Who Gets to Be a CIVILIZATION? - Between the Lines
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 окт 2016
- In Sid Meier's Civilization, what's the real difference between the civilized and the barbarous?
All third party clips are used under Fair Use.
Follow me on Twitter: / kylekallgren
Tumblr: / actuallykylekallgren
Support me on Patreon: / kkallgren 
Игры
At 11:05 white could've taken the queen by using the bishop on E3
It could be black's turn if the bishop took a piece from where it currently is.
@@osuWhite no because he moves the king instead of moving the bishop
White's a bloody newb at this
Disliked
I was so enraged when i saw that lol
Neat video. Nit-picky quibble: Ganhdi hasn't always been the only leader for "India." They had Asoka as an option in Civ4. :P
lucky1adrastus that isn't a nit pick if it's true, and puts a kink in his argument.
Also they released Chandra Gupta in civ 6
UncomfortablyClose *Chandragupta, as in Chandragupta Maurya, not Chandra Gupta, who is often confused with him
sorry it autocorrected me I was using my phone at the time
Didn’t they also have Indira Gandhi in civ 2?
fun fact: Baba Yetu was the first song from a video game to win a grammy...
the composer kinda cheated though because he put it on a compilation album in order to have it be a release in that year, which is a prerequisite of all yearly awards.
Doesn't matter, the song (and Sogno di Volare from Civ VI) are still two of the best compositions in video games.
I'd rank Christopher Tin's work right up there with the work of people like Jeremy Soule, Austin Wintory, and Nobuo Uematsu.
I've always wanted to play the Civilisation games, but feared the consequences.
I'm British, you see. We tend to get a little carried away with the whole empire building thing.
The only thing that can keep us away from a colony is the prefix "Nudist".
Would you be interested in a trade agreement with England?
The sun never set on the English Empire because God didn't trust the British in the dark.
Not gonna lie, I snorted milkshake out of my nostrils when I read this (super sexy, I know). Brilliant.
And exterminated the unrully ones :D
More like what the smallpox you brought did to the natives. But what can you do? Such is life.
I am a history major and hope to be a teacher some day and I am positive that Civilization III was what got me to presue this field of study.
Michael Reikes How fascinating. What grade level?
High school or collage. Depends on what opportunities there are.
I just got my degree in Social Studies education and finished my student teaching program, hit me up and Ill supply you some of my ppts and materials if you want.
Michael Reikes same after civ 5 I joint MUN at my school and now I’m passionate about diplomatic missions and UN in general
at least you're not an English major
Fun fact: Ghandi is only an insane war criminal because of a bug. In civ 1 aggressiveness is rated on a 1-10 scale. If your government becomes democratic your aggressiveness drops by 2. That means Ghandi (who starts at 1) suddenly has an agressiveness score of 255 out of 10 because of how unsigned numbers work on computers. So he immediately stops everything he's doing and builds a MASSIVE war machine and beelines for nukes the moment he discovers democracy.
Since then, Firaxis have made him nuke-happy as an injoke.
Appreciate that man.
I learnt the hard way about that fucker.
I was always wondering about Ghandi's rage. That makes a lot of sense.
This. This is why I always, ALWAYS play Ghandi. On all the socio-political tests I score somewhere near the historical version anyway.
I played Civ 6 a few days ago and got Japan near me and India after him. I built a city close to Japan's border and he got mad while Ghandi denounced me for some resone. a few turns after Japan declaired war on me and Ghandi with him.
I took two japanese cities and made pease with Ghandi because he was a little too far to deal with at this moment, I also wanted an ally to deal with another civ I wanted to get rid of. A few turns after Japan and Ghandi started a war again, at this moment I decided to get rid of Ghandi first because I did nothing to him the whole game and he got mad for no resone...
So basicly ingame Ghandi is USA?
You know what I love about Kyle's BTLs videos? He always ends with the same thought he began maybe with a slight alteration but when he says it at the end, it's usually delivered in a tone and context that's almost uplifting.
Decolonize Sid Meier and history, the rant
TV shows spend thousands of (insert kind of money here) but this guy brings down such an awesome documentary of history, Civilization, and poetric questions to the modern society and to us people.
I love this video so much but and i wish i were able to spend money to your patreon.
But i will support this video by showing it to friends and family!
You've done a great Job!
8:30 German: Wilkommen
Frenchman: Bienvenue
Englishman: Welcome
Me: IM CABARET! AU CABARET! TO CABARET! XD
KC NotQuiteHD Sweden: Välkommen
Netherlands: Welkom
I knew I wasn't the only one who caught that!
@@shaunibabe1 But he was English. Born to English gentry in a British colony.
HomicidalDonut okay well this video has taught you literally nothing. George Washington may have been born a Brit but he was an American.
@@creativeusername2202 Because as we all know nobody has ever continued to refer to someone by the nation of their birth after their citizenship changed, nevermind that Americans regularly do it with people whose families have been American for generations.
I remember when Ghandi once bombed me with nuclear weapons...
It's because of "not-a-bug-a-feature": wanna hear?
I remember him saying:
"Your weakness presents to me a great opportunity. You have my apologies." (WAR DECLARED)
I laughed my ass off. I still do.
This is EXACTLY why I always play Gandhi in Campaign mode.
*Gandhi
Once?
Someone should introduce Kyle to all the Civ V mods, I think he'd be thrilled
Oh, I spent a good portion of my college years doing Civ mods as a hobby. I'm well aware of the community.
