World-spirit or ruler? (split out from guessing thread)

Gori the Grey

The Poster
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
12,955
Over in the "Guessing" Thread, Civ's chief historian, Andrew Johnson, posted the following thoughtful post:

There's an interesting divide here that I just want to point out, and it concerns the question "what is a civilization?" I've posted about this before, but it's worth repeating here.

We can take kind of two models here - an essentialist view and a materialist or political view. The first of these goes something like this: a civilization is a people who share a certain cultural or linguistic continuity that goes back in time. They might not have been united or even seen themselves as similar to others in their "civ", but we see them from the vantage point of the present as "the same." The political view instead puts linguistic unity aside and focuses on organization - a civilization is a structure of power, a political unity.

Greece or Maya would be examples of the former - these were not unified politically (except for once, under that one guy) and no one figure issued commands (Athens, you build the Parthenon. Rhodes, you build the Colossus). It takes some difficulty to imagine an ancient Germanic civilization that stretches from the Alps to Denmark. Rome would be the opposite - Rome is not Rome without its Greek, Egyptian, Gaulish, or other residents, and comes together through political power.

Rulers and states at times play with this distinction between essence and political power - China and Rome both undertook projects to "civilize" territories, meaning bringing them into line with the customs of the center. But the big confusion comes in the 18th-19th centuries, when states began to present themselves as the manifestation of ethnicities - we get the X people's republic, or the kingdom of the Y (consider the change from the title "King of France" to "King of the French"). This often creates unity where there could have been splits and splits where there could have been unity (Bretagne, Bavaria, Yue lands on one hand; Laos, Flanders, etc on the other). So projecting a modern construction of timeless ethnicity back in time feels correct to us ("what is the German civilization doing in 4000BC?), but that's because we're products of the present system. This debate would be very different in 1500, or it will be different in 2200 (if there's anyone to have it then). But the debate can feel very heated because "the realization of a timeless essence in political form" is the calling card of many states. Historical evidence towards origins simply scatters and falls apart when you go back far enough - I've got a paper somewhere that I'm writing on the conjecture as to the origins of the Thais - what we know is the first real mention is in Cambodian records. Before that, there's a host of theories, all with extremely dubious evidence and pushing their own agendas.

So, the question (that I'm posing, not answering) is this: is the Civ player a kind of godlike world-spirit, guiding a group of people who don't know they're a unity towards their destiny, inspiring the construction of wonders and guiding the people towards scientific inquiry; or more of a ruler, moving troops here and there and commanding construction? And, of course, with the bottom line being that the game has to be fun, how do we deal with this question?
A number of people have answered, including myself. I will collect those answers below. Response to the questions he poses threatens to derail that thread, but the questions he asks are interesting and vital to the success of the game, so I think this topic is worth its own thread. Let me just get this post posted. Then in the next I'll collect the answers that have been given. And then from then on, we can go to town.
 
Last edited:
Here are the answers that had been given at the time of my making this thread:

I think that "sense of identity" and "actual unity" are two layers - certainly Machiavelli notably had a concept of Italy and Italians distinct from their surrounding people and countries that is quite apparent in the Prince, though Italy had not meaningfully been united politically in a long time; and I seem to recall the Greeks also had similar concepts of Greekness vs non-greekness even absent unity. So lack of political unity cannot in my opinion be taken to mean that the concept of them as a distinct group is purely a modern perception/conceit.

In my view, as a (competitive) game, it's the second of these two options.

In a game where you are competing with other players for some victory condition, the ultimate satisfaction will come from feeling as though the choices you made are what resulted in your victory (or that another player triumphed because he or she made better choices). At the end of a game of Monopoly, I want to feel that I won because I bought the right properties, traded properties advantageously, developed my properties well. Since Monopoly involves a good deal of luck, I can shrug off a loss if I know full well that I got crappy rolls, never got a chance to buy good properties, etc. But a well-designed competitive game should be designed such that the winner feels that the victory was because of more strategic play. So let's also get chess in the mix (yes, some Chex mix does sound lovely), as an example of a game so well designed that one's victory is entirely a result of one's own strategic play.

Now, for me, Civ lies in between Chess and Monopoly. The AI will never be sufficiently well designed that a victory (by me or it) is really entirely a result of better strategic play. (I don't play MP, and even if I did) moreover luck (starting terrain, goodie huts, key rolls in combat) also play more of a role than it ever does in Chess (which has only one single instance). But, because Civ has more turns than Monopoly, there's more of a chance for the mere luck-of-the-die to even out over the course of a whole game and therefore make my own strategic decisions be what really matters.

