Tweet
Its strange that nobody has commented on the postmodernist journal's interpretation of the game; but its more strange that its only been referred to as 'interesting', when it should seem a bit obvious to players that some of the game elements don't suggest what is an easy semiotic interpretation.
It might actually be worth something to interpret games in theory, and i noticed myself some of the silliness with barbarians being represented; but I think this type of review is a bit hollow and falls back too much on cliches of how American culture supposedly views work and barbarians.
Its helpful to see that most of the 'semiotic' content of the game is forced by the abstractions that the game needs to implement to make the concept of 'playing a civilization' work. That things like uncivilized peoples, a frontier, etc., flow from this abstraction shouldn't be taken as insight into deep semiotic repetition, but just problems with the concept of 'civilization' that will naturally appear in a game with that title., and the problems of that concept coexisting in a postindustrial world should also be present in the way the game represents postindustrial society and includes these in structuring the game.
Other than that--ie. to look for hidden sign-systems 'creeping' into the game becomes totally redundant; and the 'speaking of the unsaid content' as is implied, only is seen that way if the 'unsaid content' is presupposed to be arbitrary and not a natural consequence of the abstractions first employed. If its recognized that once the abstraction is used, most of these configurations are entailed, there is nothing to be found in the game and the only thing a semiotic study of that nature can reveal is the political biases of the interpreter towards that abstraction, which again, is predictable. One could predict that as soon as a notion of variation in power is introduced there be criticism of the notions of power, as soon as the notion of goals for a civilization is introduced, there be criticism of the idea of goals.
Both of these things--goals and power--are common structures in games--and that the structure of games may or may not reflect current ways of seeing the world more than anything else is something interesting. An argument of this sort could be used with the same evidence. However, using it to make some statement about American values 'creeping' into the game, I think will just result in a trite analysis. A postmodernist might argue that also the concept of 'game' is at question, but i think my point is against this--that if the analysis proceeds by looking at perceptions as arbitrary then it will miss the real recurrence of patterns, and always fall back on political motives. It has to return to why we look at games this way, and i think, eventually, to why we look at civilization the way we do--and why to some racism seems a natural idea. Only then can cultural connections be found, because its then that it can be identified what actually is a repeated concept in the culture, rather than relying on critical constructs that themselves may have been swamped through recurrent cliche.
Its also important for me to state that I dont agree with people who point out that a game has had no negative effect on themselves to argue something about its cultural effect. So the point in my argument is not to disband the idea there are re-inforcements of 'semiotic practices', but only to deconstruct it and show what really is happening in the game.
The game Civilization can do without the presence of minor tribes and work fine as a game, so its a stretch if someone were to say the game is grounded in any way on the distinction of minor tribes existing. The reasons why they do exist is clear to players: there was some desire for 'random events' and which had to do with exploration, and its strange to consider history in terms of handful of five or so groups (necessarily limited because of the impositions on the game, the same impositions that have the leader live forever); the idea that there is something outside the main groups that could provide random events, fulfills that aim of the game, and naturally falls on things or peoples existing 'disassociated' with the main players. The disassociated is the source of all randomness. It should be noted in Alpha Centauri the random events came about through technology capsules and not the indigenous beings, so the 'goody hut' factor of exploitation was not present despite insistence by the author that the indigenous beings almost 'literalized' the struggle between the West and colonized peoples. In alpha centauri in fact the environment and native life is a main point of the game where the player adapts to respect it and live with it; one of the technologies is 'Centauri Empathy' and the goal is to be 'one with the planet' as the natives already were.
