Power and Tyranny in Civilization IV
Published July 07, 2008
It took awhile, but after its release in 2005, the latest installment of the popular computer game Civilization IV was received warmly by many cultural commentators. Civilization IV, or Civ IV for short, was hailed alternatively as "a video game for the ages," and "a kind of social-sciences chessboard that blends history and logic into a game that demands a long, long attention span." The basis for much of this regard among even conservatives as "crunchy" as Rod Dreher wrote a piece in the Weekly Standard, highlighting the background of the game's founder, Sid Meier.
For the first time, religion plays an important part in the strategic game play. Victorino Matus sums it up this way,
Religion plays a major role in Civilization and can be more vital to victory than military prowess. Competing civilizations can send out missionaries, found a religion, create temples, cathedrals, and even launch crusades. Meier is quick to point out, however, that the role of religion is just another dimension to game play.Indeed, while Civ IV deserves praise for integrating non-material elements like religion and culture into the game play, in the end these pieces suffer the same fate as the rest of the game's components. Civ IV, ultimately, is less about the development of civilization than it is about the expansion of imperial tyranny.
The game begins by the player being vested with "absolute power" over all aspects of the lives of the citizenry. Religion quickly becomes a means of social control. When your civilization founds a religion, you are able to build structures that have other important benefits attached to them. You can spread your religion to neighboring civilizations, expanding your influence. But it doesn't matter which religion you prefer, as long as it keeps your people happy.
And happiness, by the way, is something that can be bought in this game. If your citizenry is a little restless, simply up the percentage of money spent each turn on "culture," and watch the happy faces multiply. That's the Civ IV equivalent of Caesar holding gladiatorial games at the Coliseum to appease the populace.
- Power and Tyranny in Civilization IV
- Published: July 07, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Gaming
- Filed Under: Culture: Society, Culture: Religion, Culture: History
- Writer: Jordan J. Ballor
- Jordan J. Ballor's BC Writer page
- Jordan J. Ballor's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The writer flatly asserts that despite all of these non-military ways to win the game that the game is still about domination and tyranny and then fails to explain why this is so.
How exactly is UN diplomacy, a cultural victory, or a space victory domination? In all three cases you can win by having a tiny, isolated civ with no military goals, no wars fought, and a completely defensive mindset. Furthermore, there is also the point victory, where the game simply finishes and you have the most points.
If your definition of domination is that you win the game and the AI doesn't...then you have a very warped view of domination (and a self-defeating definition of same).
Furthermore, to equate domination and tyranny with the fact that the player has to make decisions about his civilization is also ridiculous. The game could, I suppose, simply let you type in orders and then ignore them and play on autopilot as it sees best...but that wouldn't be much fun would it?
The fact is that the system doesn't make you a complete autocrat. You always have to cater somewhat to the masses in Civ, and it's these competing pressures that make the game interesting.
You want to take over the world? Your people may prevent it from happening (via war weariness). Want to build a new city right on the border of another civ? The people may decide they like that civ better than you and defect.
Yes, in some sense you have to have some level of control, otherwise you aren't really playing a game are you? You are just watching a game being played in front of you.
And by the same token, in some sense you have to be able to win. Otherwise, well you are just clicking keys to no purpose.
Keep in mind that history is shaped almost entirely by the struggle for political control. War is it's substance, and everything else is icing on the cake.
Devin, thanks for your comments.
My working definition of tyranny isn't simply identical to imperial expansion by means of war, but it certainly includes it. What I mean to point to in part is the instrumentalization of religion, diplomacy, and so on, legitimate and autonomous spheres in their own right that are subsumed under what is essentially political economy in CivIV. This doesn't make it a bad game...in fact, as I state in the piece, this is in great part what makes it so successful. But what I also mean to point out is that it's popularity and success tell us something about ourselves, the nature of human nature, so to say.
There's a good discussion going on here regarding some of the more technical aspects of gameplay.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/78789)
I don't think you'll be too happy when Civ IV: Colonization is re-released.