Culture! Another sinking (soon to be closed) thread by jimmytrick

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 19:01

Frankly I think that most of the people who have played the Civ series and post here on the culture subject have missed the point.

Culture, essentially, was present in Civ2. Here is one definition of culture by Webster :

the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education

Temples and cathedrals, libraries and universities. In Civ2 these yielded greater research rates and happier people. It was an excellent abstract modeling of the cultural aspect of civilization. It allowed civilizations to flourish and mature without force of arms.

The Civ3 rendition of culture is asinine. It seeks to link borders to culture, which is ridiculous. Historically the borders of nations or civilizations were based on natural geography, force of arms, religion, race, politics and the unpredictable effect of unusual leadership. Some of those are elements of culture of course, but some are clearly not.

In Civ3 culture is represented as being the central source of power, other than military, that shaped world history. Culture is represented as being more powerful than religion; religion is relegated to a role as only a part of culture. In truth, religion has had more effect on the course of human events than culture by a factor of 10. Throughout human history when cultures clashed with religions it was always culture that changed to accommodate religion, on those occasions that borders moved it was a result of elitist exploitation of the religious views of the common man, not a revolt of the common man to obtain access to the culture of his neighbor.

Culture has been in fashion lately, it is a politically correct concept, but as an empire building force, it is and always has been a limp wristed farce. Religion has been the catislyst; this was true for all of the 6000 years of human history but the last 150 and even then it has and does today play a prominent role in the affairs of men and nations. To the extent that religious influence has waned culture has been magnified not as an entity but as a mere part of the new paradigm, which is humanism.

Firaxis could be well excused for this folly if their implementation of the concept of culture enhanced the gameplay and enjoyment of the Civ3 experience. And some would argue that it does. But there is no consensus in favor of it. It is clearly a design failure unless one sets the bar so low as to be meaningless.

Another definition of culture by Webster:

enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b : acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills

And still another:

the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation

Clearly, if you think about it, Firaxis did a pretty darn good job of introducing culture in their masterpiece game, Alpha Centauri. Here, through use of social engineering and original faction attributes, clearly distinct groups evolve, distinct and unique to themselves. And they play that way!

In Civ3 culture is reduced to bricks of manure that, if piled high enough, push their very borders of your civilization outward from the stench. The Civilizations, all for their accumulated culture or lack thereof, are all the same.

It just doesn't make sense.

MOHonor · May 27, 2002, 19:15

Wow you don't like a feature in game you hate. Someone call the pope.

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 19:18

See, you revert to religion when stressed Mo. You just made my point.

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 19:27

Seriously, they should just take out the stupid flipping element and victory condition and culture would be well represented in Civ3.

Zachriel · May 27, 2002, 19:46

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
. . .
the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group
. . .
It just doesn't make sense.

Just think of game culture as religious culture; the Egyptian religion, the French religion, the Chinese religion. And every once in a while, when near a cathedral of a neighboring religion, a prophet arises and an entire city converts. There it's fixed.

Gee whiz! What's your point anyway?

Alex · May 27, 2002, 19:55

i think jt has a point (jeez, i never thought i would say something like this)

the way culture was implemented in this game is rather bland and oversimplified. but that just proves once again that firaxis was trying to make a game for the masses. they managed it. and jt did not like it. so he has a valid point, from his own point of view.

anyway, this is fruitless. this thread will be closed anyway.

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 20:05

The point I was trying to make was that culture was already modeled in Civ2 and SMAC, and in both cases better from both a historic and gameplay view than in Civ3.

I think they should take flipping out of the game.

Zachriel · May 27, 2002, 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The point I was trying to make was that culture was already modeled in Civ2 and SMAC, and in both cases better from both a historic and gameplay view than in Civ3.

I think they should take flipping out of the game.

Actually, the treatment of culture as religion models history pretty well during certain periods, specifically how a city might suddenly flip based upon the religious politics of the state. Consider how Henry VIII left the Church of Rome.

