The thing about gamification of stuff is it inherently suppresses morality, I think. Like imagine playing a game where your goal is to be a president of a young democratic country, you play for 8 in game years and suddenly an orbitrary rule tries to tell you that no matter your previous actions, it is game over unless you come up with some sneaky shenanigans to keep you in power and BAM! You are vladimir putin now. And from your perspective you are not corrupt or evil, you just play by the rules of the game to maximise your fun and achieve as much as possible
Doesn't that imply the game's internal morality is winning, and it teaches how that happens through mechanics and preset goals? Staying in office could be a stage but not the final. Becoming a political advocate or taking part elsewhere in government might seriously shift how you interact with the game but it's not less game to include that. Possible to create an end-game where you can transition out of office and are presented with the impacts you had leading into the future like a montage. A perpetual mode where you must stay in control as president is a choice by devs and directs players toward that as a goal.
Great video! I'm watching it in installments (after having watched your latest when it came up in my Related feed), and every time I open the page I see your subscriber count go up. Always good to see non-English-native TH-camrs hit their stride, I really hope that's your moment, because the quality of your work should be reflected in waaaay higher sub numbers. Thank you and keep at it!
I always figured that the point of barbarians was to incentivize the Player's production of military units in the early game; Without the pressure of hostile invaders, the Production of a given city would be better used on scouts and Workers and Settlers.
Honestly given that i allways thought it would make more sense if barbarians where just wild animals. Makes sense Stone age village would need some people to be trained in how to deal with wild animals
I'm really not getting the impression, at any point of this video, that it's trying to say the devs purposefully designed any of this with the intent of spreading pro-western propaganda. I think your reaction was adressed pretty well in the Conclusion section (2:08:22) - maybe you should go back and rewatch it, now that the video has had some time to simmer? :)
I never claim that it isn't their intended point. I also do not seek to derive their intended point, only the rhetorical effect of the design decisions made.
It's also accurate. In our world if you didn't conquer then you became the conquered. These soft ideologies of effiminacy and pacifism are preparing the west for annihilation
My main concerns with this video pertain to the game, and I will focus solely on issues related to the game itself. Here are some inaccuracies I observed while watching the video. 29:20 I disagree with this. While it's true that the majority of non-Western nations in the game aren't portrayed in a modern context, it's essential to acknowledge notable exceptions like Ethiopia and India, which are depicted in a more present day representation. Additionally, one could argue that civilizations such as the Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, and Moroccan represent their present nations rather than a specific historical era. For instance, if approached historically, the Chinese would be represented by the Tang Dynasty, Korea by the Joseon Dynasty, Indonesia by the Majapahit Empire, and Morocco by the Saadi Sultanate. Now, when considering Western nations, there are instances where they aren't represented in their present day forms. The Celts, English, and Greeks are examples. The Celts don't represent the current nations of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The English representation doesn't align with the present-day United Kingdom, and a similar case can be made for Wales and Scotland. The Greek civilization, led by Alexander of Macedon, doesn't reflect the current nations of Greece or North Macedonia. Finally, one could argue that the Byzantines are more historically aligned with Greece than Italy. 31:58 This is mostly true; however, the leaders of the Ethiopian, Ottomans, Chinese, Korean, and Persian civilizations are indeed depicted in the manner you described. 34:56 It should have been mentioned that additional denominations were introduced with the Brave New World expansion DLC. In the base game, only Christianity is available. 38:00 The Great Lighthouse, and the Statue of Zeus, provide military bonuses to military units. 40:59 There was initially a planned wonder called "Motherland Calls," but it was cut from the game. tcrf.net/Sid_Meier's_Civilization_V_(Windows)#Unused_Wonder. Additionally, the Brandenburg Gate could be considered a military wonder because of the bonuses it provides. 42:02 Conveniently and hopefully not dishonestly, the International Space Station wonder is left out in this visual display. That wonder is exactly what he wanted the Hubble Space Telescope to be like. 1:06:56 Incorrect, your cities can revolt and merge with another civilization that holds significant cultural influence over you. This occurs only under conditions of high unhappiness. Regarding the statement about "cities or units without a clearly categorized culture," examples include City-States and barbarian units. 1:07:11 This overlooks the religious bonuses tied to traits, which are granted based on the number of followers in your cities or civilization. 1:07:27 Happiness and gold/economic mechanics would disagree. 1:08:05 As I said before, your cities can rebel and merge into other civilizations. 1:09:22 Mostly true, but you can receive unique unhappiness modifiers if a opposing civilization has a different ideology from you, and have a high cultural influence. 1:10:38 It's actually possible to revive vanquished civilizations by liberating their occupied cities, particularly their capital. This can occur at any point in the game. 1:11:51 The game allows you to change your ideology to a different one, but not the traits. 1:12:20 Incorrect, cities continue to receive benefits from all religions present, with the dominant one not override other bonuses. The only exception is the founder beliefs bonuses, which exclusively apply to the founder of that particular religion. 1:15:28 Technically, you can achieve this by adopting another civilization's religion, but altering your founding religion is not possible. 1:15:41 This is entirely and factually inaccurate. You can indeed cause a religion to become extinct by utilizing an inquisitor's ability to completely eliminate the status of a holy city. 1:17:30 In my opinion, the process of changing ideologies is overly easy, and the penalties incurred are not sufficiently severe. This seems like a skill issue. 1:26:52 This should have specified its rankings for multiplayer, as in single-player mode, Venice isn't a poor choice when compared to its multiplayer performance. 1:39:48 Incorrect, there are actually five victories; the time/score victory isn't mentioned, despite being visually displayed at 1:40:21. 1:48:44 Except for the case of the International Space Station, there are also research agreements in diplomacy. Overall I did enjoyed this 2 hour analysis of Civilization 5, one of my favorite games. I appreciated this video for its unique approach to analysis, diverging from the more conventional focus on gameplay elements and mechanics often seen in other videos.
Thank you a lot for this extremely detailed reply. I have to admit that a few of the points you mentioned I simply never encountered in my over 200 hours of play and thus assumed to be impossible. As I understand this as an intentionally nitpicky comment, let me add onto some of your points in an equally pedantic fashion. We’re all nerds here, pedantry is our bread and butter. 29:20 Thank you for mentioning the Celts. I actually considered dropping the point about the Gauls, as the Gauls are arguably Celtic. However, I do not think that the mere existence of the Celts negates the tendency I point out. The Greeks are explained through the Classicism I mention, they're right there on the Classicism blackboard. There are, you are correct, exceptions to the tendencies I focus on. However, the civilizations you picked to make that point are actually not ideal, as the very fact that you must point to these names that the Western audience would otherwise be unfamiliar with, proves the point that these civilizations were given their names precisely because this is how the West knows them, and that their more precise historical and self-given names are not part of their Oriental image in the Western conscious. Civ 6 does actually remedy some of this, too, through, for example, the inclusion of the Scythians. 31:58 While we're on the topic of leaders, you failed to point out that the obvious reason why Nelson Mandela could not have been used as the leader for a hypothetical South Africa, as I fantasize about, is that he was still alive when the game was released. 34:56 I analyzed the final version of the game. The fact that Christianity was actively expanded upon later through DLC does not change the point I make, but support it. 38:00 This is true, and yet they are in themselves, on the surface, not related to military. I did consider pointing to the Statue of Zeus, but eventually decided against doing so, as I thought it wouldn't have changed the tendency described, as there still are no, for example, spiritual Chinese wonders in that era, and the non-military Greek wonders are overwhelming. 40:59 This is a similar case to the Statue of Zeus. On the surface, the Brandenburg Gate is a symbol of peace and unification, but ludically, it's not. Discussing this in the video would actually have opened a whole new can of worms, as the Brandenburg Gate changed cultural meaning several times throughout its history and was, of course, originally a symbol for victory, considering the statue of Victoria that sits on top. Today, it is on our 50 Cent coins and would never have been put there if it still carried even the slightest connotation of war, given the (until recently) radically pacifist stance of German politics. Scrapped wonders are interesting, but irrelevant to the analysis of the final game. 42:02 This is false, the International Space Station, like all wonders, only grants its benefits to the nation that owns it. I did not include it, because you cannot build it the way the other wonders are constructed. Even the Civilopedia doesn’t attribute it to any specific era, just like the United Nations wonder. You are probably referring to how the competition within which it is built grants second and third place minor rewards, but the wonder itself goes to the nation with the highest contribution. 1:06:56 This is actually something I did not know, as I haven’t seen it happen once, so thank you for enlightening me! I concede that the absolute phrasing of that statement is wrong, but given how rarely it can happen, as you admit yourself, it is a far cry from how Civ 6 handles it. City States are clearly categorized cultures with names and borders, and the fact that the ones that aren’t are called barbarians, that must be exterminated, has its very own chapter in this video and doesn’t exactly counter the point of the video, but support it. 1:07:11 I have trouble understanding what you mean by this. The point you make actually applies very well to a completely different inaccuracy you also happen to mention. At 1:12:20 I claim that religious minorities hold no value unless they succeed in reclaiming the majority. This is untrue, as minority populations still inform bonuses that a religion might bestow on its founder. But again, this is largely irrelevant to the major drift of the gameplay. 1:10:38 I was unaware this was possible, since, as I understand it, it doesn’t apply to the defeat of your own nation. While an interesting tidbit, civilizations are in fact completely struck from everything and lose all agency when losing all territory, which was the point I was making. 1:11:51 Yes, I say so, a few minutes later. Don’t be like Cinemasins, you’re smarter than that. 1:15:28 I don’t know what this is supposed to achieve. If you think I didn’t know this, you must think very little of me, and on a technical basis, it has zero bearing on the point I am making, as this is not in the hands of the player herself. 1:15:41 This is the insight that made me truly appreciate this comment and reply. I read back on forum after forum about this and - since even veteran players, such as yourself, seemed to be debating this in, albeit, ancient forum discussions - there used to be some uncertainty as to whether and how this can happen. The consensus seems to be that you actually need two inquisitors to fully erase holy city status. Thank you for pointing this out, I truly did not know this. 1:17:30 So the writers on the Fandom Wiki have a skill issue? Your words, not mine! But yes, it is technically possible to overcome this, I did not say otherwise. 1:26:52 I think “competitive rankings” makes it clear that this is multiplayer. My own research on this also found that Venice can actually be used quite successfully for certain victories, even in multiplayer, but since I am not well versed in multiplayer myself, as I, frankly, suck at anything above King level, I trusted Dom Ford’s research, who I am quoting there. He, in turn, mainly quotes FilthyRobot’s Civilization Tier List 2.0. 1:39:48 This is one of the many things I struck from the original Master Thesis script, as I didn’t think anyone would truly care for the dreadfully boring and culturally irrelevant Time Victory. But hey, you asked for it, so here’s the quote from my Master Thesis, available on my university’s website by simply googling “Civ 5 Wendt”, in case you want to double check: “Time Victory is only triggered on the rare occasion that until a certain in-game year, none of the aforementioned victories has been achieved by any of the competing civilizations. This victory creates a 'win-on-points' scenario in order to avoid a stalemate. Upon reaching the predetermined deadline, all civilizations are awarded points on the basis of calculations that - among others - evaluate their territorial, economic, military, cultural, and scientific standing. The civilization with the highest score wins the game.” How exciting, I wonder why I didn’t include it. 1:48:44 I even show one later, as I accept a proposal by Brazil. I am actually astounded by how you read this. Research agreements are exactly what I was referring to when I was talking about agreements that ultimately must end in someone’s demise, thus negating their entire point. I specifically had research agreements in mind when I was elaborating on how the game's Machiavellian, Realpolitik ideals undermine any hint of true alliances and global community. Jokes aside: I am deeply happy you enjoyed the video and more so that you took the time to comment. I wouldn’t call this channel’s approach unique, though, I think you’re giving us way too much credit. In the TH-cam sphere, maybe (hopefully not though), but outside of it, it is a pretty bog-standard academic piece, with all the boring fat (hopefully) trimmed.
@@crocodilegambit Thank you for your detailed response, and I'd like to address some points and provide clarification. I should have mentioned earlier that my playtime for Civilization 5 exceeds 1.1k hours, underscoring its importance for me. I apologize if my previous comment seemed a bit nitpicky; it was not my intention. My deep investment in the game is evident from the hours played. The list I provided highlighted some minor inaccuracies related to the game. Despite these points, I still genuinely enjoyed the majority of the video. "Thank you for mentioning the Celts..." In Civilization 5, the depiction of the Celts is more focused with the Brythonic and Gaelic Celtic groups rather than serving as a catch-all for all Celts, as was often the case in previous games. In Civilization 4, some Civs were often portrayed with a broad label, such as "Native Americans" led by Sitting Bull or "Vikings" led by Ragnar. Similarly, the Celts are also there with being led by the familiar Boudica, and Brennus as an additional leader. "The Greeks are explained through the Classicism I mention..." My mistake for the oversight; I failed to notice that you had visually represented Greece on the blackboard. This may be due to the sloop effect, as flags of countries were displayed, contrasting with Greece, which was only represented solely as a word. From my observations, it does appear that Civ 6 does execute this representation more effectively. Notably, leaders like Ambiorix are specific to Gaul, instead of using the catch-all term of "Celts", as seen in previous games. While I have yet to play Civ 6, surprising, I know, I do hope to play it it someday. If I may indulge in a bit more scrutiny regarding the blackboard, it seems Bolivia and Guatemala could have been appropriately better paired with Peru and Mexico, mirroring how you paired Tunisia and Lebanon for the present nations. Especially for Guatemala, given its significant population of ethnic Mayans. However, I wouldn't really say the Aztecs are an accurate representative of Guatemala compared to the Mayans. "While we're on the topic of leaders, you fail" I made a mistake with the timestamp in my original draft; initially, I included massive quotes from the transcript but I removed them, because it would make my comment seem overly bloated. However, I realize now that quoting here would have clarified my objection better. My comment aimed to dispute the assertion that "leaders of cultures subjected to Western imperialism are often not shown in their throne rooms, offices, or even homes." I cited examples of civilizations where leaders were indeed depicted in these settings. Regarding the topic of South Africa, I agree that Nelson Mandela would be a fitting leader, and I concur with your observation that the game developers probably aimed to avoid featuring leaders deemed too recent, although this reasoning might be debatable for figures like Haile Selassie. He, too, could be considered recent. But hey, perhaps Civ 7 could be different? "I analyzed the final version of the game..." Certainly, I understand. It's just that it might have caused some confusion for players who don't have Brave New World installed. Yes, it does support the argument more as well. One detail I overlooked mentioning is that the emphasis on Ancient and Greek wonders in the game is likely because of the "Wonders of the Ancient World" DLC pack. This DLC and scenario introduce some of these wonders, the scenario's victory condition revolve around a building contest between civilizations. Regarding the Brandenburg Gate, I agree that from a gameplay perspective, it is mechanically inaccurate and may give a false impression of its true historical significance. My reference to the scrapped wonder was meant as a fun little known trivia, not as criticism of the video. Looking back, I think it would have been interesting to explore at least some of the scenarios, but it's acceptable if you didn't because the video would have been longer. "This is false, the International Space Station..." You're absolutely right; I was thinking about the competition bonus, not the wonder itself. My mistake, it seems my memory blended the two together as the same thing. "This is actually something I did not know..." Indeed, it's an exceedingly rare and situational scenario. Many, including myself, haven't encountered it even after many hours of gameplay. One amusing memory I had involves cities from an entirely different continent repeatedly revolting and merging into my nation due to my high cultural influence. Whenever this occurs, there's no option to decline their merging, but you can return the city to its original civilization if you wanted. Despite doing this, the constant merging persisted, creating a humorous and odd experience. Moreover, I may have confused memories of Barbarians and City-States with recollections of mods that expanded and randomized those mechanics. It's worth noting that my last playthrough was in 2019, so my memories are susceptible distortion.
