An intellectual's review

[Locutus]

In the pretentiously-titled blog What You Should Think, a blogger known simply as Demonweed posted his somewhat unusual review of Civilization IV, approaching the game from a more transcendent standpoint than most reviews.

Civilization IV is the current generation in a line of computer games that have been decidedly cerebral from the beginning. In fact, the roots of the franchise are in a tabletop gaming line developed by Avalon Hill. That enterprise blended traditional military wargaming concepts with a sort of creativity many would associate with today’s shareware and open source gaming communities. However, the original Civilization PC game was a commercial product. It also may earn a place of note even in distant historical reviews of electronic entertainment.

Demonweed discusses the development of the franchise from board game to the current incarnation and the basics of gameplay, describing the latter as pure realpolitik -- it only made judgments as to what was effective or ineffective, never what was morally right or wrong. He poses that while there are historical simulations that are more accurate and wargames that are more spectacular, Civilization is the most fun and thrilling intellectual game available on the PC. About the intellectual nature of the game Demonweed says:

I believe Civilization can rightly be described as intellectual because it combines the best of abstract thought experiments with many of the better features of a macroeconomic simulator. Of course it is not a perfect representation of any point in real history. However, it does make possible learning by trial and error — all too often the same process real heads of state use to work toward proficiency in their jobs. Every strategy can be answered with a variety of strong responses. Even in single player games, foreign leaders have distinct personalities, thus posing distinct challenges as rivals or allies.

He goes on to explain how Civ teaches the staggering interdependence of factors in any society and discusses the near paradox of how the game provides complex gameplay mechanics but still doesn`t require an advanced education or great concentration to play, of how it at the same time provokes thought and celebrates the joy of gaming.

In conclusion, Demonweed says: If you want a break from the real world, but you don’t want to take a break from stimulating your mind, it is hard to recommend anything above Civilization IV. Read the full article at the What You Should Think blog.

[TriMiro]

It is nice to see someone who has the required hardware to appreciate Civilization. (I mean braincells) Most games seem to focus on graphical violence and very few on brain power. A type of paradox is that Civilization is probably the most violent games out there (have you ever conducted a genocide killing millions of people) yet it is as non-graphical as it can be. Most people that enjoy violent games would never enjoy civilization.

Too bad the guy has not played BtS yet. BtS does go beyond anything so far and I hope to see another review once he plays that.

[Wiglaf]

Er, why do you call him an intellectual? Seems like an idiot. When he called Civ a macroeconomic simulator I did get a chuckle, though.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Er, why do you call him an intellectual? Seems like an idiot. When he called Civ a macroeconomic simulator I did get a chuckle, though.

In the quote that Locutus posted, he does not call Civ a macroeconomic simulator, he says that it has many of the better features of a macroeconomic simulator. If you're going to insult the guy, you should get the quote right.

RJM

[Adam Weishaupt]

As it happens, I wrote that piece. I'm just wondering what is humorous about the idea that Civilization is a macroeconomic simulator. Does this come from the perspective of someone who believes the wealth of nations is best understood by shuffling fields on a spreadsheet, or is there some other distorted perspective at work here?

Sure, there is more to Civ than modeling agriculture, industry, and commerce. Likewise there are ways to simulate macroeconomic scenarios while completely shutting out variables like warfare, technology, public morale, etc. Civ makes many aspects of economics abstract in ways that the "simulations must be all charts and graphs" crowd might find uncomfortable. In the end though, it is a coherent model of economic activity taking place on national and international levels.

Heck, the old text-based Lemonade Stand was an economic simulator. I recall something called Kingdom that, by working with a extremely simple models of agriculture, immigration, and taxation, constituted one of the earliest macroeconomic simulations compatible with basic personal computers. Compared to that, Civilization IV is astoundingly robust, richly detailed, and much more realistic. Perhaps this helps to clarify why I would make the statement that one reader found so funny.

