex/realistic world economic scenarios? Really?

There's really no good that can come of posting a complete failblog, unless the point is to make fun of it.

You do not substantiate a claim by providing waffle. You need to provide evidence that has substance that supports your argument.

+1...and it shouldn't take a degree from Oxford to realize this...in theory what I'm quoting is a reality taught at every major institution I'm aware of at some point, if people listen. Usually they don't.