FYI the author of this article http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...e=moral_combat theorizes that computer games are structured to encourage "conservative" play styles, although you may differ as to what that means.
In the case of Civilization, she considers warmongering to be the conservative victory path. She says that she's only won that type of victory, so her evidence isn't that convincing to me. What do you think?
This has the potential to be an interesting conversation, but it also has the potential to devolve in to political arguing. I'll just get my preemptive warning to try to prevent that out of the way now.
Interesting idea which I agree with somewhat.
I would say if you play to "win" as defined by the developer intends I play as a conservative because it's every player for themselves which fits more closely into that ideology. However, if I just play to build and expand my civlization without regards to winning any particular game, I take on a much more liberal colour because then I play a much more helpful cooperative game with my opponents.
I would suggest that any games that have an objective or the potential for winning would be more skewed to what might be interpreted as a conservative approach. However, when a player plays games that are more about building without any predefined goal or winning condition (e.g. Simcity) they may be more succesful when they use a more liberal approach.
It would be interesting to see if players who prefer games with a goal or winning condition are more politically conservative thinking than those who prefer the goalless games.
Good thread OP! It's nice to read something different than the same old 'I love Civ V' or '
Civ V sucks' all the time; although they can be entertaining too.
PS: I wonder if Civ players are more middle of the road politically?
Even though in my country there's not really a "Liberal" or a "Conservative" party, we have instead "Left" and "Right" wings and without being an extremist I belong to the latter, I assume I can be defined as a "Conservative" and, even though I tried all the victory conditions I prefer to win by domination, since all other victory conditions seem to me a bit 'void' (even if some are objectively harder to achieve), so I guess I can confirm the (pretty interesting) article.
The problem with this analysis is that it uses very elementary and juvenile definitions of liberal and conservative. War is no more a "conservative" approach than is peace. In fact, some of the most socialistic (read: extreme liberalism) countries in the world (Venezuela comes to mind) are very warmonger-y.
It's not until you drop yourself out of the left-right power struggle that you realize that both sides are very similar. Only their method of control differs (religion vs economics).
I've generally had more successful strategies in video game by creating large slums as a workforce for industry, and then making a single small upper-class enclave for the wealthy.
This was in sim games like Caesar III and Pharaoh, though.
In civ, I feel that all paths have their potential.
As far as civ 5 pushing warmongering as a conservative viewpoint, we should remember the term "military-industrial complex." This is the idea that governments declare war in order to justify military spending, which in turn stimulates the economy.
Remember that the great depression was in part lifted by the beginning of WWII. Civ 5 doesn't really present that kind of economic benefit from going to war. In civ 5, war is made to gain land. It is not waged for it's own sake. And I don't think it's fair to attribute warmongering to conservatives.
Actually, I think that most video-games today let you decide which is the best course of action. In Mass Effect, for example, you could choose between renegade and paragon actions. Both sides had good reasons, not one agenda was insisted upon.
I'll finish by saying that, while I wouldn't call myself a liberal, and while I'm reluctant to constrict myself to the left-right political spectrum, in most eyes I would be seen as a radical leftist.
My views are best expressed by Martin Luther King Jr. in this quote
Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.
That's not a very succinct summation of a world view brxbrx. All it says is "pure Communism is wrong and so is pure Capitalism". While I don't agree (I'm an Objectivist), that quote would make most people say "no duh".
I was trying to figure out what point she was trying to make, and I think stethnorun summed up the reason I was having trouble: I don't see "warmongering" as a conservative ideal.Originally Posted by stethnorun
I am not really sure what to say about this article. The Gulf war? Was it not the Republicans who iniatied the war. Is Republicans Liberals where as the Democrats are Conservative? If so, then I guess, the Civ series is correct on this. I don't know why it is, but it looks like the Civ series got it right here.
But my problem here though it, going to War in not just all that. Isn't being a Liberal, spend more, raise more taxes and spend even more? Isn't being a Conservative, spend less, and reduce taxes, and take away what we already have? I just don't see this in the game. This is where I think the Civ series gets it wrong.
