Відео

Thanks Sesm1c, I was a little weary about putting that claim in there but felt that 3 playthroughs and a handful of clips I found online were big enough of a corpus to deduce it wasn't randomized. Another commenter also pointed out what you said. I'd still say that the languages they speak portray the Other as aggressive and dangerous and the familiar as safe, and there's definitely some skewed probability going on, but I now know that the absolute nature of that statement was wrong.

Hi Greyspark, thanks for taking the time to comment! I appreciate your summary of Far Cry 2's intended rhetoric. However, I don't quite understand what you mean when you say your understanding of the plot, and thus the one the devs intended, is an inversion of Heart of Darkness. The intended reading of Heart of Darkness is that the West is the evil corrupting force. That was also the dominant interpretation in the West until African scholars turned the discourse on its head. Now the dominant read is that it portays Africa as the source of primitivism and evil. By that logic, your read of Far Cry 2, in line with the devs' intended rhetoric, is 100% the same as Heart of Darkness's intended reading. And just like academic consensus on Heart of Darkness is that the book actually fails to convey its intended anticolonial message, (postcolonial) game studies research into Far Cry 2 has likewise concluded that it fails to do so. I also say the same thing at the beginning and end of the video. If you would like to read more on this, I recommend the article by Jorge Albor in the video description. He arrives at a similar conclusion as me, but offers more nuance because he's a way better scholar than I am. Apart from his more informal piece, I have been unable to find any close-readings on Far Cry 2 in the context of Heart of Darkness by university-affiliated scholars, let alone published in peer-reviewed game studies journals, let alone ones that claim it succeeds in its attempt at an anticolonial narrative. So if you believe you have a case here, possibly also on more modern iterations of Far Cry to keep it relevant, this sounds like a really valuable addition to the research on the franchise! UA-cam comments are a waste of your ideas.

Like your dad?

Thank you for taking the time to comment! I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding as a result of confusing academic writing with colloquial language when it comes to the word "player". All of my analysis is confined to the meaning of the text, not its actual psychological impact on the consumer, that is up to the psychologists to decide. When I say that a game teaches "the player" to shoot anything that moves, I am of course referring to the in-game reality, not actual reality, that would be absurd. My point was that both the narrative (acting upon the in-game character) and the mechanics (acting upon the in-game extension of the player) align in their rhetoric. Both act in unison upon the implied player in their perception of the game's virtual reality, not actual reality. Of course I argue that by extension, the game communicates values about the very real continent of Africa, but how that is actually perceived by the real, not the implied player, and how it materializes in people's brains or how the audience at large engages with the content, I do not care for, that is not my area of expertise. There is a huge gap between what ideologies games convey and how they are actually understood by their audience, for better or worse. As a German citizen who lived through the "Killerspiele" moral panic as a child, having to consistently hide my love for first person shooters from my parents for fear of having my PC taken away, let me assure you that I will never ever claim that video games make mass murderers. I'm not a Republican politician.

I also feel the need to comment about how you say the game calls "Africa(ns) the disease", which is straight out wrong. The redemptions of the protagonist throughout the game and notably at the end is reliant on them helping unmilitarised citizens escape the warzone. The disease is war and militarism, not Africa in general. The writers show in later games that they're willing to say dangerous ideologies, leaders willing to manipulate through those ideologies, and militarism can crop up anywhere. I feel like that's a message that must be taken seriously

Very well put, far better than the faux-intelligent jackass of the video claims.

because he aggressively misunderstands the works he's trying so hard to comment on.