"1:07:11 I have trouble understanding what you mean by this." I should have included an additional timestamp. Between 1:07:11 and 1:07:32, your presentation may create the impression that there are no internal problems or questioning of your rule. However, while the internal problems aren't overly complex, they are real. These include unhappiness leading to reduced production and income, the spawning of barbarians, and the rare cases of cities merging with different civilizations. Unhappiness stemming from the population's desire for a different ideology, particularly when influenced by another civilization with high cultural impact over you. Bankruptcy is another internal problem, significantly slowing scientific progress and causing some units to disband. Additionally, mismanagement of food production may lead to famine and a reduction in local city population. Interestingly, it's a viable strategy to intentionally starve your cities to reduce unhappiness, although it may sound somewhat overly evil. Do you consider these issues to be internal problems, or have I misunderstood your perspective? "At 1:12:20 I claim that religious minorities..." My memory was mistaken. You are correct; the religion follower bonuses only apply to the city's majority. The reason for my confusion may be related to the fact that, if memory serves me right, you can purchase the unique faith-based buildings of an opposing religion. After that, converting the city back to your religion allows you to retain those buildings, which ironically contribute faith and culture to your religion. "I was unaware this was possible..." I forgot to mention that a civilization final outcome depends on the game rules. If you have "Complete Kills" enabled, a civilization needs to have all its units and cities destroyed or captured in order be completely wiped from the game, not just its cities. This can lead to a funny situation where a civilization that lost all its cities and territory early in the game may still persist in the late game, as one of its units, like a scout, remains undefeated. "This is the insight..." It took me a long amount of time to grasp this, but yes, you'll have to deploy a significant number of inquisitors, of which would of made the historical Inquisition blush with envy, to entirely eliminate a Holy City. Moreover, based on my anecdotal experience, the city's population appears to play a role, along with specific traits that either strengthen the inquisitors or make the cities more resistant to their influence. "So the writers on the Fandom Wiki..." Adding to this, there are situations where changing ideologies is not only advisable but also advantageous. One such scenario occurs when a fellow civilization that shares the same ideology exerts high cultural influence over me, close to a cultural victory. To delay this and gain some extra turns, I might switch ideologies to negate the shared ideology culture/tourism bonus. Another instance is during periods of high unhappiness, prompting a switch to the ideology of a civilization with substantial cultural influence to eliminate the unhappiness penalty. Additionally, adopting the same ideology as a neighboring civilization to temporarily to maintain friendly relations is another strategy. Later, when ready, changing to a preferred ideology. Finally, if following a strategy focused on building up science, gold, etc., a change to an ideology with superior military bonuses becomes a wise move when the time is right. "I don’t know what this is supposed to achieve..." I misunderstood your statement when you mentioned, "the player cannot choose to change or revert her nation's religion." I initially thought you were talking about a scenario where if a player didn't establish a religion in time, they wouldn't be able to spread or convert to any religion at all. However, this wouldn't be the case, as players can still be converted by another civilization's religion. Upon clarification, I realized you were actually referring to the inability to change the founding religion, not a religion imposed by another civilization. "I think “competitive rankings” makes it clear that this is multiplayer..." Perhaps, but it's likely that a minority of people associate might the term "competitive" with higher difficulties as well with multiplayer. Additionally, when considering "FilthyRobot’s Civilization Tier List 2.0," it's important to note that it operates under a specific rule set called "no quitters" for multiplayer games. This rule set aims to impose restrictions to create what it deems a more balanced gaming experience and typically employs certain approved maps. However, it's crucial to recognize that this rule set may not represent all the various rule sets and multiplayer games people may engage in. For instance, in a one city challenge, Venice could be top-tier, fitting within those specific niche rule sets. Beyond rule sets, the maps and various circumstances also play a role in determining the viability of Venice. Venice might not fare well on a large map with few or no city-states compared to thriving on a small map with many city-states. In certain situations, Venice might be underrated, showcasing its effectiveness under specific conditions. "This is one of the many things I struck from the original Master..." I agree; while it's undoubtedly a boring victory, I believe it should have been at least acknowledged, even if just with a brief, off-hand joke. I found it amusing when you mentioned "by meeting one of four Victory conditions," and then, a few seconds later at 1:40:21, it's revealed that there are actually five victory conditions, as "time victory is disabled" is shown. "I even show one later, as I accept a proposal by Brazil..." I see your point, and it's mostly true that "science is not portrayed as a neutral joint effort across borders." However, it's worth noting the International Space Station project, as I mentioned earlier, which does offer a small one-time bonus to the civilizations that contributed to it. In fairness, this is a late-game feature, so it doesn't entirely refute the claim that science isn't portrayed entirely neutrally. Thank you once again for taking the time to respond. I apologize for any potential misunderstandings. I still enjoyed the video, and it brought back some great memories. I'm curious if you've only played Civ 5 and 6. If so, I highly recommend trying out Civ 4, despite it's age. It is still great and very different and unique compared to 5. For example, you can be the founder of multiple religions with the same holy city, resembling a modern-day Jerusalem. Founding a religion in the game is tied to reaching a specific point in the tech tree, making science growth a key factor in determining the number of religions you can found. Additionally, I wonder if you have any plans to explore other game series like Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Victoria, Crusader Kings, and Stellaris. It could potentially result in interesting content similar to this video. Furthermore, I highly suggest adding timestamps to your video descriptions to take advantage of the chapter feature. This enhances the overall viewing experience, particularly for longer-form content. It's convenient for viewers taking breaks and returning to the video. Your channel is underrated, and I genuinely hope that you'll win the TH-cam algorithm lottery.
@@crocodilegambit Your also wrong about the calander. The Myan calander is represented in the game and is Tied to the main ability of the myan civilization not sure how you could have missed that in 200 hours
Never feel pretentious for pointing out something that seems obvious to you! :) This finally put into words why I've never managed to enjoy the Civ or most other 4X games: There is no shared victory. It is always a competition, no matter what, and there is no way to perpetually co-exist in peace. I never would have drawn these connections myself, and this was a delight to watch. Thank you very much for making it.
Amazing video! I grew up with the Civ games and I think I've been blind to so much of this, and it's really awesome to be taught about this in such an entertaining way!
Alright, after watching now I have to firstly say: An excellent video, your presentation is highly informative while also incorporating jokes very well I think. I like your style a lot. I think commenting on how Civ 6 improved but also could not remove all problems is good and important. I think in cases like these we should remember that this is an ongoing series and art always has to exist in the context of its financial viability. If the devs radically reimagined Civ 6 to be overwhelmingly different from its predecessors, that would likely not be a sound financial decision. So I think in this context positive changes should be praised where they are made, even if not everything was fixed. At the same time of course, this does not and should not preclude the newer media from being analyzed and criticized just like the older titles based on its own merits. Again, I think the video was excellent. There are two criticisms I would like to offer however. First, I think it was good that you had the disclaimer at the start of the video. Many people take such analysis way too personally, so it's good to remind everyone that that is the inappropriate lens. At the same time, I think some of the quite funny jokes you used could be misinterpreted to draw parallels between the developers choices and some political leanings you rightly identified as worthy of ridicule and also negative sentiment. I don't think you should curb the jokes, but maybe after such spicy commentary quickly interject again that this does not reflect indictment of the devs but rather is commentary on the subtext of the media, regardless of intent. At the same time, I'm not sure if that would ruin the editing, just a thought. Second, you frontload a huge amount of information before going into the analysis of Civ itself. For those looking for exactly this type of video, that's not gonna be a problem. For others stumbling on it from some other direction but open to see what it's about, I'm worried it might turn some people off. Again, not a professional, just offering my thoughts for your consideration or discardment. The reason I speak so plainly is because I think you bring something desperately needed in the gaming space of TH-cam and would like to see much more and also for you to become much more widely seen. To that end, all the best for this new year and whatever you decide to do next.
That was the best, the most in-depth reading of a game I've ever encountered. Thank you! I wish there were way more like that, but obviously this took ages to create!
Absolutely phenomenal work! I've read and loved all of Bogost's books, and particularly like the lens of procedural rhetoric. As someone who's been making videogames professionally for almost 3 decades I can say with confidence that it's incredibly hard to craft a game that 'says' exactly what you want it to say. Mostly because the mechanics are constantly evolving throughout the production. What works well thematically may break balance, budget or simply be too radical a change from the original direction. And it's very hard for a team (because most design decisions are not made in a bubble by a single auteur) to resist "the rule of cool" or the "fun factor" even if a proposed feature erodes the other thematic load bearing members. That's why few games are consistently coherent in the ludology/narratology. That, and the fact that we're still a relatively young artform still hashing out best practices and where we want to live in the entertainment/art ecosystem. Still often driven by technology-oriented methods and cursed to reinvent the wheel frequently when it comes to our tool sets and procedures. I almost didn't click on this because, as you point out at the end, colonial critiques of Civ are old hat and I've seen several already, but I'm glad I did! I've been sharing it around my game dev friends. Hopefully you'll get some traction from this very well done video. Suggestion for a future video... I'd love to see you tackle another game using Bogost's Unit Operations. The way you illustrate the concepts of procedural rhetoric makes me want to see something similar with Unit Operations.
The happiness system could be read as "just happy enough", but it can also be seen as a logical incentive for the relentless hunger of empires for fancy ressources.
whats fascinating is that it seems like CIV VII is attempting to address many of the points made in this video (intentionally or not). What do you know about the upcoming game? What is your opinion of it?
Given how 6 already addressed many of them, 7 will likely go one step further. I don't think they can do away with the inherent dilemma I discuss, but I'm sure they'll do what they can. I read they hired an actual historian to assist this time round, so I'm hopeful. From what I've seen, they'll apparently try and solve the problem of ethnic consistency by allowing you to switch cultures between ages, which is an interesting concept. Then again, people will only experience that rhetoric if they feel compelled to play the game, so first and foremost, it's gotta be fun. "If it's not fun, why bother?" Not always correct, but in this case the quote fits, I fear.
@@crocodilegambit I want to play 6 but cant get over the hurdle of how different it is to 5. Seems like it may be worth putting in the extra effort! Great video!
Very nice Video. What you didnt comment on os that games very often operate in an ethik vacuum because consequences are not fun. Killing my opponent and T-baging its remains isnt the same when you think about its love waiting for him at home. A big part of the fun comes from ignoring ethics. Simmilarly in Minecraft you are the foreign force that kills Zombys without thinking about why they dont want you to continue with rebuilding their world. I mean it could be fun if we did :D
Starkes Video mit hervorragender wissenschaftlicher Arbeit als Grundlage! Ich empfand das Video hier und deine Arbeit zu collectivist rpgs viel interessanter als die Arbeit der meisten "großem" Video Game Essayisten. Freue mich schon darauf, deine anderen Videos zu schauen! Greetings from good old rainy Westerwald to Liverpool!
Regarding wonders referencing WWII I think you forgot the Prora, which only autocracies can build. It's a gigantuous resort built by the Nazis, though construction was halted in 1939.
The original master thesis did mention it, but I scrapped it here because I felt it muddied the argument. Someone even quotes my thesis in the Prora's English Wikipedia entry, god knows why. It's technically built by the Nazis, but it was designed - and nowadays used - as a resort. So in terms of reference to the war machine itself, it seems like a deliberately evasive wonder, given the sheer plethora of actual war-related wonders they could have used. The Nazis built so much stuff that was supposed to signal military strength and social cohesion, but naturally, and fully understandably, we don't see any of that in the game. That is good. It just also means we sort of "don't mention the war". There's no winning here.
Very well-produced video and a bit hard to follow when I'm tabbed into another game. And I mean that in the most non-derogatory way possible. Great stuff, hope to see more like it soon.
I'm glad the algorithm decided to point me in your direction. It is rare to see a deep critique of games like Civ, for reasons you stated in the video, so it was a pleasure to watch. Seeing the clickbait title in the description, I want to ask if you have any interest in doing something similar for Civ 7. Whether you do it as a comparison to Civ 5 or as a standalone analysis of Civ 7, I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say. Watching Firaxis's design changes from 5 to 7 (rampaging barbarians to the optional barbarian clans mode to the new independent peoples, for example) shows that they are considering the same things that you brought up in your video. Regardless, I am very interested in seeing what you do next.
Let's hope the algorithm gods are more gracious with this video once Civ 7 comes out. 29:13 I will just nitpick something inconsequential to the point of the video : I know you said you are taking a lot of liberties here, but, uh, who are the "Teutons"? Gallia was the name given to a vague region full of Celtic-language speaking groups of people (which includes lots more than modern day France. That's a weirdly French nationalist idea) and then carved into provinces by Rome. The Teutons were a largely unknown probably Germanic-language speaking ensemble from the second century B.C. mentioned briefly by Romans and presumably starting in the region of contemporary Jutland. Again, I have no issues with the actual point you are making, but my historian brain would actually be offended by the inclusion of "Teutons" as somehow associated with modern "Germany" and "Gauls" with modern "France" 😅. The old volkish nationalist identification would be "Germanic" = "German", yet that would be just as bad. That the latin term "teutonicus" would in later medieval and early modern times be translated back into "teutsch/deutsch" by German speakers (and is to this day by translators!) and early proponents of what one might call a "german nation" is an entirely different, stinky paar Schuhe.
Thanks for that insightful comment! I struggled a lot with this section of the video, precisely because it's so hard to pin down ethnicities and not fall into the trap of buying into nationalist (in this case völkisch) narratives that aren't exactly factual. I admit that I chose the Teutons for that historical equivalence that is often drawn given their name, but as you point out yourself, there is no one Germanic tribe, there's several. I could also have chosen the Saxons, or the Frisians, the Cimbri, whatever. The name "German" alone is Roman, and was used to denote tribes that we today wouldn't classify as Germanic. Like the Teutons, which seem to be sort of a gray area. The fact that I claim Gauls aren't represented is equally borderline, since there's the Celts, and Gauls are Celtic, but not all Celtic tribes are Gauls, obviously. I think what all this really boils down to is that Civilization requires some sort of cultural cohesion over millennia, which history simply does not support. A point that I make later in the video but that would have been necessary to frontload here because my weird exercise buys into the same misconception the game promotes.
When I played 4x games I would sometimes feel like I was playing the bad side. It felt like a friction that I couldn't articulate. I'm happy to be able to put my experience into words now.
Just a slight correction from a south african here: Zulu people are still very much around. They're the ethnic majority of South Africans and there's even still a Zulu King.
That is actually a good point, I fail to bring up that fact, so it may sound like I claim the Zulu were *replaced* by South Africa which is of course not the case. Wasn't there even a rather recent coronation? One could even make the argument that representing the Zulu serves anticolonialism more than South Africa would have, if you take their still very much active culture into account. It all comes down to what perspective you approach it from. I think Westerners primarily associate the Zulu with colonial wars, while from the perspective of some South Africans, the Zulu may actually be more representative of native identity than the more modern state of South Africa? Would love to hear your thoughts on this. I mostly talk to people from Nigeria , Kenya and Uganda, I have very little insight into the South African perspective. It still remains a curious choice, though, as there is no internationally recognized sovereign Zulu nation. It would be similarly awkward to have, for example, "the Bavarians" or "the Prussians", but not "the Germans".
I suppose the overall point of the video is correct, but equally runs with a conclusion that can be deflated with the response "So what"? It's well made & props for making such a long video, but there are a number of flaws/assumptions that means you seem to be cherry-picking evidence to support your conclusion rather than weighing the mechanical implications (and developmental implications) of each point. Some places where I think you erred or overplayed your hand; the response is to the surrounding point you make, not just to the timestamp/quote itself: 15:51 - "Environmental Determinism, an inherently racist tool designed to forge imperialist hierachies" ...No? Whilst it may be true that historically, or even originally, the idea of ED (which, very simply, is the idea that a societies geographic environment is the main/major driver in how that society developed) was used as an explicit justification for racism & racist policy; that is simply no longer the case. For example, probably the most high-profile pop-proponent of ED, Jared Diamond, is very clear in his work that is an anti-racist one, and that ED in its modern conception contains nothing that could be understood to be related to the direct superiority/inferiority of one people group to another. It's like arguing that callipers are an inherenty racist tool because they were used quite often by phrenologists. 25:17 - "the cross didn't symbolise Christianity, it symbolised religion. That's a fairly innocent example of Eurocentrism" Except that it isn't, and it isn't. I wouldn't want to speculate too much on your own life, but presumably the reason you associated the cross with religion as a whole was because the examples of religion you were raised around were exclusively, or at least of a majority, Christian. I know that I didn't see a mosque or synagogue until I was around 12-13, and all prior examples had either been Catholic or Anglican churches. So you weren't making the assumption that you lived in Europe, and thus all religious buildings must have common European features such as the cross. You were (and I am presuming here) making the assumption that since churches were Christian religious buildings, and all of them had crosses, and since you didn't quite understand the significance of the cross you assumed, as a child might, that all religious buildings had that feature. It was all you had probably ever known. Regardless, this leads into my greater point that your definition of Eurocentrism is wrong (or at best incomplete). Eurocentrism is not a flawed idea because it assumes Western Europe to be the baseline; because everyone does that. Every culture & every person within that culture (and this is true for subcultures as well, to a lesser extent) has used their own background as a baseline for judgement. Because you have literally no other choice without having already experienced a foreign culture. If you read the diaries of Japanese people receiving the first Portugese missionaries, for example, you can see that they are judging the Portugese in relation to Japanese custom; they are thinking that their ways are strange & alien & not correct. The problem with Eurocentrism is not the perfectly normal & universal comparison with one's own cultural context - it is the assumption of total cultural superiority of the Western European, and also the assumption that all worldy progress & development has stemmed from Western Europe, from Rome onwards. You definition of Eurocentrism is not only far too broad & universal to be useful, but also ignores the actually harmful ideas that Eurocentrism supports. 29:00 - "I'm taking a lot of liberties here" I agree with the statement you made on screen. The difference between most of the France/Germany & most of the other countries you have up on screen is that most of them were not historical empires. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon & Tunisia have very little in common, both culturally & ethnically, with their respective empires. Likewise, Peru, Mexico, South Africa & Mali are countries that are located in & whose populations are broadly descended from the peoples in the earlier empires but which were then colonised and only emerged as nation-states many generations after the total death of the empire represented in Civ V. France & Germany, on the other hand, are much more recent imperial projects and have a much more direct historical link between the government of the empire & nowadays. Also, Italy is a European nation who is obviously not represented. On a similar point, the nations that exist today & in Civ V are generally not presented in anywhere near their modern form; England is led by Elizabeth, and the Danish by Harald Hadrada. As others have pointed out, there are a number of modern nations outside of Europe who are represented, such are Ethiopia, China, Indonesia or India. 29:47 "You can play as Germany, but you cannot play as the Teutons" Following on from the prior points, you still fail to make a case for the Eurocentrism on Civ V's part. The Teutons were a people group who did exist, but they were not an empire in the way most of the other civs are; You'd have been better to use Prussia as an example of this given its much closer ties to Germany. Likewise, the Franks rather than the Gauls should have been used as your civilisational root for France. These were the empires that laid the cultural & societal groundwork for their respective successors. As for the Turk/Ottoman difference, this is simply because although one arose from the other they are more distinct than the evolution of medival France to modern France. The Ottoman empire did not become Turkey; rather, Turkey was birthed from the Ottoman corpse. Whereas France, in a admittedly broad sense, developed more gradually (as an identity, not literally) into the modern republic. The Ottomon empire was a distinctly multi-ethnic imperialist feudal monarchy whereas Turkey was a distinctly nationalistic nation-state. 30:30 "Persia, over Iran" This is the only example of a broadly continuous nation existing in both its imperial period & today. But even here, Iran is unique in that the inhabitants of Iran are Persian; Persia was the name for Iran until 1935, and the name for Iran generally used by outsiders up until the Islamic Revolution in the 70s. And most importantly, a little like with the Ottoman empire - Persia was the name of the polity during its greatest imperial period. Civ V is a game about being imperialist, and so it is to the times of imperialism that almost all the nations in Civ V refer to. This is similarly true for referring to Siam over Thailand, although I think this is a much weaker case than with Persia. That said, both countries only changed their names to their modern incarnations in the 1930s & the Civ game have generally wanted to avoid direct references to the modern day. 33:36 "base buildings, units, and technologies" Simply a mechanical constraint of the game. Like a lot of the responses I could give, this is simply a reflection of the game being designed by a Western studio for a Western audience. It's a crude snapshot because games have a limited budget & minutia produce diminishing returns. Knights are well known in Western culture, and the devs are from the West and have focused on a primarily western audience as we can see from the language options they make available. This can apply to basically 90% of your complaints from here on - games have mechanical constraints based on their development & so almost every system is an abstraction of real-world concepts. The Civ games are designed for a Western audience, and so the base for these concepts are ones from broad Western cultures. cont.