So I don't think it's clear as day or black and white when playing a Civ game. There are people who play Liberally, but don't spend much and then there are Conservative people who like to raise taxes and spend spend spend, but not go to war. So I am not so sure what this person is trying to say except Liberal type people are warmongers and conservative people are more peacefull.
Other wise it is not true.
I believe that we are incapable of achieving anything without others, but also we should all be able to achieve what we want.
MLK's point, here, I believe, was to say that communism doesn't allow for personal development, and that capitalism disregards humanity for the sake of profit (you might notice a bit of my bias, there).
Unsimply put, I want everything nationalized, currency abolished, industry and agriculture standardized, and I want anyone with any aspirations to be able to start their own enterprise, so long as the fruits of their innovations are shared with the rest of the world's workforce. In my dream world, everyone would draw from a vast pool of resources so long as they contributed to society. Ideally, with all industry standardized and with useless positions (really, what place does sales and marketing have in a socialist utopia?) relegated to actual jobs, we'd achieve abundance. This thought is corroborated by the fact that modern industry does not exist to feed people, and would gladly let starve while the isles of the supermarket are ripe from goods, and also by the idea Thomas Moore presented in Utopia: that if all the priests and politicians put some time into the fields, then production would increase to a point where everyone could maintain a four hour work day (though in modern society, many jobs cannot be so simply cast off for a part of the day, they are far more involved).
Those that don't work will be stuck with bread and water in a bunkhouse. We won't let anyone die, but to prevent resentment and to encourage productivity, we wouldn't let lumpen take when they don't work.
Of course, the question remains as to why they're lumpen. Huey Newton suggested that this is because of an advancing capitalist technocracy; laborers become less and less relevant as more efficient machinery replaces them. This is why I imagine the future of such an imaginary society would eventually do away with labor, and life's purpose would become art, science, and sport.
I am an idealist, and I rationalize that by the fact that it is only ever idealists that have accomplished anything good in the world. The pragmatists and realists, with their excessive compromises and tiptoes and runarounds have accomplished nothing. Martin Luther King Jr, Lech Walesa, Joan of Arc, and Spartacus would have accomplished nothign if they hadn't reached further than what was though possible.
In terms an Objectivist can understand, Howard Roarke could never have built anything without engineers, bricklayers, foremen, etc. However, art should also exist, and if it requires others to be involved, then they should assist.
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. I too was a little disturbed by the author's equating conservatism with warmongering. You can find warmongering (or proselytizing) governments on both ends of the political scale. If she thinks conservative play is taking the safe, tried-and-true victory path of domination, then in Civ she would be right. Taking more risks and going for the less common or more difficult paths might be viewed as liberal. Somehow it seems like a faulty analogy.
I consider myself to be libertarian-leftist, but not extreme in either component. I respect compromise, too, and am not too upset by the pendulum swings to either side. In Civilization, I feel like I play conservatively. I generally play as a builder, but when attacked, I switch to military mode and get great satisfaction from pulverizing those who've attacked me.
As a liberal I'm offended by the use of the word "you". To me the way this word was used has caused damage/stress. I find it derogatory and racist. I intend to sue for a minimum of $1.5 million. However, I will settle for $500k.
great, we'd managed to avoid trolling and flaming up to this point
Ty for giving it a chance Greg only is you could get the devs to be as cool as you!This has the potential to be an interesting conversation, but it also has the potential to devolve in to political arguing. I'll just get my preemptive warning to try to prevent that out of the way now.
I've managed to avoid any warnings for a long time too but I just can't resist.
I think Gyrate has a cheeky tongue.
I'm not a conservate or liberal. If there is no suffering why not play the game warlike? We all like the feeling of power when you get right down to it. At work this week I had a lady jump on me. Someone was stealing and I advised that everyone lock their purses in the desks. I said, "These people will take your entire purse." It has happened before, this is a big company, and more than one person there steals it's just a fact. Seconds later I was in a heated discussion with the person next to me that was seriously offended by my saying "these people". For this reason I can not resist.
