Sid Meier's Civilization VII arrives February 11, 2025 - Gameplay reveal trailer live

On one hand the brain does not make the same distinctions as we do, on the other hand behaviorally you wont do something either virtually or really unless you are capable of doing both.

No, because I've always understood that games are not real. And so do you, hopefully. They're not even very good simulations of reality. No amount of pseudo-psychology is going to change that.

Your theory echoes the various moral panics in relation to gaming we've seen since the eighties. All of them equally unfounded.

The function of any game psychologically is to play out scenarios, a form of learning without risk. Anything you do in a game is an expression of what you would do IRL if given the opportunity and resources, it's just that most seem to not notice this about themselves.

Nonsense. I play tabletop RPGs, and morality aside, I play many characters whose personal styles and interests are vastly different from my own. I wouldn't want to live their lives, because faced with a choice between what they like (that I'm just interested in enough to dip into for a couple hours every other week) and what I like, their stuff would at best be way too far down my list of interests to make it my actual real-life priority.

In Stellaris, I have a playthrough in which I am a devouring swarm literally eating all other life--I just wouldn't be that interested in doing that even if it were consequence-free. Kind of a one-dimensional existence. In Civ V, I regularly push religion . . . I don't even like religion, but in Civ V if you can get your hands on stuff like mosques and pagodas it turbocharges your happiness and culture production.

There is a huge step from "everyone has a bit of hostility in them" to "everyone would actually want to be a mass murderer". Most people also have a bunch of other stuff in them.

I also thought the way you do when I was younger, now I know better and have stopped playing certain games or doing certain things in games.

I'm just going to quote this bit to emphasize it that everything you've said in the comments seems like a you problem. Your pessimism about human nature, cynicism, perception of a "woke" agenda and other unprompted ramblings and creation of strawmen to pillory is a reflection of you, your values, your thoughts and not of anyone else in this thread let alone society at large and, certainly not, civilization (either in reality or in video game form). Most people are able to distinguish reality from fiction and to insist otherwise comes close to the ludicrous and scientifically debunked arguments made about violence in video games leading to real violence. I'll add to what was said earlier: your armchair psychology might be true for yourself but in no way can you speak for humanity at large.

Going point by point on all the outlandish things that you've said about games and the people playing them would take too long. I'll instead focus on a few quick things:

• Civilization VI does have slavery. It's not called "slavery" because that is a broad term that can mean many things in different historical contexts but anyone who can think critically (and read the in-game civilopedia) knows what's up. Policy cards such as corvee, ilkum, serfdom, and others representing various aspects of forced labor and discriminated classes are implementations of forms of slavery. To feature it more "prominently" (or, indeed, gratuitously) is ahistorical in my opinion and it being shown in these games as a fact of life is far more faithful to how societies dealt with the issue. Nobody freaked out or complained as you might imagine. Likewise, no one really complains about this sort of thing in other games like Old World, Europa Universalis etc.
  


• Similarly, there hasn't been any sort of backlash that I've ever seen about the ability to raze cities or commit genocide on whole civilizations, let alone the forced conversion of religion and inquisitors.


• Civ 6 (and 5) does have things like cultural pressure that makes cities break away and cultural bomb mechanics in some instances that change ownership of tiles without warfare. It's not the same system but sequels of games do tend to change things and try out different approaches. The important bit is that there's no outcry about that either.


• Civilization is informative and even educational and they hire historians who advise them on things. This is something mentioned in their longer video that I linked and Liam then added. That it is an entertainment product and a game, ultimately, does not mean that it doesn't strive to represent history—to a fair extent—as we understand it.


• The approach of having civilizations potentially change into others is, as mentioned by others, not historically inaccurate. An example is given in the video about those in the British isles going through various invasions and cultural shifts and ending up as what they are modern times—similar things could be said for the French (Gauls, Romans, Franks, and all the regional cultures), Italians (Latins, Germanics including Goths, Normans in the South), Chinese (very many invasions and different groups in charge), Egypt (Old Egyptian, Greek, Arab), Russia (do I really need to keep listing the obvious here?), and many many others. History, as the civ devs are saying, is layered and engaging in optional shifts during a game depending on circumstances is not very far-fetched. Whether it's a fun mechanic is a different debate.


• Insisting that "Romans remain Roman and the Zulu, Zulu" is incredibly deterministic and is not better than your alleged (and unfounded) "presentism". Cultures change significantly in terms of language, social norms, religion, law and everything else. A modern Greek person has very little culturally common with someone who lived in an ancient city state; the late Roman empire was culturally and functionally radically different than the republic thousands of years prior; modern China is very different to that first state. If such radical change happens consistently in real history, why should a video game sandbox develop in the exact same way?