In fact that time on the civfanatics modding forums inspired most of these questions - seeing which civ modders wanted to bring into the game that had been ignored by the developers. I could've talked more about the modding community, to be certain, but the video was getting long as is. I wanted to focus on the game as presented by its authors, and keep the contributions of the modding community just by implication.
Just out of curiosity, are there any Civilizations you'd especially want to see added into Civ VI in the future?
Or he'd get more sick of Fire Emblem than the average Smash Bros player.
7:52 Odd linguistic note. The Russian word for German originally just meant "people who speak nonslavic languages"
It is not russian it is in old-slavic. That is why polish and serbian and other slavic nations call Germans Niemcy, Nemci, Njemci and so on....
Well, guess I’m German, but I was so sure I was Somali tho...
You need to try Europa Universalis
@LordOfTheEdge YES PARADOX WE NEED THIS NOW
LordOfTheEdge get the expanded timeline Eu4. It goes from 1 A.D. to 9999 AD
@@pigsnoutman idk man in eu4 I can change religion ibadi as the Germans, become Persian as my main culture, become the Mughal Empire, change religion to Buddhist, change my main culture to shan, and become the emperor of China. In one game.
It really depends on how you want to play it.
Victoria 2? Just pure nationalistic there.
Good game, cancerous community.
Coffee Succubus Cancerous? I don't know about you man, but I've just started playing the game. So far, the community has helped me out haha!
Also noticed that the only thing the community is "cancerous" to is towards paradox - seen too many people complaining about their DLC policy. Not toxic my dude, speaking as a newbie here.
I was starting to notice the music and saw the video was wrapping up and was inwardly thinking "use it. _use it._ USE IT." And then you close with it. Yes.
And IMO, the increasing support for player mods does plenty to encourage people to do exactly that and create their civs. Maybe eventually they'll create one that makes me stop playing as Egypt and beating every country to every single wonder. :3c
I was sold from the minute he played Sogno di Volare as the opener. Baba Yetu at the end was just the cherry on top. ^_^ I LOVE Christopher Tin's stuff.
Mods can create new civilizations, but they can't allow one civilization to _become_ another. You can be Vedic or Pallavan or Indian, but you can never have a civilization which turns from one to another over the course of the game. Nor can you have a civilization which splits into multiple civilizations over time, Vedic splitting into Pallavan and Cholan and Pandyan civilizations; you can only have civilizations merging together, almost always by conquest.
Mods are awesome, as you can even create Civs with a different leader, which means you could confront several versions of one Civ through history. For example, Charlemagne's Kingdom of Francia vs Louis XIV's Kingdom of France vs Napoleon Bonaparte's French Empire vs Charles de Gaulle's Republic of France.
This guy talks like a Great Value-brand V-Sauce.
Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson But unlike V-Sauce, he gets to the point and doesn’t waste your time with bullshit.
But the bullshit is entertaining
+Diego Chamberlain *true*
It seems like vsauce has a way of providing the viewer with seemingly unrelated topics and then connecting them to make a stronger point. This video is fine but I’d be lying if I said it made nearly as much as an impact on me as a vsauce video.
Now that's a burn
Chess doesn't have to end with an winner and a loser. Stalemates are all too common--situations in which neither side can win.
Other than that--good video.
I also do not agree with him implying that life is not a game, when clearly it is. He also implied that there are no winners or losers in said game, when again, clearly there are. Unfortunately, your point and mine completely undermine his key points in the video. So, unlike you, I cannot call this a "good video". The best I can give this is "interesting" or "entertaining".
@@danielduncan6806 I disagree. With a game, you win (or lose, or stalemate, etc)
With life there is no final victory, there is no win condition, the end is just death.
Hey, there is some nice video explaining what kind of game life exactly is: ruclips.net/video/0bFs6ZiynSU/видео.html You may want to watch it.
Sometimes when I would get a stalemate with my friend we would just keep moving our kings for fun. Actually, it stopped being fun quickly...
Originally chess had no explicit rules for ties and stalemates either didn't exist or counted as a win. As late as 19th century drawn games at tournaments had to be repeated until a definitive result.
Wait. Mohatma wasn't the only Indian leader in Civs. We actually have Indira in II and Asoka in IV. But, he is still a most popular one, I guess.
And Chandragupta in VI.
@@Hawkatana Not Chandragupta though, just Gupta. First name Chandra. The First.
[ ] ok, i get it
As a Civ 5 and 6 modder - and knowing you modded previous games in the franchise (probably 2) - I have to admit I was expecting you to touch on the fact that the modding community is embraced so wholeheartedly by the later games and how that in itself ties into your point; that Civilization games inspire the creation of "players" on the world stage through social action as part of a group, especially since modding these days (particularly on a major scale) is almost always a collaborative effort between writers, artists, researchers, and coders.
Dunno whether or not a BHH or Chez Apocalypse Civ will get made in the near future, though. We've got a lot on. =]
chess has stalemates
Gyohdon That would be a cold war, only we end there instead of continue through it. Or taken to its obvious conclusion, a nuclear fallout or destruction of the leaders of both civilizations. Not a Civ thing, mind you - except in the weirdest multiplayer games - but there you are.
Originally it didn't. And when the rules changed to afford for them, initially they counted as a win.