So, I'm not playing "the world-spirit of the Scottie" or of black. One consciousness (mine) is making choices designed to leverage whatever initial starting advantages I have (terrain, uniques, goodie huts) and whatever other developments there are in the course of a game into a game victory. And that makes me more like the dictator issuing build and marching orders than like an ethnicity gradually evolving over time. Even if the Scottie got some advantage over the top hat in the game of Monopoly, that would just be a game advantage, not a manifestation of some world-spirit of the Scottie.

Don't get me wrong. I love it that I can construct a quasi-historical narrative of some "people" as I pursue the activities that I think will move me toward one of the victory conditions. I in fact construct elaborate narratives of what is going on in my people's lives as the game marches on and it's a huge appeal of for me of playing Civ. But as a game the motivating factor for each of the many choices I make is game-advantage. It is one mind (mine), that makes all of those choices.

The stated design philosophy of Civ used to be that it provided the player interesting choices, or meaningful choices; I forget how they said it. They are meaningful as choices in a game. I once had to choose between a granary and a water mill, so I elaborately played out in my mind which one would come in on which turn, and therefore what food and production advantage would I get at exactly what turn. (Others could probably have done it using math.) And the water mill came out like one hammer ahead of the granary over a fifteen-turn period. So I went with the water mill and I thought of that one hammer advantage as me playing the game better rather than worse. That was the archetypal Civ moment for me.

This should be made a thread its own right.

Gori - I don't think your answer revolve around the question at all? It seems to be about offering strategic choices to the player (which is a valid discussion), not about what the player actually represent in the game. Both an immortal god-spirit and a ruler can be presented with useful and important choices ; the two questions are wholly separate from each other.

Personally, I'm firmly against the notion that the player is some sort of ruler of a unified state, which enforce strict limit on what a civilization can be and how the game can be played without offering any meaningful additional choice in return (and it opens the whole can of worms of 'why do the ruler lives forever" and such like).

I tried to get at that, Evie, by stressing that the player's strategy-choosing consciousness is more akin to a dictator barking orders than it is to some generalized "spirit of the people."

Professor Johnson's question is about how the game models ethnicity, nationalism, national-identity, etc. My answer is that Civ isn't primarily about modeling anything from history, but about providing a game experience (with flavor drawn from history).

The starting pieces (Scottie, top hat, wheelbarrow, China, India, America) are not in themselves crucial. They are fundamentally defined as game effects in any case. A game has players. The players in a Civ game are each rulers of a unified "state" (one of the polities that the game gives you to play).

Your comment too suggests that what is at stake is how we conceive of civilizations. That's a question for historians/anthropologists to settle in scholarly books and articles.

For me these two models you've cited and the questions you've consequently posed are based on the false assumption that there should be some kind of way to reconcile playing civ as a game with real history in a sensible way that amounts to anything other than flavour.

For me Civ is an alternate reality where all the greatest civilization you can conceptualise are plopped into reality in 4000bc as a band of settlers with the challenge of overcoming one another to be the best utilising the unique aspects of their civilizations in reality as advantages to leverage over one another. You as the player are some kind of all seeing immortal god king (as are each of the ai personalities like Montezuma or Alexander the great) who are thrown into this alt reality to lead your civilization through this challenge. A civilization in the context of the game for me is one of those reset alt history groups of people borne of that original civilization, plucked from time and space and thrown into 4000bc.

This is why these civilizations are fighting it out in a standard game on maps that are not earth. The map is basically a giant planet sized colosseum.

And that allows for mayhem like nuclear Gandhi and Aztec jaguar fighting Roman tanks, the fun stuff.

This is why civ 7 misses the mark so much for me. It's taking itself so seriously it's forgotten what drew people to it as a fun concept. It's losing what is "civilization" and becoming "bland 4x history game number 17"

It's a question that's crucial to the flavoring of the game. You're entirely right that the game could be about Elves and Gangsters and Aliens and whatever else, but it isn't, and it's eminently clear from volumes of writing on the topic here, on reddit and everywhwere else that a vast number of fans are invested in that flavoring, and the conceit that the game is about "civilizations" drawn from our history is a key part of what the game is.