38:00 - "suggests peaceful wonders of religion, science, and trade" Religion, especially when represented by a giant rapist with a lightning spear, is definitely very peaceful. It is also unlocked by starting the pro-war tradition tree. Equally, the Great Wall & Terracotta Army are probably the most well-known Chinese cultural artifacts alongside the forbidden city. It is hardly a surprise, or a slight against China, that they are included. 42:10 - "which renders the wonder's mechanics exclusive" Again, it's a competitive game? It bears no meaning beyond being a well-known (to *the audience*) human achievement. It also was built and is operated by NASA, who are a primarily American organisation. The ISS is the wonder you should complain about if you want an example of a truly international project being given to one singular nation. 42:17 - "which is not how the real telescope works" Correct. It also doesn't let the US build spaceship parts more quickly. The real Globe Theatre doesn't just contain a display case with a famous play or two inside it. Need I explain the concept of abstraction? 44:31 - "the map means nothing!" This, but unironically. The birds-eye view & position of the map are obviously there to convey the information to the player in an efficient way that also shows off the 3D graphical effects of the game; it is the same camera angle that pretty much all 3D strategy games implement, because it's a good way to communicate a map & because strategy games evolved out of board games... and so the map looks like the view one might have playing a board game. Obviously oriented to the players POV because anything else would have a negative effect on play. Equally, the map is oriented north-south because it's the universal map orientation. So what if it was because of colonialism? 99.9% of all maps produced today use that orientation, and it is not a meta-commentary on the view of the game. Especially since colonial European maps were oriented east-west. You may as well note that the fact that Civ V is a computer game is Eurocentrism because the computer was invented in the West. 46:50 - "tying light to civilization paints savagery as inherantly dark" Except that Civ V has very little commentary on savagery, other than by use of the word "barbarians" which has its roots in another place. Light & dark, for almost all of human history, have been very important to human survival & development. Artificial light has been very expensive for 99% of our development, and the cheapening of light sources is a key indication (and drive) of a societies technological development. The darkness represents the unknown, in the same way the clouds represent the FoW. Maybe historically the ideas of light & dark have been applied to race, but you are making a video on Civ V which holds no such commentary. The black FoW of the strategic map are clearly just a universal human expression of the darkness being the literal unknown; because people cannot see in the dark, no matter their skin colour. 1:00:55 - "presents the science output of the 18th century as universally true and still relevent 200 years later" Except that science output a player has in 1770 is not comparable to what they should have in the 1970s; "Science" in Civ V is an abstraction, and is probably best thought of as the general level of understanding a civilization has; and earlier methods of producing this understanding are nowhere near as effective as later ones. A library built in 1000 BC does not have the impact on overall knowledge spread as one build in 1000 AD. The science, or knowledge, is not necessarily universally true or even true at all. Nowhere does the game indicate that science is omniscient. Only that the collective knowledge of society allows them to understand & thus create certain tech milestones. It is an incredibly abstract system, and there is no moral arbitration assigned to it. You don't research "phrenology" in 1750 to get +1 bonus to production on marshland. All science gets you is specific mechanical devices (e.g. the printing press) or new fields of study (e.g. chemistry or physics). Chivalry is the only cultural concept that you can research that might be understandable to be a technology as a still-existing building block that doesn't actually exist. Looking at units or buildings, obsolescence is a very real concept within Civ V's internal world. 1:02:10 "And because nothing is outside of 'their' control, all of history is the result of the fight between Good and Evil" No..? For a start, there is no "them". There is the AI, which basically all players anthopomorphise as a single person to some extent (just watch a streamer/youtuber talk about the AI they're in competition with, and the phrase "the AI" could easily be replaced with he/she/they etc.) Civ V doesn't have any kind of nefarious group you play as; you are the omniscient God-King, or spirit of the nation or whatever. There is nobody else, outside the player(s) and the AI. And you connection to the society is so abstract you can pretend to be whatever force of direction you want. As for Good & Evil, they are never concepualised within Civ. Other than mechanical punishment such as happiness or diplomatic penalty, Civ V has no moral system. Unlike, for example, Dishonoured where the game & characters do respond to your actions the world of Civ V is very passive in any moral approach. Using nuclear weapons doesn't do anything to your internal politics; your pops don't go on nuclear-nonploliferation strikes. There's no morality bar, and all penalties are directly mechanical. This is because it's a strategy game, and isn't really happening. cont.
1:05:47 - "paint the same consipiratorial world view that justified imperialism" For a start, most imperialism wasn't justified by a conspiratorial world view. Even in WW2, conspiracy was a means for seizing political power; the imperialism was justified by claims to land & resources that the Germans were more deserving of. Prussia deserved to form Germany not because of some grand conspiracy against it but because it was the protector of the German-speaking peoples from the French. The East India Company didn't justify its imperial ambitions by claiming some grand conspiracy; it took as much as it could with ink, then declared the peoples it didn't own to be inferior and went on with the colonising. Equally, Civ V isn't a conspiracy; you know what you're getting into before you start the game. You don't get visited by a rock band, realise the AI is conspiring against you, then build a military to conquor them - you already plan on conquoring them before turn 1 starts. There is no conspiracy, no cabal. 1:07:57 - "put the player in the position of a leader" I can't speak for Pharoh or Anno, but I've player enough Total War to know that isn't the case. Whilst it's true that not all the tools available to the Civ V "Spirit" are available to the TW "Spirit", you are just as much an omniscient being in one as the other; You have total control over troop recruitment & building management - all the economy is built & managed by the state. You decide all external diplomacy without oversight, and have perfect knowledge of everything going on inside your empire. You know precisely the happiness of your cities (in TW) or civ as a whole. You know how much money you will make in the next turn, how much science you will produce, and when your troops will reach the next city to conquor. In TW, the nominal king or leader of your country might die & be replaced, but you don't need to win elections or butter up noble families. This is even more true in the later TW games. You are just as godly as in Civ V, even if your mechanical differences make playing either distinct. 1:12:20 - "cities only benefit from their city-specific perks of their majority religion" This isn't true, as far as I am aware; although only the owner of the majority religion gets the founding & enhancing belief, and you can only build buildings/units from the majority in that city. 1:14:06 - "religion is Christianity, and any other religion is Christianity with a different coat of paint" Other than some langage or iconography, I don't see how this stands up. The icon of the Great Prophet evokes an image of Moses who was... not Christian. In fact, Christianity doesn't really have "Great Prophets" in the same way the game evokes. I'm not sure it's really fair to count Jesus as a Great Prophet. Regardless, both the GP & Holy City mechanics are much more evocative of Islam than anything else; it maps much better to Mohammed & Mecca (or perhaps Moses & Jerusalem) than the development of Christianity. Regardless, we also run into the issue of the founding. In Civ, as you point out, religion is created by the state. But that doesn't track for Christianity. Christianity was incredibly grass roots, and famously a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire until Constantine. Unless you're suggesting the GP represents that whole 300 year period in a single turn (which is significantly more generous to abstraction than you have been so far) then it isn't representitive of Christianity. Equally, after 476 there were numerous polities who could claim to have Christianity as their own religion, and the leadership of the Church was either in Rome or in the five Patriarchies - this is not represented in Civ V's one state one church system. Again, we should look to Islam for a more direct comparison. Not only did Mohammed found the religion, he founded the state around it; what became the Caliphates of the Middle Ages. Here we not only have an immediate founding to state transition, but also a single polity who can claim to the "founder" of the faith. It was the various Caliphates of the medival period, and later on the title was claimed by the Ottomans up until their dissolution. What about Missionaries, or Inquisitors? Whilst I'll agree that Civ V is using Christian language, these concepts are hardly unique to Christianity. Looking at Islam again, we can see a huge amount of prosletysing in the Indian subcontinent & in what is now Indonesia; primarily by Muslim traders in the real world. There are also Buddhists & Hindus who went out in an attempt to convert others to the faith. Speaking of Japan, the spread of Buddism in Japan is a great example of this. And persecution by the state faith is not exclusive to 15th-centuary Spain; it was done by the Sunnia Caliphs to the Shias; by the Hindus to the Sikhs; By the Shinto Shogunate to the Catholics. The point is, that other than the name & icon of two units, religion is not related in any real sense to just Christianity. If you are not imaginative enough to look past the names of the unit, or their little model, then I'm sorry for you. 1:18:26 - "can bizarrely benefit from both secularism and monarchy at the same time" I don't really see what's so bizarre about that. A number of European nations, like the UK, both have a monarchy (and so, one must assume, the magic Civ V benefits one gets from that) and are functionally secular. Surely the example of a secular theocracy would cause a lot more disonnance? Likewise with protectionism & cultural exchange. 1:29:53 - "a nation's cultural values legitimize its claims on the land" I'm not sure this really tracks; after all, culture in Civ V is more a resource that gives influence than value. It might better represent the centeralization of a state's control over the people's beliefs. This could be why social policies get more expensive the more you buy; it's harder & harder to adjust people's ideas the more they already have. I don't know. Equally, the more rapid expansion could be the civ persuading its pops to go out & settle the land. The more influence, the more persuasion the civ can output. Alternatively, perhaps the land is actually already settled by nomadic tribes or very small societies (which is why they don't appear on the map). The better a civs culture, the more desirable it becomes & thus it becomes easier to have outside peoples join the society & expand the city borders. Ultimately, I don't think it matters. The culture to expansion mechanic is so abstract (and so unlike real borders) that I don't think you can be anywhere near as definitive as you are being. 1:43:40 - "from the moment of first contact onward, then, civilizations may propose establishing embassies" Strictly speaking, you need to have researched writing to propose an embassy, but I don't think this really matters to your overall point. cont.
1:49:41 - "diplomacy becomes just a mask behind which foul play is acted out" So pretty much like real life then. 1:50:32 - "an obvious romanticisation of Western missionary work" Aside from the fact that other faiths have missionaries as well, there are a number of examples of other cultures wanting to be converted to the faith of European nations. Hawaii is a good example of this; after destroying the kapu system (their long-held historical set of native-ish religious practices, the Hawaiians were very keen to be converted by American missionaries who visited a year later. Obviously this isn't literally the same thing, but as I said, there are a number of examples of people wanting to be converted because they misunderstood the rites & practices of Christian missionaries as being the cause of their prosperity. Think cargo cults. 1:55:00 - "stripping battles of all urgency" Clearly, you've never tried Civ V multiplayer 1:52:57 - "western stereotypes" I don't think it's really fair to describe the Mongolian cultural affinity with horses or steppe warfare, or the German tendancy for militarism, as "stereotypes". Given the lifestyle of the average Mongolian even in the mid-20th centuary or their giant empire in the 13th century; or indeed the "Army with a State" ideal of militarism that bled from Priussia into WW1. 1:59:27 - "non-existant past" 4000 BC isn't non-existant. People existed & lived & organised before 4000 BC; just because that is when the game chooses to start, doesn't mean that each Civ V game doesn't have a pre-start past, which perhaps covers the 200 years before then, where various small tribes discovered agriculture. The fact that the year is marked as 4000 BC can easily be an abstraction of that period. 2:01:25 - "the supposedly inborn traits of a civilization provide them with a manifest destiny" Not it Civ V, they don't. Whilst it is true that Egypt has a bonus to wonder construction, or Mongolia has faster cavalry, the game gives them no special privileges beyond that. Egypt cannot demand that you cease building the Great Pyramids. It does not get a unique cassus belli on somebody who beats it to the Colossus. You can own every wonder in the game & still be best mates with Rameses. The Japanese do not get a bonus to invading you if you own fish tiles. Each Civ has a little thing they're better at, and no more. Now, sometimes that might mean a civ is more likely to attack a certain other civ; or be more likely to attack at all. But there is no justification. When Spain conquors London, it does not make the case to the other civilizations that the leader of Spain was married to the leader of England. There is no justification. War simply is. Because this is just a game. As for your conclusion (and the points you make immediately prior to that section); It's all half-right, all "Yes, and?". Civ V is a 4X game. An imperialist view of the world (a view shared by 99% of human societies) is a necessary ingredient. You've at best proven that Civ V is born from a Western cultural context - no duh, it's a game series deveoped by Americans - that has some issues with over-abstraction & some mechanics that lack dept or nuance. Issues that I think Civ 6 does fix, but certainly not in a way to really de-justify imperialism. Civ 6 better represents countries of the world, but all other improvements are improvements to mechanics (Not that Civ 6 is by any means a straight upgrade from Civ V). If you think the religion system of Civ 6 is less imperialistic, or that adding districts makes the game less Eurocentric, you do you. You're wrong, and 85% of your criticisms could be applied to Civ 6, but whatever. Districts are just as essentialist, and free cities are a mechanical improvement that happen to coincide with your reasoning. Imperialists certainly understood that no nation was actually unified; otherwise they wouldn't have needed propaganda or repression. To reiterate my overarching point; Civ V is a competative strategy game. To be what it is, and not be Sid Meier's Animal Crossing, it has to have certain elements to be both fun (which is the most important feature of a game, I think) and not bankrupt the studio that develops it. So Civ V can't just pull a unique, dynamic, per-nation tech tree out of thin air. It can't give every culture a unique model & mechanics for every unit. It can't model complex societal interactions or cultural developments. Not that these things are necessarily impossible, but a studio's resources are not endless. You clearly like the game; and you're also evidently not a frothing imperialist. And we both know that Civ V is not going to turn you, or anyone else, into one if they weren't already. The existance of certain historical parallels in a game does not justify that history. Civ V is just a game. The only thing it can justify is itself.