After seeing the Fallout video and this one, I actually would really like to see more BTL based on videogames
Same here.
Not only that, but it's one thing to do philosophical analysis of games like Fallout and Civilization. I'd love to see you do it out of something like Sonic (though i already see some connections you can make between it and the concept of fate, not to mention the obvious enviromental theme)
Check out Errant Signal for similar kind of video essays, but focusing on games. He often goes more into why a game does or doesn't work, but he's more into the "artsier" elements of games and what a game says than a lot of youtubers.
Final Fantasy VII lends itself a litle better to that, as it's a LOT more narratively driven. This isn't me hating on Sonic, just stating that FF games seem more in line with his style of critique and analysis. It'd be hard for Kyle to look for deeper meaning in the series of Sonic games as they stand now.
(all the really environmentalist stuff mostly came from the SatAM series, IIRC)
There are a lot of games with philosophical stuff in them.
Some of the Pokemon games are pretty deep at times, with situations where one life is traded for another (or for many), and a lot of other morally questionable stuff. The Sinnoh Myths, AZ's story, The Future of Darkness, etc. Pokemon is surprisingly weird and dark sometimes.
I would not call the Assyrians barbarians, they had some of the most complex state institutions and indirectly invented a standardised military doctrine. Being a great power during the time of the bronze age collapse, and surviving 100 years after, it seems unjust to call them "barbarians" and not a proper civ.
On a side note the Civ III panzer looks more like a soviet T - 26, or a strange unidentifiable chassis with a T - 34 turret.
Second side note, Why the hell is Theadora the Byzantine (Civ 5) leader and not Justinian, he was the last great roman emperor and made the Mediterranean area fear Rome again.
Don't quote me on this but I think is was because she also had an active role in governing. Despite her low status she aided in the many construction projects done in Constantinople at the time and late in Justinian's reign when he was in a plague coma, she ruled in his place and did a pretty good job.
There is a game being developed called Humankind, that is planned to be released later this year. In that game, you can create your own civilization and it evolves over time.
Thank God for mods. Also, Europa Universalis is way better than Civ as a historical game if not a fantasy one, just saying.
Civ was always more board game than historical simulation.
I think the difference is in the design philosophy. In EuIV (and Paradox games in general) the goal is supplied by you, You can choose to become and sprawling empire, but also you can center yourself in amassing enormous amounts of gold or just be contempt as a small city state.
But keep in mind that it is still a model of history, one were the ruler is seen as a kind of demigod who can control everything that happens in a country just by its sheer will. There are some mods that try to change that (MEIOU is a great example of a mod that it's trying to create a more organic world to play in). Abstractions are necessary for a good gameplay, but at the same time it means something so complex and interwoven like history will always be boiled down to some basics.
To a degree. Getting new national ideas makes changing your nation more than just window dressing, but the series shares some of Civ's limitations. In the period the games are set, the further you get away from large cities, the less sense it actually made to just paint a map with a pretty color - and, let's be real here: painting a map with a pretty color is what EU is really all about ;). The one that gets it much better in this regard is CK2 (sorry :D), since that focuses on the human element.
Hell yeah
Screw EU, it's to complex and overall boring.
I was so excited when you ended on Baba Yetu! What a swelling finish to an amazing video!
Fun Fact: Chess was invented in India during the Gupta Empire.
Fun Fact: It wasn't
way more empirical evidence that suggest chess originated in the far east from games such a shougi and such.
actually its from Persia, even some of the language of the game is related to their language, such as the term 'Check Mate' which comes from the Persian 'Shah Mat' which means 'The king is dead.'
well that was because persin and arab region was the main contact point for west through east,just like the modern numbers are taken from arabic language,but the numbers themselves zero and decimal system were invented in india.
FUN FACT!!!!! People TO THIS DAY, are still unsure of any real origin of chess. Though it is SUSPECTED to be from Persia-India-farther east.
"Wilkommen"
"Bienvenue"
"Welcome"
Nice one, Kyle.
_Since ancient times, every civilization's ruler has had the same idea: when people unite under one will, they become stronger than the sum of their parts. And what do rulers use to bring people together?_
*_Language._*
I wish that in Civ7 there will be a Civ creator, much like EU4's NAtion Designer. From flag creation, to culture name, to leader name and his appearence. People are making new Civs for Civ 5 and Civ 6 throug coding walls, but what about mere players, who doesn't understand the coding wall? I hope they'll think about it in later parts.
Well, in Civ4 you could edit the name of your civ, the name of your people and the name of your leader and imagine you're playing as some non-represented nation. Not to mention city renaming, which has always been a part of all Civ games. Once, I picked Mongolia's Kublai Khan and renamed my civ Uighur, since I am half Uighur, and named all of my cities after the Uighur cities in Xinjiang. The other time, I renamed Arabia into Israel (lol), since I've always found it ridiculous that Israel has never been a civ in Civ games.
please never stop making videos, they truly are some of the best things on this mad site
Hi Kyle! I just wanted you to know that I've always enjoyed your videos. You were instrumental in getting me to think critically about the visual media I experience instead of passively accepting it. I hope it makes you proud that when I get those horrific dreams where you're back in high school and unprepared for a test, you are a not inconsistent feature of calm reassurance who stands in for my theater teacher. Thanks!
