Global warming; does it matter?

[frizzy]

Nothing is "needed". It's a game. If most players hate it or hate the way it's been implemented, then take it out, or at least tone it down.

I compare to pollution whack-a-mole, which we had to endure for years before Firaxis finally conceded that maybe there was a better way to go about including pollution in the game.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Global warming needs a serious overhaul. I want my modern age turns of play to be more meaningful. I shouldn't be rewarded with a dying world after all the hours and teeth-gnashing I put into it's development. A World which I have painstakingly enriched with my presence since turn 1.

I agree, wholeheartedly, it rarely happens to me, but the possibility of it adds tension to my game, I never got over the shock of the first time it happened to me (way back in civ 1)

 

[Camikaze]

Sorry, but that is a twisted line of argument at best. Following that line of reasoning, if Firaxis had called the metals discovery in mines or the forest/jungle spread Global Warming , it would be OK ... A liitle far away of what happens in RL, but as the name is in there ...

As it is now, Global warming in game looks like the plot of a old pulp sci-fi novel I read ( can't remember the name ) where a alien race scouted planets where inteligent races could appear and putted there a planet buster to take the planet down where signs of inteligence reached a certain level ( a kind of Clarke's 2001 in reverse ). In this case firaxis decided that huge boxes filled with sand programmed to drop on random points ( as long as they aren't ocean, coast , ice or tundra ) when the planet gets industrialized enough would fill that plot very nicely

Well sure, as I said, they way they implemented it sucks, but the idea of implementing it is a valid one. I would certainly not oppose the removal of GW from the game as it is, but I would expect another much more realistic representation of it to take its place.

For a real life factor that remains largely unknown, fireaxis made humans the 100% determinant.

Putting aside any possible disagreements on what actually causes GW, whether it is anthropogenic or not, it is fair for them to develop the game in such a way so that any penalty suffered by the player is the result of things the player or other players do, and not the result of nature, or something. To use a random non-GW example, if we assume, for instance, that in nature every thousand years, or something, a random continent gets completely flooded, destroying everything on that continent, without human cause; just completely randomly as an act of nature, then Firaxis should most definitely not put that in the game. Can you imagine how much it would suck for your civilization to get randomly destroyed through no fault of your own? Game mechanics simply don't do that. Good game mechanics have a cause, and an effect. But the important part here is the 'cause'. Firaxis could not implement GW as a natural occurrence, even if we assume for argument's sake that that is reality, because that leaves no scope for the player to manipulate the cause in order to avert the effect. If they are going to implement GW, they have to implement AGW, because that is the only way they can allow for the player to have some degree of control over something that will seriously affect them. And coupled with the fact that its reasonable for them to put GW in, what with it being expected to be of unparalleled importance over 40 turns of the game (and that's not taking sides, that's just going with the direction the wind's blowing), then it is fair enough that they try and implement AGW, regardless of whether anyone personally agrees or disagrees with it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Which they have done since Civ 1, long before the Global Warming debate ever began. There's nothing political about it being in the game at all, it's always been there as a game mechanic.

Climate change has had some political influence over it since before civ I, as PoM pointed out. Extended bias does not mean the bias is a good thing, or that it is acceptable to retain it. Also, civ IV's model is decidedly more permanent and difficult to stop than in previous games, by a lot. Considering it's a disliked mechanic, that they also chose to strengthen it once it came to the political forefront is fairly telling.

Putting aside any possible disagreements on what actually causes GW, whether it is anthropogenic or not, it is fair for them to develop the game in such a way so that any penalty suffered by the player is the result of things the player or other players do, and not the result of nature, or something.

This is part of the reason GW is so vile. It doesn't just fail realism checks. It fails gameplay checks too. In case you didn't notice, although the cause is 100% player controlled, it is rigged to be unstoppable in SP games with the AI and a terrible idea in general to save trees for it. They are telling us "global warming is caused by humans, but you as a player can't stop it". Rather than having cake and eating it too, GW is the opposite. It is showing someone cake, and then lighting it on fire after soaking it with a combination of gasoline and poison. Mmmmm, cake.

i hate it, but you need some consequences to all out nucular war and , massive hammer cities etc., they have their own penalities, health, degraded tiles, but GW adds that 'whoops' gone to far, which i think improves game play, i just don't think its right yet. Thats why i think this debate continues since civ 1.

If you've been following the thread at all, you will realize that this argument is valid, but COMPLETE GARBAGE for justifying GW as it currently exists. Current GW isn't "whoops, gone too far". It is "whoops, gone to far, now you all pay for it too, possibly more than me".

I compare to pollution whack-a-mole, which we had to endure for years before Firaxis finally conceded that maybe there was a better way to go about including pollution in the game.