Regards,
Demonweed/Adam Weishaupt

P.S. Anyone interested in making an informed judgement regarding the project's title could look for a little context. Still, I appreciate why it is off-putting to some people, so I am sympathetic to uninformed judgements in this instance.

P.P.S. Also, thanks to rjmatsleepers for the additional clarification. That too is correct and independently validates what I wrote.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Adam Weishaupt
As it happens, I wrote that piece. I'm just wondering what is humorous about the idea that Civilization is a macroeconomic simulator. Does this come from the perspective of someone who believes the wealth of nations is best understood by shuffling fields on a spreadsheet, or is there some other distorted perspective at work here?

I see you have met Wiglaf......





Welcome to Apolyton.

[Hercules]

I thought it was a good piece and set in a longer view computer gaming context.

Funny when I played Smac, I wouldn't move to Smax until I had completely won at all levels, with all permutations of the original 7 factions.

With Civ4, with the changes, upgrades and patches, I could've been stuck at Vanilla CIV for ever, so I just jumped in to each expansion.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Adam Weishaupt
As it happens, I wrote that piece. I'm just wondering what is humorous about the idea that Civilization is a macroeconomic simulator.

Try the fact that Civ's economic model bears no resemblence to reality. It's funny because it's absurd.

Does this come from the perspective of someone who believes the wealth of nations is best understood by shuffling fields on a spreadsheet, or is there some other distorted perspective at work here?

It's certainly not based on the fact that plains produce more hammers than grassland.

Sure, there is more to Civ than modeling agriculture, industry, and commerce. Likewise there are ways to simulate macroeconomic scenarios while completely shutting out variables like warfare, technology, public morale, etc. Civ makes many aspects of economics abstract in ways that the "simulations must be all charts and graphs" crowd might find uncomfortable.

Yes, because it's wrong.

In the end though, it is a coherent model of economic activity taking place on national and international levels.

Who cares if it's coherent if it has nothing to do with reality?

[Kuciwalker]

Also, why the hell would anyone on this site be reading Civ reviews? Are you going to learn something new that you haven't figured out in tens to hundreds of hours of playtime?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Locutus
In the pretentiously-titled blog What You Should Think, a blogger known simply as Demonweed posted his somewhat unusual review of Civilization IV, approaching the game from a more transcendent standpoint than most reviews.

By the way, Locutus, this opening sucks. For one, I'm perfectly capable of deciding whether "What You Should Think" sounds pretentious; you certainly don't need to tell me what it sounds like, especially since you don't seem to follow up on that spin with the rest of the review. Also, "a blogger known simply as X" is a bit redundant. Is it really so notable that someone on the Internet isn't going by his full legal name?

If you just cut out that stuff it would be fine.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Thanks Adam for a great review (from a different point of view) but I guess this is too much for the resident psychos

[Adam Weishaupt]

The more someone is convinced they have a "realistic" macroeconomic simulator, the more likely you are to be dealing with one of those ideological nuts giving economists a bad name. Modern national economies are far too complex and dynamic to yield to useful predictive modeling. This is particularly true when so many ridiculous theories continue to blind even respected academics to practical realities. The real question to ask about macroeconomic simulators is whether or not the simulator is meaningful.

Civilization's economic components are meaningful in important ways. If you treat it like a fast food cash register -- looking only at the pictures without thinking about what lies beneath -- of course it seems meaningless. To address the terrain issue, it is worthwhile to consider workforce allocation from a perspective that offers a finite menu of options in balancing agriculture, industry, and commerce. Terrain productivity values accomplish this while also reflecting the role geography plays in constraining a region's prospects for productivity. The system is further enhanced by factors like economic development (i.e. improvements,) notable resources, and specialists.

Even more than medical practice, I believe stewardship of a national economy more an art informed by science than a pure science. In other words, even reality probably would not accommodate the notion of "realism" I suspect afflicts one or two participants in this thread. Financial surveys, government reports, and capital market indices may not be as accessible as the information in Civ (and they certainly aren't as much fun to assess,) but they too are flawed abstractions that never go beyond crudely approximating the diverse intricacies of any actual large nation's economy.