​@@bensmith8682how so? Please explain further

Thank you a lot for this extremely detailed reply. I have to admit that a few of the points you mentioned I simply never encountered in my over 200 hours of play and thus assumed to be impossible. As I understand this as an intentionally nitpicky comment, let me add onto some of your points in an equally pedantic fashion. We’re all nerds here, pedantry is our bread and butter. 29:20 Thank you for mentioning the Celts. I actually considered dropping the point about the Gauls, as the Gauls are arguably Celtic. However, I do not think that the mere existence of the Celts negates the tendency I point out. The Greeks are explained through the Classicism I mention, they're right there on the Classicism blackboard. There are, you are correct, exceptions to the tendencies I focus on. However, the civilizations you picked to make that point are actually not ideal, as the very fact that you must point to these names that the Western audience would otherwise be unfamiliar with, proves the point that these civilizations were given their names precisely because this is how the West knows them, and that their more precise historical and self-given names are not part of their Oriental image in the Western conscious. Civ 6 does actually remedy some of this, too, through, for example, the inclusion of the Scythians. 31:58 While we're on the topic of leaders, you failed to point out that the obvious reason why Nelson Mandela could not have been used as the leader for a hypothetical South Africa, as I fantasize about, is that he was still alive when the game was released. 34:56 I analyzed the final version of the game. The fact that Christianity was actively expanded upon later through DLC does not change the point I make, but support it. 38:00 This is true, and yet they are in themselves, on the surface, not related to military. I did consider pointing to the Statue of Zeus, but eventually decided against doing so, as I thought it wouldn't have changed the tendency described, as there still are no, for example, spiritual Chinese wonders in that era, and the non-military Greek wonders are overwhelming. 40:59 This is a similar case to the Statue of Zeus. On the surface, the Brandenburg Gate is a symbol of peace and unification, but ludically, it's not. Discussing this in the video would actually have opened a whole new can of worms, as the Brandenburg Gate changed cultural meaning several times throughout its history and was, of course, originally a symbol for victory, considering the statue of Victoria that sits on top. Today, it is on our 50 Cent coins and would never have been put there if it still carried even the slightest connotation of war, given the (until recently) radically pacifist stance of German politics. Scrapped wonders are interesting, but irrelevant to the analysis of the final game. 42:02 This is false, the International Space Station, like all wonders, only grants its benefits to the nation that owns it. I did not include it, because you cannot build it the way the other wonders are constructed. Even the Civilopedia doesn’t attribute it to any specific era, just like the United Nations wonder. You are probably referring to how the competition within which it is built grants second and third place minor rewards, but the wonder itself goes to the nation with the highest contribution. 1:06:56 This is actually something I did not know, as I haven’t seen it happen once, so thank you for enlightening me! I concede that the absolute phrasing of that statement is wrong, but given how rarely it can happen, as you admit yourself, it is a far cry from how Civ 6 handles it. City States are clearly categorized cultures with names and borders, and the fact that the ones that aren’t are called barbarians, that must be exterminated, has its very own chapter in this video and doesn’t exactly counter the point of the video, but support it. 1:07:11 I have trouble understanding what you mean by this. The point you make actually applies very well to a completely different inaccuracy you also happen to mention. At 1:12:20 I claim that religious minorities hold no value unless they succeed in reclaiming the majority. This is untrue, as minority populations still inform bonuses that a religion might bestow on its founder. But again, this is largely irrelevant to the major drift of the gameplay. 1:10:38 I was unaware this was possible, since, as I understand it, it doesn’t apply to the defeat of your own nation. While an interesting tidbit, civilizations are in fact completely struck from everything and lose all agency when losing all territory, which was the point I was making. 1:11:51 Yes, I say so, a few minutes later. Don’t be like Cinemasins, you’re smarter than that. 1:15:28 I don’t know what this is supposed to achieve. If you think I didn’t know this, you must think very little of me, and on a technical basis, it has zero bearing on the point I am making, as this is not in the hands of the player herself. 1:15:41 This is the insight that made me truly appreciate this comment and reply. I read back on forum after forum about this and - since even veteran players, such as yourself, seemed to be debating this in, albeit, ancient forum discussions - there used to be some uncertainty as to whether and how this can happen. The consensus seems to be that you actually need two inquisitors to fully erase holy city status. Thank you for pointing this out, I truly did not know this. 1:17:30 So the writers on the Fandom Wiki have a skill issue? Your words, not mine! But yes, it is technically possible to overcome this, I did not say otherwise. 1:26:52 I think “competitive rankings” makes it clear that this is multiplayer. My own research on this also found that Venice can actually be used quite successfully for certain victories, even in multiplayer, but since I am not well versed in multiplayer myself, as I, frankly, suck at anything above King level, I trusted Dom Ford’s research, who I am quoting there. He, in turn, mainly quotes FilthyRobot’s Civilization Tier List 2.0. 1:39:48 This is one of the many things I struck from the original Master Thesis script, as I didn’t think anyone would truly care for the dreadfully boring and culturally irrelevant Time Victory. But hey, you asked for it, so here’s the quote from my Master Thesis, available on my university’s website by simply googling “Civ 5 Wendt”, in case you want to double check: “Time Victory is only triggered on the rare occasion that until a certain in-game year, none of the aforementioned victories has been achieved by any of the competing civilizations. This victory creates a 'win-on-points' scenario in order to avoid a stalemate. Upon reaching the predetermined deadline, all civilizations are awarded points on the basis of calculations that - among others - evaluate their territorial, economic, military, cultural, and scientific standing. The civilization with the highest score wins the game.” How exciting, I wonder why I didn’t include it. 1:48:44 I even show one later, as I accept a proposal by Brazil. I am actually astounded by how you read this. Research agreements are exactly what I was referring to when I was talking about agreements that ultimately must end in someone’s demise, thus negating their entire point. I specifically had research agreements in mind when I was elaborating on how the game's Machiavellian, Realpolitik ideals undermine any hint of true alliances and global community. Jokes aside: I am deeply happy you enjoyed the video and more so that you took the time to comment. I wouldn’t call this channel’s approach unique, though, I think you’re giving us way too much credit. In the UA-cam sphere, maybe (hopefully not though), but outside of it, it is a pretty bog-standard academic piece, with all the boring fat (hopefully) trimmed.

