Is civ 4 good for history learning?...?

[Gram]

While games are for the most part entertainment there is something to be said for the educational value of some games.

Civilization 2 became a catalyst for greater interest in ancient history. Also a game like Age of Empires 2 and the various campaigns including the Holy Roman Empire, led to my reading into the rise of the Roman empire.

A game for the Sega Genesis, New Horizons, was about exploring earth, mapping the globe, piracy in the carribean, the spanish armada, even various bits about the Ottoman empire. There was an assortment of other historical data as well, about the Nile, Bao Bab trees, the Rosetta stone, etc... I learned a great deal playing that game, and that was back when I was 12 or 13.

There is also something to be said for games like Medal of Honor, and Call of Duty. Alot of kids have no idea what war is/was really like, this begins to educate them.

Obviously if its just used as a game for entertainment then it loses some of its effect, but on the whole if the game can stimulate some interest in history its not all bad.

The educational effect of Mario, Pokemon, and Crash Bandicoot seem negligable.

 

[Aquilius]

Of course yes, if you're reading the pedia entirely. CivI & II were very nice for this..

 

[T.A JONES]

Of course yes, if you're reading the pedia entirely. CivI & II were very nice for this..

I agree if you mean when reading from start to finish,. Short and sweet works well then. but I must have missed something in Civ1 cuz I thought Civ3 was better linked, longer in length and its context more superior in strengh to the first volume.

Ok if you never liked the gameplay of Civ3 I understand, but to snub it in the pedia deptartment and call it the lesser version compared to a model written in the early 90's with mybe 100 entrys at best seems a lil bit strange. No?

 

[wiseguy101]

I learnt that England built the Pyramids in a city called York which was next to a huge mountain

In all seriousness, I learnt a little about some of the leaders in the game that I wouldn't know otherwise

I learned that Mali built Stonehenge in a city named Timbuktu which is located on a field of rice.

 

[Skirmisher]

First if all the game is somewhat Eurocentric. Secondly the closer one gets to the present age, the more difficult it is determine what is important and what is not, historically speaking. It does not take into consideration the huge influence external shocks like natural disasters, famines and plagues had on history. Nor the sometimes extreme fluctuation of economies. Or the gradual corruption of power elites and rise of new more vibrant ones possibly resulting in civil wars. The tendency for religions to break into ever more specialized belief systems leading to a multitude of sects is not included either. Migration, one of the fundamental causes of change today, is not incorporated. Also modern mass based class warfare is hardly an issue. It is so that class warfare is not fueled by lack of wealth, but by a sudden sharp rise in overall wealth and thus increasing competetion for acces to that wealth. The problem with racism between ethnic groups within the same nation is also not touched upon. Nor is the problem of shrinking populations in advanced societies with no hunger. The expanded role of women in the workforce leading to vastlty greater labour pools is also ignored. Also the fact that wars are chiefly caused by the wish of elites to expand into new markets and protect their own markets, not neccesarily because of the wish to control a greater land area. Of course if these were incorporated the player would be left with a feeling of very little control.

 

[naterator]

i think we all can agree that civ can certainly inspire an intrest in history, as well as historical trivia from the civilopedia, but is of course quite incomplete, given that the entirety of history that has occured over the past 6000 years could never fit on 2 discs, let alone cramming a game in there as well. the answer all depends on your interpretation of the question. yes it can be good for learning by inspiring you to go out and learn, no it's not good for learning because it misses many issues. i'd file it under historical fiction.

 

[King Flevance]

i think we all can agree that civ can certainly inspire an interest in history.

The most accurate statement made in this thread.

 

[salty]

CIV is a good tool to promote familarity and interest, but other than the Civilipedia, you'll have to get the facts on your own.

 

[Zombie69]

Where i went to college (grades 12 and 13 here, after high school but before university), they has students play Civilization (the original one) for one of the history classes. Then people would come in during evenings and such to play the game in the computer lab, whether registered to that class or not.

 

[synthboy]

I've been thinking about using Civ in social studies as a co-operative learning exercise. Have the whole class run a Civ game but divide up the roels and responsibilites. One student would be in charge of the military, one of production, another in charge of diplomacy etc. A turn gets played and each member puts forward their suggestions for the next turn (maybe 10 turns might work better). It'd encourage discussion and model diplomatic and democratic processes a lot better than reading a text book.