Pollution what-a-mole sucked, gut it was markedly better than IV's GW, because it was reversible and actually penalized the party responsible for it. Neither is true of civ IV GW

1. Fails realism
2. Fails gameplay
3. Fails inclusion. Hopefully we're not cursed with this in future games and 3 is minded.

 

[Camikaze]

This is part of the reason GW is so vile. It doesn't just fail realism checks. It fails gameplay checks too. In case you didn't notice, although the cause is 100% player controlled, it is rigged to be unstoppable in SP games with the AI and a terrible idea in general to save trees for it. They are telling us "global warming is caused by humans, but you as a player can't stop it". Rather than having cake and eating it too, GW is the opposite. It is showing someone cake, and then lighting it on fire after soaking it with a combination of gasoline and poison. Mmmmm, cake.

Sure, and that's why I said that the way they implemented it sucks.

 

[r_rolo1]

Well sure, as I said, they way they implemented it sucks, but the idea of implementing it is a valid one. I would certainly not oppose the removal of GW from the game as it is, but I would expect another much more realistic representation of it to take its place.

And as I said, if you are ok with putting a sounding name to a completely unrelated mechanic you could had called Global warming to anything in the game, from whipping to collateral damage. And don't doubt , GW in Civ IV is completely unrelated to anything you can think on GW in RL ... that was my point. If you make a feature that drops sand randomly in top of tiles because of nukes and unhealthiness and call it global warming, you are decieving the players that are not blessed with code knowledge or acess to someone that has ( because even the civilopedia is wrong/misleading about it ) and because of that alone the game would have been better without it....

 

[Camikaze]

Well, saying that it would be just the same to call it whipping or collateral damage is a bit off. I mean, it's something that affects the environment, which is what GW is. So it is related, albeit tangentially.

But hey, sure, the game would be better off without it in its current state.

 

[r_rolo1]

I said the other way around: call what we know by whipping today Global warming As you said you prefered something related with tiles, how about calling forest spread GW? Or fallout from nukes? Or those events that change tiles, from forest fires to resource pops?

But anyway, my point is that putting a name in the game for a mechanic that is at best thinly connected with the RL counterpart and giving a misleading or simply wrong explanation in civilopedia ( depending of being in pre BtS 3.13 or after ) is very close of bad faith. And this regardless of what I or you think of the mechanic itself ( my line of reasoning is very close of TMIT: GW could had been a interesting feature even as it is if the AI was coded to understand it and act accordingly. As it is today, and given that there are more AI in game than humans most of the times, the game is bound to go GW regardless of how the human plays because the AI has 0 concern about GW and being GW a global variable, it needs a global effort to counter. Not mentioning that , after starting it is irreversible )

 

[PieceOfMind]

Climate change has had some political influence over it since before civ I, as PoM pointed out.

That's not what I said. I thought it was fairly clear my position was that before a few years ago global warming was no where near as political an issue. Way back in the 90s before Kyoto protocol even existed most politicians had probably never heard of global warming and if they did they wouldn't think much of it because not much of the electorate actually cared about it.

In general, Sid Meier (it hasn't always been Firaxis!) has preferred to avoid politically sensitive topics in his video games. It is simply bad game design to alienate a big chunk of your audience by preaching political messages to them. That is why I'm fairly sure if you asked SM yourself he'd assure you if he'd known it would become as big an issue as it is today with such a huge divide between the views of the various stakeholders, he wouldn't have put it in the game or at least he would have been much more careful with its implementation.

An example of something which is politically sensitive which appears to have been deliberately avoided so far is that of terrorism. I think some of the features of earlier civs were sort of terrorism but by Civ4 you wouldn't dare put it in the game because it was a much bigger political and emotional issue for much more of the target audience. I'm sure it would be possible to make gameplay decisions based on the managing of terrorism at least mildly interesting in terms of gameply but if it upsets people you're doing something wrong. Video games like Civ4 are meant to be enjoyable as entertainment. Some video games try and draw out various unusual reactions and emotions in in game content but the civ series has never really tried to draw out political reactions.

Now that GW/CC is a politically sensitive topic, it will be toned down in civ5 - I don't have any doubt about that.

 

[awesome]

It's nothing but a game mechanic. It's been in the game since the days of Civ 2, long before the debate over Global Warming ever came up.

civ 1, actually.

 

[frizzy]

An example of something which is politically sensitive which appears to have been deliberately avoided so far is that of terrorism. I think some of the features of earlier civs were sort of terrorism but by Civ4 you wouldn't dare put it in the game because it was a much bigger political and emotional issue for much more of the target audience.

Terrorism is in the game, actually - complete with political reactions.

 

[r_rolo1]

Terrorism is in the game, actually - complete with political reactions.

Pretty much what I was going to say In fact terrorism is in the exact oposite situation than GW in the game: terrorism is in the game under the name of espionage and random events , but is never called by the real name most likely because of what PieceOfMind said, while GW is in the game only by name....