In that light, how the game conceive civilization is an important question.

Yep - exactly. I think what I'm describing can be fitted to either model, and I'm saying I don't mind. If you can describe something as a civilization, why not. America? Sure. The Chinese? Yeah why not. Rome? Yeah fab, But let me choose any of them to play against any other of them, and don't make me change

First, Thanks Andrew for a wonderful comment.

I'm absolutely the in the former camp, I'm inspiring a people and telling their story.

Civ isn't a game to be won, it's a canvas with which to paint a picture of a fictional people on earth #xxxxxxx37
Why I'm so excited for VII, is that it allows for big changes and challenges through out the run time, straight through to the end.
There is magic in it that has endured for me for over 25 years, it never gets old. Just give me one more turn.

Edit: This is the guessing thread so back on topic: I think Held in Reserve comment refers to a leader that could have been revealed earlier Era wise, so I'm going with Genghis Khan

First, thanks to @Andrew Johnson[FXS] for so clearly posing the question.

I suspect, as some of the subsequent posts have already shown, that the answer will be in some respect unique to each individual gamer. What 'flavor' anyone prefers is an intensely personal aspect of the game, and so I'd suggest that the real question that Can be answered is what aspect or combination of aspects and flavors appeals to the greatest percentage of gamers - a game design question that is, in fact, crucial to the commercial success of the game.

Civ's design background, as @Evie points out, is firmly based on having a 'historical flavor' (what I've been calling 'historicalish'). That is a very fine balancing act, because a strictly historical game is a flat Impossibility - neither us amateurs nor the historical 'professionals' agree on all or sometimes any of the historical aspects of events, which accounts for the mass of non-fiction historical books published every year (I have a list of a dozen coming out in the next 3 months that I'm interested in, and I get a download from an importer of military history books published outside of the USA that lists 20 - 40 titles every month).

So no matter how much historical flavor the game designers want to include, very quickly they have no choice but to make their own determination of what constitutes the 'history' in any to-be-modeled in-game event. The more such decisions, the further the game design will deviate from what some gamer who has spent his last 20 years studying some specific aspect of history will take exception to - and post about it here in these threads. Deviate far enough from what the majority of gamers think is the 'historical path' and the game loses its (apparent) focus - and those gamers.

I've said it before, I do not envy the game designer's lot: it's like walking a tightrope over a shark tank while balancing a beaker of sulphuric acid on his head.

And, I have to point out, Civ VII has opened a whole new vat of discussion and potential way to 'lose gamers' by up-ending a basic historicalish concept of the game: the building of a Civilization in a straight line advance from 4000 BCE to near future. People who could cheerfully admit that virtually no civilization or culture has existed all that time in reality (recognizable China didn't appear for a couple thousand years after that and Egypt changed almost beyond recognition less than 5000 years after the 'start date', and nobody else even comes close except in their nationalistic imaginings) are still apparently bent out of shape that the game will no longer allow them to play that Fantasy!

I think the world like spirit fits best with the way the game actually plays, you never lose power over your civ, you direct it totally, seeing units on opposite sides of a continent simultanously in antiquity. (and knowing to target Gunpowder when you can)

While I would like internal politics to be more a part of how civ plays, it should stick with the general effect and have governments give more bonuses... ie "succession struggle" mechanics that cause some rebel groups with frequency and severity (depending on the government you have)... bonuses and penalties representing corruption/bribery, etc. But none of that needs you to be an actual CK style leader.
 
Last edited:
I've always seen myself as playing the sort of zeitgeist of the civilization, and I've always seen the "leader" (particularly the AI leaders) as the sort of manifestation of that zeitgeist, not as a literal immortal god-king.
 
I've always seen myself as playing the sort of zeitgeist of the civilization, and I've always seen the "leader" (particularly the AI leaders) as the sort of manifestation of that zeitgeist, not as a literal immortal god-king.
Same. Exactly the same.
 
I think it's a strength that the role of the player is ambiguous, as evidenced by the breadth of answers already. For me the answer lies somewhere between the abstract world-spirit and the absolute god-king commander. When I play I see myself as something akin to the spirit of the ruling body of my civ, perhaps directly the leader in an autocracy, but sometimes also as the spirit of the republic, or perhaps as an in-game deity to a theocracy. A certain level of vagueness leaves room for a different amount of answers depending on the play through, or even different parts of the same one (I imagine the new ages system will provide interesting breakpoints to reconsider what is guiding my people)

So while I appreciate the question, and answering it is a fun exercise, I don't particularly feel like it's one the game needs to go out if it's way to answer for me.
 