What semiotics can fail at is seeing that the similarities have nothing to do with a shared construct--and i think this bears the case, that the aliens in Alpha Centauri serve part of the purpose that the barbarians serve in civilization; but do not share the same semiotic status. That is, they don't both portray an 'Other that is an outside thing to be assimilated.' In fact, taking Alpha Centauri in the light of its written backstory, your colony eventually assimilates into the native life, through transcendent adaptations. The backstory was in fact written with these postmodern considerations in mind and it was meant to be a counter to 'traditional' concepts of power. Not only this, but they dont even serve as the same kind of 'Other', except in gameplay. The barbarian and the alien creatures, when taken out of their abstractions, are different things; and the only point where they remain the same is the game feature they offer of hostile reaction to certain actions. And the player learns to deal with them differently--but thats not even the point; whats important is that if they're looked at outside of the context of this role, they look like two things inhabiting the same role, and not 'the same thing under two guises'. I.e. not only arent they the Other with two different extensions, but they arent even the same 'other'.
The role, is a role valuable for the way the game is structured, to make it a good game operating with that structure, and not because of a subtext of politics.
But whats valuable from this is to see how this structure naturally falls out from the abstractions in the game. The abstractions are also the source for the inclusion of culture in Civilization 3. For instance its been observed that in fact the world isnt just a collection of cities. If thought of as a a collection of cities, another civilization can come and settle in the middle of your borders. So the 'cultural influence' simulates the popular influence and fortified support in provincial areas surrounding cities. It decreases instantly when the city is taken, and increases again when its taken back. There is an uneasy idea that there are people that may be there already, if not represented by minor tribes.
In the game, the cities also serve as staging points for 'goals' for each of the players, each of which also deal with restrictions as rules. (It may be important to understand that it is not 'indoctrinating people to follow rules' as is suggested, more than the idea that limitations form rules; after all there is much of a freedom in how to play the game and also a freedom in starting conditions and in cultural differences. the rules in the game are that certain things take more resources, etc, movement. how many times have players opted to start a new game because of poor starting conditions and understood it was because of their own laziness sometimes and sometimes not--it would be interesting in fact to show, and i have once before and many other players probably that the rules of abstract-oriented games like civilization , like the rules of language, are generative). All other events have to take place outside of the main players who have their goals. The goals are material changes in the game, so always involve some advancement in changes over other players.
Sid Meier structured the game early on the military, this is why it often involves territorial advancement, this was attempted to be addressed in later versions; and it should be noted that it wasnt originally this way. Originally, Sid Meier was planning the game along the lines of Sim City where things would develop on their own, farms, etc; and the military wouldnt be the main feature of the game. There are infact other games, the Sim games notable, and other city games, like the City Building series of Caesar and Pharoah that try something different also. The final model for the game ended on what was most engaging for the player and most 'game-like'.
A better analysis of native vs nonnative populations could be done with Sid Meier's other game, Colonization. But here, invading the natives can either be an advantage or a detriment; ie it doesnt become a force of nature in the game but another type of peoples. They remain at a different position gamewise from the player and his opponents, this is forced by the span of the game; and its not necessarily negative--one can easily view the contest over the land in the game to be brutal. Enslaved indians and conquered bounties are purposely 'literalized' in the game for this.
Here, another imposition forces the difference between natives and colonizers, and i'm sure the author would term it another 'ruse'. Whether a 'ruse' or not, the attention should be brought on the fact that the 'ruse' is forced by gameplay motives given the subject and not brought in arbitrarily. That the subjects are good subjects is also another issue, morally, or for gameplay. And in each case the 'ruse' is in , its in differently, in the case of Colonization and Alpha Centauri the native forces are looked at favorably.
This should force other discussions--why games turn to scenarios like this for fun, why these scenarios force the construct of a permanent nativity, are based on goals, etc; why we would even view history as a contest of cultures in the form of civilizations, why someone would from this gain a racist viewpoint; etc. Instead, by fixing cliches on the subject, its turned into an implication that if there is any indoctrinating force within these games, it has to do with how the creators 'decided' to portray the native populations.
