I’ve talked about the Civilization series a lot now. There’s a good reason for that – I really really like them. One of their best features however, is one of the basic concepts of the game: you get to rule a civilization. You are the undisputed ruler with no fear of elections or impeachment of an entire race of people. You make the choices that will shape their lives, help them, hurt them, give them parks or send them to war. And what is more interesting still is seeing how you react to this. How do you handle true power?
How deep does your heroism run? |
A winning strategy |
There was a study done of nuclear defence experts and how they talk about nuclear strategy. The study was horrified that the words “collateral damage”, “acceptable losses”, and similar phrases were used when talking about entire cities. Millions of people were considered ‘acceptable losses’ in a nuclear war. The study commented that these words mask the significance of the lives under threat, and said that it was all easier to talk about, easier to plan, because you don’t have to think about the lives at stake. It’s a difficult question to ask, but even if we played as moral a game of Civ as we could, would we do it any differently if we were in charge of a REAL state? Would we be less enthusiastic about choosing the option you get after conquering a city to “Burn, baby! BURN!” It involves the fiery slaughter of thousands of people, and you can do it with a click of a button and no bad press. Obviously, I think we would, but that’s an extreme example. What about shelling a city? It may kill a part of the population. Or starving a city so that the country will give up the war? Also possible, also kills people. What about denying people hospitals and running water because you’re busy building the components for your spaceship so that you build it before anyone else?
It's important! |
We don’t see the consequences on people’s lives for any of these actions, because the game isn’t designed that way. The game creates the abstraction put in by words like “collateral damage” for you. It keeps the abstraction there so you can have more fun playing however you like without so much consideration for the well being of the people. So immorality, as it were, is more excusable in theory in the Civilization series because it’s encouraged. Having thought about this though, I think I’m going to try and be a lot more caring for my population. And I’ll probably get conquered because of it.
And here's an interesting article that's kind of related: http://www.cracked.com/article_15660_the-ultimate-war-simulation-game.html
No comments:
Post a Comment