 

[PieceOfMind]

Terrorism is in the game, actually - complete with political reactions.

Terrorism is not in the game. Calling espionage related events or random events a terrorism feature of gameplay is completely your own thinking and beside the point. Espionage as conducted by governments is not the same thing as terrorism. Calling it by another name, if it ensures people think of it by that other name, is actually proving they were avoiding the sensitive issue.

You could say, for example, that soft racism is a part of the core gameplay but that doesn't mean they ever have to mention it. There have been imaginative forumers who've raised the issue of racism existing in the game but obviously it is no where near as bad (in terms of the number of complaints) as if they'd included it by that name.

I think there is ample evidence to prove that Firaxis aren't trying to antagonise its audience with political messages. Any such perception of political messages is either a consequence of recent evens outside of Firaxis' control or purely accidental.

 

[r_rolo1]

From Britannica

Terrorism

The systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.

A lot of the espionage missions ( just not to say almost all ) and some events fall nicely inside this definition.

 

[PieceOfMind]

From Britannica

A lot of the espionage missions ( just not to say almost all ) and some events fall nicely inside this definition.

Ok ok I see your point. Let me qualify then. I am talking specifically of terrorist organisations. The type of terrorism most people have in their minds these days (the one they're likely to get emotional or political about) is not generally committed by governments but by fanatical groups. Note I am referring mainly to western societies where thankfully we are mostly free of frequent terrorist events. I understand full well there are parts of the world that would have much greater sensitivity to the terrorism in the game but they are not really places where the game is targeted.

I'm sure you see my point. The "terrorism" as you correctly call it that is in the game is unlikely to be the type that would upset the upsettable crowd. I haven't seen anyone as upset that terrorism is in the game as those who are upset that GW is in the game.

 

[frizzy]

Terrorism is not in the game. Calling espionage related events or random events a terrorism feature of gameplay is completely your own thinking and beside the point. Espionage as conducted by governments is not the same thing as terrorism. Calling it by another name, if it ensures people think of it by that other name, is actually proving they were avoiding the sensitive issue.

"A rose by any other name means the rose doesn't exist" - William Shakespeare ????

Calling it by a euphemism doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's been avoided. It's definitely there - by whatever name.

So yes, you have a point that if the game designers want global warming in the game they'll work it in somehow, in the least possibly offensive way. OK, fine. But the question remains - if most customers players don't want it, or don't like the way it's implemented, why do they continue to force the issue after years of complaints?

 

[r_rolo1]

@Piece of Mind

For some OT:

True and false. You are right to say that non-state terrorism is not in the game, but it is arguable if it exists nowadays in RL as well There was even a country invaded under the Article º5 of NATO ( mutual assistance in case of military attack ) because of the event that triggered all the issues you mention, and that is considered the hallmark of non-state terrorism today, because it was considered that the group that caused the event was not completely unrelated to the political organization that ruled the country in question...

 

[PieceOfMind]

So yes, you have a point that if the game designers want global warming in the game they'll work it in somehow, in the least possibly offensive way. OK, fine. But the question remains - if most customers players don't want it, or don't like the way it's implemented, why do they continue to force the issue after years of complaints?

It's a good question but one I can only speculate on. My view is they wanted to keep it in because it is one of the few gameplay features that is truly unique to the latest parts of the game, where many complaints are directed because the game becomes dull. If random tiles on the ground start turning to desert it will definitely wake you up!, though it might not make you happy about it.

I think it is reasonable to say that if GW had been removed completely there would be people complaining that it was removed. That is the reality of game design, especially in regards to sequels. You can't please everyone and it is always easier to question a judgement call in retrospect.

 

[frizzy]

@rolo

Individual terrorist organizations are a greater level of detail than the game goes into. State-sponsored terrorism is abstracted into espionage. There aren't political parties and factions to go along with the various civics, either, for instance. Individuals and small groups of terrorists IRL don't do enough economic damage to be noticeable at the game scale.

 

[PieceOfMind]

@Piece of Mind

For some OT:

True and false. You are right to say that non-state terrorism is not in the game, but it is arguable if it exists nowadays in RL as well There was even a country invaded under the Article º5 of NATO ( mutual assistance in case of military attack ) because of the event that triggered all the issues you mention, and that is considered the hallmark of non-state terrorism today, because it was considered that the group that caused the event was not completely unrelated to the political organization that ruled the country in question...

Yes ok. This is probably the reason that you cannot build planes in the game and order them to suicide themselves into buildings. I can appreciate there are many complexities to modern terrorism which I have little knowledge of but to the layperson it is not in your face whatsoever in the gameplay.

@frizzy, one more thing...

What about if the existing GW mechanics in the game had instead been called something else related to the environment but not GW specifically. Suppose they called it salinity for example. People would complain about it being unrealistic but I doubt you'd get many complaining about it being a form of political bias.