Civilization offers a fascinating opportunity to look at civilized human history from a third-person perspective – almost objectively – through gameplay. The actions of the player and the technologies that are unlocked as the game progresses are only part of that perspective, though; sound represents (at least in my opinion) the most impressive way in which the game captures the essence of world history.

To start, the ambience of the landscape is important for setting the tone of the game. The villages, towns, and eventually cities, all have distinct sounds emanating from them that reflect the time period – livestock, then the clopping of hooves on stone, then cars and sirens, as the eras progress. In the countryside, sounds begin natural with the sounds of wind, waves, and birds to eventually become cattle, harbors, sawmills, and other modern sounds, faithful to the progression of humans and the effect of civilization on the natural world.

Most importantly, though, the background music sets the tone of history throughout the game. Music in this game in phenomenal, and not just because it is pleasant to listen to. The music in Civilization is by no means passive or background; it is as much a part of the game as the visuals. Since music is so emotional and nostalgic, it makes sense that it is such a powerful means by which to capture the essence of all of the stages of human development. Every era has its own amazing soundtrack, adding highly memorable character to each age’s gameplay.

The following music clips effectively capture each era of human civilization:

Representing the Ancient Era, this background music does a good job of portraying the dominance of the natural world in tribal societies. Humans must hunt for their own food, pay attention to weather, and still struggle to survive in spite of their incipient civilizations.

As villages turn into towns and cities, the Classical Era begins in earnest. Civilizations begin to flourish, while technology advances and the beginnings of science and mathematics appear. No longer spending all of their time hunting and surviving, humans are able to settle down and look toward the advancement of society.

Following the blooming of human society, though, is the Medieval Era, which is somewhat more subdued than the previous era. In an age characterized by plague and famine, creative energy is more greatly spent on religious fervor.

Once the Renaissance Era arrives, though, creative and technological momentum returns and the arts take off. Music itself picks up tempo, and civilization begins rapidly advancing once again.

As the Industrial Era rolls around, a new tone of discovery and expansion arrives. As Dvorak’s “New World Symphony,” sampled here, depicts, the beauty and the unknown nature of unexplored regions of the world and the mandate for expansion dominate the new era of human history.

  The Modern Era, which we are living in now, leaves a fragmented world behind and ushers in an age of interconnectedness, global society, and noise. As the music demonstrates, the modern civilization is characterized as hectic, bustling, and fast.

Finally, the Future Era arrives. Of course, it is the only era in the game that has not been experienced already, so the soundtrack is aptly shrouded in mystery. It is unclear whether the music reflects a slowing-down or decline of civilization, or whether it is merely uncertainty, but only time will tell what this era holds for human society.

*It would be remiss of me not to raise the only issue I have with the soundtrack in Civilization IV: while the music is great for capturing the essence of each era throughout the advancement of society, it does so almost exclusively from a white, Western perspective (with the possible exception of the Ancient and Modern/Future eras). In the Medieval Era, the music is even exclusively Christian. However, the course of civilization in areas such as Asia, Africa, and the Americas were markedly different than those in Europe, so it seems a little biased to play Western music so heavily. If I’m not mistaken, though, this error is corrected in later installments of the series.

As the title of this posting implies, the gameplay experience in Civ IV is never the same in any two scenarios. Depending on the generated game in which the player finds himself or herself, there is always a multitude of variables to consider, and the combination of those variables is often difficult to consider big-picture. Indeed, this game is complicated. For some, like me, this challenge just makes it more fun to play, because the feeling that you start every game having mastered the game slightly more is incredibly rewarding. And, this ensures that the game always stays ‘new,’ besides the fact that every game is totally different.

There is a plethora of factors that a player must consider as the game progresses, in order to win. First and foremost, where in the world are we? Exploration of the surrounding land is crucial, because it establishes what climate the civilization is in and, furthermore, what resources are accessible. Also, it is important to find out which rival civilizations are nearby and to understand what characteristics their leaders tend to give their empires. Depending on how aggressive or creative those rivals are, it might be wise to become allies with them (or wipe them off the map as early as possible). Also, how important is it to maintain a large military? Is a neighboring empire threatening enough to require devoting most resources to an army and falling behind in technological progress, or is the player isolated enough to risk neglecting military expenditures? And is there a key resource that the player absolutely needs, to the point that they are willing to fight for it? These are some of the many considerations that take place right off the bat, and there are plenty more. It is the constant reconsideration of any and all of these factors that makes gameplay so involving and high-stakes.

To demonstrate these gameplay nuances, it helps to consider two contrasting situations (drawn from a map based on real-world geography and civilization placement):

The Greek Empire (in blue), led by Alexander, is literally in the middle of the civilized world, surrounded in all directions by rivals. If he has any hope of building an empire, he has no choice but to resort to military campaigns. Technological advances will likely be neglected, at least for a while, and the large number of nearby civilizations ensures a perpetually dicy relationship with pretty much everyone. Sounds like Europe, right?