The definition that I hold to is that a civilization can be defined as a society that is technologically advanced enough to allow its members to pursue highly specialized professions in their communities, these people can be artists, artisans, politicians, clergy - but the important thing is that their culture has developed far enough so that the basic needs for food, shelter and security has already been met, allowing the populace to create the classic hallmarks of a civilization: art, architecture, complex religious beliefs, military expansion, literature, technology - that sort of thing.
Justice J. Srisuk if having the basic needs of the population for food, shelter, and security met is a prerequisite for a civilization then our United States has failed so far to be civilized
niel b Hrm. Then again, a hallmark of all civilizations is a division of the population into different social classes and strata. Every civilization, be it in Bronze-Age Phoenicia, to modern-day socialist-democracy like Finland - is going to possess deep divisions and socioeconomic disparities between the wealthy and the poor.
Also, most civilizations are not as geographically large, nor as multicultural, multi-faith and multi-ethnic as the United States is. I mean, can you really consider the United States to be a unified and singular "civilization" when there is such a divide between how people think, speak, worship, make a living, etcetera between one part of the country to the next? I think that is the reason why the USA is such a fascinating place: it consists of multiple dichotomies - between North and South; between East, Midwest and West; between urban, suburban and rural; between income levels; between religions; between political identification, and so on and so forth.
That why I dislike it when people try to compare the US to any other country: like "back home in ___________, this thing worked better than in America." Which is always going to be a faulty arguments because the USA is such an incredibly complex and large macrocosm of 300 million people - one cannot compare it to any other nation.
Justice J. Srisuk This is actually why some intellectuals claim humanity is not civilized yet
+Justice J. Srisuk "Socialist-democracy like Finland" I'd like to know where this meme originates from, why exactly are you claiming Finland as a socialist country?
@@salted6422 social democracy =/= socialism
"Wilkommen", "Bienvenue", "Welcome" - heheh, I see what you did there. Anyway, great video as always, Kyle. :) It's fascinating to see modern works put into historical and comparative context like this.
As always, great argument, Kyle. I find the Steam modding community for Civ to be a balancing necessity to the linear historical model the Civ Developers create. By introducing new conditions for victory, new civilizations and leaders (from Jerusalem to the Burger King to) to different story modes, the modders diversify, expand, and ultimately make Civ a more comprehensive and lasting game. It is literally the people making history. :)
They should bring back Baba Yetu as the theme. It's... just the best.
I love Baba Yetu, but I also love Sogno di Volare. They're very different styles, but both are amazing in their own right.
baba yetu sounds too.. barbaric.
uh no.
This is cool. I wonder if you would be willing to do a between the lines of any of Paradox's Grand Strategy Games such as Crusader Kings or Europa Universallis or Victoria? :)
I think Victoria would be the more interesting choice, because it wants to mirror a part of history, whose effects are still felt today in very significant ways
crusader kings is good, all games should be crusade kings, eu4 should be crusader kings.
Well you also still feel the consequences of Charlemagne dividing his empire among his sons. I would love Paradox to make a grand strategy for Roman politics.
Great video! Educational and entertaining, as always
Awesome video. I mostly enjoyed just the imagery and sounds of Civ, very well edited. I spent countless hours on Civ 1 - 4.
One of your best videos yet. Your production quality is still some of the best on the Internet, keep up the good work Kyle.
That Baba Yetu at the end, omg. Perfect.
It's obvious that Civ takes a very western approach to history, and looks at civilizations and the events through history via the way they developed in the west. Which can lead to some amazing progression logic in the game, like my favorite in Civ 3, where the "Industrialization" technology allows for the building of the "Universal Suffrage" wonder. :D
I will never not find that funny.
How is industrialization being a prerequisite for universal suffrage nonsensical?
most history games these days are always usually westerncentric
@@xXxSkyViperxXx A game like "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" isn't "westerncentric," but I don't play that game, because it's not in a language I speak.
It should not come as a surprise that games and other media are often about the peoples that make them. It is only we who are expected to be universalistic in a way other peoples are not, partly because we dramatically outpace all others in high-quality creative output.
And we are comparatively more universalistic; the British grand strategy company Creative Assembly, for example, known for its Total War games based in European history, set their first game, and a remake of it, in feudal Japan. Meanwhile, when Chinese companies make bootleg Lion King games, they set them in China. (These are just a couple of illustrative examples off the top of my head, of course).
Admittedly, Asian companies often produce Eurocentric games, too, but these are made often to appeal to a Western audience, just like many Hollywood movies are seeking a Chinese audience, whereas a game like Shogun: Total War is also made for a primarily Western audience while tackling Japanese topics. And a Chinese company would not make games to appeal to, say, a Brazilian audience, by setting them in Brazil and in the context of Brazilian culture.
Great video. Really well done. As a person from a "not a civilization" I've often asked myself how they decide what to include and what not and why mine was not...
Kyle, you're a true blessing to online media and the world as a whole. Your ability to intellectually discuss just about anything in a thought-provoking way is a truly rare gift.
This video and your Yeelen video are both giving me things to think about re: the building of nation states in something I'm writing. That's very helpful. Your videos are like bouncing ideas off a friend without having a friend present. I thank you for that. :D
Amazing video, thank you for it. I am a hungarian, and while playing civ5 I was always asking, why can you play as austria, or the huns, but not as Hungary? And then in 6 we got Matthias, and 'Hej dunáról fúj a szél' (our song), and I felt quite happy
I appreciate this. Thank you.