It's fine to not like Civ or even disagree with the direction a game has taken but you can do all that without relying on unsubstantiated allegations and political biases. And as a moderator I'm telling you that going on and on about perceived culture war issues that seem unrelated to the game (and reality!) will not only not win you any friends but will likely see you eventually banned. Stick to arguing in good faith about games and related topics and not going off in unprompted rants about whatever imagined groups that are ruining everything or that imagined outlooks are "disrespectful to the ancestors" whatever that means.


Last edited by BTRE on 22 August 2024 at 5:36 pm UTC

Insisting that "Romans remain Roman and the Zulu, Zulu" is incredibly deterministic and is not better than your alleged (and unfounded) "presentism". Cultures change significantly in terms of language, social norms, religion, law and everything else. A modern Greek person has very little culturally common with someone who lived in an ancient city state; the late Roman empire was culturally and functionally radically different than the republic thousands of years prior; modern China is very different to that first state. If such radical change happens consistently in real history, why should a video game sandbox develop in the exact same way?

Posting to empathically agree with BTRE's entire post (not quoted because it's long), but specifically to add on this point. The concept of "national identity", national borders, people belonging to a particular state with a definite language and culture... that is absolutely modern invention, starting only on the 17th century. There were states before, and various identities based on origin, language, religion, tribe, and such. But those weren't really connected as we understand it now. Having "civilizations" in 4000BC with borders and distinct national identities is anachronistic, is very much presentist if we are debating that point; no state from that time would work like that.

Projecting national identities into the past is a pervasive political instrument, by which (would-be) nation states try to legitimize themselves through a connection to previous states and cultures, creating a national identity out of an idealized or fabricated past. Think of Germany in the 19th century, during its unification under a national state, seeking connections to the Germanic barbarian tribes from millennia past, trying to find a common identity between the hundreds of small, separate states but distinct from their neighbors. Not that this tactic of connection to earlier peoples or kingdoms was new, rulers loved to claim mythical origins, but the concept of nation itself - and projecting it back to people that didn't use it - was. And this isn't outdated politics, irrelevant to the present day: in many places people still are still fighting wars for the self-determination of their nation.

So yeah, the fundamentals of Civilization are extremely political. A game about empire building, war, and governing cities can't avoid it, politics are the very premise of it. If some things look "less political", it is because you haven't looked hard enough. There is plenty to be critiqued in the particular choices made (for example, the emphasis on "great people" as opposed to the contribution of the population at large is... contentious), but it requires a lot more depth and nuance than "they are making ideological changes!" - because you need to justify why this supposed new ideology is better than the existing one, which was absolutely all but neutral.

I have been arguing in good faith but it seems like it's gotten everyone upset at me because I have surprised them with idea's they find so shocking it's led to threats and insults both veiled and outright.... which is not in good faith.

I'll just shut up then, have a good day and remember to avoid mirrors.

EDIT: I generally don't react well to bullies who abuse their power to disingenuously force a consensus, take that as you will.

Yes, yes, if people disagree with you it's because they're arguing in bad faith.

I have been arguing in good faith but it seems like it's gotten everyone upset at me because I have surprised them with idea's they find so shocking it's led to threats and insults both veiled and outright.... which is not in good faith.

I'll just shut up then, have a good day and remember to avoid mirrors.

EDIT: I generally don't react well to bullies who abuse their power to disingenuously force a consensus, take that as you will.

No one is forcing a consensus and no one is surprised at your [sic] "idea's"—myself and others disagree, are unpersuaded by your line of argumentation, and the reasoning and presentation of evidence that supposedly supports it. You are unable to present anything that supports your wild assertions about people and history. You have not taken any steps to meaningfully engage with the counterpoints raised other than us that the way you think is right because ... that's the way you feel and think. Instead you have presented yourself as some sort of truth-telling martyr with this post, whose ideas go unheard and dismissed because they are shocking and the other people here are too inflexible and mean and not ready to hear the "truth" (which, of course, you are undoubtedly right about).

The far likelier scenario is that the complete lack of evidence from you or the sweeping assertions about nefarious—but unproven to even exist—groups and their influence on games, psychology, society, history and all the rest fails to pass the bar of reasonable discourse. No further amount of self-pitying dismissals nor passive aggressive insults will change that.

Interesting that the Steam store page mentions Denuvo. Presumably this will be for Windows rather than Linux, though I wonder if some form of DRM will be included in the Linux build?

This is causing a stir on civfanatics. Adding this makes it a hard pass for many. (including me)

Interesting that the Steam store page mentions Denuvo. Presumably this will be for Windows rather than Linux, though I wonder if some form of DRM will be included in the Linux build?