Errant Signal - Civilization

Summary

In this in-depth critique of *Civilization*, the speaker explores how the game presents a narrow, state-centered view of history that prioritizes nationalism and power struggles. Through mechanics like the barbarian system and the focus on state expansion, *Civilization* simplifies complex historical dynamics into a zero-sum competition for dominance. While the game celebrates human achievements, it often dehumanizes individuals, presenting them as pawns in the service of state power. The speaker highlights the ideological underpinnings of the game, challenging its portrayal of civilization as a linear progression driven by nationalism and the 'great man' theory of history.

Takeaways

• 😀 *Civilization* is a foundational game for the speaker, blending strategy and history, and has shaped their approach to both gaming and criticism.
• 😀 The game presents a history of mankind through the lens of nation-states, promoting nationalism and the primacy of the state over individuals.
• 😀 The 'barbarian' mechanic in *Civilization* dehumanizes certain groups, reducing them to mere obstacles for players, reinforcing a biased view of civilization.
• 😀 *Civilization* conflates the idea of civilization with modern nation-states, ignoring historical complexities like city-states, tribes, and empires with diverse forms of governance.
• 😀 The game’s approach to history, including the portrayal of civilizations, is influenced by mid-20th century geopolitics, particularly the Cold War and World War II.
• 😀 Unlike other games like *Crusader Kings*, *Civilization* focuses on the state as an entity, detaching it from the people it governs and reducing human agency.
• 😀 The game’s design, especially in its military and expansion mechanics, suggests that the survival and expansion of the state are paramount, often at the cost of individual well-being.
• 😀 The 'great man' view of history is prevalent in *Civilization*, with achievements and accomplishments treated as state-driven endeavors rather than personal human contributions.
• 😀 The game simplifies history by turning it into a zero-sum competition for global dominance, undermining the idea of multiple civilizations coexisting with differing goals and ideologies.
• 😀 *Civilization* encourages players to see everything—whether it’s culture, science, or religion—as tools for state expansion and dominance, which detracts from their intrinsic value or human importance.

Q & A

What is the core argument presented by the speaker in the video?

The speaker argues that while Civilization is a strategic game about the history of mankind, it presents a narrow and problematic view of history, focusing primarily on nationalism and state power. The game frames the entire history of civilization as a competition between nations, often disregarding the individual, the cultural aspects of society, and the complexities of human history.

How does the game Civilization portray 'barbarians,' and what is the underlying implication?

In Civilization, barbarians are depicted as monstrous, non-civilized groups that are treated as hostile forces of nature, and are even treated similarly to wildlife. The implication is that they are primitive and incapable of participating in the broader 'civilized' world, reinforcing a view that civilization is defined by the state and its expansion, excluding non-state societies.

What is the issue with how the game portrays ancient Greece?

The game portrays ancient Greece as a unified civilization, but historically, Greece was composed of independent city-states with distinct cultures, laws, and armies. This simplification ignores the complex political realities of the time, presenting an oversimplified and modernized version of ancient Greece.

How does the speaker contrast Civilization with Crusader Kings in terms of governance?

In Civilization, the emphasis is on playing as the state itself, which is seen as a timeless entity interested in its growth, power, and survival. In contrast, Crusader Kings focuses on the individuals who lead and govern, presenting government as a dynamic and personal process driven by individual desires for power and glory.

What critique does the speaker offer about Civilization’s approach to historical progression?

The speaker critiques the game’s linear, nation-centric view of history, where progress is framed as a race towards modern statehood. The game skips over other forms of governance and societal organization, forcing players to adopt a view that doesn't allow for the diversity of historical political systems, such as city-states or empires with decentralized governments.

What does the speaker mean by the game presenting history as a 'zero-sum' competition?

The game’s design forces civilizations into a race to achieve dominance, where only one civilization can 'win.' This creates a zero-sum dynamic, where the success of one nation necessarily means the failure of others, promoting the idea that history is a competition for supremacy rather than a complex interaction of various cultural, political, and human factors.

How does Civilization's gameplay undermine the humanistic aspects of history?

The gameplay mechanics prioritize expansion, conquest, and resource accumulation for the state's benefit, overshadowing the cultural, scientific, and artistic achievements of individual humans. This reduces history to a series of instrumental goals tied to state power, removing the focus from the people who actually created and contributed to history.

What role do great individuals play in Civilization, according to the speaker?

In Civilization, great individuals are represented as leaders, engineers, generals, and prophets whose accomplishments are framed as part of the state’s glory and expansion. While they are important figures in the game, their contributions are often seen as a means to further the state’s objectives, rather than as the result of their personal desires or values.

Why does the speaker believe the game’s approach to national pride is problematic?

The speaker argues that Civilization’s emphasis on nationalism and national pride distorts history by framing nations as the sole contributors to human progress. This undermines the complex, multifaceted nature of history and encourages a view of history that prioritizes state power and conquest over human achievement and cultural diversity.

What is the significance of the 'win conditions' in Civilization, and how do they reflect the game's worldview?

The win conditions in Civilization reinforce the idea that only one civilization can triumph, which reflects the game’s underlying fatalist and competitive worldview. The game’s design leads players to view history as a race towards a singular achievement, which ignores the reality that civilizations often coexist with distinct goals and values, rather than striving for universal dominance.