Power and Tyranny in Civilization IV
Published July 07, 2008
There are consequences to which sort of economy, government, technology, and religion you choose. But in the end all these choices are yours, and you are free to use whichever combination you find to be most expedient. The variety of game-ending scenarios, including world domination, UN diplomacy, and space-race technology races (which may indeed teach us something we need to know), mean that you don't have to simply hack and slash your way to victory. But make no mistake about it, you are out to conquer your opponents, by any means necessary.
The popularity of the game, which has won numerous awards and spawned successful expansions, is well deserved. It taps in to a fundamental human drive for dominance in a way that promotes critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity.
The revisionist history that is possible to reenact with the game is one of its greatest attractions. While it may cause some cognitive dissonance to see Mohandas Ghandi order an nuclear ICBM attack on an opponent's city, it is also reassuring to know that Genghis Khan can expand his empire by means of free trade and cultural suasion rather than force of arms (although in some cases "revisionist" history ends up corresponding better to reality than accepted theories).
The game's interface is straightforward and intuitive. One drawback of the game's emphasis on strategy over action is that the conflict sequences are repetitive and buggy. The graphics when units are in battle leave much to be desired.
These tactical criticisms aside, however, Civ IV is a superb game. But the adeptness with which it meets the deepest human desires for power and control teaches us as much about ourselves as it does about the progressive unfolding of history.
- 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.