Great job with the editing. I didn't even realize at first that some of it wasn't an actual in-game footage.
this is a beautiful video essay. gave me goose bumps at the end. nice work man.
Some city states became playable. And Greeks are no longer united.
Even barbarians (Scythia)
I am still forever waiting for a Gaelic Civ with Gráinne Mhaol (the Pirate Queen), Fionn McCumhal, Malachy 2nd, Brian Boru or even Eamonn DeValera (Not a Dev Supporter) or Seán Lemass as our leaders. It might never happen, but I still hope and pray.
There were Celts in Civ V with Boudicca leading them.
Artem Liubeznyi yeah but she was Celtic (an East Briton speaking Welsh with Edinburgh as the capital wtf), not specifically a Gael
We have mods for civ V, but we support you if you support us?
Michael Collins all the way
That was excellently done, as a Civ player, I loved this, keep up the excellent work Kyle Kallgren
Kyle I am so happy to see you covering video games, your analysis on this was super fascinating
I can answer why some Civs aren't represented.
Time and money constraints making the game.
Man, that was easy...
Also size of modern population, consumer spending. This is the reason why my nation will never become a vanilla civ, we are damn pirates xD
City names also make up a large portion of it. You can't have Rome and Italy on the same map as they will both attempt to found Rome turn one as their capitol.
Anthony Delfino easy fix for rome and Italy. Rome can have Roma and Italy can have Rome (nevermind that both peoples call Rome Roma)
But that doesn't have that sweet ring of 'horrible oppression' to it...
@@anthonydelfino6171 Having byzantium and the ottomans in your game means you'll have Istanbul AND Constantinople, xD
The thing I love about the spinoff game Civ: Call to Power is that the fruit of all this cultural, economic and scientific progress is grimdark as hell. You go from the Modern era to the Genetic era which is littered with things like widespread terrorism, mind control, environmental apocalypse, orbital bombardment, and lawyers. Most Civ don't even bother thinking about the future, it's just a vapid "and they all lived happily ever after" kinda thing. Which come to think of it actually is a bit nationalistic.
Warhammer 40k already had this covered for quite a while. The truth is that if there are aliens, we probably would need to apply violent nationalism to the entire human race if we're gonna survive. The chances of friendly sapients is much lower than the chance of any intelligent life existing off Earth at all. So if we do meet another civ that hasn't hit the Great Filter, it's probably gonna be either a war of annihilation or a very uneasy truce based on it being too expensive to fight. And in the former case, it's whoever gets richer faster that survives. Assuming they don't think like us at all, then we'll probably end up fighting without ever considering it a war between two sapient species just on grounds of us not understanding the others' motivations but understanding that they're a threat. In an "Us or them" it's suicide to pick "them". Peace is a very high ideal that doesn't map well to reality, what we have in modern day isn't peace it's basically apathy.
@@Soitisisit That's a stupid outlook on existence.
@@d3nza482 If you say so. Optimism for optimism's sake is stupider.
@@Soitisisit Optimism is built into organic beings. It's why we explore and expand.
Believing that tomorrow will only be worse is a short term strategy that only leads to inevitable death and extinction if applied globally. It is an evolutionary dead end.
How do we know that optimism is a better evolutionary strategy? All life on the planet proves it.
Earth is positively infested by life - despite the odds.
As for W40k - it was intended as ironic.
Basing a worldview on that is like taking up a Flat Earth cause after reading Discworld.
@@d3nza482 If you say so, Mr. 90 IQ.
Phenomenal, as usual. Always a joy to see your vids in my sub feed!
This is fantastic. You are fantastic. So glad creators like you exist!
Why are you not a college professor?
probably because a single youtube video can teach more people than a single classroom can
College professors make about nothing in the US. My roommate taught psychology at college for many years before realizing that he did better bartending ad cutting hair!
This is a youtube video where he based off his information from one book. This is an immensely complicated subject. Worth the topic of thousands of books and tens of thousands of hours to become a college professor on it.
It's not just this subject, it is how he informs and teaches. I think he should be a film or theater teacher or professor. He has a way of engaging the listen/viewer that could go very far in education.
dejEtack Wow. You must have either not paid any attention during your classes or perhaps you had the incredibly bad luck to attend the very worst college in history. N my experience, the very best college classes I ever took were incredibly inspiring and informational, while the worst were merely basic. RUclips® videos may be entertaining and even occasionally illuminating, but they are far too succinct to ever actually present an accurate and nuanced portrait of any subject. I think you need to read and study a bit somewhere off of the Internet. Spending too much time on here can warp your perception of the world and one's place within it.
I'd like to get Kyle's take on Spec Ops: The Line.
In my opinion it would be neat to see a customizable civilization option in future, maybe as a DLC. For those of us that are horrible at modding and can't find the civ/leader we want in the modding community.
And I'm back here once again for the hundredth time, what a stellar video.
Also, keep an eye out for Humankind ;)
It’s a quasi historical game that just uses historical references to flavor gameplay based on a Western narrative of history. History is taught less by what civ u play but rather experiencing what factors shape the history of a civs evolution.
Though that "narrative" is the most complete and accurate one in existence. The west after all was the first to attempt to document the whole worlds history and to date are the ones who have done the most work to accomplish that.