I would say I agree yet I disagree, I feel that what she is saying is true but at the same time I have never found it hard to play the game from the way I like to play well. The game may be geared so that War is the best way to go but I have never won a game with war because I find it not fun. In other games like Total War where war is the only path I expect it but I play that for a real war sim. As for other games like sims and such I do not see as much of a connection but that may be because I am a man and she is a feminist so we have different view points most of the time. Lastly for games like Call of Duty you can not help but expect for a "conservative" view if that is what you would call it (she did). That is because like in total war the game is about war and war is what you wanna do. Better example might be if you are playing Left 4 Dead you can not complain about horror themes.
Lol, sorry but I still can not understand the PC crap that is associated with "these/Those people". I would have to say I disagree about wanting to feel powerful in the way you described it though. I like to feel stronger by having a scientific or culture advantage and never go to war except late game just to use my massive advantage for a short campaign of kicking ass for no reason other than someone has been at war with me for the last 1000 years.
this.
it's a game. i can do whatever I want and noone really gets hurt. morality only applies to the game world if you want it to, and it doesn't have to reflect on real-world morality.
also, I think the person that got mad at you was thinking you were pointing out a specific ethnic or cultural group. but from what you said, that wasn't the case. you were referring to thieves in general, and they do, in fact, steal. unquestionably. and thief isn't an ethnic group anyways.
remember, political correctness is not about politics, it's about politeness.
Since it happened I find myself wondering if perhaps that is the thief. If you put it into that light then maybe it is racist. Only I didn't realize it because I didn't know who the thief was. Perhaps she does.
How very condescending of you. Believe it or not, I understand pretty much all political discourse, which is why I can so easily identify the flaws in all of it.
And of course we are a social species but capitalism takes care of that perfectly: the laborers are paid for their time and effort and the guys at the top (presumably with the brains) make the profit. Sure, the laborer gets way less than the architect, but they are paid based on the amount of knowledge needed to perform the job. A bricklayer, while being a hard worker, is not a high-concept job.
The extent to which this simple formula has been perverted is almost entirely the fault of government intervention (tax deductions for one business over another, favors, kickbacks, etc). I'm not going to debate that point because it would take essay upon essay, but it's true. Capitalism is a very "cold" and logical process, which makes lots of more emotionally minded people uneasy. Which is why family and friends are so important. To an Objectivist, those are the people you turn to for help and support, not the government and not strangers (through taxes).
Every game is set up with a premise or goal, and it is often hard to ignore this. Each game, in a sense comes with a premise that you must accept. This is how you win at the game and here are the mechanics and means by which you can win. When speaking about Civilization V directly, I find that it tends toward political realism. I'm taking an introductory course in international relations, and I find that a lot of the elements of soft power are essentially missing from the game. This lack of soft power mechanics essentially means that the game really only has hard power to contend with. In that sense, political realism is the only viable way to approach the game. Political realism is (and has been, as far as I can tell) traditionally a more conservative position, but I would not identify myself as a "conservative" I am simply playing the game as it was meant to be played. In a game like Civilization, the zero-sum aspect is heavily emphasized, and it ultimately boils down to force projection and exercise of military (hard) power. Things like science, culture, and diplomacy all also revolve around the idea of political realism. The diplomacy victory boils down to a version of economic political realism, while both the science and culture victories yield a sort of spiral model of competition.
Again, like others have pointed out, it really depends on how the games are set up. Some games have some sort of victory condition, some don't. The premise of the game determines the best path to take when considering how to play the game. I find that a lot of games have very explicit frameworks which expect a certain approach to how the game is played. The way I play games, I would say is more of a rational approach: when I buy a game, I expect to be able to win it in some way. This is an assumption I make with a lot of games, and I'm sure we all do. It's interesting to think about. http://stfj.net/art/2009/loselose/ This game certainly serves as an interesting comment on the assumptions and other philosophical aspects of our entertainment.
In any case, I'm a bit of a centre-left guy when it comes to politics. While political ideology can in some ways determine how you approach a game, often times a game will demand a certain character or ideology for the experience to be worth while (indeed, if you don't play with a certain character, the game may not be much fun at all). As lose/lose goes to show, there are some underlying assumptions we all make about games.
[edit]Why do we assume that because we are given a weapon and awarded for using it, that doing so is right?
I had a whole essay here in response to stethnorun, but I've decided to take it out. No point in talking about politics and theory on a game forum :P.
