Cultural Artifact paper: Civilization V for PC

Video games intrigue me because they have uncanny effects on the population.  I’m affected by the experience of playing a PC game, Civilization, in a way that is most disturbing. Sid Meiers, who created Civilization, is a famous software developer when it comes to strategy games. I remember watching my uncles play his game, Civilization, in their spare time back when I was really young. Many people of my generation have played the Civilization series, the latest of which is Civ “V”.  As an artifact that was created in the United States, its cultural value is rather low—only a few gamers play it, while most people play World of Warcraft or prefer to watch a movie for entertainment.   But according to Sid Meiers, “Games have become the entertainment of choice for people all over the world” (Frum).

I started playing Civilization (III) when I was entering college for the first time, and I’ve been playing the series ever since, though today I quit.  As the primary source of entertainment, video gaming took over my time as a student because of its addictive qualities, in my opinion; I chose to work on improving my video gaming skills rather than improving my piano skills.  I have wrestled with the idea that video gaming does not flex any brain muscles at all but only is a detriment to human intelligence by confining oneself to more limiting rewards and punishments.  What I mean by this is that playing civilization causes a false sense of success when I “win,” as I do not actually win anything; it causes me to seek more pleasure from winning by playing it over and over again, and often I lose on harder levels of difficulty.  Supposedly playing it on Emperor Difficulty in civilization V is doable, but I’ve never been able to beat it on two difficulties easier (Deity difficulty). 

Sid Meiers designed the series over one principle--the human desire for power--though it's make-believe power.   And those who lose are left with a feeling of inability to perform to his norms/standards, and this is undesirable to me.  All that Sid Meiers has succeeded in doing is waste other people’s time in order to receive a bigger pay check.  The sense of power that is created by not just Sid Meiers but other programmers like him are driven by a desire to be “successful,” yet it is a success that is almost entirely worthless since Civilization is mostly played alone (though it can be played with other people).  During this time gamers could be hanging out with friends, spending time with family, and making relationships.  Some people like Johnathan Wendel (or more famously known as Fatal1ty) gets paid to be watched because of his skill at first-person shooter games.  Perhaps because he makes money at it, being a fictional paid assassin is ok?  Of course, I’ve never been able to draw that conclusion and never will.  In the game, every player has an evil apt for dominating pixels on a screen though he or she can’t actually put it into action, but it’s symbolic! 

We fantasize about breaking all norms and morals all the time—it should tell us something about the human race.  The things that I did in the game were stroking a dangerous philosophy that I never fully developed—world domination, the concept of being a “better” civilization, the idea that some civilizations don’t deserve to exist, the limitation that one has to expand, conquer, defend because there’s no other choice.  What does this do to none-fully developed minds?  Furthermore, should a fully developed mind even consider wasting his or her time on such a fantasy?  In my opinion, he/she shouldn’t. 

  Civilization, indeed, might prepare people to enter battle like a strategist that one has become after playing it for so long.  If someone can’t tell the difference between reality and delusion, then is it dangerous?  Is the government preparing us to become patriotic militarists?  But this is almost entirely like saying world domination is something George Washington would do, if I play as him, which I have done.  I suppose that's the illusion—that some people can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy—that computer games create. 

Sid Meiers toys with my desires in a way that appeals, which is why his game causes euphoria when I win.  In the book “1984,” Orwell created dystopias in constant war and Winston lost the battle with his mind, accepting political passivity in a one party system.    Sid Meiers created a fantasy for world domination.  In a way, I am Winston who has been indoctrinated into Civ’s framework.  Strategy, and by strategy I mean tactics and outsmarting opponent(s), fostered paranoia because I wasn’t sure whether someone was going to attack my civilization.  It’s difficult to know who will attack or whom to trust in Civilization V, which is why I’ve quit. 