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

P.S. Also, thanks all who have shared kind words and further thanks to Locutus for the front page mention. I haven't been at that blog very long, so this is shaping up to be one of the two biggest surges of traffic I've gotten. So far I've been doing one essay per day just to prove to myself I could, but the thought others may appreciate some of them is uplifting.

[wodan11]

Zounds, Kuciwalker, did you get up on the wrong side of bed? Not only have you only negative things to say, you say it about multiple people.

Finding only criticism in someone's effort make it seem as though your goal is simply to be critical. That your goal is to shoot down the effort and undermine it.

There's nothing wrong with doing a contemporary / general public audience review of Civ. In fact, I applaud that... it will probably bring more people to the community, and generate more revenue, which means we'll get more editions of Civ5 and when we do they'll have a bigger programming budget. Both of these are Good Things (tm) in my opinion.

So, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with an attempt to undermine such an effort. To avoid this, we should give critical feedback in a positive manner. In addition, poviding feedback about what we think is done right will put the recipient in a positive frame of mind to receive the criticism, and also reassure that your feedback has a positive goal (despite being critical). Plus, if the author then decides to revise the effort, he will have feedback about what to leave alone as well as what could possibly be improved.

Sorry, Kuciwalker, maybe I'm just reading all this wrong. Need another cup of coffee.

Wodan

[snoopy369]

Kuci's at the age where people think they know everything...

Adam, sounds interesting, and certainly there are economic aspects to Civ (looking beyond the actual "economy" of gold, but rather at the strategic choices made with limited resources, a.k.a. economic choices). It's always good to see more intelligent reviews than the standard fare

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Adam Weishaupt
The more someone is convinced they have a "realistic" macroeconomic simulator, the more likely you are to be dealing with one of those ideological nuts giving economists a bad name. Modern national economies are far too complex and dynamic to yield to useful predictive modeling...

Well usually a simulation is being modeled, BECAUSE a system is not predictable, BECAUSE it is dynamic. And the purpose of a (scientific) simulation is to achieve just that: a realistic predicition of the system´s behaviour under certain parameters. Civ does not have that purpose. And it doesnt do it either. How can it be realistic, when you couldnt even say, what role you are playing in it ? In Civ we are neither god nor king ("let´s have a revolution in order to do xy" - how realisitic is that ? - who would make such a decision ?).

If you are looking for simulation-games, i suggest:
Tropico and Sim Earth (the manual is fantastic !). Those are true sim-games, Civ is on the borderline at best. That its model is coherent is not sufficiently qualifying it as a sim - any game needs a ´coherent´ model in order to work. As someone else has put it, it needs to also reflect reality in order to earn the name of a sim.

I do condone to have a broader view on civ and certainly a lot can be learned from it. But one needs to watch out not to overvalue its scientific value just because of the fun it brings. I mean noone would realistically claim that the transitition from feudalism to capitalitic production was caused by the discovery of a certain technology (which was deliberately persued before it was known...) - civ does tho. A good book will still give more insight into reality than civ does... yet its not that much fun ... And the sum of its education value and fun is unsurpassed among the games i think - yet the focus is on the fun still...

[East Street Trader]

I cannot claim to have been much stimulated by the economic modelling in Civ but I am very much stimulated (and admire) the way the advances and the various forms of government mirror life.

The proposition that holding an election in Iraq would create a democracy is a proposition that I suspect almost anyone could readily doubt. But the doubts of a Civ player will be stronger and more easily articulated. Because of the excellent modelling in the game.

The fact that the modelling is also well balanced to achieve satisfying game play (taken together with the artistic input which achieves immersion) seems to me to be the real (and very substantial) achievement of the game.

I have no real doubt that computer games are now, and have for quite some time been, an art form with as much or more complexity as film. Civ and a number of the other early games will come to be regarded in much the way that Battleship Potemkin or the Chaplin films are regarded.

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Also, why the hell would anyone on this site be reading Civ reviews? Are you going to learn something new that you haven't figured out in tens to hundreds of hours of playtime?

