Political views in Civ 5 and it's expansions?

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

Hi everyone,

I just did read some Brave New World threads and I can't help but think a lot of design choices in this game and it's expansions are more political than it's predecessors. The most glaring is associating Universal Healthcare with communism (really a conservative u.s. American idea). But also displaying the u.s. Americans as a very peaceful nation in behavior is debatable imho.
I know this is a game from the u.s. and probably has most of it's customers in the u.s. and most importantly it's just a game. I'm not anti u.s. in my political views and all nations have skeletons in their closets, but I still think this should be reflected upon.

But there are also some I really like: Piety opposing Rationalism is an example (imho the most important achievement of western culture).

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading. Regards,

Spock

 

[Arachnofiend]

...Okay first of all universal health care is a very socialist policy, which despite socialism falling under order is present in virtually all major modern states because it just makes sense. Secondly, it isn't a conservative American idea. Where did you even get that notion? Conservative Americans are the last group to not support universal health care in some form. Thirdly, Civ V has never portrayed America as peaceful. Washington is one of the biggest warmongers in the game; odd considering the man himself was a non-interventionist, it would have been better for them to go with Teddy Roosevelt for that portrayal of America. But I digress.

Piety opposing Rationalism really isn't that realistic. It's only in recent history that church and science have become almost wholly separate from each other, many civilizations have made great scientific advancements with the support of the church behind them (one of the most notable examples would be the Muslim Caliphate).

 

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

- I tried to say associating Universal Healthcare with communism is a conservative u.s. American idea (at least in recent politics).

- The Washington behavior was mostly from the AI behavior charts. He looks to be more on the peaceful side there.

- It was mostly people opposing piety that led to the scientific revolution. I know that during middle ages cloisters where pretty much the only place where education took place. And the Arabic world had some astonishing advances during that time (e.g. in medicine). But in the end, modern scientific revolution had to punch through piety.

 

[joncnunn]

Universal Healthcare in BNW is actually shared across all three ideological tenants.

 

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

Universal Healthcare in BNW is actually shared across all three ideological tenants.

Just checked, you're right. I should read more carefully.

 

[Tlalynet]

- CIV has been political\ideological in every game, this isn't new.

- It was mostly people opposing piety that led to the scientific revolution.

-You're far overdue at looking up, reading, and understanding how 'propaganda' works and how it shapes and influences peoples ideas.

Try this link

Scientific revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries came from quite a variety of sources. Preists and monks have consistently had their hands in important breakthroughs and ideas through those times. Look up Gregor Mendel's genetics or Georges Lemaître's Big Bang Theory.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I feel a bit disappointed that the developers are trying to represent early 20th century conflicts, as each policy tree has its military implications as well: Freedom being the US/West Europe, Order being the Soviet Union, Autocracy being Fascist Germany and Italy. It's like they are trying to tailor policies to strategies that the players already had going, rather than giving further options for the players to explore. Order was always good for lots of cities, Freedom was always good for specialist buildings, Autocracy was always good for armies and resources., etc. Pretty predictable.

But in fact, each of these countries have had some aspects of socialism, militarism, and democracy. And in the Cold War especially, non-aligned powers seemed to pull the superpowers along more than the superpowers themselves ever did. That's why they were called the "third world". Not because they were poor and backwards.

At least the implications of Civ 4's civics sounded a bit more more timeless and universal, even if it was a bit silly to just swap them out whenever you felt like it.

 

[Cedbird]

...Okay first of all universal health care is a very socialist policy, which despite socialism falling under order is present in virtually all major modern states because it just makes sense. Secondly, it isn't a conservative American idea. Where did you even get that notion? Conservative Americans are the last group to not support universal health care in some form. Thirdly, Civ V has never portrayed America as peaceful. Washington is one of the biggest warmongers in the game; odd considering the man himself was a non-interventionist, it would have been better for them to go with Teddy Roosevelt for that portrayal of America. But I digress.

Piety opposing Rationalism really isn't that realistic. It's only in recent history that church and science have become almost wholly separate from each other, many civilizations have made great scientific advancements with the support of the church behind them (one of the most notable examples would be the Muslim Caliphate).

Rooselvt was attacked at Pearl Harbor .... so warmonger ? I think he was a bad president but no American president could be labeled as a warmonger . America has lost more blood in the defense of our homeland and other nations of all colors and religions than any other . We liberate nations then help them rebuild on our own dime . No other nation does that . Funny how Euorpeans hate the U.s for being a warmonger when it is the Europeans who had the Empires that have done so much damage to the poor in Asia , Africa , and South America .

 

[Cedbird]

I feel a bit disappointed that the developers are trying to represent early 20th century conflicts, as each policy tree has its military implications as well: Freedom being the US/West Europe, Order being the Soviet Union, Autocracy being Fascist Germany and Italy. It's like they are trying to tailor policies to strategies that the players already had going, rather than giving further options for the players to explore. Order was always good for lots of cities, Freedom was always good for specialist buildings, Autocracy was always good for armies and resources., etc. Pretty predictable.

But in fact, each of these countries have had some aspects of socialism, militarism, and democracy. And in the Cold War especially, non-aligned powers seemed to pull the superpowers along more than the superpowers themselves ever did. That's why they were called the "third world". Not because they were poor and backwards.

At least the implications of Civ 4's civics sounded a bit more more timeless and universal, even if it was a bit silly to just swap them out whenever you felt like it.

As a person who is highly political and understand its importance to the life of the human being . I take very little thought and offense to how politics and leaders for that matter that disagree with my world view are done in Civ . I think the Devs have done a good job of telling the story of human history . How each leader and society has the power to shape its own destiny and make choices that have real consequences . But as I have seen many times on threads it must be repeated . Interesting conversation but its just a game . But because it comes so close and is so fun is why we play .

 

[Arachnofiend]

America has lost more blood in the defense of our homeland and other nations of all colors and religions than any other.

This message right here genuinely frightens me

I actually like Teddy as a president. His boisterous and go-getter personality helped push through a number of necessary reforms that would have stalled under the weaker executives that preceded him. He also championed the cause of gunboat diplomacy (speak softly, and carry a big stick) which is why his personality would translate well to a CiV warmonger. Better than the man who ended his term by warning his country against foreign entanglements, at least.

He's also got this great cult of personality going on around him that would make his inclusion a strong selling point for the game.

Wait hold the friggin phone

Rooselvt was attacked at Pearl Harbor .... so warmonger ?

That was Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Entirely different person

 

[EgyptRaider]

Piety Opposing Rationalism is actually a pretty weak design.
Thinking that it these two always oppose each other is simply wrong. A lot of scientist were very pious actually. Newton (the guy that seems to be portrayed in the Rationalism tree) was actually very very pious who praised ancient texts like the bible etc.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please take the discussions of RL politics and its implications to Other Topics and the history discussions to the History section of the forum. This part of the forum is for discussion of the game. Thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889