Somewhere, there is a line that is crossed where history is no longer part of the play, but only a framework. Either, something is familiar and we gain some pleasure from playing it as I do when I am Washington in 4000 BC, or something is unfamiliar and it is more obvious as only a mechanic in the game and lacking in a depth of meaning. Is that because it is a poor mechanic or because we as players are unable to give it meaning from a familiar context? The mechanic of a city-state in the game feels a bit unbalanced and somewhat shallow. Even to one familiar with the concept, it is somehow more difficult to reconcile Budapest or Venice as a city-state in the modern age than it is to see Washington in 4000 BC. What city-states can students name? When I teach Greek history, the concept of a city-state is typically new to them. This one, though, is less familiar to us than the others. Here, again, history provides simply a context for a gameplay mechanic. They acquire a few extra tiles of land, but aside from that, they never progress. A player may be able to acquire resources elsewhere, but the diplomatic repercussions of abandoning, or worse, making a puppet out of a city-state, even one you’ve never been allied with, have the potential to be traumatic, while the friendships one builds up over time may dissuade a larger and more dangerous civilization from attacking you.Ĭity-states themselves do not change over the course of the game (6000+ years). Although their gifts of resources and military units are helpful, the City-States’ real power exists in their diplomatic ties. They exist to provide diplomatic and physical benefits to those countries who ally with them. These cities on the map are individual states (as you may guess from their name), but they do not compete to win the game. Slavery, however, is not even present as an option anymore.Ĭivilization V changed many aspects of the series, but one feature in this iteration is completely new – that of City-States. Although democracy is deep in the tree, Republic and Representation are available early on if one chooses to prioritize Liberty. I should say here though that this social policy model, new with Civilization V, provides much more freedom of choice than its predecessors. History is more complicated than this model of government makes it seem, despite the familiarity present in its design. But, actually, democracy was present 2500 years ago and there are still monarchies today. At first glance, we may find it familiar that Monarchy is one of the first options, while Democracy is buried deep in the policy trees. This kind of system is based on a linear view of history that sees human progression march along a timeline, starting with primitive forms of government and leading up to much more detailed and nuanced systems. It is not until much later in the game that the Democracy policy is available, for example. It is only after reaching different historical milestones (Medieval Era, Renaissance Era, etc.) that more options in social policies open up. Each is designed to provide bonuses to a particular playstyle – Tradition for small empires, Liberty for expansive ones, and Honor for those with militaristic aims. For example, one begins the game with the option to specialize in Tradition, Liberty, or Honor. These policies encompass various different traits of governments and fitting bonuses for each. When I look at the map in 4000 BC and see an American warrior, it does feel familiar but it is far from a recreation of the past.Īnother area in which history provides perhaps only a design framework is that of the social policies, Civilization V’s new governmental system. Here was a clear example of how history provides only a context for the game. It then said, it’s 4000 BC, can you build a civilization to stand the test of time? The window that popped up to tell me this spoke of how the United States arose in the 18 th century, etc, etc. I ended up with Washington, Leader of the Americans. Would Civilization still be great gameplay without the history?įirst of all, where is this history? I loaded up the game the other day and chose a random civilization instead of hand-picking my leader. Now, he said this in a kind of defense for why Civ isn’t historically realistic, but I want to unpack his statement a bit and challenge the underlying assumptions. The lead designer for Civ 5, John Shafer, once said that if you took the history out of Civilization, you’d still have great gameplay – it just wouldln’t feel as familiar.
#Civ v worldbuilder name series#
The latest iteration in the series came out a few months ago and adjusted many aspects of play for better or worse depending on whom you ask. Sid Meier’s Civilization is one of the most-loved franchises in gaming, particularly among those with a historical bent, even though it doesn’t provide a realistic narrative of history.
0 kommentar(er)