The last comment should signal how I think this essay should be dealt with; the author takes gracious note to say that the game is just repeating cultural beliefs and not interpreting them, and that it is his job to interpret things. I would like to argue the reverse; that the game Civilization, as a work of 'art' is laying down a primary construction on culture as a contest between groups; and the only way this can be 'deconstructed' is by constructing a game whose features manage the complexities of life better. We need no semiotician to tell us that the boundaries between major tribes and minor tribes are artificially set by abstractions. We need no semiotician to tell us that the goal of world domination is constructed by the game designer. the needs of the construct need to be reconciled with its contradictions, resulting in another game--the 'discourse' must continue itself within its own medium. And it already has, for instance, with other game models.
A player of the game or the culture at large may be effected in different ways, but whatever is the case it should be plain that the reasons the natives have that position in the game are the same as the reasons were seen in that position in life; not because of a subtext, but because of looking at culture in terms of contested desires, as desires that are static and materially game-oriented; and should be remembered that there are other cultural forces that are strong which do anything but 'continue to rationalize genocide of natives'; and most importantly, that someone playing the game will be aware of these two things, and that criticism of the game as a cultural force should recognize the individual awareness of these two things.
In fact I would want to argue that the features that are most damaging culturally are those that really are unthought out and unsaid by the game, the same ones that the author finds 'potentially beneficial'--that is, the idea that history could have turned out any other way it had, that 'what if' games are really possible; its an abstraction that the nature of the game simply 'assumes' without question. I dont want to argue why i find this damaging now; but anyway, to address this one would want to break down the layers of abstraction in the game, get rid of static objects for types of governments, names of civilizations, types of products, and make everything freer--so that types of governments dont come about in a list box, but from real social consequence, that technological development is dependent on industry, that the player has more specific and limited control over the development of his people
c. This is closer to the real semiotic force of the game.
as a note: as for Call to Power , the natives represented with headdresses was one of the dislikable elements of the game, including Televangelist units and Lawyer units which itemized Western cultural forces into military pawns. It could be argued this is fair; but it could be argued that its fair for headresses to be associated with nativity based on its composition of elements more at hand for natives. But either case is just silly and patronizing for a game thats supposed to be an abstract model of life which is why i found it so distasteful compared to Sid Meier's games. Civilization 3 includes culture into the game in a way thats far more sophisticated and appealing. (an example of how games can have a 'discourse')
It might actually be worth something to interpret games in theory, and i noticed myself some of the silliness with barbarians being represented; but I think this type of review is a bit hollow and falls back too much on cliches of how American culture supposedly views work and barbarians.
Its helpful to see that most of the 'semiotic' content of the game is forced by the abstractions that the game needs to implement to make the concept of 'playing a civilization' work. That things like uncivilized peoples, a frontier, etc., flow from this abstraction shouldn't be taken as insight into deep semiotic repetition, but just problems with the concept of 'civilization' that will naturally appear in a game with that title., and the problems of that concept coexisting in a postindustrial world should also be present in the way the game represents postindustrial society and includes these in structuring the game.
Other than that--ie. to look for hidden sign-systems 'creeping' into the game becomes totally redundant; and the 'speaking of the unsaid content' as is implied, only is seen that way if the 'unsaid content' is presupposed to be arbitrary and not a natural consequence of the abstractions first employed. If its recognized that once the abstraction is used, most of these configurations are entailed, there is nothing to be found in the game and the only thing a semiotic study of that nature can reveal is the political biases of the interpreter towards that abstraction, which again, is predictable. One could predict that as soon as a notion of variation in power is introduced there be criticism of the notions of power, as soon as the notion of goals for a civilization is introduced, there be criticism of the idea of goals.
Both of these things--goals and power--are common structures in games--and that the structure of games may or may not reflect current ways of seeing the world more than anything else is something interesting. An argument of this sort could be used with the same evidence. However, using it to make some statement about American values 'creeping' into the game, I think will just result in a trite analysis. A postmodernist might argue that also the concept of 'game' is at question, but i think my point is against this--that if the analysis proceeds by looking at perceptions as arbitrary then it will miss the real recurrence of patterns, and always fall back on political motives. It has to return to why we look at games this way, and i think, eventually, to why we look at civilization the way we do--and why to some racism seems a natural idea. Only then can cultural connections be found, because its then that it can be identified what actually is a repeated concept in the culture, rather than relying on critical constructs that themselves may have been swamped through recurrent cliche.