TH-cam has deleted/hidden one of my comments, as it likes to do sometimes? I found a backup of the txt I used to keep track, but my points are unfortunately incomplete. 38:00 - "suggests peaceful wonders of religion, science, and trade" Religion, especially when represented by a giant rapist with a lightning spear, is definitely very peaceful. It is also unlocked by starting the pro-war tradition tree. Equally, the Great Wall & Terracotta Army are probably the most well-known Chinese cultural artifacts alongside the forbidden city. It is hardly a surprise, or a slight against China, that they are included. 42:10 - "which renders the wonder's mechanics exclusive" Again, it's a competitive game? It bears no meaning beyond being a well-known (to *the audience*) human achievement. It also was built and is operated by NASA, who are a primarily American organisation. The ISS is the wonder you should complain about if you want an example of a truly international project being given to one singular nation. 42:17 - "which is not how the real telescope works" Correct. The real Hubble telescope also doesn't let the US build spaceship parts more quickly. The real Globe Theatre doesn't just contain a display case with a famous play or two inside it. Need I explain the concept of abstraction? 44:31 - "the map means nothing!" This, but unironically. The birds-eye view & position of the map are obviously there to convey the information to the player in an efficient way that also shows off the 3D graphical effects of the game; it is the same camera angle that pretty much all 3D strategy games implement, because it's a good way to communicate a map & because strategy games evolved out of board games... and so the map looks like the view one might have playing a board game. Obviously oriented to the players POV because anything else would have a negative effect on play. Equally, the map is oriented north-south because it's the universal map orientation. So what if it was because of colonialism? 99.9% of all maps produced today use that orientation, and it is not a meta-commentary on the view of the game. Especially since colonial European maps were oriented east-west. You may as well note that the fact that Civ V is a computer game is Eurocentrism because the computer was invented in the West. 46:50 - "tying light to civilization paints savagery as inherantly dark" Except that Civ V has very little commentary on savagery, other than by use of the word "barbarians" which has its roots in another place. Light & dark, for almost all of human history, have been very important to human survival & development. Artificial light has been very expensive for 99% of our development, and the cheapening of light sources is a key indication (and drive) of a societies technological development. The darkness represents the unknown, in the same way the clouds represent the FoW. Maybe historically the ideas of light & dark have been applied to race, but you are making a video on Civ V which holds no such commentary. The black FoW of the strategic map are clearly just a universal human expression of the darkness being the literal unknown; because people cannot see in the dark, no matter their skin colour. This is where my notes got up to; and I think are all the points that really matter? Apologies to anybody who ends up reading this out of order.
@@gurigura4457 I think you are slighlty misunderstadning ideology as such and cultural analysis. You write " it has to have certain elements to be both fun (which is the most important feature of a game, I think) and not bankrupt the studio that develops it" and keep coming back to the points that "mechanical improvements" simple is that and that Civ 6 " is just a game." For the first point both about a game having to be "fun" (which in a way is a strange statement, I don't think all games have to be fun, like all novels and movies don't have to be fun) and the market deciding the contents of the game is not really a counterpoint for anything, that is more like giving ideology a place to hide (ideology works best when it operates as a seeming natural fact or as common sense, for exemple saying that the market wants this or that, or this is what western audiences know and so on). The actions of the people making the game is in that view aliented from them, they did what they did because they had to and therefore there is no point talking about it. In actuallity this should propably makes us ask ourselves more questions, like why is this more fun?Why do western audieces understand this and not this (and are we not then also reinforcing their ignorance)? Why does this work on the market and son on and so on. I also think you are reading a stronger causation from the video than intended. The game is not going to make someone into a "forthig imperialist", like no book or movie or whatever is going to make anyone into anything. The process is more complex than that, to become someone supporting imperialist policies it takes a society that in many ways creates diffrent narratives and cultural symbols and opinions and so on. The causation is not as simple as play a game, become a imperialist, it is a process of many many factors without a clear point dominating point of cause and effect. Games, like all cultural products, are part of society and it's symbolic language and webs of meaning (which also is a necesity to making us able to understand it). Therefor a work of art is both a product of the society it was created in, that connects with it's symbols and webs of meaning, but also something that comments upon the culture it was created in. That is why the "so what" response is rather moot, even if game is decided by the market or what is fun that says something about the society it was created in. This is also the point of cultural analysis, to uncover the for us naturalised symbolic languenge and meaning of a culture, the kind of thing we usually don't think about or take for granted, and what they might say about our culture.
Once it's out and been fleshed out with DLC, I'd love to see you compare civ VII to civ V in terms of how it's progressed in these critiques. It seems like the Sid Meier team are trying to decolonialise an inherently colonial game, and throughout the video I kept having to wonder how the systems implemented could be amended to both still make sense in a game like Civ, while avoiding the imperial and occidental ideology that underpins many or most strategy games.
The list at 29:18 and the corresponding commentary is way off. I only comment bcs your gothic video was pretty good and I am a huge Civ fan. I understand your intention to analyze Civ through a "postcolonial" lense, which tends to be revisionist but this is too much 1) "Teutons" as a pick for the historical representation of "Germany" is very very odd. The "Teutons" are very uncommon in both German and English historical terminology 2) The choice of nations and nation names, respectively, is obviously guided by their historical significance. Thats why its France and not the Gauls and the Romans and not Italy. Same is true for the "oriental" countries. The issue of endonyms and exonyms arises for all countries as "Germany", "Persia" as well as "Siam" are exonymes. Again, the historical name is picked when appropriate as in the case of Iran. I discussed this with my Korean girlfriend and she was bewildered as to why anyone would pick Kuwait over Babylonia and she had to google the Teutons lol 3) France is obviously a historical nation as well as present day nation. You create a false dichotomy there. You don't have the same continuous history for nations like Peru 4) They already tried hard to make the choice of nations less eurocentric by including nations like the Zulus or some Native American tribes. So it would be odd to argue that this is yet again eurocentric and it would be less eurocentric to pick the settler or colonial states founded by Europeans 5) Europe just produced more nations of historical significance. Hard to deny that As for the plus side: 4) Your analysis on the poor choice of backgrounds for non-colonial powers is spot-on! The depiction of Morocco and Siam are especially outrageous and make the leaders seem unserious and thus unplayable for me. Civ7 tries to amend that by trying to depict leaders like Augustus like complete morons, which is also terrible. All in all in good old fashion of postcolonialism you have some strong single arguments, which suffer however from being paired together with revisionist or simply ignorant arguments and to frame everything as the result of some bias
If I'm not misremembering, the channel was under 2K subs last night, when I started watching this video. I tune in today to continue, and it's already at 2.59K (and I really hope my comment with this number will age like milk in the sun by tomorrow). I think Crocodile Gambit is about to get a lot bigger.
29:14 You lost me here. What cherry picking nonsense. Actual list of non-European Civ5 civilizations that have names related to currently existing countries: Arabian (Saudi Arabia + UAE), Chinese, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Indian, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Moroccan. Furthermore, Persia and Siam are exonyms for countries that literally exist today, Iran and Thailand. But also so is Germany. Iran and Thailand didn't officially change their names until the 1930's making Persia and Siam names for countries that exist(ed) in the modern era. Persian is still used to refer to the ethnic group, language and culture of the majority population of Iran. This entire comparison becomes absurd though when you realize, per the wiki, that the term civilization is not used here to refer to countries but "specific nations, empires or cultural groups", in which case what are labelled historical nations are referring to peoples and cultures that currently still exist. There are still Nahua (Aztecs) and Mayans in Mexico, Iroquois and Shoshone in America, Zulus in South Africa, Assyrians in Iraq and Songhai in West Africa. And how do you square the game's narrative being European == modern when much of how they're represented in game is their historical past. The Danish aren't represented by modern architecture and cycling, they're viking berserkers. England isn't the England of Churchill or the Beatles, it's Queen Elizabeth and her medieval longbowmen. Meanwhile Ethiopians are led by 20th century Emperor Selassie with his corp of rifle wielding guardsmen and India is led by 20th century icon Mahatma Gandhi.
I really need to read Bogost. I'm not even a scholar within, or adjacent to this field, but games studies are so interdisciplinary that I keep seeing people citing him
49:29 i just want to say that "that's just the way it is" is the last thing i would expect coming from Set's mouth, the ancient lord of 'fuck your rules i'll do what i want now let's race hippos' lmao
On the point of United Nations, I have to say that the organisation does seem to act in favour of Western Imperialism, becoming somewhat active whenever useful for the US or the West Europe nations. With their troops passively observing internal conflicts and participating in various illegal activities, which include rape and slave trade.
I do not claim that Civ 5's representation of the UN is untruthful, just that it is at best cynical (but I believe my source does). Although your interpretation was recently undercut slightly by the ICC's arrest warrant against an enabler of Western imperialism.
@@crocodilegambit I understand that my expression is somewhat clouded by my personal distaste for the organisation but I'd say the representaition is just one-sided and just shows it as a tool - without its benefits and drawbacks. As to your latter comment, I might be out of the loop here as I don't know exactly which one. But issuing an arrest warrant against AN enabler of imperialism is almost like, to me, as arresting only Epstein.
When you mentioned having little cute cartoon presenters I was honestly hoping to see some Shnappi Das Kleine Krokodil situation, but I like the cute little bird too. I think though that cartoon singing croc has given me long term mind poison.
Oh God. It's insane just how much of an international phenomenon that song has become ever since it started haunting our local kindergartens. One of my Chinese university students even had it has her ringtone. - Malte
You conveniently leave out that a good portion of the western civilizations' leaders appear in "unspoiled natural settings" like Boudicca, Alexander, Napoleon, Harald Bluetooth, while half of non-western ones are shown in some sort of structure or city. Montezuma, Pachacuti, Asklia, Attila, Wu Zeitan, Ramses II, Darius I, Harun al-Rashid, Ashurbanipal, Pacal, Nebuchadnezzar II, Haile Selassie, Sejong, and Suleiman. Some of them are even literally on thrones. Extremely weak. Maybe you should touch grass and stop criticizing a 15 year old game for not having modern revisionist culture politics, and this is coming from someone who's very liberal.
Let’s not throw around anecdotes and do an actual quantitative analysis: Out of 43 leaders, 14 are not shown on their thrones or at least inside. Out of those 14, three may be considered Western empires: France, Greece, and Denmark. The Zulu, Siam, the Shoshone, Polynesia, the Iroquois, Mongolia, India, Indonesia, Songhai, Morocco and the Celts are the others. I would not count the Celts as enactors of Western imperialism, given how Boudicca is known for her fight against the Roman Empire. I also don't say "non-Western", I say "subjected to Western imperialism", there's a gradual difference. Maybe my wording seems a bit strong here, so if that one point in the video makes you throw the entire thesis out the window, I have failed and shall do better next time. Hope to see you again!
I love Civ V and this video is absolutely fantastic. I feel like I took a lot from this video despite or maybe even because I already took a lot of time to look at the topics of imperialism, nationalism and Western hegemonialism. Also watching this had given me many ideas for how to do a Civilization type game that's actually antiimperialist where working together is rewarded and different cultures have different beliefs and values that can change over time depending on their circumstances. A game where world wonders are created as a result of significant things that happened in the past. A shame that I'm not a videogame developer I'd have great ideas for how to revolutionise games. Although this would most likely result in game mechanics that aren't any fun when playing because I'm not a game dev.
I know intellectually that investigating what messages are being carried by a piece of media is not the same as criticizing or providing feedback for the media but emotionally it feels like this critique and others of its kind are advocating for more socially conscious video games. In terms of representation of real life cultures I suppose that is literally true. They can do more research and reflect real life cultures respectfully. You could make the map rotatable or flip it if you spawn on the south of the map. When it comes to the underlying ideology of the genre I don't think there's anything to be done. If you made a game with different politics then it would either clash with the gameplay and render it unplayable or you just invented a different genre. This video gives you a strange feeling where you want to defend the game, but its not actually being attacked. It is just being inspected thoroughly from a point of view that does not come naturally to you. I ended the video feeling strange and uncertain. It feels like something is wrong but there's nothing that can be done about it. For example on the topic of the map again. If you made the map a sphere like in dyson sphere program you would let go of some of the political meaning it contains but maybe that would just be harder to implement and parse for a player. If it doesn't serve the gameplay it shouldn't be in the game. The 4x genre is possibly the most explicitly political one out there and is wide open for this kind of dissection. A part of me is put off by it, like yeah it has to do with western world views and colonialism because the west exported its culture onto every square inch of this planet. A plastic bag has been found inside the mariana trench, "We're all living in Amerika". So like whats the point. What is the takeaway here, what can be acted on. There is no earth without all of that stuff, its embedded very deeply in our history. What am I supposed to do about it. Idk. Maybe the point is just to realize that games carry ideology and then move on with your life.
I think it would be not only wrong but outright impossible for me to faithfully analyze a Chinese game from a cultural perspective other than my own. That would be up to a Chinese person to make or someone versed in Sinology.
Heyyy dude It's great to see you again ... I lost hope and thought you withdrew from the project. Firstly, your work is amazing ... Far Cry video was ART !! . I've watched it many times and every time I discover new things and i will rewatched again and again ... 2nd .. You have to keep working, man. I know the number of viewers might frustrate you, but the algorithm is unfair. I sent The video to many of my friends and everyone thinks that this channel is underrated ... Do you have an official website or social media ? i have to see all of ur projects ... finally
I feeo you are focousing way too radically on the narative and not really letting the mechanics and there reasons speak. The north south map could be due to imperalist cartography or maybe its because monitors are horizontal. You adress this by taking on a straw man of mechanical considerations but one can take a reasonable approch of blancing the two. And a lot of these fassets of "imperialism" just seem like true facts, why should we assume everything that imperialsm taught is false some it may be true and some may be false. The falsehood that lead to inhuman deeds could be a single idea or it could be the whole thing but we cant decide that until we looked at it
Great video. Your existence gives me hope, as I live in a household and greater community that has bought in to many of the negative views you brought up. Now all three branches of my government have bout in too, and disabled folk like myself are kind of terrified of how we’ll be treated in the future.
Well.. thanks for ruing this game for me :P Any other Civ game better on those issues than Civ5? Civ7 maybe.. or Call to Power2 (which I remember fondly, but not to clear... may be just nostalgia)
Thank you! The grand strategy genre has always stood out to me as the one genre I could never get into, simply because I don't like playing games as villains, and there's no way to play any of the grand strategy games I've tried as anything other than a machievellian monster. The last time I tried to explain to someone why I don't enjoy Settlers of Catan* for the way it turns any group of friends into backstabbing liars, they looked at me like I was crazy. Civilization seems like a pretty extreme case, but you've dissected it with such detail and precision that it easily exemplifies the general trend. *: It's a grand strategy board game and nobody's convincing me otherwise.
I realize you're asking for media content to watch. I say this gleefully: do it yourself, applying the analysis to it is probably entertaining on its own. But I can't think of what Stellaris would have that isn't covered here. Perhaps a discussion on sentience, given the synth and artificial life forms and hive minds? It shares a lot of DNA with Civ already.
It's quite eye-opening! Really enjoyed this video It made me consider how much playing games like these as a kid influenced my perspective on culture, nations and borders. I always saw Civ 5 as something quite innocent back then, and this breakdown really shows quite the opposite, which I think is really cool! I think its interesting with the title of the game which relates to its presentation, that this is a game about humanity forming their society - which of course does not need to be imperialistic, yet the game is. That is what makes the game's ideology less noticable to the audience. Compare it to something like Total War, where the title of the game is very much implied that this is a game about conquering, but this presentation allows for the audience to have better awareness of the game's framing of history.
This video is of remarkable quality and represents a level of quality and care that is very much rare in this field. Thank you
The thing about gamification of stuff is it inherently suppresses morality, I think. Like imagine playing a game where your goal is to be a president of a young democratic country, you play for 8 in game years and suddenly an orbitrary rule tries to tell you that no matter your previous actions, it is game over unless you come up with some sneaky shenanigans to keep you in power and BAM! You are vladimir putin now. And from your perspective you are not corrupt or evil, you just play by the rules of the game to maximise your fun and achieve as much as possible
Doesn't that imply the game's internal morality is winning, and it teaches how that happens through mechanics and preset goals?
Staying in office could be a stage but not the final. Becoming a political advocate or taking part elsewhere in government might seriously shift how you interact with the game but it's not less game to include that. Possible to create an end-game where you can transition out of office and are presented with the impacts you had leading into the future like a montage. A perpetual mode where you must stay in control as president is a choice by devs and directs players toward that as a goal.
Great video! I'm watching it in installments (after having watched your latest when it came up in my Related feed), and every time I open the page I see your subscriber count go up. Always good to see non-English-native TH-camrs hit their stride, I really hope that's your moment, because the quality of your work should be reflected in waaaay higher sub numbers. Thank you and keep at it!
I always figured that the point of barbarians was to incentivize the Player's production of military units in the early game; Without the pressure of hostile invaders, the Production of a given city would be better used on scouts and Workers and Settlers.
Honestly given that i allways thought it would make more sense if barbarians where just wild animals. Makes sense Stone age village would need some people to be trained in how to deal with wild animals
I'm really not getting the impression, at any point of this video, that it's trying to say the devs purposefully designed any of this with the intent of spreading pro-western propaganda. I think your reaction was adressed pretty well in the Conclusion section (2:08:22) - maybe you should go back and rewatch it, now that the video has had some time to simmer? :)
I never claim that it isn't their intended point. I also do not seek to derive their intended point, only the rhetorical effect of the design decisions made.