Now you've met Kuci.

Different take on Civ for me. Nice to see a fresh angle.

[Brizey]

One of the most important class of decisions you make while playing Civ is economic: build immediately useful stuff now, or build stuff that enhances your ability to build useful stuff later. Spend or invest. Three battleships now, or ten battleships later, etc. Since these decisions are played out in the game, it is a simulator of sorts.

As a model, its underlying mathematics are intentionally simple (integers, etc.) to make it playable rather than accurate or complete. I think they did a great job of coming up with a model that is very simple and deterministic as you zero in (one food and two hammers or two food and one hammer?) yet complex enough to SEEM like it is non-deterministic to a human player when larger peices of the system are examined (which will net me a stronger ecomomy in twenty turns--building a shrine or popping a tech with my GP?). I have always felt that this aspect of Civ is what makes it such a great game. Its a simulator with simple inputs and complex output, and a lot of fun.

And I think we need to leave the unecessarily negative posts to the car and sports forums.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
By the way, Locutus, this opening sucks. For one, I'm perfectly capable of deciding whether "What You Should Think" sounds pretentious; you certainly don't need to tell me what it sounds like, especially since you don't seem to follow up on that spin with the rest of the review. Also, "a blogger known simply as X" is a bit redundant. Is it really so notable that someone on the Internet isn't going by his full legal name?

You are of course welcome to your opinion but I had my reasons for writing what I did:

1) I felt simply opening with "In the blog What You Should Think" was a bit bland and wanted to spice it up a little. People usually decide within the first sentence or two whether they want to continue reading an article so I'd better say something that stands out right away. You could argue about how true the statement is or how appropriate for me to comment on it, but since I got even you and Wiglaf (not the easiest people to please ) to not only read the whole thing but to even comment on it I would say I succeeded one way or another

2) If you're a regular reader of our review reports you should know that we usually try to credit the author by full name if we can (which is almost always the case for reviews, this was a bit on an exception -- hence the comment). In fact, that's generally true for all of our stories, not just the reviews: we provide as much information on our sources as we think is relevant. Anyone working in a field where you deal with information a lot knows that the source is usually as important, if not more so, than the information itself. So even if we're not exactly hard-hitting journalists we feel that some due diligence on our behalf to investigate and reveal our sources is important. If a review has been written by someone on the payroll of a developer or publisher many might view it in a different light than when it was written by a known staunch critic (and if you think no publisher would sink that low, think again). Either way, even if you don't particularly care about the source we at least provide the info (or comment on the lack of it) -- let the reader be the judge on whether it matters.

As for why we bother on reporting on reviews at all, we don't only aim our news reporting at die-hard civvers who've been here for years and pre-ordered the special edition of every version of the game, but at everyone with some interest in Civ. Some people may be on the fence about whether or not a particular game or XP is worth buying -- we get threads on that from time to time, or from people who just bought the game recently and have questions (and you see even more of that on CFC) -- not everyone buys something the day it comes out... Also, the people who were actively involved in making the game (which aren't just Firaxians but also ~200 testers from Apolyton, CFC and other Civ sites) care about this stuff as well. I personally still read every review I can get my hands on to see if it comments on anything I was directly involved with -- I'm vain that way

And this review in particular (if you can even call it that) was interesting because it's not like any other, it has a different angle than anything you'll find on the likes of GameSpot or IGN. But this was the first vanilla-Civ4 review we've reported on in a long, long time: we generally don't bother anymore when a game is more than 6 months old or so, unless, like this one, it has some kind of hook that sets it apart. And from the reactions here it's clear that at least some people appreciated the article (as did I myself, even if I don't necessarily agree with every single point).

If you don't care about reviews because you already have the game, that's perfectly understandable. Then just don't read those news items -- it's usually clear from either the title or the first sentence what they're about...

[snoopy369]

Three words: Google search rank ...

