RFC as a teaching tool

[AnotherPacifist]

Thanks Charles for pointing out that essay on Civ (he was talking about Civ 2 but could easily apply to Civ4 and RFC). In fact, I found an online copy:
http://www.duke.edu/~tlove/civ.htm

It explains why we're all:
1. Becoming cyborgs by playing Civ
2. Why I (with a pusillanimous name and lifestyle) can win conquest victories without a blink in my conscience
3. How the geography of Rhye's map transforms our thinking of the real world (and how we can have such heated debates about Italy)
4. Why playing different mods with diifferent political and cultural agendas (e.g. fantasy-based vs. real life based, the Three Kingdoms mod or Star Trek mod) may appeal to certain people more so than others because of the underlying ideological assumptions
5.How by learning about how the program is made (looking at the code, anyone?) makes a better player and maybe better programs for the future

Maybe somebody can write an updated version on RFC.

 

[Arkaeyn]

That was a pretty interesting essay, though I think it was much more successful when it focused on more direct concepts, like colonialism, as opposed to its digression into the cyborg thought. (though that was interesting, I thought it was undeveloped.


I did something kind of similar, albeit not quite so academically, with a series on the Historiography of Civilization (3, at the time). http://renaissancegamer.blogspot.com/2005/02/historiography-of-civilization.html

I noted that Civilization tended to reinforce what I called a "conservative," though it might be called "old-fashioned," view of the concept of history. History according to Civilization is military-based, it focuses on the interactions of nation-states and empires above anything else, and it operates on a concept of universal progress.

 

[Panopticon]

Interesting. I think to place the modern academic consensus about historiography above entertaining gameplay in design decisions would be odd, to say the least. But it's subjective and I don't want to start an argument, so I will accept the positive, if not the normative, case.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I disagree with Civ's take on history, but I still play it. ;-)

I would love, love, love a social/political/economic historical game which focuses on building infrastructure and culture above troop positioning. Imperialism kind of tried, but still not at the level that I'd like.

 

[Panopticon]

I disagree with Civ's take on history, but I still play it. ;-)

I would love, love, love a social/political/economic historical game which focuses on building infrastructure and culture above troop positioning. Imperialism kind of tried, but still not at the level that I'd like.

I once fantasised in my youth about being a game designer and making a game that created a dynamic world and let you operate a city-state within it, so your power was quite heavily bounded by outside conditions. The problem is that such a model limits individual agency to a great extent, and games are fun because if we play well we achieve great victories.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Exactly. For history to work as I think it works, it would require that events take place largely out of the leader's control.

 

[Chiyochan]

Exactly. For history to work as I think it works, it would require that events take place largely out of the leader's control.

feels like people here are largely just skipping over my post

I don't think this is a big problem though, lots of games don't put the player in control of everything, they can only really react, its going to make sense that a game like you're suggesting cant be thought of in the normal sense of a god game, the player will need to adjust strategies for challenges. my big concern is if you have concepts like that, much of outside forces tends to be people who are not the player, and as we know, AI is not easy to code for, Certainly its not something you can give a political speech to in the traditional sense,
How do you simulate something like that?

 

[Arkaeyn]

Lots of games take away some amount of control, but most games offer significantly more control over events than a real person in a similar position would actually have. For example, imagine playing SimCity when you have to go to the zoning committee and lobby for your newest developments, then deal with the compromises and riders attached to everything.

Robert's Rules: The Game!

 

[ScavengerType]

Yes we need god-games to fit out god complexes. We would likely find realistic individual-actor games unpalatable. Could you imagine Civ if your civics could abruptly change on you and scientific development occurred in multiple layers of which you only controlled state research (religious and private being the remainder). What if a democracy actually hindered you from declaring war, increasing/decreasing spending in some sector, researching a tech or changing a civic. I doubt it would be nearly so fun at all.

 

[Arkaeyn]

It was called Master of Orion 3, and it set back the concept of indirect control in games by decades. Ugh.