It's also accurate. In our world if you didn't conquer then you became the conquered. These soft ideologies of effiminacy and pacifism are preparing the west for annihilation
Wow, the TH-cam algorithm finally throws me a bone after months of garbage. This essay is excellent, as was the one on Gothic that I just watched!
My main concerns with this video pertain to the game, and I will focus solely on issues related to the game itself. Here are some inaccuracies I observed while watching the video.
29:20
I disagree with this. While it's true that the majority of non-Western nations in the game aren't portrayed in a modern context, it's essential to acknowledge notable exceptions like Ethiopia and India, which are depicted in a more present day representation. Additionally, one could argue that civilizations such as the Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, and Moroccan represent their present nations rather than a specific historical era. For instance, if approached historically, the Chinese would be represented by the Tang Dynasty, Korea by the Joseon Dynasty, Indonesia by the Majapahit Empire, and Morocco by the Saadi Sultanate. Now, when considering Western nations, there are instances where they aren't represented in their present day forms. The Celts, English, and Greeks are examples. The Celts don't represent the current nations of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The English representation doesn't align with the present-day United Kingdom, and a similar case can be made for Wales and Scotland. The Greek civilization, led by Alexander of Macedon, doesn't reflect the current nations of Greece or North Macedonia. Finally, one could argue that the Byzantines are more historically aligned with Greece than Italy.
31:58
This is mostly true; however, the leaders of the Ethiopian, Ottomans, Chinese, Korean, and Persian civilizations are indeed depicted in the manner you described.
34:56
It should have been mentioned that additional denominations were introduced with the Brave New World expansion DLC. In the base game, only Christianity is available.
38:00
The Great Lighthouse, and the Statue of Zeus, provide military bonuses to military units.
40:59
There was initially a planned wonder called "Motherland Calls," but it was cut from the game. tcrf.net/Sid_Meier's_Civilization_V_(Windows)#Unused_Wonder. Additionally, the Brandenburg Gate could be considered a military wonder because of the bonuses it provides.
42:02
Conveniently and hopefully not dishonestly, the International Space Station wonder is left out in this visual display. That wonder is exactly what he wanted the Hubble Space Telescope to be like.
1:06:56
Incorrect, your cities can revolt and merge with another civilization that holds significant cultural influence over you. This occurs only under conditions of high unhappiness. Regarding the statement about "cities or units without a clearly categorized culture," examples include City-States and barbarian units.
1:07:11
This overlooks the religious bonuses tied to traits, which are granted based on the number of followers in your cities or civilization.
1:07:27
Happiness and gold/economic mechanics would disagree.
1:08:05
As I said before, your cities can rebel and merge into other civilizations.
1:09:22
Mostly true, but you can receive unique unhappiness modifiers if a opposing civilization has a different ideology from you, and have a high cultural influence.
1:10:38
It's actually possible to revive vanquished civilizations by liberating their occupied cities, particularly their capital. This can occur at any point in the game.
1:11:51
The game allows you to change your ideology to a different one, but not the traits.
1:12:20
Incorrect, cities continue to receive benefits from all religions present, with the dominant one not override other bonuses. The only exception is the founder beliefs bonuses, which exclusively apply to the founder of that particular religion.
1:15:28
Technically, you can achieve this by adopting another civilization's religion, but altering your founding religion is not possible.
1:15:41
This is entirely and factually inaccurate. You can indeed cause a religion to become extinct by utilizing an inquisitor's ability to completely eliminate the status of a holy city.
1:17:30
In my opinion, the process of changing ideologies is overly easy, and the penalties incurred are not sufficiently severe. This seems like a skill issue.
1:26:52
This should have specified its rankings for multiplayer, as in single-player mode, Venice isn't a poor choice when compared to its multiplayer performance.
1:39:48
Incorrect, there are actually five victories; the time/score victory isn't mentioned, despite being visually displayed at 1:40:21.
1:48:44
Except for the case of the International Space Station, there are also research agreements in diplomacy.
Overall I did enjoyed this 2 hour analysis of Civilization 5, one of my favorite games. I appreciated this video for its unique approach to analysis, diverging from the more conventional focus on gameplay elements and mechanics often seen in other videos.
Thank you a lot for this extremely detailed reply. I have to admit that a few of the points you mentioned I simply never encountered in my over 200 hours of play and thus assumed to be impossible. As I understand this as an intentionally nitpicky comment, let me add onto some of your points in an equally pedantic fashion. We’re all nerds here, pedantry is our bread and butter.
29:20 Thank you for mentioning the Celts. I actually considered dropping the point about the Gauls, as the Gauls are arguably Celtic. However, I do not think that the mere existence of the Celts negates the tendency I point out. The Greeks are explained through the Classicism I mention, they're right there on the Classicism blackboard. There are, you are correct, exceptions to the tendencies I focus on. However, the civilizations you picked to make that point are actually not ideal, as the very fact that you must point to these names that the Western audience would otherwise be unfamiliar with, proves the point that these civilizations were given their names precisely because this is how the West knows them, and that their more precise historical and self-given names are not part of their Oriental image in the Western conscious. Civ 6 does actually remedy some of this, too, through, for example, the inclusion of the Scythians.
31:58 While we're on the topic of leaders, you failed to point out that the obvious reason why Nelson Mandela could not have been used as the leader for a hypothetical South Africa, as I fantasize about, is that he was still alive when the game was released.
34:56 I analyzed the final version of the game. The fact that Christianity was actively expanded upon later through DLC does not change the point I make, but support it.
38:00 This is true, and yet they are in themselves, on the surface, not related to military. I did consider pointing to the Statue of Zeus, but eventually decided against doing so, as I thought it wouldn't have changed the tendency described, as there still are no, for example, spiritual Chinese wonders in that era, and the non-military Greek wonders are overwhelming.
40:59 This is a similar case to the Statue of Zeus. On the surface, the Brandenburg Gate is a symbol of peace and unification, but ludically, it's not. Discussing this in the video would actually have opened a whole new can of worms, as the Brandenburg Gate changed cultural meaning several times throughout its history and was, of course, originally a symbol for victory, considering the statue of Victoria that sits on top. Today, it is on our 50 Cent coins and would never have been put there if it still carried even the slightest connotation of war, given the (until recently) radically pacifist stance of German politics. Scrapped wonders are interesting, but irrelevant to the analysis of the final game.
42:02 This is false, the International Space Station, like all wonders, only grants its benefits to the nation that owns it. I did not include it, because you cannot build it the way the other wonders are constructed. Even the Civilopedia doesn’t attribute it to any specific era, just like the United Nations wonder. You are probably referring to how the competition within which it is built grants second and third place minor rewards, but the wonder itself goes to the nation with the highest contribution.
1:06:56 This is actually something I did not know, as I haven’t seen it happen once, so thank you for enlightening me! I concede that the absolute phrasing of that statement is wrong, but given how rarely it can happen, as you admit yourself, it is a far cry from how Civ 6 handles it. City States are clearly categorized cultures with names and borders, and the fact that the ones that aren’t are called barbarians, that must be exterminated, has its very own chapter in this video and doesn’t exactly counter the point of the video, but support it.
1:07:11 I have trouble understanding what you mean by this. The point you make actually applies very well to a completely different inaccuracy you also happen to mention. At 1:12:20 I claim that religious minorities hold no value unless they succeed in reclaiming the majority. This is untrue, as minority populations still inform bonuses that a religion might bestow on its founder. But again, this is largely irrelevant to the major drift of the gameplay.
1:10:38 I was unaware this was possible, since, as I understand it, it doesn’t apply to the defeat of your own nation. While an interesting tidbit, civilizations are in fact completely struck from everything and lose all agency when losing all territory, which was the point I was making.
1:11:51 Yes, I say so, a few minutes later. Don’t be like Cinemasins, you’re smarter than that.
1:15:28 I don’t know what this is supposed to achieve. If you think I didn’t know this, you must think very little of me, and on a technical basis, it has zero bearing on the point I am making, as this is not in the hands of the player herself.
1:15:41 This is the insight that made me truly appreciate this comment and reply. I read back on forum after forum about this and - since even veteran players, such as yourself, seemed to be debating this in, albeit, ancient forum discussions - there used to be some uncertainty as to whether and how this can happen. The consensus seems to be that you actually need two inquisitors to fully erase holy city status. Thank you for pointing this out, I truly did not know this.
1:17:30 So the writers on the Fandom Wiki have a skill issue? Your words, not mine! But yes, it is technically possible to overcome this, I did not say otherwise.
1:26:52 I think “competitive rankings” makes it clear that this is multiplayer. My own research on this also found that Venice can actually be used quite successfully for certain victories, even in multiplayer, but since I am not well versed in multiplayer myself, as I, frankly, suck at anything above King level, I trusted Dom Ford’s research, who I am quoting there. He, in turn, mainly quotes FilthyRobot’s Civilization Tier List 2.0.
1:39:48 This is one of the many things I struck from the original Master Thesis script, as I didn’t think anyone would truly care for the dreadfully boring and culturally irrelevant Time Victory. But hey, you asked for it, so here’s the quote from my Master Thesis, available on my university’s website by simply googling “Civ 5 Wendt”, in case you want to double check: “Time Victory is only triggered on the rare occasion that until a certain in-game year, none of the aforementioned victories has been achieved by any of the competing civilizations. This victory creates a 'win-on-points' scenario in order to avoid a stalemate. Upon reaching the predetermined deadline, all civilizations are awarded points on the basis of calculations that - among others - evaluate their territorial, economic, military, cultural, and scientific standing. The civilization with the highest score wins the game.” How exciting, I wonder why I didn’t include it.
1:48:44 I even show one later, as I accept a proposal by Brazil. I am actually astounded by how you read this. Research agreements are exactly what I was referring to when I was talking about agreements that ultimately must end in someone’s demise, thus negating their entire point. I specifically had research agreements in mind when I was elaborating on how the game's Machiavellian, Realpolitik ideals undermine any hint of true alliances and global community.
Jokes aside: I am deeply happy you enjoyed the video and more so that you took the time to comment. I wouldn’t call this channel’s approach unique, though, I think you’re giving us way too much credit. In the TH-cam sphere, maybe (hopefully not though), but outside of it, it is a pretty bog-standard academic piece, with all the boring fat (hopefully) trimmed.
@@crocodilegambit Thank you for your detailed response, and I'd like to address some points and provide clarification. I should have mentioned earlier that my playtime for Civilization 5 exceeds 1.1k hours, underscoring its importance for me. I apologize if my previous comment seemed a bit nitpicky; it was not my intention. My deep investment in the game is evident from the hours played. The list I provided highlighted some minor inaccuracies related to the game. Despite these points, I still genuinely enjoyed the majority of the video.
"Thank you for mentioning the Celts..."
In Civilization 5, the depiction of the Celts is more focused with the Brythonic and Gaelic Celtic groups rather than serving as a catch-all for all Celts, as was often the case in previous games. In Civilization 4, some Civs were often portrayed with a broad label, such as "Native Americans" led by Sitting Bull or "Vikings" led by Ragnar. Similarly, the Celts are also there with being led by the familiar Boudica, and Brennus as an additional leader.
"The Greeks are explained through the Classicism I mention..."
My mistake for the oversight; I failed to notice that you had visually represented Greece on the blackboard. This may be due to the sloop effect, as flags of countries were displayed, contrasting with Greece, which was only represented solely as a word. From my observations, it does appear that Civ 6 does execute this representation more effectively. Notably, leaders like Ambiorix are specific to Gaul, instead of using the catch-all term of "Celts", as seen in previous games. While I have yet to play Civ 6, surprising, I know, I do hope to play it it someday.
If I may indulge in a bit more scrutiny regarding the blackboard, it seems Bolivia and Guatemala could have been appropriately better paired with Peru and Mexico, mirroring how you paired Tunisia and Lebanon for the present nations. Especially for Guatemala, given its significant population of ethnic Mayans. However, I wouldn't really say the Aztecs are an accurate representative of Guatemala compared to the Mayans.
"While we're on the topic of leaders, you fail"
I made a mistake with the timestamp in my original draft; initially, I included massive quotes from the transcript but I removed them, because it would make my comment seem overly bloated. However, I realize now that quoting here would have clarified my objection better. My comment aimed to dispute the assertion that "leaders of cultures subjected to Western imperialism are often not shown in their throne rooms, offices, or even homes." I cited examples of civilizations where leaders were indeed depicted in these settings.
Regarding the topic of South Africa, I agree that Nelson Mandela would be a fitting leader, and I concur with your observation that the game developers probably aimed to avoid featuring leaders deemed too recent, although this reasoning might be debatable for figures like Haile Selassie. He, too, could be considered recent. But hey, perhaps Civ 7 could be different?
"I analyzed the final version of the game..."
Certainly, I understand. It's just that it might have caused some confusion for players who don't have Brave New World installed. Yes, it does support the argument more as well.
One detail I overlooked mentioning is that the emphasis on Ancient and Greek wonders in the game is likely because of the "Wonders of the Ancient World" DLC pack. This DLC and scenario introduce some of these wonders, the scenario's victory condition revolve around a building contest between civilizations. Regarding the Brandenburg Gate, I agree that from a gameplay perspective, it is mechanically inaccurate and may give a false impression of its true historical significance. My reference to the scrapped wonder was meant as a fun little known trivia, not as criticism of the video. Looking back, I think it would have been interesting to explore at least some of the scenarios, but it's acceptable if you didn't because the video would have been longer.
"This is false, the International Space Station..."
You're absolutely right; I was thinking about the competition bonus, not the wonder itself. My mistake, it seems my memory blended the two together as the same thing.
"This is actually something I did not know..."
Indeed, it's an exceedingly rare and situational scenario. Many, including myself, haven't encountered it even after many hours of gameplay. One amusing memory I had involves cities from an entirely different continent repeatedly revolting and merging into my nation due to my high cultural influence. Whenever this occurs, there's no option to decline their merging, but you can return the city to its original civilization if you wanted. Despite doing this, the constant merging persisted, creating a humorous and odd experience. Moreover, I may have confused memories of Barbarians and City-States with recollections of mods that expanded and randomized those mechanics. It's worth noting that my last playthrough was in 2019, so my memories are susceptible distortion.
"1:07:11 I have trouble understanding what you mean by this."
I should have included an additional timestamp. Between 1:07:11 and 1:07:32, your presentation may create the impression that there are no internal problems or questioning of your rule. However, while the internal problems aren't overly complex, they are real. These include unhappiness leading to reduced production and income, the spawning of barbarians, and the rare cases of cities merging with different civilizations. Unhappiness stemming from the population's desire for a different ideology, particularly when influenced by another civilization with high cultural impact over you. Bankruptcy is another internal problem, significantly slowing scientific progress and causing some units to disband. Additionally, mismanagement of food production may lead to famine and a reduction in local city population. Interestingly, it's a viable strategy to intentionally starve your cities to reduce unhappiness, although it may sound somewhat overly evil. Do you consider these issues to be internal problems, or have I misunderstood your perspective?
"At 1:12:20 I claim that religious minorities..."
My memory was mistaken. You are correct; the religion follower bonuses only apply to the city's majority. The reason for my confusion may be related to the fact that, if memory serves me right, you can purchase the unique faith-based buildings of an opposing religion. After that, converting the city back to your religion allows you to retain those buildings, which ironically contribute faith and culture to your religion.
"I was unaware this was possible..."
I forgot to mention that a civilization final outcome depends on the game rules. If you have "Complete Kills" enabled, a civilization needs to have all its units and cities destroyed or captured in order be completely wiped from the game, not just its cities. This can lead to a funny situation where a civilization that lost all its cities and territory early in the game may still persist in the late game, as one of its units, like a scout, remains undefeated.
"This is the insight..."
It took me a long amount of time to grasp this, but yes, you'll have to deploy a significant number of inquisitors, of which would of made the historical Inquisition blush with envy, to entirely eliminate a Holy City. Moreover, based on my anecdotal experience, the city's population appears to play a role, along with specific traits that either strengthen the inquisitors or make the cities more resistant to their influence.
"So the writers on the Fandom Wiki..."
Adding to this, there are situations where changing ideologies is not only advisable but also advantageous. One such scenario occurs when a fellow civilization that shares the same ideology exerts high cultural influence over me, close to a cultural victory. To delay this and gain some extra turns, I might switch ideologies to negate the shared ideology culture/tourism bonus. Another instance is during periods of high unhappiness, prompting a switch to the ideology of a civilization with substantial cultural influence to eliminate the unhappiness penalty. Additionally, adopting the same ideology as a neighboring civilization to temporarily to maintain friendly relations is another strategy. Later, when ready, changing to a preferred ideology. Finally, if following a strategy focused on building up science, gold, etc., a change to an ideology with superior military bonuses becomes a wise move when the time is right.
"I don’t know what this is supposed to achieve..."