Last edited by Crespire; 02-10-2011 at 10:42 PM.
Is it harder to be a car Mechanic or a Lawyer? Tell me the second one deserves 10times the pay per hour if it is just time and effort....
The only way I would consider myself as playing conservatively is that I like to have a healthy gold reserve and spend a good portion of the game getting as good a GPT as possible (while also having a good military. I'm also reluctant to reduce their size by very much). I don't spend much and hate unit upgrading (though its necessary) and often use the policy trees that enable me to spend less money or get more from something (Monarchy, now that it provides gold per citizens, in the Tradition tree, the one that reduces unit upgrade costs in the Honor tree, the one that reduces road maintenance in the Commerce tree.) I build banks and markets in every city pretty much as soon as I am able to. And yes the article saying that playing a domination type is conservative style is not a very well informed statement. The author assumes hawks are all right-wing and doves are all left-wing. Don't know why she would even say that, honestly.
aye. labor trumps leadership.
the working class works the hardest, and the upper classes work the least. And yet who gets the most rewards? Note that I am currently an unemployed college student, and that I should get nothing or very little.
@ OP,
Im a conservative, I vote conservative and ive abandoned more than a few dozen games because due to paltry AI war was the only feasible path left open to me. As youd suggest conservatives jump at the chance to go to war, so why do I abandon those types of games?
Conservatives are no more so war mongers than liberals. If in fact you equate liberals to people who prefer more socialist policies, and conservatives with those who prefer more capitalist (IE big govt vs big business/personal responsibility) then take a look at the biggest three icons of both capitalism and communism IE USA USSR (Soviet Union) and China. All three have done their fair share of pushing military spending and agression.
@ Brxbrx
You and I may not exactly see eye to eye on politics but id wager that your views will change pretty wildly once you get out of college and stop being bombarded with socialist professors and their left-wing adgenda's. Simply put the reason capitalism works in the real world is because it gives people a motivation to do something IE "If I work hard I can achieve anything" the reason socialism doesnt is because "It doesnt matter if I work or not everything is provided for me anyway" this mentality is the same reason you find multiple generation welfare families. This is comming from someone who is currently getting about $250 a month from Ontario's social assitance program.
One thing we DO agree on is that politicians suck. I personally believe we should indeed go back to the way the original politicians of the USA worked where they had their own job, provided for themselves and took no monitary support for their policy making. Its in the peoples best interest for politicians to NOT have an invested interest in making the process overly time consuming.
That said in todays highly technical world specialists exist for a reason and frankly if you put me on a farm I really wouldnt have a clue about the first thing id need to do. It doesnt make sense to take someone specialized in one field and tell him to go do another for half his work week just to be fair. What youd end up with us much less effecient use of space and much more waste.
While this may very well seem cold hearted most of the people who starve in this world are in third world under developed countries, generally these people are being suppressed by either fascist dictators or warlords. While I can certainly empathize with these people in their difficult situation until the PEOPLE rise up and demand freedom from the oppressive warlords and tyrants their situation will never change. The people of these nations need to change before any ammount of financial, or social assitance will change anything. When the people of these impovrished nations can unilaterally decide to change, things will change. I however do not believe this will be in my life-time.
The reasoning for me saying all this is that the vast majority of food and medical drops made to these countries just strengthen the tyranical and oppressive groups that are supressing the people. It took centuries for the majority of european countries to seek change from the feudal system, likewise in time so will the impovrished third world countries where people starve.
I really do not like the current trend on this forum turning every thread political, I really do not find it helpful or good for a game forum. I hope this trend stops soon.
I also feel I should clarify WHY im currently on Ontario's social assistance. When I lived in the states, Id worked full time since I was 15, I provided for myself to achieve any of my goals. 4 years ago I met and fell in love with a Canadian woman, we got pregnant and due to the overly difficult process I couldnt marry her and get her on my medical insurance before our baby was due. After multiple inquiries at various clinics and hospitals, quotes ranged from 15,000 to 30,000 for a 2 day stay in the hospital to have our baby providing no complications. Being that she is a Canadian we decided to go to Canada to have our child but that also meant we'd need to stay in canada logistically. Im in the process of getting my status here to work. Im currently doing the homemaker work and my wife is employed part time seeking full time from her employer.