I've always seen myself as playing the sort of zeitgeist of the civilization, and I've always seen the "leader" (particularly the AI leaders) as the sort of manifestation of that zeitgeist, not as a literal immortal god-king.
Same here.
 
So while I appreciate the question, and answering it is a fun exercise, I don't particularly feel like it's one the game needs to go out if it's way to answer for me.
I agree. In any good narrative, I feel like questions are almost always more valuable than answers.
 
I've always seen myself as playing the sort of zeitgeist of the civilization, and I've always seen the "leader" (particularly the AI leaders) as the sort of manifestation of that zeitgeist, not as a literal immortal god-king.

I would disagree on the AI leaders. They've clearly been inspired by the personality of the leader, and not by the civilization. Eg. I would not say Alexander is the zeitgeist of Greece. I think that's more god king than zeitgeist.

Some of them are picked because they encapsulate that zeitgeist, or have been interpreted as doing so, but they don't always align. That's the whole reason for splitting the leaders from civs in 6 and now 7 after all
 
I would disagree on the AI leaders. They've clearly been inspired by the personality of the leader, and not by the civilization. Eg. I would not say Alexander is the zeitgeist of Greece. I think that's more god king than zeitgeist.

Some of them are picked because they encapsulate that zeitgeist, or have been interpreted as doing so, but they don't always align. That's the whole reason for splitting the leaders from civs in 6 and now 7 after all
IMO to read the leaders as beings who exist within the framework of the game diminishes the game. They're the avatar of their civilization and an interesting personality to interact with; Civ7 has doubled down on this, not moved away from it.
 
IMO to read the leaders as beings who exist within the framework of the game diminishes the game. They're the avatar of their civilization and an interesting personality to interact with; Civ7 has doubled down on this, not moved away from it.

I don't really understand what you mean, but I have a feeling that the difference between what we're saying is the words we are using to describe a very similar conception rather than the conception itself
 
To elaborate on the answers I have given:

I think the opening question "what is a civilization?" and two options for what could count as a civilization are a moot point. The game designers have to settle in on some set of RL polities that, for purposes of the game, will be the playable civs. Evie, you and I are not in disagreement that the particular kind of appeal that Civ has involves the fact that it uses RL civs for its Scottie and top hat and wheelbarrow. But for selecting the limited number of those that will go into a game, choose by any definition of "civilization" you want. By the time they make it to me, the player, they will have been reduced from their RL complexity, abstracted and converted into a set of game mechanics. Some RL Atlantic City landlord owns Connecticut Avenue and can build houses and hotels on it, but for purposes of playing Monopoly, I don't need to know anything about that. It just needs to be a light-blue colored property I can buy for some amount of money, combine with two other properties to own a monopoly and build houses on it that charge players who land on it some amount in rent.

Players can play however they want, and some above have testified to the joys of playing in sandbox mode. But the game is announced at game conventions and marketed as a game, and every bit of "balancing" the devs do has as its purpose to make it enjoyable as a competitive game. Any players who play in sandbox mode are doing so from within a set of mechanics designed to make for a satisfying competitive game. Again, I sort of play that way myself because I construct an elaborate narrative for my civ that is based on the things that happen in the course of the game.

So, to the other question posed (world-spirit or ruler?), I could give either answer (so it too is moot). I've always called myself by my civ's name rather than the ruler, so yes, the rulers themselves have always been the-spirit-of-the-folk for me. (Not in 7, of course; there I will have to think of myself in terms of the ruler--because that's the only entity that persists through the course of the game and is making these constant decisions on what to build or who to attack) (or what civ to pick, ha!). But it doesn't matter, b/c whoever's in charge of this polity (god, dictator, plebiscite), the only practical decision to be made is whether to build a granary or a water mill. (Sorry for the civ 5 reference; I never moved on to 6)
 
Last edited:
I don't really understand what you mean, but I have a feeling that the difference between what we're saying is the words we are using to describe a very similar conception rather than the conception itself
What I mean is that whether or not a given leader really encapsulates the essence of their civ, I don't think of them as existing within the game as an immortal being who sits in an eternal palace in the civ's capital and directs affairs, any more than I think of myself as doing that. I think of the leader as the avatar or face of the civilization who is there to make diplomacy more interesting and to give the civ a sense of personality and humanity. This has become doubly true now that the leader remains constant while the civ changes (and why I've argued that civs, not leaders, changing is the correct choice).
 