[Jaybe]

My main complaint with the idea of Civ being a macroeconomic simulator was partially resolved with BtS's random events. SH** HAPPENS IRL, and Civ has "too much" emphasis on being an enjoyable game.

Scrap, players even complain that an AI civ gets a negative attitude towards them from something they have no control over!

--
I appreciated the What You Should Think review with the different perspective it took. The most meaningful review I've read.

[Wiglaf]

This is not an intelligent review. It is pompous and full of inanities like this one:

Even more than medical practice, I believe stewardship of a national economy more an art informed by science than a pure science.

Dear god. This belongs in a girl's diary about her high school economics class, not a videogame review.

To address the terrain issue, it is worthwhile to consider workforce allocation from a perspective that offers a finite menu of options in balancing agriculture, industry, and commerce. Terrain productivity values accomplish this while also reflecting the role geography plays in constraining a region's prospects for productivity. The system is further enhanced by factors like economic development (i.e. improvements,) notable resources, and specialists.

Indeed. Bioshock is also a complicated microeconomic simulator. It's a first person shooter that forces the player to pick and choose different abilities. It's sort of like buying them. And then there's things that, like, complicate his decision, like enemies and stuff.

Bioshock

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Three words: Google search rank ...

Perhaps a few more words for us old fellows.

RJM

[Jaybe]

Indeed. Bioshock is also a complicated microeconomic simulator

Gad, Wiglaf! Not only do you seem to love to hate (and raise the ire in others), but you can't even keep your micro/macro straight!

[Wiglaf]

And you think I made a mistake why? He acts like an idiot about macro, I apply his retarded logic to micro.

Deus Ex is also a good microeconomics simulator btw You buy things and sell them From suppliers

[snoopy369]

Wiggie, I think you have a distinct lack of understanding of the true meaning of "macroeconomics" (or just "economics")...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Kuci's at the age where people think they know everything...

Actually, we do know everything, old people just forget a bunch of stuff 'cause you're all senile...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by wodan11
Zounds, Kuciwalker, did you get up on the wrong side of bed? Not only have you only negative things to say, you say it about multiple people.

I'm just getting warmed up, buddy. Though, this is the Civ4 forum so I have to worry about Solver...

Finding only criticism in someone's effort make it seem as though your goal is simply to be critical. That your goal is to shoot down the effort and undermine it.

What's wrong with being critical again?

Criticism

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by snoopy369
Kuci's at the age where people think they know everything...

Actually, we do know everything, old people just forget a bunch of stuff 'cause you're all senile...

Nah, that's just all the beer we drank while in college.

Some people, of course, wouldn't be familiar with either beer or college.

Wodan

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Adam Weishaupt
The more someone is convinced they have a "realistic" macroeconomic simulator, the more likely you are to be dealing with one of those ideological nuts giving economists a bad name.

Who claimed to have a realistic simulator?

The real question to ask about macroeconomic simulators is whether or not the simulator is meaningful.

And for Civ that answer is decidely no.

Civilization's economic components are meaningful in important ways. If you treat it like a fast food cash register -- looking only at the pictures without thinking about what lies beneath -- of course it seems meaningless. To address the terrain issue, it is worthwhile to consider workforce allocation from a perspective that offers a finite menu of options in balancing agriculture, industry, and commerce. Terrain productivity values accomplish this while also reflecting the role geography plays in constraining a region's prospects for productivity.

It reflects all of that wrongly though. It has no actual correlation with reality!

Even more than medical practice, I believe stewardship of a national economy more an art informed by science than a pure science.

Medicine is a science... and stewardship of a national economy is politics, not art.

In other words, even reality probably would not accommodate the notion of "realism" I suspect afflicts one or two participants in this thread. Financial surveys, government reports, and capital market indices may not be as accessible as the information in Civ (and they certainly aren't as much fun to assess,) but they too are flawed abstractions that never go beyond crudely approximating the diverse intricacies of any actual large nation's economy.

On the other hand, that's actually what they approximate. The mechanisms in civ have nothing at all to do with reality, they're entirely based on gameplay concerns. That's why they're fun.