Every time we get that monthly check I feel both thankful and sad. Im sad and frustrated that as an able bodied man I should be providing for my family but I am thankful we at least have help. We however have no intentions of staying on this welfare a minute longer than we have to.
Truth is its the red-tape thats preventing me providing for my family, and I really dont think either side of the political specturm is to blame here. Its frankly both. Heavens knows why I moving my family 300 miles north is such a difficult process.
well, you're right, threads here (like the free market & gaming thread) are becoming too political, and it detracts. And it's certainly a bit silly to bring in politics using a video-game as a platform. And I've said before it's unfair to link conservativism with warmongering.
I'd like to add that in my ideal world, those that don't work do not get everything provided for them. Just what they need to live. Food, water, a bunk bed, and medical care for life threatening or competence affecting conditions. I often site Utopia, because I realize this may well be an idealist fantasy. But Utopia still has inspired me.
munkles, I live in Arizona. We don't so much have "liberal college professors." What I know about society I learned myself, from books I bought and from archives on the internet (I recommend marxists.org, a free exhaustive repository of socialist and communist writings. Also, Wikipedia for an easier to understand summary I can compare to what I've read, to make sense of it all).
My professors, in high school and college, have always mentioned communism and socialism in a condescending fashion, ridiculing it in the typical "thar will be leeches" fashion. They always claimed that it doesn't work. No, my professors are not liberals.
And you know what? Karl Marx is not my prophet, his writings are not my scripture. Nor do I pay such attentions to Thomas Moore. Marx believed, that once communism was achieved, everyone would gladly work for the sake of society. That just seems like a leap in logic to me. The problem of lumpenproletariat (the unproductive class: beggars, thieves, etc.) is often ill-addressed in communist socialist ideologies. Trotsky, when he was minister of transportation, imposed a death penalty for laziness. Rail workers all striked as a result. Huey Newton, founder of the Black Panthers, believed that lumpen would gladly contribute, because they were simply members of other classes rendered useless by technological advances in industry (he certainly had a point, but that isn't the sole reason. And Newton wasn't a Luddite by any means). In Europe, welfare, for a time, actually paid more than many jobs. That was just a bad idea, like you said, many though: "why work when welfare pays more."
And Karl Marx was not quite right in his predictions. I don't believe he foresaw globalization. And he didn't consider nations that hadn't evolved past feudalism to an industrial era. It was Jay Lovestone, a former leader of the Communist Party USA, that theorized "American Exceptionalism," explaining that the vast resources and mercantile founding of the US delayed the typical downfall of the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies (this idea was not popular in Moscow, such things and Soviet brutality and oppressiveness caused a divide amongst communists abroad). Mao and Lenin both showed that heavy industrialism were not necessary for a popular revolt, that the peasantry was just as capable of rising up as the proletariat (not saying I'm a fan of either of those guys; I'm more of a "freedom of speech," "no killing" sort of person).
I forgot where I was going with all of this, I think I meant to say something along the lines of "I aren't no smart leader like, but I durn see things bad when bad, I knows whats goods."
And I'm glad we could talk about this without raging at each other, and without me calling you a capitalist pig. I sometimes have anger issues.
So since socialist and communist nations are number 2-5 in military spending what does that say about your argument? The one nation at the top of that list that is capitalistic? And by more than all of the budgets of the nations you mentioned combined...
Last edited by Skunkone; 02-11-2011 at 07:55 AM. Reason: Spelling
1. it depends what you consider left/right. I would not compliment China by associating it with my ideologies.
2. you got him all wrong. He, like me, said it's unfair to say that a conservative is by default a warmonger.
I just have to ask, do you really think there is a single person who would "want" to stay on welfare? It is there for the exact reason you stated the problem is that the Economy is divided here. You have as good of a chance at going and getting yourself 100k in educational debt that you will be paying back long into after you are out of school to have a chance to get off welfare. If your factory job is gone or you can only get a job at Burger king because that is all there is around you or anything like that you are gona be hard pressed to get out of that hole.