The Japanese, however (in red, led by Tokugawa), occupy a strategically different position in the world. With China being their only real neighbor, and even them separated by water, the necessity of military advances is not as pressing. Even though Japan is a relatively small island civilization, there are sufficient resources present to essentially close off relationships with the outside world and focus on cultivating a distinct nation, perhaps striving for a ‘cultural victory’ instead, and possibly building up a powerful military over a long period of time. Again, this is reminiscent of the real-world empire in many ways.

Through these examples, it should be evident that there are so many factors to consider in a game that each playthrough could conceivably be an entirely different experience. That is part of the appeal of this game for me: it remains exciting and unique pretty much forever, ensuring endless replayability.

For my semester-long game of choice, I have decided to blog about one of my personal favorite games, Civilization IV. It is an incredibly engrossing game, and while I only obtained this game last summer, I have probably sunk more hours into this game than almost all others I have played. I have also decided that this is a great game to write about,  for several reasons:

 The iconic title theme sends chills down my spine and fills me with a sense of discovery and adventure.

For starters, Civilization is one of the most interesting games I have played in light of many of the aspects of video gaming that we have discussed in our class. The music is amazing, every gameplay experience is unique, and the narrative created with each world and set of characters is thrilling to be part of. I would even argue that this game is historically educational and offers an informative perspective on human geography and anthropology. The replayability is fantastic, because every scenario is totally different, producing a unique world history with every playthrough. And there are SO many ways to play this game that every player can find a different and equally valid path to victory that best suits their play style and personality.

I will flesh out all of these themes, and others, in upcoming blog posts.

After watching Joystick Warriors – a documentary outlining the potential issues and manifestations of America’s excessively violent and graphic videogaming culture – I think I am starting to understand some potential problems associated with these games.

Firstly, I think this documentary did a really good job of explaining exactly what the problem with our violent gaming culture is: it is (arguably) desensitizing us to real-life violence. I hadn’t really thought about it much before, but I don’t see how we can possibly be as alarmed by violence when it is so mainstream in the virtual world.

The argument that the producers took pains to dismantle is the notion that “games are making kids more violent in real life.” This is the trap that many opponents of violent gaming have to deal with from every direction, because it is easy to claim that opponents are arguing this way, and it is easy to dispel. Even I have experience dealing with this question, simply from discussing gaming with my peers. How often, though, do people think about what their reactions might be if they saw real-life violence, as bystanders rather than perpetrators? I don’t really know how my reaction might or might not be dulled by violent gaming – I haven’t really seen violence in real life and don’t often play shooters, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a professional FPS gamer was less affected by such atrocities.

To emphasize that point, I would mention the video that the film showed of Afghani citizens being shot down by a remotely operated drone – one of the first items to be revealed following the WikiLeaks incident. And yet, I had never seen that footage, because apparently America was generally not bothered by it enough to bring it to public attention. It seemed kind of disturbing to me: here exists this footage of killing real human beings, through the eyes of a drone. It looked eerily easy to do, and through the lens of a videogame an identical shot would seem like a natural, inconsequential event. Is this what the future of warfare might look like? Almost like some kind of real-life video game, where people are still killed, but the killers don’t have to feel like they’re actually killing? No “seeing the whites of their eyes” here…

Still, I don’t think it’s possible at this point to generalize about societal effects like this. Video gaming is a relatively new medium in our culture, and it might take some time before real statistical evidence can truly make sense of what is and isn’t plaguing our nation. I’m not convinced that video games are necessarily the cause of our desensitization; surely there are other factors at play here, and I think probably more important ones. I’m certain the fact that we tend not to have wars on our soil plays a factor. I really don’t think the nation’s response to the 9/11 attacks was one of a “desensitized” population, and that was relatively recently. Also, it would be remiss not to point out that, in contrast to the Vietnam War and the draft, our military today is a “volunteer army,” which guarantees that certain classes will tend to be uninvolved in the military and, thus, potentially more ‘out-of-touch’ with real-life violence than others.

So, to address the thematic question: does it matter? I think the correct answer is inevitably Yes, that it does matter that we have an excessively violent gaming culture on our hands. I can’t find any fault with the idea that it desensitizes at least chronic gamers to shooting and killing, but I’m not quite as certain what exactly the negative consequences of this might be that don’t already exist for other reasons. Like I already mentioned, I think there are certain other factors that undoubtedly make Americans out of touch with things like war and crime. Overall, though, I think the jury is still out on violent gaming; it’s just too early.

Seriously, though, I freaking love rocket launchers. What can I say, they’re fun. Does that make me out of touch? And so the debate continues…