4 ms·

>Economic strength and accumulation of resources and sheer population do have a lot to do with who dominates. But maybe it takes other stuff, too. That may be

>Economic strength and accumulation of resources and sheer population do have a lot to do with who dominates. But maybe it takes other stuff, too. That may be but it's got nothing to do with the article which is talking about Civilization--and games in general-- presenting monotonic, consequence free growth as the only state of being until the "A Winner Is You" screen (the dangerous myth) Which as a side effect leads to grind-y end games where you have dominated everyone but still need to put in another hour of grind to actually finish them off or otherwise end the game (the bad game design).

glenstein 9y ago
Huh? The stuff I'm talking about might as well as have been a verbatim quote from the article itself. >Through the Civilization lens, raw economic strength is success. Population is power. What's the difference between that and my statement, "Economic strength and accumulation of resources and sheer population do have a lot to do with who dominates." ?
- Avshalom 9y ago
  nothing, but that sentence is not the topic of the article.
  - glenstein 9y ago
    As I read it the article has two parallel points. One is that the game Civilization advances a supposedly dangerous narrative about the myth of progress. Another is that, in gameplay terms, this infinite expansion and growth leads to a grindy end game. You seem to be saying that the latter is the real point, and that by addressing the former I'm missing the point. I think the former is the more important point and I feel like I did a reasonably good job of being responsive to it, and I feel that cryptic comments telling me I'm missing the point are unfairly dismissive.
    - dmix 9y ago
      > One is that the game Civilization advances a supposedly dangerous narrative about the myth of progress Agreed, the author is not only making the point that it's a dynamic of modern games (to our detriment) but a reflection of a popular 'myth' held within our post-industrial revolution societies. >> We live in a brief historical blip where abundant resources and a few centuries of astounding progress have allowed many to believe that the good times will roll forever. Which is strange worldview considering "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is one of the most popular and well known books in history, and a widely debated topic in academia. Always with undertones comparing to the unique growth of the modern western society. There has always been plenty of anxiety about growth throughout our recent history...
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      You wabbled about click bait and then took issue with how dominance is achieved, meanwhile literally every other sentence in the article is about perpetual growth, how perpetual growth a dangerous myth, how other games deal with it or how it's bad game design. You didn't address the myth of progress at all, which regardless of it's merits from a grand historical point of view certainly doesn't apply to individual nations which rise and fall all the time. You certainly didn't present any arguments against the idea that unthinking growth sometimes actually has consequences which Civilization games have actively been removing. All you said economic power and resource accumulation probably leads to dominance. But it's not dominance the article takes issue with, it's that dominance is represented only by growth which is why one sentence after your quote: "Only growth matters"
      - thaumasiotes 9y ago
        Civilization does not actually portray inevitable perpetual growth. It's quite possible for your advanced civilization to be conquered by barbarians (actual barbarians or a less-advanced civilization; it doesn't really matter which), and when that happens, technology is lost. As a matter of practice, this doesn't happen much because it isn't fun, but it's well within the game's view of what can theoretically occur.
psyc 9y ago
I really like the approach taken by Factorio, which is that you play as a villain. A genocidal, colonialist, polluting, industrious, and perhaps unconscious villain. The game doesn't state this, but I believe most players basically agree it's the case.
- xg15 9y ago
  Is that their actual intent? I always had the impression the game is mostly not caring about the consequences at all and simply wants to be a toy for people engaging in fantasies of complex automated systems. (Otherwise those people might find other outlets for their fantasies... like designing horribly overengeneered software architectures...) I agree you could make an awesome game about this by pretending to be a purely utilitarian engeneering puzzle and later showing you the actual consequences of your actions. But I wasn't aware that was their actual strategy. If it was, hats off!
  - sbierwagen 9y ago
    >I always had the impression the game is mostly not caring about the consequences at all Then why does the pollution game mechanic exist, and why does pollution kill trees?
    - xg15 9y ago
      Good point.
  - caf 9y ago
    That does actually exist: http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/ http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/

glenstein 9y ago

Huh? The stuff I'm talking about might as well as have been a verbatim quote from the article itself. >Through the Civilization lens, raw economic strength is success. Population is power. What's the difference between that and my statement, "Economic strength and accumulation of resources and sheer population do have a lot to do with who dominates." ?

Avshalom 9y ago
nothing, but that sentence is not the topic of the article.
- glenstein 9y ago
  As I read it the article has two parallel points. One is that the game Civilization advances a supposedly dangerous narrative about the myth of progress. Another is that, in gameplay terms, this infinite expansion and growth leads to a grindy end game. You seem to be saying that the latter is the real point, and that by addressing the former I'm missing the point. I think the former is the more important point and I feel like I did a reasonably good job of being responsive to it, and I feel that cryptic comments telling me I'm missing the point are unfairly dismissive.
  - dmix 9y ago
    > One is that the game Civilization advances a supposedly dangerous narrative about the myth of progress Agreed, the author is not only making the point that it's a dynamic of modern games (to our detriment) but a reflection of a popular 'myth' held within our post-industrial revolution societies. >> We live in a brief historical blip where abundant resources and a few centuries of astounding progress have allowed many to believe that the good times will roll forever. Which is strange worldview considering "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is one of the most popular and well known books in history, and a widely debated topic in academia. Always with undertones comparing to the unique growth of the modern western society. There has always been plenty of anxiety about growth throughout our recent history...
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    You wabbled about click bait and then took issue with how dominance is achieved, meanwhile literally every other sentence in the article is about perpetual growth, how perpetual growth a dangerous myth, how other games deal with it or how it's bad game design. You didn't address the myth of progress at all, which regardless of it's merits from a grand historical point of view certainly doesn't apply to individual nations which rise and fall all the time. You certainly didn't present any arguments against the idea that unthinking growth sometimes actually has consequences which Civilization games have actively been removing. All you said economic power and resource accumulation probably leads to dominance. But it's not dominance the article takes issue with, it's that dominance is represented only by growth which is why one sentence after your quote: "Only growth matters"
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      Civilization does not actually portray inevitable perpetual growth. It's quite possible for your advanced civilization to be conquered by barbarians (actual barbarians or a less-advanced civilization; it doesn't really matter which), and when that happens, technology is lost. As a matter of practice, this doesn't happen much because it isn't fun, but it's well within the game's view of what can theoretically occur.

psyc 9y ago

I really like the approach taken by Factorio, which is that you play as a villain. A genocidal, colonialist, polluting, industrious, and perhaps unconscious villain. The game doesn't state this, but I believe most players basically agree it's the case.

xg15 9y ago
Is that their actual intent? I always had the impression the game is mostly not caring about the consequences at all and simply wants to be a toy for people engaging in fantasies of complex automated systems. (Otherwise those people might find other outlets for their fantasies... like designing horribly overengeneered software architectures...) I agree you could make an awesome game about this by pretending to be a purely utilitarian engeneering puzzle and later showing you the actual consequences of your actions. But I wasn't aware that was their actual strategy. If it was, hats off!
- sbierwagen 9y ago
  >I always had the impression the game is mostly not caring about the consequences at all Then why does the pollution game mechanic exist, and why does pollution kill trees?
  - xg15 9y ago
    Good point.
- caf 9y ago
  That does actually exist: http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/ http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/