Also I would just like to say I know I used you in that a lot but I was using it as a way to sound like I was talking to each person reading it not directing it at you like I know what is going on in your life.
I understand that, I know they "all" are not and would never say they "all" are but it is like saying "all" Liberals wear blue and Republicans red... There is going to be exceptions every time you talk about something but doesn't mean at lest in our country at the current point at time in politics. I would be hard pressed to say I do not agree with the OP.
Skunk,
I would absolutely say there are people who WANT to remain on welfare. I saw it when i lived in detroit, I see it here in Ontario at the meetings my wife had to go to for "single" mothers for the last year since up until last month Canada didnt recognize me as being her husbads actively involved in their lives even though ive spent every single day of the last 3 years carring for my family.
My father has worked hard his whole life providing me with an excellent male role model, but even myself who has within relative terms have been granted with every advantage to see the benefit of hard work and responsibility feel that twinge of "hey man this is easy, i do nothing and get money". It disgusts me to admit feeling that way but if I myself feel that way, people who are in less healthy enviroments without the support of people encouraging productivity and responsibility would logically be much more predisposed to staying "stuck" in the rut of welfare.
Hope it clears my previous statement up a bit.
Ron Paul and new republicans believe we should withdraw from wars (an isolationist thing)
doesn't canada have a common law marriage thing?
They certainly do, cant say I know much about it but my wife and I have been married only just over 2 years, and we did get married in canada (legaly). As far as I understand it they made her attend those meetings mostly since for the last 18 months just she was technically on social assistance since my status here wasnt fully recognized (as my premanent residency visa is still pending). So since I wasnt recieving money (just her) they made her go as a term of her continued support.
From speaking to my wife and her social worker they tend to look at us as a "success story". A married woman, who has the support emotional and physical if not financial, who's in a stable marriage got a job and is working our way off welfare. As of what our social worker said last week "in the 9 years ive been doing this youre my biggest star"
Case in point most of the young women in that support group my wife was going two were pregnent 2-3x over by seperate men, some not sure who the fathers even are. They waste their income on cigarettes and alcohol, with no desire or path to improve their lives.
Im not saying EVERYONE on welfare is like that, I certainly would like to think that we are not, but there are more than most would like to believe. From my personal experience having that welfare available to us was a life-line for my wife, something im very greatful for but its not a solution. The hardest part about our situation is that outside a social insurance number, thats the only thig keeping me from being able to work IE red-tape beaurocratic bs.
I hate big government, and as much as id love to be working and earning money right now my wife and baby girl need me to be there for them, and in many ways I need to be with them.
One things for sure ill never marry someone out of country again :P (kidding as Ive no plans on ever getting divorced or remarried).
Wow, you all have no idea how the world actually works do you? Remind me, how much school and knowledge does it take to be a bricklayer? And how much to be a lawyer? Right. That's what I thought. I really can't believe you all have such child-like views of the world.
because sitting behind a desk is so hard, right?
Planning cases, arguing in court, collecting evidence, pursuing clients, for maybe a dozen clients at a time might be hard.
Sitting at a computer screen, reading documents and typing reports for 10 hours a day can be pretty hard, too. Some people would love to be bricklayers if the job paid better.
Mental labor is harder for some people and easier for others. Physical labor is harder for some people and easier for others. At the end of the day what matters for the worker (whether mental or physical, skilled or unskilled, leader or follower) is the value their output commands on the open market.
Classism is stupid. What happened to the game discussion?
I think the author is bending the gameplay to prove a point to her readers. There is NOTHING conservative about Civilization games, where the state (you) controls almost every aspect of its society's development from trade to scientific research to urban planning. She's just too impatient to pursue peaceful victory conditions. Also she's never heard of Swiss Mercenaries, obviously; all modern countries emerged from violent pasts, as far as I know.
As to her other example, the Sims doesn't force maternity leave to mirror gender discrimination, it's because usually a mother is physically unable to resume work right away after the physically strenuous act of giving birth; the game wants to bow to that reality for immersion's sake. Players can usually hire help for the actual baby-care. I don't see the conservatism or liberalism in this.
The author is just looking for political bias, playing her games in a politically biased way, and so yes she finds that BIAS.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
2K Greg