​@@crocodilegambit ​​Thank you for your detailed response, and I'd like to address some points and provide clarification. I should have mentioned earlier that my playtime for Civilization 5 exceeds 1.1k hours, underscoring its importance for me. I apologize if my previous comment seemed a bit nitpicky; it was not my intention. My deep investment in the game is evident from the hours played. The list I provided highlighted some minor inaccuracies related to the game. Despite these points, I still genuinely enjoyed the majority of the video. "Thank you for mentioning the Celts..." In Civilization 5, the depiction of the Celts is more focused with the Brythonic and Gaelic Celtic groups rather than serving as a catch-all for all Celts, as was often the case in previous games. In Civilization 4, some Civs were often portrayed with a broad label, such as "Native Americans" led by Sitting Bull or "Vikings" led by Ragnar. Similarly, the Celts are also there with being led by the familiar Boudica, and Brennus as an additional leader. "The Greeks are explained through the Classicism I mention..." My mistake for the oversight; I failed to notice that you had visually represented Greece on the blackboard. This may be due to the sloop effect, as flags of countries were displayed, contrasting with Greece, which was only represented solely as a word. From my observations, it does appear that Civ 6 does execute this representation more effectively. Notably, leaders like Ambiorix are specific to Gaul, instead of using the catch-all term of "Celts", as seen in previous games. While I have yet to play Civ 6, surprising, I know, I do hope to play it it someday. If I may indulge in a bit more scrutiny regarding the blackboard, it seems Bolivia and Guatemala could have been appropriately better paired with Peru and Mexico, mirroring how you paired Tunisia and Lebanon for the present nations. Especially for Guatemala, given its significant population of ethnic Mayans. However, I wouldn't really say the Aztecs are an accurate representative of Guatemala compared to the Mayans. "While we're on the topic of leaders, you fail" I made a mistake with the timestamp in my original draft; initially, I included massive quotes from the transcript but I removed them, because it would make my comment seem overly bloated. However, I realize now that quoting here would have clarified my objection better. My comment aimed to dispute the assertion that "leaders of cultures subjected to Western imperialism are often not shown in their throne rooms, offices, or even homes." I cited examples of civilizations where leaders were indeed depicted in these settings. Regarding the topic of South Africa, I agree that Nelson Mandela would be a fitting leader, and I concur with your observation that the game developers probably aimed to avoid featuring leaders deemed too recent, although this reasoning might be debatable for figures like Haile Selassie. He, too, could be considered recent. But hey, perhaps Civ 7 could be different? "I analyzed the final version of the game..." Certainly, I understand. It's just that it might have caused some confusion for players who don't have Brave New World installed. Yes, it does support the argument more as well. One detail I overlooked mentioning is that the emphasis on Ancient and Greek wonders in the game is likely because of the "Wonders of the Ancient World" DLC pack. This DLC and scenario introduce some of these wonders, the scenario's victory condition revolve around a building contest between civilizations. Regarding the Brandenburg Gate, I agree that from a gameplay perspective, it is mechanically inaccurate and may give a false impression of its true historical significance. My reference to the scrapped wonder was meant as a fun little known trivia, not as criticism of the video. Looking back, I think it would have been interesting to explore at least some of the scenarios, but it's acceptable if you didn't because the video would have been longer. "This is false, the International Space Station..." You're absolutely right; I was thinking about the competition bonus, not the wonder itself. My mistake, it seems my memory blended the two together as the same thing. "This is actually something I did not know..." Indeed, it's an exceedingly rare and situational scenario. Many, including myself, haven't encountered it even after many hours of gameplay. One amusing memory I had involves cities from an entirely different continent repeatedly revolting and merging into my nation due to my high cultural influence. Whenever this occurs, there's no option to decline their merging, but you can return the city to its original civilization if you wanted. Despite doing this, the constant merging persisted, creating a humorous and odd experience. Moreover, I may have confused memories of Barbarians and City-States with recollections of mods that expanded and randomized those mechanics. It's worth noting that my last playthrough was in 2019, so my memories are susceptible distortion.