@@isagholston733 Unlike the great works of Sub-Saharan African global historical literature dating back to the fifth century BCE, who achieved an unparalleled level of intellectual honesty and objectivity, concepts which they totally understood at the time, and don't, for example, fail even to understand at present because concepts as basic as counterfactuality and moral obligation don't exist in their intellectual traditions.
You're asking civ to be something it isn't, what makes a civ is asking a simple question. "Hey, these people have an interesting history, let's add them to the game." Because civilization is a game, not a simulator, things like city states and barbarians are mechanical entities, and exist to add more layers of strategy in the competition between the big players, those who "can win"
I suggest checking out Europa Universalis 4, a game that's very, very different then civ, but the mechanics are present for any minor power or even tribe to rise to become a great power, that's the kind of game civ will never be, and will never try to be.
This guy gets it. Don't forget about the one group of people who flat-out refused to be in the game (Puebla) and Israel never being a nation in spite of being among the longest-living and most well-known cultures and kingdoms because...reasons.
You missed the point: The video is not about the game in particular, it's using it as an example to illustrate the imperfection of our historic models.
But you can't use a game that has such a non-historical base as an example for this argument. Games such as Eu4 would provide a better argument, as they are much more grounded in actual history.
@@oshaver146 But you will find that there are many flimsy or "non-historical" bases out there used for these type of arguments; that sense is precisely what this video is putting into question. I really haven't played this Eu4 that you mention but i doubt i would take any video game's notion alone as the basis of trying to build a historical model. Expanding that issue, there is a case to be made about the limited scope of history books as well, our point of views when enumerating history as a collection of battles or as put in here, a ranking of winners and losers. Our notion of the development of history is becoming more nuanced and that is a good thing.
I have just reached the 7th minute mark and the video is excellecnt at showing both game differences and real life lore differences, great work (of art)!
Your sound editing in this particular video is fantastic
Yes, I love that you talked about Civilization. I have so much nostalgia for Civ 4, although I have to admit that, when it comes to the "barbarian" question, Civ 5 did a lot better. In Civ 4, they had their own cities, with real historical names, their own people that they were protecting. In Civ 5, it's a lot easier to see them as having a different lifestyle instead of a different culture, as raiders, pirates, or political dissenters, "outlaws" instead of "others." Still violence against the voiceless, but with less genocide.
You do not have to kill those barbs..You can convert them. Use it for my pacifist challenge.
Carzeyday That too
Civ gives you many options of victory. All equally useful and only a handful really need to to extremnate anyone. Most can be one with little to no bloodshed.
Oh, certainly it does. And for me, they're usually the more satisfying ways to win. Become the leader of the world because the people of every other nation like your culture more than their own.
Wesley Foxx The Zulus conquer Germany. But,thou the power of my Swedish rock and roll I freed them from Zulu oppression.
There are a lot of intellectually incurious people here in the comments.
Yes, economics and marketing does play a role in which "civilizations" are chosen but that only leads to the further question of why some "civilizations" are more economically viable than others? Sure, there's also time constraints but why prioritize some and not others? Also, just because civilization (the game series) is a material, economic product, doesn't mean that it isn't imparting a particular reading of history, culture, and the world at large through its mechanics.
To those saying "it's just a game", true. It is "just a game". Shakespeare's plays are "just plays". Blade runner is "just a movie". Star trek is "just a tv show". If you want something to be considered an art form, you have to be willing to analyze it as an art form and willing to critically examine it. Many of you claim to value video games as art, well then, you have to be willing to actually treat them like art. Art influences our thoughts, we know this because obviously (also because cultivation theory, advertising, marketing, and psychology) so we must understand what goes into that art and why and whether we could be doing better.
> but that only leads to the further question of why some "civilizations" are more economically viable than others?
People want to play as civilisations they're interested in, or at least know of. Very few people would want to play as some microscopic Holy Roman princedom so they just bung them all into one civ.
> Sure, there's also time constraints but why prioritize some and not others?
What does this mean? How exactly do you want them to _not_ do that? It's just a matter of fact that some civs will have to be prioritised over others.
that was so SO good, Kyle. Thank you.
You, sir, are brilliant. Great script, great voice, spot on editing. Major networks should use your videos as a training module.
Obviously the greatest empire in history is Australia.
Of course, brother.
*Rides into battle on a war emu.*
@@Hawkatana *didgeridoo sounds in the distance*
@@Hawkatana The concept of a war emu just reminds me of how Australia waged war against them and lost.
Pretty sure India also counts as a former European colony
I don't know about that; you probably wouldn't say that the Native Americans were a "former European colony"
Morbos1000 yea no I think India and the British Raj are two different entities
bob da builder but America and the British-American colonies are insanely different as well.
I think 'former European colony' here means 'mostly populated by the descendants of European colonists'. India is not.
Brilliant work as always!
In Civ 4, there was a mechanic where parts of your empire could become independent new civilizations. I had a game as Germany on a Earth map where the Americas started unsettled. After settling a few cities overseas (and thus overextending a bit) they demanded independence and formed the Netherlands.
"rising super power of brazil"
i laughed
"Brazil is a country of the future... and always will be."
Jr Ralls i live in brazil, there is no future here
barduk4
After Brazil got its independence it was.
That all ended when the industrial age came along
Brazil was a superpower in Americas when Dom Pedro II ruled. Sadly, a bunch of republicans broke the chain and that nation was felt to fvcking Getulio Vargas
@@m.rizalarvandy4510 Getulio Vargas was the highlight of Republican Brazil. He attempted, at least, to industrialize and improve the country. He ended the oligarchic regime of the First Republic.
YO KYLE COULD YOU EASE UP ON MAKING ME CRY J E E Z
I spent several minutes wondering if you'd bring up Anderson (having fairly recently been introduced to him myself), and lo and behold, you did! Brilliant work!
Man I didn't expect this kind of content from the title, but was quite interesting.
I did learn something from this video today.
Ignored in the history of civilisations is the fact that the "city-states" not only formed leagues with each other, but that these decentralised municipal-confederations often posed an historical alternative to the centralised political model of the nation-state and the empire.
Something explored by the late political philosopher Murray Bookchin, whose (directly-democratic) confederalist ideas are now being implemented in the Rojava region of northern Syria (who are fighting ISIS).
Had European polities evolved more along the lines of the Hanseatic League or the early Swiss Confederacy, things might not have turned out as brutal as they did, with centuries of imperialism, colonialism, and dispossession of native populations. We could've had industrialisation from below and globalisation by consent instead of by conquest.
We can not know for sure if an alternate timeline will be for the better though. Some things which is crucial or vital today, if what you say happened instead, may not have been invented, discovered, or will just be indefinitely delayed.
Besides, there will always be people who will be ambitious and exploitative. It's not just human nature, it can also be found in nature. For example, plants patiently getting energy from the sun will get eaten by herbivores. That seems like a cheat or taking advantage of, just like the carnivores that eat the latter.
But I also hope for every human to get over superior/inferior thinking and adopt this idea of equality. There will always be 'cheaters' though. That's why, for example, communism was a good idea but impractical.
Kyle Dolor
That's a pretty clear appeal-to-nature fallacy. Just because something is a certain way, that does not form a basis for why it ought to be that way.
It's obvious that there will always be obstacles to organising relations on a non-hierarchical basis, who even disputes that? The point is that it leads to greater overall freedom and well-being when power is decentralised and equalised than when it is concentrated and stratified.
And given that capitalism, not communism, has ended up causing what scientists now term "the sixth great mass extinction" of life on Earth, the evidence that it's the more "impractical" system seems indisputable - though it may not always seem so given that we're still living under it.
*****
_That's a pretty clear appeal-to-nature fallacy. Just because something is a certain way, that does not form a basis for why it ought to be that way._
Oh aye. That's why I said I still hoped. Our natural inclinations are not the be all and end all. Thinking that way ironically makes the paradox of those natural limitations, since one stops to try to even go beyond those perceived limits. I still think of it, our nature of exploiting or taking power on whichever level, as a fact; but sometimes the saying that 'if there's a will, there's a way' sometimes do work.
I don't know much about logical fallacies, but a quick search says 'appeal to nature' is when if something is viewed as natural then it is good, and if it's 'unnatural'... which I don't even agree with. There's no such thing as unnatural, because anything that can happen, specifically within the laws of physics, is natural. Those 'unnatural' things are opinions. The natural I'm saying are facts. Unnatural things are fiction or imagination.
_It's obvious that there will always be obstacles to organising relations on a non-hierarchical basis, who even disputes that? The point is that it leads to greater overall freedom and well-being when power is decentralised and equalised than when it is concentrated and stratified._
We all like to have this privilege. Having freedom and individual power that somehow contributes to the state. However, wasn't it a mere century ago that colonialism is the status quo among europeans? All of these modern ideals are new stuff in human history. Maybe one of the reasons absolute powers stayed that long is because of the very fact that no one wants to give up or share their power. Another thing that is obvious is there are still people who are power-hungry in the modern world.
_And given that capitalism, not communism, has ended up causing what scientists now term "the sixth great mass extinction" of life on Earth, the evidence that it's the more "impractical" system seems indisputable - though it may not always seem so given that we're still living under it._
If communism somehow survived and did the same thing because every nation needs resources, I don't think you should use that argument. Practically, no one cares about the earth much more than the corrupt authorities and leaders that ran communism care for its people. My point was: the idea of pure equality for all seems like a good idea. Practically, and in reality, there will always be corruption. This is also true in any kind of government. However, for all that classless ideals, the leader who keeps that in check also needs to be in check. Which I don't believe a communist country has, although to be fair, I would need to know more about communism.
If it's possible for corruption to happen in communism (thus one of the reasons for the soviet's downfall), do you think those communist leaders care more about the environment than the democratic leaders?
You don't point that crisis solely on capitalism, as its too general, broad, and needs to be more specific.
Referring to the first paragraph, I think that would make one of the most interesting (and probably easy to introduce to future iterations) mechanics. People often bring up 'colonies' breaking off and forming their own nations, but how about city states joining together and becoming their own nations, with unique abilities based upon their city-state abilities? And as a player, growing one's own civilization through assimilation, trade and agreements rather than only settling and conquest. Earlier games had versions of this, but I see no reason it couldn't be more of an amalgamation of everything your civilization represents rather than just culture output, happiness, and whether you have a unit in the city.
This would also make the domination victory more interesting and difficult to achieve, too. Better than the warmongering mechanic of Civ 6, for sure. Maybe a domination victory wouldn't even need to entail capturing a dozen capitals over multiple continents.
Or it might have been worse, as greater amounts of divisions resulted in more conflicts. We do not and can not know. Counterfactual history is interesting as an intellectual exercise but it doesn't do to put too much faith in such theories.
Nice. Now how about Alpha Centauri?
(And no love for Rise of Nations?)
I haven't heard a lot of good about it, tbh.
Now that's one of the most interesting videos I've seen on RUclips in a long while.
When he talks about how there's no mechanic for one civ to become another, who else wonders what Kyle would think of Humankind?
My favorite civ is Rome
The fact that Canada is ignored in every iteration is heartbreaking multiple Canadian city's have been city states even the cn tower has been a wonder.
ForestGeist
British Hockia
Mods are the answer!
ForestGeist CANADA IS NOT A REAL COUNTRY! YOU ARE AN ENGLISHMAN WHO EATS MAPLE SYRUP!
Hey, guess what?
I absolutely love your videos, and what a great example of why. I've played so much of this game, perhaps thousands of hours of Civ III, and never once did I think about the greater implications it could have as a representation of history. But the games absolutely are a representative of history, and worth discussing as such. Thanks man. c:
Literally the best video on this website
Another problem with chess: you can't win while fighting defensively. It is always the attacker who wins when two chess pieces meet.
That, in my opinion, makes chess an extremely limiting game when it comes to teaching strategy and tactics.
I'm not sure, but "Go" might be a more accurate game when it comes to simulating the rise of nations across the world.
Casey Goddard Yeah, I love Go. I mean I haven't played a lot of it, but it's a great game. It's a game about maneuvre rather than engagement. I'd also recommend games like Risk.
Ruairitrick
True, but in the game the attacker wins every battle, and that's not how actual battles are. Agincourt, Waterloo, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Cold Harbor, Verdun, Stalingrad. All famous battles. All won by the defending force.
Have you ever played the Crusader Kings games? Within the historical strategy genre, CK2 probably gets closest to representing the kind of humanistic approach to history you describe at the end there.
Absolutely amazing video, Kallgren, and if I may add, a very good expansion on Errant Signal's early piece on the same matter.
You hightlight what might be the main crux of the Civlization franchise, mainly, that it wants to celebrate Humanity's existence and invite us to gawk at our achievements as a collective species, but that it tries to do that through a mechanical and theoretical lens that inherently dehumanizes a huge part of it.
Love this series man! Keep up the awesome work
Civ 4 is the best one don’t @ me
f*ck yeah. Though Civ 5 with BNW is quite good
Deep, but sort of pointless. It's a game where you can spawn half a continent worth of chariots as Aztecs and run over Ghandi... It's not very realistic now is it? XD
Also, it's quite funny to declare friendship between Japan and China there, or institute Fascism in india, or even declare a colonial war as Aztecs on America.
---
Nonetheless your message is clear, but very loosely tied to the subject matter I feel.
Don Dragon Or in civ 6, put raj in place as India.
I think the message transcended the game, but in context to the game, the cigs function in a rather historic way and from civ 3 and onwards they had a historic feeling of playing. They may not act historic they just feel historic
This video is more enjoyable since I'm currently in the middle of Benedict Anderson's book. Thanks, Kyle!
This was a great video. I didn't watch it but I listened. So good. I'll watch it again to get the actually video as well
1. The nation-state is not at all central to the series. The whole point of civs is that they are broad historical entities, often overlapping, and you should seek their origins in the writings of Toynbee or (to a smaller extent) Spengler rather than Anderson. Some are nation-states, some empires, some disjointed peoples who still shared a certain history (e.g., Native Americans, Indians).
2. Civilization only has an abstract winner, unlike chess. A civilization that places third, for example, performed better than one that got vassalised and then annihilated. A civilization that is richer and more advanced, but smaller may be considered better than one that conquered 50% of the world. A civ that started in the ice on a trashy island but still prospered performed well. The video simplifies that for the sake of edginess. Civ is much more like Paradox grand strategies than chess in this regard.
3. You can win as Mexico if you rename the Aztecs to Mexicans, for example.
4. Getting a third side is perfectly possible. For example, a civ on a separate continent may rebel and become a new civ.
On the whole, the video seems to carry the same arrogant know-it-all disdainful pseudo-complex tone so common in modernist nationalism studies, emphasising invention and government activism too much to the detriment of more gradual processes with undefined borders.
He was using chess as an imperfect analogy. The "third side" part was to emphasize how you can't get out of the black/white simplification of war, and used it as a jumping off point to talk about oversimplifications in Civ. Also to address point 2, There is a winner in Civ, as well as chess. One isn't more abstract than the other, Civ just has more ways to win.
I take exception with the notion that people of the Indian subcontinent speak thirty languages.
People of the Indian subcontinent speak literally HUNDREDS of languages.
Came for the Christopher Tin music (wasn't disappointed). Stayed because of Kyle's continually amazing insights.
Kyle, I know it'll never happen, but I would LOVE a BHH-style Let's Play of Civ VI. It'd be fascinating to see you go through the game and remark on all the different cultures.
Great work as always.
india has been unified under mauryans ,nandas ,vikranaditya and bharata too,,,so you are quite a bit wrong ,but from what i have seen western historians ,rather like commenting on eastern cultures on their own terms ,explicitly suiting their own idea of the orient.
Not exactly unified. The South and NW India have always been somewhat separable from the rulers at the centre.
Bharata however, isn't a documented historical figure. However, the name of India extends from his name
Angela & Adolf... fitting...
Loved it keep up the amazing work.
Still one of my favorite Kyle videos.