MarkG · May 27, 2002, 20:20

yes civ2 had a culture model: elvis as an advisor...

ALPHA WOLF 64 · May 27, 2002, 20:24

i dont mind the cultural flip too much because is see hat they were trying to fix, but I would have preferred a slightly more complex implementation. Part one would be to determine whether the city is even a candidate for flipping (based on the current rules of capitol distances, cultural differences). Part 2 would only be evaluated if part 1 was true and that would be to determine whether the city had enough dissenters to overpower the city garrison plus happy citizens. Also a weighted military unit would be useful as that 3 MA are more likely to hold a city than 3 warriors.

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 21:11

I guess some folks have to have it spelled out. Temple in Civ2 makes people happy. Happy=More productive=Implementation of religious element of culture.

Library=More productive=Implementation of intellectual element of culture.

Don't you get it?

BTW, Mark, yes, I agree with you that including Elvis in Civ2 was great. More fun than any single element of Civ3.

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 21:12

Zach, perhaps you are confused and thought England was part of Rome. Do you consider that a real life example of a cultural flip?

WarpStorm · May 27, 2002, 21:28

Actually, Londinium was a part of the Roman Empire (before their culture changed when the troops garrisoning it left). The Roman walls and execution square are still there. In fact, the official City of London borders are the portion within the Roman Wall.

Coracle · May 27, 2002, 21:36

No one despises Soren's Culture Flipping garbage more than me.

But I've never suggested Culture as a concept does not have value; it does and I've said so.

But what is non-historical and idiotic is the concept of Culture FLIPPING cities and borders, and the manner in which it is implemented, and that includes the absurdity of razing metropolises.

Get rid of Culture Flipping. No border ever changed because one civ had more libraries and poets than the other guy.

Coracle · May 27, 2002, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The point I was trying to make was that culture was already modeled in Civ2 and SMAC, and in both cases better from both a historic and gameplay view than in Civ3.

I think they should take flipping out of the game.

I said so many months ago.

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 21:43

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Actually, Londinium was a part of the Roman Empire (before their culture changed when the troops garrisoning it left). The Roman walls and execution square are still there. In fact, the official City of London borders are the portion within the Roman Wall.

What? This statement makes no sense. Londinium ceased being a part of the Roman empire when emperor Honorius refused British cities military help in defending against raiding Saxons. Culture had nothing to do with it. The sword did.

MOHonor · May 27, 2002, 21:44

Gosh it's almost a "I don't get the concept of a fan site" reunion! Get on in here Uber! It's culture thread spamming time!

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 22:04

Gosh, MO, thats an interesting comment.

We can do an analogy here, Poly is a city with a pro-Civ3 culture. The critics here represent the counter-culture. You, Mo, are part of the Temple of Firaxis that is steadfastly churning out culture points with each song sung by the Choir.

The question is "Will Poly flip to the counter culture? If so Mo, do you realize that as a soldier of the city you will flip to us. Thats right! You will belong to us!

Interesting that the pro-Civ3 culture group here uses the most distasteful tactics. Censorship (thats you Mark), insults, harrassment, ostracism (Ignore list), etc ad infinitum.

Haven't you guys learned nothing. You have to build a cathedral and invite us warmly in and embrace us. Embrace the beast Mo.

The proof that Civ3 culture flipping is goofy is found in the clashes here between the two groups, both of whom claim to be the true fans of the Civ legacy. When humans disagree, only steel and gold matter. No one ever won nothing cause they were more cultured than the other guy.

MOHonor · May 27, 2002, 22:12

And you love the persecution. There's a word for that. Masochist. Since you were into the dictionary definitions check it. Masochism: The getting of pleasure from being dominated, mistreated or hurt in some way. A psych grad student should write their thesis on you and your ilk.

nato · May 27, 2002, 22:12

I used to really hate culture flips. I started several threads offering ways to change it. I HATE losing lots of military units to culture flips.