"1:07:11 I have trouble understanding what you mean by this." I should have included an additional timestamp. Between 1:07:11 and 1:07:32, your presentation may create the impression that there are no internal problems or questioning of your rule. However, while the internal problems aren't overly complex, they are real. These include unhappiness leading to reduced production and income, the spawning of barbarians, and the rare cases of cities merging with different civilizations. Unhappiness stemming from the population's desire for a different ideology, particularly when influenced by another civilization with high cultural impact over you. Bankruptcy is another internal problem, significantly slowing scientific progress and causing some units to disband. Additionally, mismanagement of food production may lead to famine and a reduction in local city population. Interestingly, it's a viable strategy to intentionally starve your cities to reduce unhappiness, although it may sound somewhat overly evil. Do you consider these issues to be internal problems, or have I misunderstood your perspective? "At 1:12:20 I claim that religious minorities..." My memory was mistaken. You are correct; the religion follower bonuses only apply to the city's majority. The reason for my confusion may be related to the fact that, if memory serves me right, you can purchase the unique faith-based buildings of an opposing religion. After that, converting the city back to your religion allows you to retain those buildings, which ironically contribute faith and culture to your religion. "I was unaware this was possible..." I forgot to mention that a civilization final outcome depends on the game rules. If you have "Complete Kills" enabled, a civilization needs to have all its units and cities destroyed or captured in order be completely wiped from the game, not just its cities. This can lead to a funny situation where a civilization that lost all its cities and territory early in the game may still persist in the late game, as one of its units, like a scout, remains undefeated. "This is the insight..." It took me a long amount of time to grasp this, but yes, you'll have to deploy a significant number of inquisitors, of which would of made the historical Inquisition blush with envy, to entirely eliminate a Holy City. Moreover, based on my anecdotal experience, the city's population appears to play a role, along with specific traits that either strengthen the inquisitors or make the cities more resistant to their influence. "So the writers on the Fandom Wiki..." Adding to this, there are situations where changing ideologies is not only advisable but also advantageous. One such scenario occurs when a fellow civilization that shares the same ideology exerts high cultural influence over me, close to a cultural victory. To delay this and gain some extra turns, I might switch ideologies to negate the shared ideology culture/tourism bonus. Another instance is during periods of high unhappiness, prompting a switch to the ideology of a civilization with substantial cultural influence to eliminate the unhappiness penalty. Additionally, adopting the same ideology as a neighboring civilization to temporarily to maintain friendly relations is another strategy. Later, when ready, changing to a preferred ideology. Finally, if following a strategy focused on building up science, gold, etc., a change to an ideology with superior military bonuses becomes a wise move when the time is right. "I don’t know what this is supposed to achieve..." I misunderstood your statement when you mentioned, "the player cannot choose to change or revert her nation's religion." I initially thought you were talking about a scenario where if a player didn't establish a religion in time, they wouldn't be able to spread or convert to any religion at all. However, this wouldn't be the case, as players can still be converted by another civilization's religion. Upon clarification, I realized you were actually referring to the inability to change the founding religion, not a religion imposed by another civilization. "I think “competitive rankings” makes it clear that this is multiplayer..." Perhaps, but it's likely that a minority of people associate might the term "competitive" with higher difficulties as well with multiplayer. Additionally, when considering "FilthyRobot’s Civilization Tier List 2.0," it's important to note that it operates under a specific rule set called "no quitters" for multiplayer games. This rule set aims to impose restrictions to create what it deems a more balanced gaming experience and typically employs certain approved maps. However, it's crucial to recognize that this rule set may not represent all the various rule sets and multiplayer games people may engage in. For instance, in a one city challenge, Venice could be top-tier, fitting within those specific niche rule sets. Beyond rule sets, the maps and various circumstances also play a role in determining the viability of Venice. Venice might not fare well on a large map with few or no city-states compared to thriving on a small map with many city-states. In certain situations, Venice might be underrated, showcasing its effectiveness under specific conditions. "This is one of the many things I struck from the original Master..." I agree; while it's undoubtedly a boring victory, I believe it should have been at least acknowledged, even if just with a brief, off-hand joke. I found it amusing when you mentioned "by meeting one of four Victory conditions," and then, a few seconds later at 1:40:21, it's revealed that there are actually five victory conditions, as "time victory is disabled" is shown. "I even show one later, as I accept a proposal by Brazil..." I see your point, and it's mostly true that "science is not portrayed as a neutral joint effort across borders." However, it's worth noting the International Space Station project, as I mentioned earlier, which does offer a small one-time bonus to the civilizations that contributed to it. In fairness, this is a late-game feature, so it doesn't entirely refute the claim that science isn't portrayed entirely neutrally. Thank you once again for taking the time to respond. I apologize for any potential misunderstandings. I still enjoyed the video, and it brought back some great memories. I'm curious if you've only played Civ 5 and 6. If so, I highly recommend trying out Civ 4, despite it's age. It is still great and very different and unique compared to 5. For example, you can be the founder of multiple religions with the same holy city, resembling a modern-day Jerusalem. Founding a religion in the game is tied to reaching a specific point in the tech tree, making science growth a key factor in determining the number of religions you can found. Additionally, I wonder if you have any plans to explore other game series like Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Victoria, