De-constructing history

[Morten Blaabjerg]

The funny thing with Civilization, is that it is an interactive narrative and game of history, operating with the relative meaning of a huge number of subcategories, and not the meanings of the categories themselves. I.e. things such as unit variables etc make sense only in comparison with other unit categories and their variables.

Yet the game is based on essential, absolute historical categories, that are deeply rooted in the way history has been traditionally written for the last 150 years.

In this way, the Civilization-franchise (yet most significantly the first version of the game) is a humorous de-construction of our complex history to simple algorithms of power. Everything can be reduced to hegelian relations between categories, some more complex than others.

Everything else is added by the player's interpretation of these relations between subcategories, i.e. one unit being stronger than the other, one tech more advanced than the other, related to this and that category etc.

I find that the most efficient way to make this work, is in the first instant to seek the essential categories of history and define their relations clearly and broadly - and secondly find the clearest and most recognizable iconographic representations of these categories and their assets.

- I still find the most elegant example of this the collosseum, in the game representing everything from a gladiatorial arena to a modern football stadium. Everybody knows what it means, it is seduction of the masses, bread and theatre to the people. It explains its meaning and function within the game in itself, and thats why it works so well, I think.

All the rest, video clips, animations, unique units, all the extra stuff, is just noise on the line to get a clear iconographical idea through.

To talk about realism in a computer game, is not how it compares to real life experiences, but how it compares to what you expect from it.

So my suggestion for Civ IV is to seek the most essential, simplest and clearest historical categories and icons, that players will instantly be able to recognize and expand upon. No need to fix or constrain the game with new concepts, that goes outside the game's basic construction of meaning.

Absolute categories such as unique units, nationality, borders or other fixed categories or variables are not meaningful within a game, which is based on the complete construction and expansion of relative meaning throughout history.

I still think this was done best in Civ1, which was so iconographically sharply done, that it underlined this complete de-construction of absolute meaning.

 

[Matternich]

What "essential, simplest and clearest historical categories and icons" would you like see added?

When you say -
".. that goes outside the game's basic construction of meaning."
Firaxis are experimenting with a slight format change with the introduction of 'civics' but to what extent this will change the slant of the game I can't say.

I see your point about having icons which are broad and representative but sometimes it is important to stress evolution and change by redefinition as time passes. So whilst coliseum may well still pass in C21st as another word for 'Stadium' or 'football pitch', can 'Library' do the same without becoming 'university' and finally 'research lab'?

In this way I have to also disagree that unique units/nationalities etc are not meaningful. 'Meaningful' is an ambiguous adjective - what is meaningful in one philosophy is not in another.
After all you can play chess without a board, using memory alone, but it’s so much better, yes in a meaningful way, using ornately carved pieces.
It’s unfair to dismiss them as making sense only in comparison with other variables. Some are more accurate than others granted but there is still enough historical parallel to warrant importance.

Look at Alpha Centurai. That game is purely fantastical. The only recognizable elements are war, scientific progress, trade etc. In other words not iconographical but societal traits apparent when large bodies of people, (nations) grow with some independence. I hope that this is what the new 'civics' will address- inherent traits within humanity which are as relevant as key historical absolute categories.

 

[dh_epic]

Maybe that explains why they always shied away from lesser known governments like Feudalism -- which I'll admit I understand historically, but can't quite intuitively make sense of in Civ.

Do you think there's anything in Civ now that isn't at its absolutely most intuitive -- either because it's too simple, or maybe even too complex?

Is there an intuitive concept you'd like to see added to Civ?

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

What "essential, simplest and clearest historical categories and icons" would you like see added?

More than anything else, I would like to see an in-depth reflection of the past 20 years realization of history as dynamic, not absolute. In a way the Civilization-franchise reflects this development already, but I see things which the developers do with the concept (in CivIII especially), that makes me think, they are not always aware of which mechanisms to pull - theoretically.

A computer game is not only entertainment, it is also grounded in traditions of narrative - and of our conceptions of history. When best, Civilization is able to transform these traditions into an interactive game, which can bring us the blast of the last 6000 years of history. Or at least the gist of it.

I never forget one of my early civ1 games, where I experienced the huge transformation of history, that the discovery and building of railroads made possible. It totally changed warfare, trade and the wholesale landscape of the game. I really appreciated what the industrial revolution meant historically. Even though this was just blocky and ugly icons, it had such an impact. - and it all started with just one settler unit.

I believe the game could be overwhelmingly powerful, if you - say, can achieve this kind of effect, with eras such as agriculture (early game), feudalism, crusades, colonization, industrialization, global war etc.

It is all already there, in the hegelian groundwork of the game, which we all know so well. But to me the picture is somewhat blurred, when things are not explained within the game's own mechanics.

In the game, you have geography as the fundamental aspect of human intercourse with the world. This is what offers the riches that makes society possible - the basis for an economy. The landscape can be changed and offer better produce of food and ressource, offering specialization of groups of society, into basically peasants and warriors. The surplus makes it possible to actively pursue knowledge, creating a new class of scientists. This introduces the hegelian tech trees, which is really the brilliant backbone of the game.

When you say -
".. that goes outside the game's basic construction of meaning."
...
In this way I have to also disagree that unique units/nationalities etc are not meaningful. 'Meaningful' is an ambiguous adjective - what is meaningful in one philosophy is not in another.

Well, by this I mean concepts that are not derived from the mechanics described above. Nationalities, unique units, historical eras, borders etc are completely inexplicable in the game. They have fallen down from the sky, they cannot be explained within the geography and tech-development dynamic which is fundamental to the game. They don't need to, as long as we're talking historical satire (there is something incredibly funny about the nationalist stereotypes). But if the game should be more powerful in a meaningful way, it is worth thinking of ways to introduce concepts as these as dynamically/historically as other concepts in the game. I.e. things that players have some degree of control over.

It would be interesting, rather than operate with fixed nationalities and unique units, to implement the construction of tribal identity and culture into the game. They tried to introduce something like this in CivIII, but not too successfully IMO.

Maybe it would be more meaningful to introduce economical and cultural concepts and instruments as dynamic as the tech tree? Which in turn would have different advantages, problems and challenges. Culture could be made a double-edged sword, strengthening tribal identity, but with the risk of possessions declaring their independence/revolution, spawning a new civ? This would explain how new civs/nationalities come into existance.

Or maybe they should just leave culture where it is, as each player's own appreciation of the meaning of the game? This was the ungraspable experience of the first civ game. The LEGO fun factor, of just building, expanding and growing, and getting enough happy citizens and building all these wonders, if just to wonder at one's own achievements at the end game screens.

I see your point about having icons which are broad and representative but sometimes it is important to stress evolution and change by redefinition as time passes. So whilst coliseum may well still pass in C21st as another word for 'Stadium' or 'football pitch', can 'Library' do the same without becoming 'university' and finally 'research lab'?

After all you can play chess without a board, using memory alone, but it’s so much better, yes in a meaningful way, using ornately carved pieces.

I agree - that's precisely my point. As long as the pieces look like what I expect from a chess piece.

It’s unfair to dismiss them as making sense only in comparison with other variables. Some are more accurate than others granted but there is still enough historical parallel to warrant importance.

One piece still won't make sense without the other. A university or research lab can only be meaningful if you've had the other improvement first. It is this chain of meaning that is important, because it creates something dynamic, where you relate the later improvements to the experience of the first.

When you can, it is prettty elegant to keep the iconographic categories to the simplest possible. But as long as they're derived from and 'explained' within the dynamics of the game, I enjoy things a lot more, - than the things coming in from the 'outside' of the dynamics. The technology tree in itself is pretty abstract, but it makes sense in its own way, since it is firmly rooted in the hegelian dynamics of the game.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Maybe that explains why they always shied away from lesser known governments like Feudalism -- which I'll admit I understand historically, but can't quite intuitively make sense of in Civ.

Do you think there's anything in Civ now that isn't at its absolutely most intuitive -- either because it's too simple, or maybe even too complex?

Is there an intuitive concept you'd like to see added to Civ?

The basic economical unit of the game has always been the city. I've always been able to picture the manors and such through cities depending on the food produce of terrains within its sphere. In a way, Civ operates to a great deal with a feudal concept, in its division of labor into workers, warrior units and scientists/priests.

But one concept that I really miss, is a concept that can explain something such as the papacy. How can you explain a clerical power with such key importance to the development of western civilization and European history - through its constant ability to authorize as well as challenge secular powers?

Another is the monastic movement - the monastic revolution. Perhaps what Civ has the greatest difficulty in explaining, are the independent actions of individuals and groups, that are not derived from a power perspective, but later could be exploited by power. The church, monasteries, immigration, colonies, piracy, slavery, crime, underground movements, subcultures, - historical development not on the vertical level of power, but on the horizontal level.

CivIII tried to introduce many of these concepts, but, I feel, a bit half-heartedly. I'm not sure the game needs to cover all these aspects. If the iconographical categories are left open enough, there is room for such things within the engine.

A couple of more fundamental things I do miss - rivers that can be travelled by minor ships, and bridges that are more important to infrastructure, than is the case. Both have historically been of huge importance to trade and war, and is little cared for in the engine.

 

[dh_epic]

Whew, there's a huge religion discussion going on. One of the many cautionary points I've been trying to make falls along your lines. The history of Western civilization involves this flip-flopping between fighting and compromising with the Church. Nearly every model of religion that people propose involves state-controlled religion. If religion was state-controlled, then basically none of the interesting events or necessary changes in history would have ever happened.

Religion is interesting because religion ISN'T the state -- which makes it that much harder to implement. Either you implement user-controlled religion, and have none of the power dynamics in history and thus reduce religion to a cartoon charicature. Or you take religious control away from the user, and sometimes frustrate the user when the pope asks them to do something they don't want (a frequent event in history), not to mention the complications in implementing a mechanism by which a church power can demand something of a state power. Neither is particularly appealing.

I'd like to explore this monastic thing, though. I always thought that a much more interesting discussion of how to divide a nation would not be by religion, but by class or by interest-group (for lack of better terms).

 

[sir_schwick]

The problem with this new paradigm is that all of civ is based upon the idea of static institutions. Your culture is essentially the same from 4000 BC to 2050 AD. Civ is a simulation of static models, not dynamic. Cangeing this would involve changeing the entire design paradigm of civ, something that would take years to even start on.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

sir schwick,

I must disagree. What is my point, is that the fun persists in playing around with the relative meaning of - as you rightly point out - the static institutions or absolute concepts of human history. Civ is a game of interpretation, decoding the meaning between concepts. One doesn't make sense without the other. This is why it is so much fun, IMO, experiencing the chain of meaning, as something is valuable at one time, in relation to one historical problem, and another at another time.

It wouldn't be fun to play around with knights, without the hazard of their inevitable obsolescence. They only make sense as knights in relation to the weaker units of one's enemies, and the more powerful units, that are to come. Do you build more now, or save the ressources for research to develop better technologies and armies? Thats the eternal dilemma of a civ game, IMO.

dh_epic,

I think perhaps the best way still to simulate things beyond the control of power, is the effect and constraint of the available type of government. I.e. in this case, some kind of constraint on tax income or city control, with limited benefits yielded from research and from recruiting learned officials from the monasteries - until you are able to finally break with the pope, upon the discovery of 'reformation', and take royal possession of the accumulated riches of the monasteries...

In the old game Warlords you'd have 'heroes' approaching you for hire. It helped create the feeling there were a world outside your power, which could be attracted by your wealth. I thought this was quite brilliant, since accumulating gold meant attracting heroes. Perhaps something similar could be used in Civ? - accumulating say science, gold, happiness etc would attract powerful scientists, religious groups, popes or entertainers? Such hero units or interest groups could be bargained with and used to your advantage, if they are hired as allies. But becoming too powerful, they could possibly also be a risk, if they took hire for your adversaries, or founded their own communities?

 

[ShadowWarrior]

Can someone translate what Morten Blaabjerg is trying to say in laymen terms so that I can understand his point? It sounds really deep and interesting, but I don't really know what he's saying

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Shadowwarrior,
Can you elaborate, as to what specifically you'd like to have 'translated' - or is it everything in general?

Basically, my point is that Civ is at its best, when it uses clear, iconographícal categories (categories being anything with a label in the game, i.e. terrains, techs, units, civs, improvements, wonders), which mirror essential concepts of history. When these categories are combined, i.e. one tech being a prerequisite for another, or one military unit better than another, things start making sense in the game - where as one without the other wouldn't make much sense.

Please elaborate, and I will go into more detail.

 

[Matternich]

I am afraid 'historical satire' in terms of U. units and nationalities is the best we can come to expect unless Firaxis drastically alters the mechanism of the game. Isn't it enough that they bear some relation to real history let alone having them linked to the history of every changing game?
I am happy the knight in the chess game is symbolic- because I've noticed it really doesn't move anything like any horse and rider I have experienced.

Though perhaps geography could effect something of what makes a normal unit- Camels near the desert instead of horses, different breeds of horse for war horse, units that are made in tundra areas have a bonus fighting on this ground etc these would however only be token changes. It brings to mind the difficulty of thinking of new variables which manage to be intrinsic to the games environment and happen to be historical and ‘iconographical’ and the insight and creativity of Sid Meier for managing it in the first instance.

As regards nationality traits there could be room for allowing the way you play the early game to denote what specialities you develop rather than fixed, divinely endowed attributes.
But then it would remove the fun in choosing different civs and Ision would not be able to write up all those tiered Military Academy articles on the qualities of the civs.

The closest the game gets is in allowing culturally linked starting positions but this is only linked to other civs and not geography or resources. Conquests with its campaign style games may address this to a lesser extent.

Unique units certainly don't reflect the traits of the civs- religious civs don't have any unique monks or missionaries. UU's truly are anomalous.

Not all things defining civilisations come about through Hegelian progression or are results of the limits of geography, or resultant of similar immutable influences which so shape each nation, there is always the random untraceable factor which can make a nation or a people unique. At least in this small sense Civ can be said to work.


The religious absence is a much debated topic and I for one believe once programming of AI has advanced enough these independent concepts cutting across and working within the game will be possible.
For the moment I am not so sure. Just look at the barbarians, for me they don't always work to enhance the game and they are not as nearly as abstract as independent religious factions would be.
Perhaps there's room for another token gesture, Vatican City as a great wonder maybe, produces neutral bishops unless its in China and then Shaolin monks. I don’t know, it all seems to be descending into historical caricature again.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think the fact that history is relied on so-much for gameplay purposes was one of the weaknesses of Civ 3. Part of the fun of civ was re-creating history rather than re-living it. Unfortunately the Chinese or the Aztecs or whatever civ you choose is rather limited because of inherent gameplay values. Also, because of balance issues the number of civs is limited and adding new civs involves redesigning the others. Here is my solution:

Traits, UUs, Shunned/Preferred Governments are all numbers and values assigned for gameplay reasons. Essentially you could affix them to any set of artwork and history and they would work the same. So, why not seperate the non-gameplay(history, appearance, names) and gameplay relevant(UUs, Traits, Govts) from each other. Imagine when you set-up you first choose the gameplay template you wantReligious, Commercial, upgraded Swordsmen of 4/2/1)(Expansionistic, Seafaring, 4/4/1 Frigate). Then you woudl choose the civ you want to re-live history as. THis means if you are a China fan you can play as a Militaristic/Commercial, Religious/AGricultural, or any other template avaliable. The advantages of this system is that the templates only have to be play-balanced once. ANy new civs are just a set of unit names(since names and stats are different these could all be unique for each civ), history, leaders, city names, artwork, etc. This means you could have an unlimited number of civs without worrying about play-balance. Firaxis could then release new template sets with expansion packs.

The other issues being discussed I have not answers for yet. However, this one is rather a no-brainer and everyone wins.

 

[Matternich]

@sir shick- this only works because the current AI is so bad it makes very little difference what civs have what traits other than your own. Have you ever made strategic decisions based on knowledge of the AI's traits? I haven't and as such don't see the advantage of knowing them so in this sense why not choose your traits to go with your face. Or better yet as I posted months ago why not have different leaders too- e.g. Boedicia, Henry V, Victoria, Churchill for the English civ, with a choice of a different UU for each one. It seems to go with the templates idea. So if we are going to have the flavour of historical caricature, at least let us have the choice of 57 varieties.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The issue of the Papacy is the one reason why I want any new concept of 'civics' to involve having different 'factions' within the game-and have those factions be semi-autonomous from the civ itself. Obviously, each faction within a nation to ultimately survive and thrive but, beyond that, they will all be out to get themselves the best slice of the pie. Your job, as the player, should be to balance the competing interests of these special interest groups, whilst trying to steer the best course to 'victory'. By factions, I mean that the religious faction represented by your clerics and religious improvements, will want to increase their power and influence. You can ignore them completely, of course, but this could result in you losing the benefits of religion in keeping your people content. Worse still, they might urge those cities in which they dominate to break away from you completely!
The same risks go with labourers, civil servants, merchants and farmers! Each group has its own agenda, which it will pursue as far as it is allowed! For me, that is the Paradigm Shift that would best seperate Civ4 from ALL of its predecessors!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

@Matternich - I have no idea if you just agreed or disagreed with my idea. Either way I do agree with the idea that there could be multiple leaders, maybe these could be unique to each civ and not the template.
Additionally, each civ could change little things, such as what their governments would be structured like in repsect to changeing leader(representative) or renaming cities, etc.

 

[dh_epic]

Morten Blaabjerg, I think you pointed out an interesting point. That for the papacy to be modelled as a force that you embrace and push away from time time time, the papacy needs to be automated.

Aussie brings up a "factions" model that has been suggested in other threads. If I wanted to have a killer feature, this would be it. The force of religion, of course, is modelled by the religious faction gaining in power in the middle ages.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

I love this concept

- I think it needs to be implemented as some sort of cross-civ independent concept, that can simulate crime, worker's international, global corporations, terrorism, as well as the church - wtih an effect on all civs, to a greater or lesser extent. Say - supporting worker's movements can provoke foreign revolutions. Or leaning towards the pope can yield credits and opportunity for crusades, but with the risk of the church getting too powerful and interfering with affairs of the state.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, imagine this scenario. You have 3 civs, all of which belong to the same religion (a West European Monotheistic faith). One of these three civs decides to reduce its level of Spiritualism which, in turn, reduces the influence of the church within that society. This not ONLY upsets your own religious faction, but the religious factions of the other two Monotheistic civs will also be unhappy, and will put pressure on their rulers to cease diplomatic contact with the 'errant' nation, until they 'see sense'! Is this the kind of thing you're talking about, Morten?
In this case, I would guess that the 'religious cultures' of all three civs would complement each other for the purposes of religious conversion-which is another reason why the other two civs would be angry for civ3 cutting back on spiritualism-as it would reduce the religious culture of ALL three nations!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't know if you ever played the game Tropico, but dealing with factions there was important without being annoying, unintuitive, or tedious. There were 5 factions:

Capitalist
Communist
Intellectual
Religious
Environmentalist

With different citizens being supporters (+), or stronger supporters (++, +++), or detractors (-). Each of them have different needs and desires, but they're not entirely incompatible. The capitalists just want to see a lot of high education, high paying jobs with an overall growing economy, whereas the communists want homelessness and unemployment eradicated. Of course, you can satisfy one without the other, and that makes the game loads of fun

But Civ is not Tropico.

 

[sir_schwick]

Currently civ does not simulate any non-state actors. Maybe that should change. I certainly think that including the basics of a non-state actor system would be the beginning of many great things.