I misunderstood your statement when you mentioned, "the player cannot choose to change or revert her nation's religion." I initially thought you were talking about a scenario where if a player didn't establish a religion in time, they wouldn't be able to spread or convert to any religion at all. However, this wouldn't be the case, as players can still be converted by another civilization's religion. Upon clarification, I realized you were actually referring to the inability to change the founding religion, not a religion imposed by another civilization.
"I think “competitive rankings” makes it clear that this is multiplayer..."
Perhaps, but it's likely that a minority of people associate might the term "competitive" with higher difficulties as well with multiplayer. Additionally, when considering "FilthyRobot’s Civilization Tier List 2.0," it's important to note that it operates under a specific rule set called "no quitters" for multiplayer games. This rule set aims to impose restrictions to create what it deems a more balanced gaming experience and typically employs certain approved maps. However, it's crucial to recognize that this rule set may not represent all the various rule sets and multiplayer games people may engage in. For instance, in a one city challenge, Venice could be top-tier, fitting within those specific niche rule sets. Beyond rule sets, the maps and various circumstances also play a role in determining the viability of Venice. Venice might not fare well on a large map with few or no city-states compared to thriving on a small map with many city-states. In certain situations, Venice might be underrated, showcasing its effectiveness under specific conditions.
"This is one of the many things I struck from the original Master..."
I agree; while it's undoubtedly a boring victory, I believe it should have been at least acknowledged, even if just with a brief, off-hand joke. I found it amusing when you mentioned "by meeting one of four Victory conditions," and then, a few seconds later at 1:40:21, it's revealed that there are actually five victory conditions, as "time victory is disabled" is shown.
"I even show one later, as I accept a proposal by Brazil..."
I see your point, and it's mostly true that "science is not portrayed as a neutral joint effort across borders." However, it's worth noting the International Space Station project, as I mentioned earlier, which does offer a small one-time bonus to the civilizations that contributed to it. In fairness, this is a late-game feature, so it doesn't entirely refute the claim that science isn't portrayed entirely neutrally.
Thank you once again for taking the time to respond. I apologize for any potential misunderstandings. I still enjoyed the video, and it brought back some great memories. I'm curious if you've only played Civ 5 and 6. If so, I highly recommend trying out Civ 4, despite it's age. It is still great and very different and unique compared to 5. For example, you can be the founder of multiple religions with the same holy city, resembling a modern-day Jerusalem. Founding a religion in the game is tied to reaching a specific point in the tech tree, making science growth a key factor in determining the number of religions you can found.
Additionally, I wonder if you have any plans to explore other game series like Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Victoria, Crusader Kings, and Stellaris. It could potentially result in interesting content similar to this video. Furthermore, I highly suggest adding timestamps to your video descriptions to take advantage of the chapter feature. This enhances the overall viewing experience, particularly for longer-form content. It's convenient for viewers taking breaks and returning to the video. Your channel is underrated, and I genuinely hope that you'll win the TH-cam algorithm lottery.
Also I had to split my comment as TH-cam wouldn't allow me to have it as one. lol
@@crocodilegambit Your also wrong about the calander. The Myan calander is represented in the game and is Tied to the main ability of the myan civilization not sure how you could have missed that in 200 hours
You need to release a new video soon. please. you are probably one of my favorite TH-camr . Best regard from Québec.
you must be happy lol
@DivinityIncarnate000 YES
Great timing
@@cestbonlespatate4642his release schedule seems to be once a year so set your calendar
Never feel pretentious for pointing out something that seems obvious to you! :)
This finally put into words why I've never managed to enjoy the Civ or most other 4X games:
There is no shared victory. It is always a competition, no matter what, and there is no way to perpetually co-exist in peace.
I never would have drawn these connections myself, and this was a delight to watch. Thank you very much for making it.
Amazing video! I grew up with the Civ games and I think I've been blind to so much of this, and it's really awesome to be taught about this in such an entertaining way!
"I read on Kotaku it's better than Civ 5 with the Brave New World expansion pack" -Ice T
Alright, after watching now I have to firstly say: An excellent video, your presentation is highly informative while also incorporating jokes very well I think. I like your style a lot.
I think commenting on how Civ 6 improved but also could not remove all problems is good and important. I think in cases like these we should remember that this is an ongoing series and art always has to exist in the context of its financial viability. If the devs radically reimagined Civ 6 to be overwhelmingly different from its predecessors, that would likely not be a sound financial decision. So I think in this context positive changes should be praised where they are made, even if not everything was fixed. At the same time of course, this does not and should not preclude the newer media from being analyzed and criticized just like the older titles based on its own merits.
Again, I think the video was excellent. There are two criticisms I would like to offer however. First, I think it was good that you had the disclaimer at the start of the video. Many people take such analysis way too personally, so it's good to remind everyone that that is the inappropriate lens. At the same time, I think some of the quite funny jokes you used could be misinterpreted to draw parallels between the developers choices and some political leanings you rightly identified as worthy of ridicule and also negative sentiment. I don't think you should curb the jokes, but maybe after such spicy commentary quickly interject again that this does not reflect indictment of the devs but rather is commentary on the subtext of the media, regardless of intent. At the same time, I'm not sure if that would ruin the editing, just a thought.
Second, you frontload a huge amount of information before going into the analysis of Civ itself. For those looking for exactly this type of video, that's not gonna be a problem. For others stumbling on it from some other direction but open to see what it's about, I'm worried it might turn some people off. Again, not a professional, just offering my thoughts for your consideration or discardment. The reason I speak so plainly is because I think you bring something desperately needed in the gaming space of TH-cam and would like to see much more and also for you to become much more widely seen.
To that end, all the best for this new year and whatever you decide to do next.
Ì couldn't play Civ 6,, it just felt so childish
36:25 - Miniminuteman mentioned. "everyone liked that"
That was the best, the most in-depth reading of a game I've ever encountered. Thank you! I wish there were way more like that, but obviously this took ages to create!
Absolutely phenomenal work! I've read and loved all of Bogost's books, and particularly like the lens of procedural rhetoric. As someone who's been making videogames professionally for almost 3 decades I can say with confidence that it's incredibly hard to craft a game that 'says' exactly what you want it to say. Mostly because the mechanics are constantly evolving throughout the production. What works well thematically may break balance, budget or simply be too radical a change from the original direction. And it's very hard for a team (because most design decisions are not made in a bubble by a single auteur) to resist "the rule of cool" or the "fun factor" even if a proposed feature erodes the other thematic load bearing members. That's why few games are consistently coherent in the ludology/narratology. That, and the fact that we're still a relatively young artform still hashing out best practices and where we want to live in the entertainment/art ecosystem. Still often driven by technology-oriented methods and cursed to reinvent the wheel frequently when it comes to our tool sets and procedures.
I almost didn't click on this because, as you point out at the end, colonial critiques of Civ are old hat and I've seen several already, but I'm glad I did! I've been sharing it around my game dev friends. Hopefully you'll get some traction from this very well done video.
Suggestion for a future video... I'd love to see you tackle another game using Bogost's Unit Operations. The way you illustrate the concepts of procedural rhetoric makes me want to see something similar with Unit Operations.
The happiness system could be read as "just happy enough", but it can also be seen as a logical incentive for the relentless hunger of empires for fancy ressources.
This is like my first semester of Medienwissenschaften, condensed into two hours,
whats fascinating is that it seems like CIV VII is attempting to address many of the points made in this video (intentionally or not). What do you know about the upcoming game? What is your opinion of it?
Given how 6 already addressed many of them, 7 will likely go one step further. I don't think they can do away with the inherent dilemma I discuss, but I'm sure they'll do what they can. I read they hired an actual historian to assist this time round, so I'm hopeful. From what I've seen, they'll apparently try and solve the problem of ethnic consistency by allowing you to switch cultures between ages, which is an interesting concept.
Then again, people will only experience that rhetoric if they feel compelled to play the game, so first and foremost, it's gotta be fun. "If it's not fun, why bother?" Not always correct, but in this case the quote fits, I fear.
@@crocodilegambit I want to play 6 but cant get over the hurdle of how different it is to 5. Seems like it may be worth putting in the extra effort! Great video!
Very nice Video. What you didnt comment on os that games very often operate in an ethik vacuum because consequences are not fun. Killing my opponent and T-baging its remains isnt the same when you think about its love waiting for him at home. A big part of the fun comes from ignoring ethics. Simmilarly in Minecraft you are the foreign force that kills Zombys without thinking about why they dont want you to continue with rebuilding their world. I mean it could be fun if we did :D
One of the finest, richest, clearest video essays I have ever watched ! Hugely inspiring. AND hilarious as well. Merci beaucoup !
"we do not assign blame"
That's very on point for a German.
Sincerely, a Pole
With love from the other side of Oder ;*
ouch 😂
Leave our radio stations alone! (BIG /S !)
Starkes Video mit hervorragender wissenschaftlicher Arbeit als Grundlage! Ich empfand das Video hier und deine Arbeit zu collectivist rpgs viel interessanter als die Arbeit der meisten "großem" Video Game Essayisten. Freue mich schon darauf, deine anderen Videos zu schauen!
Greetings from good old rainy Westerwald to Liverpool!
Omg this is my favorite TH-cam channel now! Pleas More
Regarding wonders referencing WWII I think you forgot the Prora, which only autocracies can build. It's a gigantuous resort built by the Nazis, though construction was halted in 1939.
The original master thesis did mention it, but I scrapped it here because I felt it muddied the argument. Someone even quotes my thesis in the Prora's English Wikipedia entry, god knows why. It's technically built by the Nazis, but it was designed - and nowadays used - as a resort. So in terms of reference to the war machine itself, it seems like a deliberately evasive wonder, given the sheer plethora of actual war-related wonders they could have used. The Nazis built so much stuff that was supposed to signal military strength and social cohesion, but naturally, and fully understandably, we don't see any of that in the game. That is good. It just also means we sort of "don't mention the war". There's no winning here.
Suprised to see an upload lol, but can’t wait to watch, the FC2 vid got me hooked
Didn't thought it would be so entertaining the whole way through. Thx 4 sharing!
Yes, the Native american tribe that Critiqued Civ was right. Most people missed the point completely.
Very well-produced video and a bit hard to follow when I'm tabbed into another game. And I mean that in the most non-derogatory way possible. Great stuff, hope to see more like it soon.
I'm glad the algorithm decided to point me in your direction. It is rare to see a deep critique of games like Civ, for reasons you stated in the video, so it was a pleasure to watch.
Seeing the clickbait title in the description, I want to ask if you have any interest in doing something similar for Civ 7. Whether you do it as a comparison to Civ 5 or as a standalone analysis of Civ 7, I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say. Watching Firaxis's design changes from 5 to 7 (rampaging barbarians to the optional barbarian clans mode to the new independent peoples, for example) shows that they are considering the same things that you brought up in your video.
Regardless, I am very interested in seeing what you do next.
Let's hope the algorithm gods are more gracious with this video once Civ 7 comes out.
29:13 I will just nitpick something inconsequential to the point of the video : I know you said you are taking a lot of liberties here, but, uh, who are the "Teutons"? Gallia was the name given to a vague region full of Celtic-language speaking groups of people (which includes lots more than modern day France. That's a weirdly French nationalist idea) and then carved into provinces by Rome. The Teutons were a largely unknown probably Germanic-language speaking ensemble from the second century B.C. mentioned briefly by Romans and presumably starting in the region of contemporary Jutland. Again, I have no issues with the actual point you are making, but my historian brain would actually be offended by the inclusion of "Teutons" as somehow associated with modern "Germany" and "Gauls" with modern "France" 😅. The old volkish nationalist identification would be "Germanic" = "German", yet that would be just as bad.
That the latin term "teutonicus" would in later medieval and early modern times be translated back into "teutsch/deutsch" by German speakers (and is to this day by translators!) and early proponents of what one might call a "german nation" is an entirely different, stinky paar Schuhe.
Thanks for that insightful comment! I struggled a lot with this section of the video, precisely because it's so hard to pin down ethnicities and not fall into the trap of buying into nationalist (in this case völkisch) narratives that aren't exactly factual. I admit that I chose the Teutons for that historical equivalence that is often drawn given their name, but as you point out yourself, there is no one Germanic tribe, there's several. I could also have chosen the Saxons, or the Frisians, the Cimbri, whatever. The name "German" alone is Roman, and was used to denote tribes that we today wouldn't classify as Germanic. Like the Teutons, which seem to be sort of a gray area.
The fact that I claim Gauls aren't represented is equally borderline, since there's the Celts, and Gauls are Celtic, but not all Celtic tribes are Gauls, obviously.
I think what all this really boils down to is that Civilization requires some sort of cultural cohesion over millennia, which history simply does not support. A point that I make later in the video but that would have been necessary to frontload here because my weird exercise buys into the same misconception the game promotes.
Politics in my politics? That's reaching.
When I played 4x games I would sometimes feel like I was playing the bad side. It felt like a friction that I couldn't articulate. I'm happy to be able to put my experience into words now.
How ironic I would get an ad for age of empires while watching this 😂
Just a slight correction from a south african here: Zulu people are still very much around. They're the ethnic majority of South Africans and there's even still a Zulu King.
That is actually a good point, I fail to bring up that fact, so it may sound like I claim the Zulu were *replaced* by South Africa which is of course not the case. Wasn't there even a rather recent coronation? One could even make the argument that representing the Zulu serves anticolonialism more than South Africa would have, if you take their still very much active culture into account. It all comes down to what perspective you approach it from. I think Westerners primarily associate the Zulu with colonial wars, while from the perspective of some South Africans, the Zulu may actually be more representative of native identity than the more modern state of South Africa? Would love to hear your thoughts on this. I mostly talk to people from Nigeria , Kenya and Uganda, I have very little insight into the South African perspective.
It still remains a curious choice, though, as there is no internationally recognized sovereign Zulu nation. It would be similarly awkward to have, for example, "the Bavarians" or "the Prussians", but not "the Germans".
I suppose the overall point of the video is correct, but equally runs with a conclusion that can be deflated with the response "So what"? It's well made & props for making such a long video, but there are a number of flaws/assumptions that means you seem to be cherry-picking evidence to support your conclusion rather than weighing the mechanical implications (and developmental implications) of each point.
Some places where I think you erred or overplayed your hand; the response is to the surrounding point you make, not just to the timestamp/quote itself:
15:51 - "Environmental Determinism, an inherently racist tool designed to forge imperialist hierachies"
...No? Whilst it may be true that historically, or even originally, the idea of ED (which, very simply, is the idea that a societies geographic environment is the main/major driver in how that society developed) was used as an explicit justification for racism & racist policy; that is simply no longer the case. For example, probably the most high-profile pop-proponent of ED, Jared Diamond, is very clear in his work that is an anti-racist one, and that ED in its modern conception contains nothing that could be understood to be related to the direct superiority/inferiority of one people group to another. It's like arguing that callipers are an inherenty racist tool because they were used quite often by phrenologists.
25:17 - "the cross didn't symbolise Christianity, it symbolised religion. That's a fairly innocent example of Eurocentrism"
Except that it isn't, and it isn't. I wouldn't want to speculate too much on your own life, but presumably the reason you associated the cross with religion as a whole was because the examples of religion you were raised around were exclusively, or at least of a majority, Christian. I know that I didn't see a mosque or synagogue until I was around 12-13, and all prior examples had either been Catholic or Anglican churches. So you weren't making the assumption that you lived in Europe, and thus all religious buildings must have common European features such as the cross. You were (and I am presuming here) making the assumption that since churches were Christian religious buildings, and all of them had crosses, and since you didn't quite understand the significance of the cross you assumed, as a child might, that all religious buildings had that feature. It was all you had probably ever known. Regardless, this leads into my greater point that your definition of Eurocentrism is wrong (or at best incomplete). Eurocentrism is not a flawed idea because it assumes Western Europe to be the baseline; because everyone does that. Every culture & every person within that culture (and this is true for subcultures as well, to a lesser extent) has used their own background as a baseline for judgement. Because you have literally no other choice without having already experienced a foreign culture. If you read the diaries of Japanese people receiving the first Portugese missionaries, for example, you can see that they are judging the Portugese in relation to Japanese custom; they are thinking that their ways are strange & alien & not correct. The problem with Eurocentrism is not the perfectly normal & universal comparison with one's own cultural context - it is the assumption of total cultural superiority of the Western European, and also the assumption that all worldy progress & development has stemmed from Western Europe, from Rome onwards. You definition of Eurocentrism is not only far too broad & universal to be useful, but also ignores the actually harmful ideas that Eurocentrism supports.
29:00 - "I'm taking a lot of liberties here"
I agree with the statement you made on screen. The difference between most of the France/Germany & most of the other countries you have up on screen is that most of them were not historical empires. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon & Tunisia have very little in common, both culturally & ethnically, with their respective empires. Likewise, Peru, Mexico, South Africa & Mali are countries that are located in & whose populations are broadly descended from the peoples in the earlier empires but which were then colonised and only emerged as nation-states many generations after the total death of the empire represented in Civ V. France & Germany, on the other hand, are much more recent imperial projects and have a much more direct historical link between the government of the empire & nowadays. Also, Italy is a European nation who is obviously not represented. On a similar point, the nations that exist today & in Civ V are generally not presented in anywhere near their modern form; England is led by Elizabeth, and the Danish by Harald Hadrada. As others have pointed out, there are a number of modern nations outside of Europe who are represented, such are Ethiopia, China, Indonesia or India.