What I mean is that whether or not a given leader really encapsulates the essence of their civ, I don't think of them as existing within the game as an immortal being who sits in an eternal palace in the civ's capital and directs affairs, any more than I think of myself as doing that. I think of the leader as the avatar or face of the civilization who is there to make diplomacy more interesting and to give the civ a sense of personality and humanity. This has become doubly true now that the leader remains constant while the civ changes (and why I've argued that civs, not leaders, changing is the correct choice).

That makes sense. I don't think about it hard enough to worry about what the leaders are doing when I'm not interacting with them as an avatar representing their civilization via the medium of their individual personality, so I don't see them as a literal person, they're just a civ leader, which bears no relation to reality in my view beyond the flavour of the leaders personality.

So I think we're both on the same page after all 🙂
 
I look at Leaders as rulers. Maybe that's why I'm drawn to multiplayer, or maybe it's the result of playing MP where the leaders act more like the player and less influenced by the civ. I've also now spent a lot of time working in corporate America so my experience has lead me to perceive the world as a result of personal decisions.
 
So, the question (that I'm posing, not answering) is this: is the Civ player a kind of godlike world-spirit, guiding a group of people who don't know they're a unity towards their destiny, inspiring the construction of wonders and guiding the people towards scientific inquiry; or more of a ruler, moving troops here and there and commanding construction? And, of course, with the bottom line being that the game has to be fun, how do we deal with this question?

Both. They are godlike world-spirits who rule their people. (and formerly other's, by conquest, cultural conversion or migration) Cultural assimilation/mix should have a great role. Ethnic ones too. If Civ would be a cultural simulation, it would be amazing. But not just that, obviously. On top of the actual game. They could be displayed with percentages or a miscegenation character. Civilizations are more or less all isolationist, in a sense that in modern times, we have still a very marked difference of characters between two people of different parts of the world. The reason is simple : relatively poor/costly ways of physical communication, agrarianism (attaches to our family and friends), sedentarization (agriculture, agrarianism, internet...), frontiers (property, power, ideas...), etc. While some factors tend to the opposite like trade, science or literature, but they are not massive. (but sometimes enough to give a vague idea of the Other - the Other being ourselves in its core : murder, sorcery, mysticism, thirst of power, manipulation, genocides, war, laugh, credulity, hope at diverse degrees of reason, etc.) So why bother ? It's not that important finally. So what's left of my diatribe ? The first sentence. And what I mean by "their" people ? The people they think is their, or the game thinks it's their or ours. (the uncovered fog of war, the cities we manage, etc.)
 
I like the "spirit of the civilization" interpretation, especially in single player. The presence of me, the eternal leader doesn't really mesh with the cultural narratives I like to imagine, while that definitely does. Multiplayer, though? Every action is a slight against me, the immortal God Emperor of the Brazilian Theocracy.
 
I've never cared enough about the AI leaders to really think hard how i see them. As for myself, i've never played as the leader, always as the civilization! In my eyes, the leader is just some nice (for those who like the art style) image on the loading screen. When i play as the Maya i'm playing the Maya, not Lady Six Sky. And that's why the forced change of civilization in 7 really bothers me. If i choose to play as the Maya, because i want to play as the Maya, let me play as the Maya until the end of the game! Even if my abilities evolve during the game, as my civilization adapts to a new world, let me keep the name of my civilization, i don't need anything else than the name, but please let me keep that, because leaders are just a weird abstraction in this game and i need something to keep a connection to the civilization i choose at the beginning of the game, something real, tangible ... not something we clearly don't even know what they are supposed to represent :rolleyes:
 
not something we clearly don't even know what they are supposed to represent
We definitely never had discussions about "what is a civilization?" before civ-switching. :D
 
The event from the Emergent Narrative dev diary seems to point towards us being the civilizations Zeitgeist.
Spoiler :
1734388001050.png

And I have to say that this sounds very cool, but the previous games made me feel more like an immortal leader - I remember changing Julius Caesar's name to mine in Civ III when I was twelve, so I think that Civ VII may be a first in the series that I approach differently. I guess I haven't given it much thought before, but Zaarin's interpretation sounds very appealing.
 
Back
Top Bottom