Link (YouTube) |
See, this is why I love the work that Chris does. 14 minutes of thoughts on what the mechanics of Civilization (the game) says about how the developers view or frame civilization (not the game). I never really thought about things from this angle until now. My complaints with the game never went much deeper than “These spearmen shouldn’t be able to defeat my tank”.
I’ve actually never really cared all that much about the historical leaders. Aside from the comedy of having Mohandas Gandhi dropping nukes on you, I always thought it detracted from the sort of high-level abstractions going on in the rest of the game. Why is Montezuma still prancing around in animal skins when his civ has landed on the moon? How is Lincoln “President” of a nation when we’re in the bronze age and Democracy-type ideas are thousands of years away? And hang on, is he really supposed to be immortal? Are all the leaders? I understand this is the kind of thing you’re not supposed to think about, which makes it all the more confusing that these idiots keep calling me up on their bronze-age civ-phones and making me think about it.
I understand why this is done. The leaders give a face to the game. They make the human element visible, to save the game from being all about grids and charts. But it’s strange, you know?
T w e n t y S i d e d