29:47 "You can play as Germany, but you cannot play as the Teutons"
Following on from the prior points, you still fail to make a case for the Eurocentrism on Civ V's part. The Teutons were a people group who did exist, but they were not an empire in the way most of the other civs are; You'd have been better to use Prussia as an example of this given its much closer ties to Germany. Likewise, the Franks rather than the Gauls should have been used as your civilisational root for France. These were the empires that laid the cultural & societal groundwork for their respective successors. As for the Turk/Ottoman difference, this is simply because although one arose from the other they are more distinct than the evolution of medival France to modern France. The Ottoman empire did not become Turkey; rather, Turkey was birthed from the Ottoman corpse. Whereas France, in a admittedly broad sense, developed more gradually (as an identity, not literally) into the modern republic. The Ottomon empire was a distinctly multi-ethnic imperialist feudal monarchy whereas Turkey was a distinctly nationalistic nation-state.
30:30 "Persia, over Iran"
This is the only example of a broadly continuous nation existing in both its imperial period & today. But even here, Iran is unique in that the inhabitants of Iran are Persian; Persia was the name for Iran until 1935, and the name for Iran generally used by outsiders up until the Islamic Revolution in the 70s. And most importantly, a little like with the Ottoman empire - Persia was the name of the polity during its greatest imperial period. Civ V is a game about being imperialist, and so it is to the times of imperialism that almost all the nations in Civ V refer to. This is similarly true for referring to Siam over Thailand, although I think this is a much weaker case than with Persia. That said, both countries only changed their names to their modern incarnations in the 1930s & the Civ game have generally wanted to avoid direct references to the modern day.
33:36 "base buildings, units, and technologies"
Simply a mechanical constraint of the game. Like a lot of the responses I could give, this is simply a reflection of the game being designed by a Western studio for a Western audience. It's a crude snapshot because games have a limited budget & minutia produce diminishing returns. Knights are well known in Western culture, and the devs are from the West and have focused on a primarily western audience as we can see from the language options they make available. This can apply to basically 90% of your complaints from here on - games have mechanical constraints based on their development & so almost every system is an abstraction of real-world concepts. The Civ games are designed for a Western audience, and so the base for these concepts are ones from broad Western cultures.
cont.
38:00 - "suggests peaceful wonders of religion, science, and trade"
Religion, especially when represented by a giant rapist with a lightning spear, is definitely very peaceful. It is also unlocked by starting the pro-war tradition tree. Equally, the Great Wall & Terracotta Army are probably the most well-known Chinese cultural artifacts alongside the forbidden city. It is hardly a surprise, or a slight against China, that they are included.
42:10 - "which renders the wonder's mechanics exclusive"
Again, it's a competitive game? It bears no meaning beyond being a well-known (to *the audience*) human achievement. It also was built and is operated by NASA, who are a primarily American organisation. The ISS is the wonder you should complain about if you want an example of a truly international project being given to one singular nation.
42:17 - "which is not how the real telescope works"
Correct. It also doesn't let the US build spaceship parts more quickly. The real Globe Theatre doesn't just contain a display case with a famous play or two inside it. Need I explain the concept of abstraction?
44:31 - "the map means nothing!"
This, but unironically. The birds-eye view & position of the map are obviously there to convey the information to the player in an efficient way that also shows off the 3D graphical effects of the game; it is the same camera angle that pretty much all 3D strategy games implement, because it's a good way to communicate a map & because strategy games evolved out of board games... and so the map looks like the view one might have playing a board game. Obviously oriented to the players POV because anything else would have a negative effect on play. Equally, the map is oriented north-south because it's the universal map orientation. So what if it was because of colonialism? 99.9% of all maps produced today use that orientation, and it is not a meta-commentary on the view of the game. Especially since colonial European maps were oriented east-west. You may as well note that the fact that Civ V is a computer game is Eurocentrism because the computer was invented in the West.
46:50 - "tying light to civilization paints savagery as inherantly dark"
Except that Civ V has very little commentary on savagery, other than by use of the word "barbarians" which has its roots in another place. Light & dark, for almost all of human history, have been very important to human survival & development. Artificial light has been very expensive for 99% of our development, and the cheapening of light sources is a key indication (and drive) of a societies technological development. The darkness represents the unknown, in the same way the clouds represent the FoW. Maybe historically the ideas of light & dark have been applied to race, but you are making a video on Civ V which holds no such commentary. The black FoW of the strategic map are clearly just a universal human expression of the darkness being the literal unknown; because people cannot see in the dark, no matter their skin colour.
1:00:55 - "presents the science output of the 18th century as universally true and still relevent 200 years later"
Except that science output a player has in 1770 is not comparable to what they should have in the 1970s; "Science" in Civ V is an abstraction, and is probably best thought of as the general level of understanding a civilization has; and earlier methods of producing this understanding are nowhere near as effective as later ones. A library built in 1000 BC does not have the impact on overall knowledge spread as one build in 1000 AD. The science, or knowledge, is not necessarily universally true or even true at all. Nowhere does the game indicate that science is omniscient. Only that the collective knowledge of society allows them to understand & thus create certain tech milestones. It is an incredibly abstract system, and there is no moral arbitration assigned to it. You don't research "phrenology" in 1750 to get +1 bonus to production on marshland. All science gets you is specific mechanical devices (e.g. the printing press) or new fields of study (e.g. chemistry or physics). Chivalry is the only cultural concept that you can research that might be understandable to be a technology as a still-existing building block that doesn't actually exist. Looking at units or buildings, obsolescence is a very real concept within Civ V's internal world.
1:02:10 "And because nothing is outside of 'their' control, all of history is the result of the fight between Good and Evil"
No..? For a start, there is no "them". There is the AI, which basically all players anthopomorphise as a single person to some extent (just watch a streamer/youtuber talk about the AI they're in competition with, and the phrase "the AI" could easily be replaced with he/she/they etc.) Civ V doesn't have any kind of nefarious group you play as; you are the omniscient God-King, or spirit of the nation or whatever. There is nobody else, outside the player(s) and the AI. And you connection to the society is so abstract you can pretend to be whatever force of direction you want. As for Good & Evil, they are never concepualised within Civ. Other than mechanical punishment such as happiness or diplomatic penalty, Civ V has no moral system. Unlike, for example, Dishonoured where the game & characters do respond to your actions the world of Civ V is very passive in any moral approach. Using nuclear weapons doesn't do anything to your internal politics; your pops don't go on nuclear-nonploliferation strikes. There's no morality bar, and all penalties are directly mechanical. This is because it's a strategy game, and isn't really happening.
cont.
1:05:47 - "paint the same consipiratorial world view that justified imperialism"
For a start, most imperialism wasn't justified by a conspiratorial world view. Even in WW2, conspiracy was a means for seizing political power; the imperialism was justified by claims to land & resources that the Germans were more deserving of. Prussia deserved to form Germany not because of some grand conspiracy against it but because it was the protector of the German-speaking peoples from the French. The East India Company didn't justify its imperial ambitions by claiming some grand conspiracy; it took as much as it could with ink, then declared the peoples it didn't own to be inferior and went on with the colonising. Equally, Civ V isn't a conspiracy; you know what you're getting into before you start the game. You don't get visited by a rock band, realise the AI is conspiring against you, then build a military to conquor them - you already plan on conquoring them before turn 1 starts. There is no conspiracy, no cabal.
1:07:57 - "put the player in the position of a leader"
I can't speak for Pharoh or Anno, but I've player enough Total War to know that isn't the case. Whilst it's true that not all the tools available to the Civ V "Spirit" are available to the TW "Spirit", you are just as much an omniscient being in one as the other; You have total control over troop recruitment & building management - all the economy is built & managed by the state. You decide all external diplomacy without oversight, and have perfect knowledge of everything going on inside your empire. You know precisely the happiness of your cities (in TW) or civ as a whole. You know how much money you will make in the next turn, how much science you will produce, and when your troops will reach the next city to conquor. In TW, the nominal king or leader of your country might die & be replaced, but you don't need to win elections or butter up noble families. This is even more true in the later TW games. You are just as godly as in Civ V, even if your mechanical differences make playing either distinct.
1:12:20 - "cities only benefit from their city-specific perks of their majority religion"
This isn't true, as far as I am aware; although only the owner of the majority religion gets the founding & enhancing belief, and you can only build buildings/units from the majority in that city.
1:14:06 - "religion is Christianity, and any other religion is Christianity with a different coat of paint"
Other than some langage or iconography, I don't see how this stands up. The icon of the Great Prophet evokes an image of Moses who was... not Christian. In fact, Christianity doesn't really have "Great Prophets" in the same way the game evokes. I'm not sure it's really fair to count Jesus as a Great Prophet. Regardless, both the GP & Holy City mechanics are much more evocative of Islam than anything else; it maps much better to Mohammed & Mecca (or perhaps Moses & Jerusalem) than the development of Christianity. Regardless, we also run into the issue of the founding. In Civ, as you point out, religion is created by the state. But that doesn't track for Christianity. Christianity was incredibly grass roots, and famously a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire until Constantine. Unless you're suggesting the GP represents that whole 300 year period in a single turn (which is significantly more generous to abstraction than you have been so far) then it isn't representitive of Christianity. Equally, after 476 there were numerous polities who could claim to have Christianity as their own religion, and the leadership of the Church was either in Rome or in the five Patriarchies - this is not represented in Civ V's one state one church system. Again, we should look to Islam for a more direct comparison. Not only did Mohammed found the religion, he founded the state around it; what became the Caliphates of the Middle Ages. Here we not only have an immediate founding to state transition, but also a single polity who can claim to the "founder" of the faith. It was the various Caliphates of the medival period, and later on the title was claimed by the Ottomans up until their dissolution. What about Missionaries, or Inquisitors? Whilst I'll agree that Civ V is using Christian language, these concepts are hardly unique to Christianity. Looking at Islam again, we can see a huge amount of prosletysing in the Indian subcontinent & in what is now Indonesia; primarily by Muslim traders in the real world. There are also Buddhists & Hindus who went out in an attempt to convert others to the faith. Speaking of Japan, the spread of Buddism in Japan is a great example of this. And persecution by the state faith is not exclusive to 15th-centuary Spain; it was done by the Sunnia Caliphs to the Shias; by the Hindus to the Sikhs; By the Shinto Shogunate to the Catholics. The point is, that other than the name & icon of two units, religion is not related in any real sense to just Christianity. If you are not imaginative enough to look past the names of the unit, or their little model, then I'm sorry for you.
1:18:26 - "can bizarrely benefit from both secularism and monarchy at the same time"
I don't really see what's so bizarre about that. A number of European nations, like the UK, both have a monarchy (and so, one must assume, the magic Civ V benefits one gets from that) and are functionally secular. Surely the example of a secular theocracy would cause a lot more disonnance? Likewise with protectionism & cultural exchange.
1:29:53 - "a nation's cultural values legitimize its claims on the land"
I'm not sure this really tracks; after all, culture in Civ V is more a resource that gives influence than value. It might better represent the centeralization of a state's control over the people's beliefs. This could be why social policies get more expensive the more you buy; it's harder & harder to adjust people's ideas the more they already have. I don't know. Equally, the more rapid expansion could be the civ persuading its pops to go out & settle the land. The more influence, the more persuasion the civ can output. Alternatively, perhaps the land is actually already settled by nomadic tribes or very small societies (which is why they don't appear on the map). The better a civs culture, the more desirable it becomes & thus it becomes easier to have outside peoples join the society & expand the city borders. Ultimately, I don't think it matters. The culture to expansion mechanic is so abstract (and so unlike real borders) that I don't think you can be anywhere near as definitive as you are being.
1:43:40 - "from the moment of first contact onward, then, civilizations may propose establishing embassies"
Strictly speaking, you need to have researched writing to propose an embassy, but I don't think this really matters to your overall point.
cont.
1:49:41 - "diplomacy becomes just a mask behind which foul play is acted out"
So pretty much like real life then.
1:50:32 - "an obvious romanticisation of Western missionary work"
Aside from the fact that other faiths have missionaries as well, there are a number of examples of other cultures wanting to be converted to the faith of European nations. Hawaii is a good example of this; after destroying the kapu system (their long-held historical set of native-ish religious practices, the Hawaiians were very keen to be converted by American missionaries who visited a year later. Obviously this isn't literally the same thing, but as I said, there are a number of examples of people wanting to be converted because they misunderstood the rites & practices of Christian missionaries as being the cause of their prosperity. Think cargo cults.
1:55:00 - "stripping battles of all urgency"
Clearly, you've never tried Civ V multiplayer
1:52:57 - "western stereotypes"
I don't think it's really fair to describe the Mongolian cultural affinity with horses or steppe warfare, or the German tendancy for militarism, as "stereotypes". Given the lifestyle of the average Mongolian even in the mid-20th centuary or their giant empire in the 13th century; or indeed the "Army with a State" ideal of militarism that bled from Priussia into WW1.
1:59:27 - "non-existant past"
4000 BC isn't non-existant. People existed & lived & organised before 4000 BC; just because that is when the game chooses to start, doesn't mean that each Civ V game doesn't have a pre-start past, which perhaps covers the 200 years before then, where various small tribes discovered agriculture. The fact that the year is marked as 4000 BC can easily be an abstraction of that period.
2:01:25 - "the supposedly inborn traits of a civilization provide them with a manifest destiny"
Not it Civ V, they don't. Whilst it is true that Egypt has a bonus to wonder construction, or Mongolia has faster cavalry, the game gives them no special privileges beyond that. Egypt cannot demand that you cease building the Great Pyramids. It does not get a unique cassus belli on somebody who beats it to the Colossus. You can own every wonder in the game & still be best mates with Rameses. The Japanese do not get a bonus to invading you if you own fish tiles. Each Civ has a little thing they're better at, and no more. Now, sometimes that might mean a civ is more likely to attack a certain other civ; or be more likely to attack at all. But there is no justification. When Spain conquors London, it does not make the case to the other civilizations that the leader of Spain was married to the leader of England. There is no justification. War simply is. Because this is just a game.
As for your conclusion (and the points you make immediately prior to that section); It's all half-right, all "Yes, and?". Civ V is a 4X game. An imperialist view of the world (a view shared by 99% of human societies) is a necessary ingredient. You've at best proven that Civ V is born from a Western cultural context - no duh, it's a game series deveoped by Americans - that has some issues with over-abstraction & some mechanics that lack dept or nuance. Issues that I think Civ 6 does fix, but certainly not in a way to really de-justify imperialism. Civ 6 better represents countries of the world, but all other improvements are improvements to mechanics (Not that Civ 6 is by any means a straight upgrade from Civ V). If you think the religion system of Civ 6 is less imperialistic, or that adding districts makes the game less Eurocentric, you do you. You're wrong, and 85% of your criticisms could be applied to Civ 6, but whatever. Districts are just as essentialist, and free cities are a mechanical improvement that happen to coincide with your reasoning. Imperialists certainly understood that no nation was actually unified; otherwise they wouldn't have needed propaganda or repression.
To reiterate my overarching point; Civ V is a competative strategy game. To be what it is, and not be Sid Meier's Animal Crossing, it has to have certain elements to be both fun (which is the most important feature of a game, I think) and not bankrupt the studio that develops it. So Civ V can't just pull a unique, dynamic, per-nation tech tree out of thin air. It can't give every culture a unique model & mechanics for every unit. It can't model complex societal interactions or cultural developments. Not that these things are necessarily impossible, but a studio's resources are not endless.
You clearly like the game; and you're also evidently not a frothing imperialist. And we both know that Civ V is not going to turn you, or anyone else, into one if they weren't already. The existance of certain historical parallels in a game does not justify that history. Civ V is just a game. The only thing it can justify is itself.
TH-cam has deleted/hidden one of my comments, as it likes to do sometimes? I found a backup of the txt I used to keep track, but my points are unfortunately incomplete.
38:00 - "suggests peaceful wonders of religion, science, and trade"
Religion, especially when represented by a giant rapist with a lightning spear, is definitely very peaceful. It is also unlocked by starting the pro-war tradition tree. Equally, the Great Wall & Terracotta Army are probably the most well-known Chinese cultural artifacts alongside the forbidden city. It is hardly a surprise, or a slight against China, that they are included.
42:10 - "which renders the wonder's mechanics exclusive"
Again, it's a competitive game? It bears no meaning beyond being a well-known (to *the audience*) human achievement. It also was built and is operated by NASA, who are a primarily American organisation. The ISS is the wonder you should complain about if you want an example of a truly international project being given to one singular nation.
