Glass Bead Game Versus Tic Tac Toe

[William Wilson]

A few years ago one of my acquaintances approached me and asked if I heard about this neat new Civilization game - He was referring to the third release. I was very surprised that he found it interesting since he usually plays puerile/simple action games that placed empathies on a wow-factor (like Steven Seagal movies), and I surely thought that civilization was a complex and profound game that required some skill.
At that point of time I did not put much thought into him liking the game, however after I have played the fourth Civilization I am starting to think that Civilization is hardly as mature as I once deemed it. There are many politically correct/ingenuous tendencies with the game and the gameplay is very simple. Of course someone could argue that civilization focuses on macromanagement, though the gameplay still needs dynamic and since it is build based on history and social studies you could be introduced to some more complex decisions.
What this post boils down to is the question about who civilization is actually build for. Is it a game for adults who want to mull over a complex game or is it really just a children’s game that has received praise for a bit of depth from adults (A bit like some adults watching The Cartoon Network) or is Civilization just a "catch em all game" that tries to reach the highest demographic?
And if civilization is not build for adults, then is that correct? I mean when I play a game I want to either just completely relax or really think and strategize with all my mind – and I think more when I play chess than when I play civilization.
Is Civilization The New Glass Bead Game or just a Polished Version of Tic Tac Toe?

Thank you for your time.

Note: I hope I did not step on any toes with this post. These are just some questions that I would like to see how the community feels about.

 

[Asterothe]

Civ is for who like it Adults or kids. Don't expect something
that a game never can be. That complexity is almost impossible
to achieve.

 

[MetHimPikeHoses]

There are definitely more realistic and complex games out there that deal with certain historical time periods, but I don't know of many that cover ALL eras. It's the trade off for Civ's scale that the gameplay isn't uber-complex. The Glass Bead Game it isn't, but what is?

 

[William Wilson]

Thank you for the nice comments! You make some good points.

Asterothe while it is surely true that Civilization is for those who enjoy playing it, it is also important to remember that Firaxis has a goal group. I believe that the company is being lead by profit and not ideology, so it appears to me that Firaxis is trying to reach the largest margin - this is completely understandable in a business sense.
We can see how they prioritize the average gamer if we consider the fact that they used a new 3D model with detailed textures - personally I did not have a problem with an empathies on graphics since Firaxis would potentially earn more money and thus be able to have more staff to code the game engine, however if Firaxis is trying to reach as many people as possible it will not be able to be controversial (terrorist unit, Jihad, suppression of people etcetera) or complex models (Wall Street Crash, Inflation, Independency of nations etcetera). I may just be dreaming when it comes to complex models, but there are some features that may be complex to understand and play, yet they are not that complex to build.
That is a very nice theory MetHimPikeHoses and I do think you are right, though could it also be that civilization made a trade off for less complexity to sell better?
Civilization IV is definitely not The Glass Bead Game nor is it Tic Tac Toe, but it is closer to one than the other.

 

[Asterothe]

After 14 years of Civing ,we are very used to Civ idea by now,
but I remember very well one of the first Civ reviews ever. That
magazine I forgot the name had pros and cons at the end of
the review and in the cons box there was only one line saying
"Isn't it too BIG?" For its time and still it's very big and complex
as it can be. It's infact very hard to still immerge right away. I remember
investing a good amout of time in order to grasp what was going on
on Civ1. The game might not be very hard to build (And I think
still it's hard) but still it's one of the more comlex games.


Migght they make a more complex game? Yes. But would
implementing very complex idead be worth? Hard to tell.

 

[William Wilson]

Ah great reply. I also used a lot of time getting used to the first Civilization game, though the latter Civilization games were fairly straight forward - this could be because I matured since I played the first game or just because I got used to the mannerism of the game.
In retrospect the first Civilization may have been a complex game, though it does surprise me that after more than 14 years the gameplay, seen from an adult's eyes, is uncomplicated/easy. This may be because they want to appeal tp a larger demographic, because they are lazy or simply because it is very hard to code some more complex features. But again, as said, there are features that would most likely not require a lot of effort that have not been implanted in the game.
I truly do not hope this game is being dumbed down because it needs to be mainstream, but I fear that it may be the case.

 

[Tavenier]

I play much more complex games next to Civ. The most complex game I have ever played must be Paradox games' Victoria. I have played that game maybe 50 times and still I don't know every aspect of it.
But Civ has more appeal to me, because of the a-historical route you can take. And the race for wonders or resources is also very fun. And compared to most other games I play Civ is quite short and every game is very different from the other, because of your opponents, starting position and so on.
If I want mind-breaking decisions (and RSI....) I play Victoria, Hearts of Iron2 or Europa Universalis 2.

Still none of those complex and very historical games (I am a historian) can take me away from Civ. Especially now, because I like Civ4 way better then Civ3 at its release.

 

[slothman]

Call me dumb, more so, but what is The New Glass Bead Game?
I looked it up and it seems not to be a game at all.

 

[Psyringe]

Like many successful products, Civ can be played in a number of different ways. The game is more complex than most other games, but it's up to you to decide how deep you dive into the complexity. You can crank up the difficulty and put yourself in a position where you absolutely have to maximize the efficiency of every single action if you want to stay a chance - and enjoy that. Or you can tune difficulty down, relax, use automatization for many features, and enjoy an easy game with a setting you like. It's up to you.

 

[Thormodr]

Victoria is a lot of fun. Very complex with a lot of really fun elements to it. Ditto with EU2. Fantastic game though certainly less complex in some ways and more complex in others. Paradox is one fantastic game company.
I think a mixture of Victoria, EU2 and Civ would be the ultimate game ever. ^^

 

[Meffy]

Call me dumb, more so, but what is The New Glass Bead Game?
I looked it up and it seems not to be a game at all.

Head to your local library or bookstore and check out the Herman Hesse selection.

To over-simplify to a shameful extent, the Glass Bead Game is life seen from without. Don't accept that. Read the book.

 

[BeefontheBone]

Of course, your local library might not have an entire section dedicated to Hesse...

I think Civ 4 is in fact more complex than any previous iteration of the series (religion, however well-implemented you think it is, is entirely new), but the tedious micromanagement has been drastically reduced - you have a more complex game which is in fact easier to play. I suspect that the reason you perceive it as being dumbed down (incidentally, who says dumb games aren't fun? FPS's are often fun, Space Tripper was a blast, "highbrow" games like flight sims and clunky wargames are incredibly boring, to me at least) is simply because you've grown used to the series over the last 14 years or so, and as you said yourself, you've also grown more mature. The fact that a decision was made to make an average game much quicker to play is also a little disorienting for anyone who was used to taking a month to finish a game of Civ 3 or SMAC (how boring was the SMAC endgame? Incompetant governors made for a heck of a lot of incredibly dull micromanagement).

 

[MetHimPikeHoses]

Ironically, the Glass Bead Game is somewhat a children's book. There are others out there that deal with similar subject matter that are more complex and profound! I think I liked the GBG and other Hesse back in high school. Its good, straightforward philosophy, morality, and psychology in lit form.

 

[Meffy]

Stanislaw Lem explores the ethics of playing a complex, ultra-high-tech, Civ-like game containing tiny beings who appear to have a sort of life. I think it's one of the "Trurl and Klapaucius" tales. Just like phyllo, Lem's stories are: layers and layers.

 

[Nestorius]

Yep, that's the eternal question. Did you just spend that 30 hours improving your mind and spirit through contemplation of geo-political and cultural questions, or were you really just screwing around staying up all night playing video games?