Its also important for me to state that I dont agree with people who point out that a game has had no negative effect on themselves to argue something about its cultural effect. So the point in my argument is not to disband the idea there are re-inforcements of 'semiotic practices', but only to deconstruct it and show what really is happening in the game.
The game Civilization can do without the presence of minor tribes and work fine as a game, so its a stretch if someone were to say the game is grounded in any way on the distinction of minor tribes existing. The reasons why they do exist is clear to players: there was some desire for 'random events' and which had to do with exploration, and its strange to consider history in terms of handful of five or so groups (necessarily limited because of the impositions on the game, the same impositions that have the leader live forever); the idea that there is something outside the main groups that could provide random events, fulfills that aim of the game, and naturally falls on things or peoples existing 'disassociated' with the main players. The disassociated is the source of all randomness. It should be noted in Alpha Centauri the random events came about through technology capsules and not the indigenous beings, so the 'goody hut' factor of exploitation was not present despite insistence by the author that the indigenous beings almost 'literalized' the struggle between the West and colonized peoples. In alpha centauri in fact the environment and native life is a main point of the game where the player adapts to respect it and live with it; one of the technologies is 'Centauri Empathy' and the goal is to be 'one with the planet' as the natives already were.
What semiotics can fail at is seeing that the similarities have nothing to do with a shared construct--and i think this bears the case, that the aliens in Alpha Centauri serve part of the purpose that the barbarians serve in civilization; but do not share the same semiotic status. That is, they don't both portray an 'Other that is an outside thing to be assimilated.' In fact, taking Alpha Centauri in the light of its written backstory, your colony eventually assimilates into the native life, through transcendent adaptations. The backstory was in fact written with these postmodern considerations in mind and it was meant to be a counter to 'traditional' concepts of power. Not only this, but they dont even serve as the same kind of 'Other', except in gameplay. The barbarian and the alien creatures, when taken out of their abstractions, are different things; and the only point where they remain the same is the game feature they offer of hostile reaction to certain actions. And the player learns to deal with them differently--but thats not even the point; whats important is that if they're looked at outside of the context of this role, they look like two things inhabiting the same role, and not 'the same thing under two guises'. I.e. not only arent they the Other with two different extensions, but they arent even the same 'other'.
The role, is a role valuable for the way the game is structured, to make it a good game operating with that structure, and not because of a subtext of politics.
But whats valuable from this is to see how this structure naturally falls out from the abstractions in the game. The abstractions are also the source for the inclusion of culture in Civilization 3. For instance its been observed that in fact the world isnt just a collection of cities. If thought of as a a collection of cities, another civilization can come and settle in the middle of your borders. So the 'cultural influence' simulates the popular influence and fortified support in provincial areas surrounding cities. It decreases instantly when the city is taken, and increases again when its taken back. There is an uneasy idea that there are people that may be there already, if not represented by minor tribes.
In the game, the cities also serve as staging points for 'goals' for each of the players, each of which also deal with restrictions as rules. (It may be important to understand that it is not 'indoctrinating people to follow rules' as is suggested, more than the idea that limitations form rules; after all there is much of a freedom in how to play the game and also a freedom in starting conditions and in cultural differences. the rules in the game are that certain things take more resources, etc, movement. how many times have players opted to start a new game because of poor starting conditions and understood it was because of their own laziness sometimes and sometimes not--it would be interesting in fact to show, and i have once before and many other players probably that the rules of abstract-oriented games like civilization , like the rules of language, are generative). All other events have to take place outside of the main players who have their goals. The goals are material changes in the game, so always involve some advancement in changes over other players.
Sid Meier structured the game early on the military, this is why it often involves territorial advancement, this was attempted to be addressed in later versions; and it should be noted that it wasnt originally this way. Originally, Sid Meier was planning the game along the lines of Sim City where things would develop on their own, farms, etc; and the military wouldnt be the main feature of the game. There are infact other games, the Sim games notable, and other city games, like the City Building series of Caesar and Pharoah that try something different also. The final model for the game ended on what was most engaging for the player and most 'game-like'.