Now though, I am fairly happy because military units have an increased power to stop culture flips, which was the main problem. Maybe it would be nice if this power was increased a little, but its not a huge thing like it used to be.

If you still see it as a problem, I think the best thing to argue for would be to increase military units power to stop flips even more. It is a lot more likely than removing culture flips entirely. Or there is always my old no-culture-flip-during-war idea, ha ha.

Actually, I think culture would have been better if it had been more integrated into the game. It should have been a 4th slider for trade (taxes, science, luxuries, and culture), a culture specialist like a taxman, and culture only buildings. Ah well...

ChaotikVisions · May 27, 2002, 22:37

Hmm, culture isn't too bad, though i'd rather borders only change once however x many turns(checks to see all that are ready), and that military units in that city extended the border. So you could move a large army onto your border, and in 10 years(turns?) be pushing the border back some. Flipping is a bit odd, I can't quite see why it was included, I mean even the warmongers build the culture stuff, so was this uneeded pushing or just an afterthought?

Either way its not too bad, i've lost maybe 3 or 4 citys total to culture flipping in all my games of Civ3, so it never comes into play a great deal.

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 22:42

Mo, you leave my ilk out of this pal.

CVisions, yeah, its no big deal in SP cause the AI is so easy to beat. It will be a gamebreaker in MP. I would be pleased to stop harping on it if FurAxeIT would take it out of PTW.

ChaotikVisions · May 27, 2002, 22:57

Heh, I thought you were one of the ones that wasn't going to buy PTW? And I don't think it'll be that big MP, all they need to do is toss in disabling culture fliping along with disabling culture victory, then people can play with it as they want.

Capt Dizle · May 27, 2002, 23:36

Yeah if they put those switches in that would be cool. I am not going to spend a nickel on it. There are legal ways to play without spending money.

Chronus · May 28, 2002, 00:32

Quote:

No border ever changed because one civ had more libraries and poets than the other guy.

Taken literally, yes, this statement is probably correct.

Taken conceptually, well . . . try telling this to the former Soviet Union.

notyoueither · May 28, 2002, 00:59

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Haven't you guys learned nothing. You have to build a cathedral and invite us warmly in and embrace us. Embrace the beast Mo.

The proof that Civ3 culture flipping is goofy is found in the clashes here between the two groups, both of whom claim to be the true fans of the Civ legacy. When humans disagree, only steel and gold matter. No one ever won nothing cause they were more cultured than the other guy.

:hugs jimmy:

Welcome to the temple, my son.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I didn't think I'd chuckle very much when opening a thread with the title this one does. Thank you.

As far as gold and steel are concerned, I think that culture can be successfully combated using gold to pay for your steel. At least I think I've been successful as I razed the last enemy city into dust on several occasions.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy. I can't wait for Carthage. I hope they're religious and scientific.

notyoueither · May 28, 2002, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I am not going to spend a nickel on it. There are legal ways to play without spending money.

Care to elaborate?

Simpleton · May 28, 2002, 01:38

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The point I was trying to make was that culture was already modeled in Civ2 and SMAC, and in both cases better from both a historic and gameplay view than in Civ3.

I think they should take flipping out of the game.

Well I'm glad you didn't make the game because then we'd all be stuck, for the most part, playing a graphically updated version of Civ2.
Civ3 ain't great but it's a lot better with culture than without because it adds a new dimension to an old formula. That is a good thing.

Capt Dizle · May 28, 2002, 01:57

Couldn't disagree with you more actually. When a great game series is updated nothing more than a sound and graphics update and gameplay tweaking is needed.

If you are going to make a whole new game what call it Civ# whatever.

I hope that the next version gives us back all that Soren took away and adds some of the great genre advancements from SMAC.

notyoueither · May 28, 2002, 02:04

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Couldn't disagree with you more actually. When a great game series is updated nothing more than a sound and graphics update and gameplay tweaking is needed.

Why would anyone buy that?