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]

Re: An intellectual's review

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...