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.