42:17 - "which is not how the real telescope works"
Correct. The real Hubble telescope also doesn't let the US build spaceship parts more quickly. The real Globe Theatre doesn't just contain a display case with a famous play or two inside it. Need I explain the concept of abstraction?
44:31 - "the map means nothing!"
This, but unironically. The birds-eye view & position of the map are obviously there to convey the information to the player in an efficient way that also shows off the 3D graphical effects of the game; it is the same camera angle that pretty much all 3D strategy games implement, because it's a good way to communicate a map & because strategy games evolved out of board games... and so the map looks like the view one might have playing a board game. Obviously oriented to the players POV because anything else would have a negative effect on play. Equally, the map is oriented north-south because it's the universal map orientation. So what if it was because of colonialism? 99.9% of all maps produced today use that orientation, and it is not a meta-commentary on the view of the game. Especially since colonial European maps were oriented east-west. You may as well note that the fact that Civ V is a computer game is Eurocentrism because the computer was invented in the West.
46:50 - "tying light to civilization paints savagery as inherantly dark"
Except that Civ V has very little commentary on savagery, other than by use of the word "barbarians" which has its roots in another place. Light & dark, for almost all of human history, have been very important to human survival & development. Artificial light has been very expensive for 99% of our development, and the cheapening of light sources is a key indication (and drive) of a societies technological development. The darkness represents the unknown, in the same way the clouds represent the FoW. Maybe historically the ideas of light & dark have been applied to race, but you are making a video on Civ V which holds no such commentary. The black FoW of the strategic map are clearly just a universal human expression of the darkness being the literal unknown; because people cannot see in the dark, no matter their skin colour.
This is where my notes got up to; and I think are all the points that really matter? Apologies to anybody who ends up reading this out of order.
@@gurigura4457 I think you are slighlty misunderstadning ideology as such and cultural analysis. You write " it has to have certain elements to be both fun (which is the most important feature of a game, I think) and not bankrupt the studio that develops it" and keep coming back to the points that "mechanical improvements" simple is that and that Civ 6 " is just a game." For the first point both about a game having to be "fun" (which in a way is a strange statement, I don't think all games have to be fun, like all novels and movies don't have to be fun) and the market deciding the contents of the game is not really a counterpoint for anything, that is more like giving ideology a place to hide (ideology works best when it operates as a seeming natural fact or as common sense, for exemple saying that the market wants this or that, or this is what western audiences know and so on). The actions of the people making the game is in that view aliented from them, they did what they did because they had to and therefore there is no point talking about it. In actuallity this should propably makes us ask ourselves more questions, like why is this more fun?Why do western audieces understand this and not this (and are we not then also reinforcing their ignorance)? Why does this work on the market and son on and so on.
I also think you are reading a stronger causation from the video than intended. The game is not going to make someone into a "forthig imperialist", like no book or movie or whatever is going to make anyone into anything. The process is more complex than that, to become someone supporting imperialist policies it takes a society that in many ways creates diffrent narratives and cultural symbols and opinions and so on. The causation is not as simple as play a game, become a imperialist, it is a process of many many factors without a clear point dominating point of cause and effect. Games, like all cultural products, are part of society and it's symbolic language and webs of meaning (which also is a necesity to making us able to understand it). Therefor a work of art is both a product of the society it was created in, that connects with it's symbols and webs of meaning, but also something that comments upon the culture it was created in. That is why the "so what" response is rather moot, even if game is decided by the market or what is fun that says something about the society it was created in. This is also the point of cultural analysis, to uncover the for us naturalised symbolic languenge and meaning of a culture, the kind of thing we usually don't think about or take for granted, and what they might say about our culture.
Once it's out and been fleshed out with DLC, I'd love to see you compare civ VII to civ V in terms of how it's progressed in these critiques. It seems like the Sid Meier team are trying to decolonialise an inherently colonial game, and throughout the video I kept having to wonder how the systems implemented could be amended to both still make sense in a game like Civ, while avoiding the imperial and occidental ideology that underpins many or most strategy games.
The list at 29:18 and the corresponding commentary is way off. I only comment bcs your gothic video was pretty good and I am a huge Civ fan. I understand your intention to analyze Civ through a "postcolonial" lense, which tends to be revisionist but this is too much
1) "Teutons" as a pick for the historical representation of "Germany" is very very odd. The "Teutons" are very uncommon in both German and English historical terminology
2) The choice of nations and nation names, respectively, is obviously guided by their historical significance. Thats why its France and not the Gauls and the Romans and not Italy. Same is true for the "oriental" countries.
The issue of endonyms and exonyms arises for all countries as "Germany", "Persia" as well as "Siam" are exonymes. Again, the historical name is picked when appropriate as in the case of Iran.
I discussed this with my Korean girlfriend and she was bewildered as to why anyone would pick Kuwait over Babylonia and she had to google the Teutons lol
3) France is obviously a historical nation as well as present day nation. You create a false dichotomy there. You don't have the same continuous history for nations like Peru
4) They already tried hard to make the choice of nations less eurocentric by including nations like the Zulus or some Native American tribes. So it would be odd to argue that this is yet again eurocentric and it would be less eurocentric to pick the settler or colonial states founded by Europeans
5) Europe just produced more nations of historical significance. Hard to deny that
As for the plus side:
4) Your analysis on the poor choice of backgrounds for non-colonial powers is spot-on! The depiction of Morocco and Siam are especially outrageous and make the leaders seem unserious and thus unplayable for me.
Civ7 tries to amend that by trying to depict leaders like Augustus like complete morons, which is also terrible.
All in all in good old fashion of postcolonialism you have some strong single arguments, which suffer however from being paired together with revisionist or simply ignorant arguments and to frame everything as the result of some bias
I love the bird avatar, it's so cute.
waiting for the inevitable moment this channel explodes into popularity
If I'm not misremembering, the channel was under 2K subs last night, when I started watching this video. I tune in today to continue, and it's already at 2.59K (and I really hope my comment with this number will age like milk in the sun by tomorrow). I think Crocodile Gambit is about to get a lot bigger.
@@ximinez84 3.67k now
How are you so remarkably underrated
Leaving of Liverpool was a great credit song choice
Can't imagine the time this took to put together.
29:14
You lost me here. What cherry picking nonsense.
Actual list of non-European Civ5 civilizations that have names related to currently existing countries: Arabian (Saudi Arabia + UAE), Chinese, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Indian, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Moroccan.
Furthermore, Persia and Siam are exonyms for countries that literally exist today, Iran and Thailand. But also so is Germany. Iran and Thailand didn't officially change their names until the 1930's making Persia and Siam names for countries that exist(ed) in the modern era. Persian is still used to refer to the ethnic group, language and culture of the majority population of Iran.
This entire comparison becomes absurd though when you realize, per the wiki, that the term civilization is not used here to refer to countries but "specific nations, empires or cultural groups", in which case what are labelled historical nations are referring to peoples and cultures that currently still exist. There are still Nahua (Aztecs) and Mayans in Mexico, Iroquois and Shoshone in America, Zulus in South Africa, Assyrians in Iraq and Songhai in West Africa.
And how do you square the game's narrative being European == modern when much of how they're represented in game is their historical past. The Danish aren't represented by modern architecture and cycling, they're viking berserkers. England isn't the England of Churchill or the Beatles, it's Queen Elizabeth and her medieval longbowmen. Meanwhile Ethiopians are led by 20th century Emperor Selassie with his corp of rifle wielding guardsmen and India is led by 20th century icon Mahatma Gandhi.
It seems like this video was born of a dare to miss the forest for the trees for two hours
Tell me more
Haven't actually watched yet but have to say I'm glad there's a new video from you!
I really need to read Bogost. I'm not even a scholar within, or adjacent to this field, but games studies are so interdisciplinary that I keep seeing people citing him
Me deciding last week to do play farcry 2 again has caused a chain reaction that has led me here. Truly the game that keeps on giving
49:29 i just want to say that "that's just the way it is" is the last thing i would expect coming from Set's mouth, the ancient lord of 'fuck your rules i'll do what i want now let's race hippos' lmao
The little bird is supposed to be Horus, so of course his eternal adversary had to be Set.
Sehr gutes video.
Dumme Frage, was war der Name deines Studiengangs und wo hast du studiert? :D
Danke! MA English and American Literatures, Cultures, and Media, CAU Kiel.
hmmmm this video is delicious. yeah the historical materialism goes really well with the games studies. good soup
You sir - have a new subscriber this day.
On the point of United Nations, I have to say that the organisation does seem to act in favour of Western Imperialism, becoming somewhat active whenever useful for the US or the West Europe nations. With their troops passively observing internal conflicts and participating in various illegal activities, which include rape and slave trade.
I do not claim that Civ 5's representation of the UN is untruthful, just that it is at best cynical (but I believe my source does). Although your interpretation was recently undercut slightly by the ICC's arrest warrant against an enabler of Western imperialism.
@@crocodilegambit bro thinks both siding genocide is neutral.
@@crocodilegambit bro thinks both siding (the g word) is neutral.
@@crocodilegambit I understand that my expression is somewhat clouded by my personal distaste for the organisation but I'd say the representaition is just one-sided and just shows it as a tool - without its benefits and drawbacks.
As to your latter comment, I might be out of the loop here as I don't know exactly which one. But issuing an arrest warrant against AN enabler of imperialism is almost like, to me, as arresting only Epstein.
When you mentioned having little cute cartoon presenters I was honestly hoping to see some Shnappi Das Kleine Krokodil situation, but I like the cute little bird too. I think though that cartoon singing croc has given me long term mind poison.
Oh God. It's insane just how much of an international phenomenon that song has become ever since it started haunting our local kindergartens. One of my Chinese university students even had it has her ringtone.
- Malte
I'm sorry Civ V can't almost be 15 years old right?
Nice, another yearly video!
You conveniently leave out that a good portion of the western civilizations' leaders appear in "unspoiled natural settings" like Boudicca, Alexander, Napoleon, Harald Bluetooth, while half of non-western ones are shown in some sort of structure or city. Montezuma, Pachacuti, Asklia, Attila, Wu Zeitan, Ramses II, Darius I, Harun al-Rashid, Ashurbanipal, Pacal, Nebuchadnezzar II, Haile Selassie, Sejong, and Suleiman. Some of them are even literally on thrones. Extremely weak.
Maybe you should touch grass and stop criticizing a 15 year old game for not having modern revisionist culture politics, and this is coming from someone who's very liberal.
Let’s not throw around anecdotes and do an actual quantitative analysis:
Out of 43 leaders, 14 are not shown on their thrones or at least inside. Out of those 14, three may be considered Western empires: France, Greece, and Denmark. The Zulu, Siam, the Shoshone, Polynesia, the Iroquois, Mongolia, India, Indonesia, Songhai, Morocco and the Celts are the others. I would not count the Celts as enactors of Western imperialism, given how Boudicca is known for her fight against the Roman Empire. I also don't say "non-Western", I say "subjected to Western imperialism", there's a gradual difference.
Maybe my wording seems a bit strong here, so if that one point in the video makes you throw the entire thesis out the window, I have failed and shall do better next time. Hope to see you again!
I love Civ V and this video is absolutely fantastic. I feel like I took a lot from this video despite or maybe even because I already took a lot of time to look at the topics of imperialism, nationalism and Western hegemonialism.
Also watching this had given me many ideas for how to do a Civilization type game that's actually antiimperialist where working together is rewarded and different cultures have different beliefs and values that can change over time depending on their circumstances. A game where world wonders are created as a result of significant things that happened in the past. A shame that I'm not a videogame developer I'd have great ideas for how to revolutionise games. Although this would most likely result in game mechanics that aren't any fun when playing because I'm not a game dev.
Great video thank you
Excellent video, thank you
I know intellectually that investigating what messages are being carried by a piece of media is not the same as criticizing or providing feedback for the media but emotionally it feels like this critique and others of its kind are advocating for more socially conscious video games.
In terms of representation of real life cultures I suppose that is literally true. They can do more research and reflect real life cultures respectfully.
You could make the map rotatable or flip it if you spawn on the south of the map.
When it comes to the underlying ideology of the genre I don't think there's anything to be done. If you made a game with different politics then it would either clash with the gameplay and render it unplayable or you just invented a different genre.
This video gives you a strange feeling where you want to defend the game, but its not actually being attacked. It is just being inspected thoroughly from a point of view that does not come naturally to you. I ended the video feeling strange and uncertain. It feels like something is wrong but there's nothing that can be done about it.
For example on the topic of the map again. If you made the map a sphere like in dyson sphere program you would let go of some of the political meaning it contains but maybe that would just be harder to implement and parse for a player. If it doesn't serve the gameplay it shouldn't be in the game.
The 4x genre is possibly the most explicitly political one out there and is wide open for this kind of dissection. A part of me is put off by it, like yeah it has to do with western world views and colonialism because the west exported its culture onto every square inch of this planet. A plastic bag has been found inside the mariana trench, "We're all living in Amerika". So like whats the point. What is the takeaway here, what can be acted on. There is no earth without all of that stuff, its embedded very deeply in our history. What am I supposed to do about it. Idk. Maybe the point is just to realize that games carry ideology and then move on with your life.
I'm afraid I felt exactly the same when I made this. If this is what you take away from it, then we're on the same page.
Great, when are you doing such an analysis on a chinese or saudi arabian game :) ? Would love to see the biases in those cultures.
I think it would be not only wrong but outright impossible for me to faithfully analyze a Chinese game from a cultural perspective other than my own. That would be up to a Chinese person to make or someone versed in Sinology.
I like this. Thank you
POLSKA MENTIONED
Heyyy dude It's great to see you again ... I lost hope and thought you withdrew from the project. Firstly, your work is amazing ... Far Cry video was ART !! . I've watched it many times and every time I discover new things and i will rewatched again and again ... 2nd .. You have to keep working, man. I know the number of viewers might frustrate you, but the algorithm is unfair. I sent The video to many of my friends and everyone thinks that this channel is underrated ... Do you have an official website or social media ? i have to see all of ur projects ... finally
I feeo you are focousing way too radically on the narative and not really letting the mechanics and there reasons speak. The north south map could be due to imperalist cartography or maybe its because monitors are horizontal. You adress this by taking on a straw man of mechanical considerations but one can take a reasonable approch of blancing the two. And a lot of these fassets of "imperialism" just seem like true facts, why should we assume everything that imperialsm taught is false some it may be true and some may be false. The falsehood that lead to inhuman deeds could be a single idea or it could be the whole thing but we cant decide that until we looked at it
Great video. Your existence gives me hope, as I live in a household and greater community that has bought in to many of the negative views you brought up. Now all three branches of my government have bout in too, and disabled folk like myself are kind of terrified of how we’ll be treated in the future.
Found an american
Well.. thanks for ruing this game for me :P
Any other Civ game better on those issues than Civ5? Civ7 maybe.. or Call to Power2 (which I remember fondly, but not to clear... may be just nostalgia)
I personally enjoyed Civ 5 way more than Civ 6, if you're going by fun factor. I cannot speak to any of the other games.
Finally, a youtube essayist who actually does the work and thinks and synthesizes, instead of going through the motions of thinking.
Yeah, this missed its moment 10 years ago when we were just starting to huff our own farts
Thank you! The grand strategy genre has always stood out to me as the one genre I could never get into, simply because I don't like playing games as villains, and there's no way to play any of the grand strategy games I've tried as anything other than a machievellian monster. The last time I tried to explain to someone why I don't enjoy Settlers of Catan* for the way it turns any group of friends into backstabbing liars, they looked at me like I was crazy. Civilization seems like a pretty extreme case, but you've dissected it with such detail and precision that it easily exemplifies the general trend.
*: It's a grand strategy board game and nobody's convincing me otherwise.
HE'S BACK!
1:03:15
23:50
44:35
bro came back after a year
Wow, you back
Cool. Now do Stellaris.
Please.
I realize you're asking for media content to watch. I say this gleefully: do it yourself, applying the analysis to it is probably entertaining on its own. But I can't think of what Stellaris would have that isn't covered here. Perhaps a discussion on sentience, given the synth and artificial life forms and hive minds? It shares a lot of DNA with Civ already.
or maybe some good game instead
It's quite eye-opening! Really enjoyed this video
It made me consider how much playing games like these as a kid influenced my perspective on culture, nations and borders. I always saw Civ 5 as something quite innocent back then, and this breakdown really shows quite the opposite, which I think is really cool! I think its interesting with the title of the game which relates to its presentation, that this is a game about humanity forming their society - which of course does not need to be imperialistic, yet the game is. That is what makes the game's ideology less noticable to the audience. Compare it to something like Total War, where the title of the game is very much implied that this is a game about conquering, but this presentation allows for the audience to have better awareness of the game's framing of history.
good video
Absolute garbage. Working incredibly hard to reinforce your own biases in the name of rooting out biases in others. You can't think, at all.
Dude you need to go outside
I thought that gaming was meant to allow me to stay inside?
Read a book sometime
Great video!