What makes a Civilization game?
Turn based gameplay?
A focus on multiple ways of victory?
The host of human history that accompanies it?
The easy flow of information?
Or the never ending stream of end turns that push on and on, leaving your hand crooked over the enter button waiting for something new to break up the relentless march of progress, time, and inevitability. That new thing being the year 2050 and a score based victory.
That's the final victory, the last gasp of the game. The nod to human expansion and general awesomeness.
Do you feel the thrill of discovery? Comprehend the nature of the wheel, writing and varying bits of technology, the expansion of thought from the Enlightenment, and the terrible civil struggle of individual citizen against king.
Not to mention the whole issue of slavery that they got rid of to be PC. Now.. Now the series doesn't mean anything in the scope of human expansion and discovery. The search for gold or research an inevitability brought on by a series of end turns that leaves you twiddling your thumbs for most of the game. Even if everything weren't automated (or had the ability to not be), there would still be little to micromanage.
Is there any anguish over the discovery of the new world? A rush of excitement when flight, or long sea voyagers are available? Is there a sense of wonder and joy with each wonder, each momentous structure that booms out a civilisations might?
Nope, nope, nope.
It is the most casual of games tied up into one of the most complex franchises, and the entire game suffers from it.
Sure from the perspective of a primary, or high school student some information may be useful for focusing your attention on different civilisations (the help screen offers a brief history of each civilisation, unit and school of thought), yet that is hidden far away from the main stage of the game, and has no real bearing on your understanding of game. History and gameplay are kept very separate.
Which makes sense if there's something this big to complete, the scope of complexity needed to make sure that each civilisation's discovery was a personal victory would mean tightening down on all gameplay functions to show that there was a distinct (not generic) link between the discovery of the wheel and the Mesopotamian empire.
Yet instead there's a very distinct divide in gameplay - where each nation has a few bonuses granted to them from the beginning, from religion (which is also kept generic), and from social policy (also granted to all nations). There's nothing in which to make sense of the discoveries being made, the social policies, or religion other than the will of the player, which more often than not is a simple "because I want to," instead of an intense desire for freedom, rationality or god.
And so the game feels hollow, lacking the distinctive drive of Alpha Centauri or prior Civilisation games where an ideal was more than simply a +1 production, it challenged your very thoughts. THe argument for slavery in Civilization III probably is the easiest example to put forward, slaves helped production, while providing some unhappiness. Some civilisations in that game relied entirely on slaves, to the extent that if you instigated a particular wonder (Universal Suffrage?) it would ruin their entire economy. Here the argument for and against slavery is implicit in the gameplay functionality of allowing such an event (which is still present) to occur, slaves speed up production and lower happiness. If you needed to build something then you'd most likely grab slaves. Instant moral, but also utilitarian problem (you could also point to the American Civil War to further the analysis, e.g. Who is a foreign state to dictate our own morals). Civilization V, offers non of these moral quandaries instead leaving the horrors of war, complexities of diplomacy, and the advancement of technologies as a status quo, something which cannot be changed. It could be argued that Civilization V could be a warning against globalisation, the homogenising of ideologies to such an extent that none stand out on their own.
Perhaps if the game weren't so wide spread, or encompassing Firaxis might have been able to provide the reasons for each nation/religion/researches' discoveries and desires, which to me informs the player much more about civilisation and world history, rather than just beating a game. I beat the game is much more hollow than I changed the course of a civilisation.
####
In short don't grab Civilization V. Also check out the earlier post about Alpha Centauri here.
In other news I've started my PhD, which is exciting if a little busy. I've got a bunch of different journal articles, and reviews to read, then I've got to write my own notes, a detailed plan, more refining of ideas, etc, etc. There's a lot to do, though I don't necessarily have to do it all at once - it's more of a better if I do thing.
Reviews are still popping up on Videau though it's getting hard to find time to pick up, play and review games. Still things are good, if busy.
No comments:
Post a Comment