Blogcritics Comments on Power and Tyranny in Civilization IV

Comment by Jordan on Power and Tyranny in Civilization IV

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:19:48 EDT

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.

Comment by cephalo on Power and Tyranny in Civilization IV

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:10:26 EDT

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.

Comment by Devin Cutler on Power and Tyranny in Civilization IV

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:06:45 EDT

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.

Comment by Toni on Power and Tyranny in Civilization IV

Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:31:56 EDT

I don't think you'll be too happy when Civ IV: Colonization is re-released.