A better analysis of native vs nonnative populations could be done with Sid Meier's other game, Colonization. But here, invading the natives can either be an advantage or a detriment; ie it doesnt become a force of nature in the game but another type of peoples. They remain at a different position gamewise from the player and his opponents, this is forced by the span of the game; and its not necessarily negative--one can easily view the contest over the land in the game to be brutal. Enslaved indians and conquered bounties are purposely 'literalized' in the game for this.
Here, another imposition forces the difference between natives and colonizers, and i'm sure the author would term it another 'ruse'. Whether a 'ruse' or not, the attention should be brought on the fact that the 'ruse' is forced by gameplay motives given the subject and not brought in arbitrarily. That the subjects are good subjects is also another issue, morally, or for gameplay. And in each case the 'ruse' is in , its in differently, in the case of Colonization and Alpha Centauri the native forces are looked at favorably.
This should force other discussions--why games turn to scenarios like this for fun, why these scenarios force the construct of a permanent nativity, are based on goals, etc; why we would even view history as a contest of cultures in the form of civilizations, why someone would from this gain a racist viewpoint; etc. Instead, by fixing cliches on the subject, its turned into an implication that if there is any indoctrinating force within these games, it has to do with how the creators 'decided' to portray the native populations.
The last comment should signal how I think this essay should be dealt with; the author takes gracious note to say that the game is just repeating cultural beliefs and not interpreting them, and that it is his job to interpret things. I would like to argue the reverse; that the game Civilization, as a work of 'art' is laying down a primary construction on culture as a contest between groups; and the only way this can be 'deconstructed' is by constructing a game whose features manage the complexities of life better. We need no semiotician to tell us that the boundaries between major tribes and minor tribes are artificially set by abstractions. We need no semiotician to tell us that the goal of world domination is constructed by the game designer. the needs of the construct need to be reconciled with its contradictions, resulting in another game--the 'discourse' must continue itself within its own medium. And it already has, for instance, with other game models.
A player of the game or the culture at large may be effected in different ways, but whatever is the case it should be plain that the reasons the natives have that position in the game are the same as the reasons were seen in that position in life; not because of a subtext, but because of looking at culture in terms of contested desires, as desires that are static and materially game-oriented; and should be remembered that there are other cultural forces that are strong which do anything but 'continue to rationalize genocide of natives'; and most importantly, that someone playing the game will be aware of these two things, and that criticism of the game as a cultural force should recognize the individual awareness of these two things.
In fact I would want to argue that the features that are most damaging culturally are those that really are unthought out and unsaid by the game, the same ones that the author finds 'potentially beneficial'--that is, the idea that history could have turned out any other way it had, that 'what if' games are really possible; its an abstraction that the nature of the game simply 'assumes' without question. I dont want to argue why i find this damaging now; but anyway, to address this one would want to break down the layers of abstraction in the game, get rid of static objects for types of governments, names of civilizations, types of products, and make everything freer--so that types of governments dont come about in a list box, but from real social consequence, that technological development is dependent on industry, that the player has more specific and limited control over the development of his people
c. This is closer to the real semiotic force of the game.as a note: as for Call to Power , the natives represented with headdresses was one of the dislikable elements of the game, including Televangelist units and Lawyer units which itemized Western cultural forces into military pawns. It could be argued this is fair; but it could be argued that its fair for headresses to be associated with nativity based on its composition of elements more at hand for natives. But either case is just silly and patronizing for a game thats supposed to be an abstract model of life which is why i found it so distasteful compared to Sid Meier's games. Civilization 3 includes culture into the game in a way thats far more sophisticated and appealing. (an example of how games can have a 'discourse')
, maybe you wouldn't mind rehashing it here for us so we can get to the down to deconstructing your anti-American sentiments... or was it all good 
Comment