The game always started off the same.  I have a settler, which I must decide where to build its first city; then, I have to choose something to make: a building, warrior, worker, or another settler.  Later on, I made world wonders, national wonders, a huge navy, an army that swept every civilization away.  I pillaged, razed, and occupied cities in my way as any dictator would and under the guise of George Washington.  I lost everything every time I played—usually I felt fake afterwards when winning on too easy of a difficulty.  I built a scout so I could explore the lands that are darkened by blackness, which is a core concept behind Civilization.  In the beginning of the game, all the lands are darkened because they are unexplored except the lands that my scout and city can see (which usually has a radius of two squares).  I had lost by building a powerful attacking (or defensive) force, however way you looked at it and I never won the game by cultural, diplomatic, military, or space race victories in Deity difficulty.  I built a sufficient military in easier settings and never succumbed to winning by military force.  There’s not enough time to build every world wonder. When given a choice between good and evil, perhaps intelligence is choosing to lose even though I can win by being evil.  ­­­­­

What had caused me to return to playing this game is the seemingly endless outcomes, the new “features” that expand the possibilities, which complicates the game.  I was the kind of guy who tried to win via cultural victory, which is the least blood-shedding method, but was occupied myself.  This forced me to seek a stronger military—I don’t think that is the solution; there is something wrong with the equations that Sid Meiers and his team created.  What does this do to one’s political beliefs?  My plans for cultural victory always “failed,” though it shouldn’t.  Is the lesson to be learned that scientists say video gaming teaches is to conform to the software developers’ framework?  Should I learn to abandon my dreams to have the right to exist in a state of war?  Sid Meiers says, “that’s the most rewarding experience for a player: learning by doing, and then owning that concept because you did it, because you tried the alternatives and that was the best one” (Dolan).  I felt guilty that I wanted to destroy other civilizations who pissed me off.

                Sid Meiers is quoted as saying, “the core of Civ is the idea that the individual pieces, if you look at them in isolation, are actually pretty simple” (Donlan).  He then likens the pieces as the pieces on a chess set.  The game itself is a lot like a chess game in that each unit (or piece) has its limitations.  Some pieces are different by their inherent purpose—some serve to spread religion, expand the empire outwards like settlers, or workers that are “slaves” essentially who build improvements—they aren’t paid from the government coffers, which is another limitation of Civilization—I never get to see the whole picture.  There is no way to avoid the use of military in the game; I can avoid cultural or diplomatic wins, which this game has encouraged. 

Civilization was developed into the sophisticated game that it is now (with a new expansion about to be released called Brave New World), because of its many new elements added by “…fans and the talented folks who work on the games…,” according to Sid Meiers (Frum).  The original civilization for instance didn’t have hexagons for areas to occupy, which was supposed to be included (Frum).  It wasn’t until Civilization V that it was included, which has allowed more directions to move for my and my opponents’ units, which creates constant questions such as: what would have been different had I explored that unit or attacked in that direction?  Another thing that has changed over time has been the inclusion of cinematic scenes, which I had skipped because I considered them a waste of time, but they are well-acted and “beautifully” rendered by well-known voice actors.  In Civilization IV, the main voice actor was Leonard Nimoy, or more commonly known as Spock from the original Star Trek series.  Also, the beautifully rendered graphics are demanding, of which had nearly burned down my machine and therefore my house due to the overheating it caused on my GPU (graphics processing unit).  I had to compensate by buying a new laptop with PC quality specs, which had cost me a fortune.

  

Works Cited

Frum, Larry, and Special t. CNN. "' Civilization' Creator : Games are Taking Over the World." CNN WireJanuary 23 2012. Print.

Minson, John. "THE PROGRAMMER'S PROGRESS ; John Minson Meets the Man Who Built a Railroad and Went on to Create Civilization." The Guardian (London): 29. January 23 1992. Print.

Donlan, Christian.  “Sid Meier’s cultural victory” Eurogamer video game reviews, news, previews, forum, and videos Web May 2013.  7 July 2013.  

Juul, Jesper, 1970-. The Art of Failure an Essay on the Pain of Playing Video Games / Jesper Juul. Ed. Inc ebrary. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2013. Print.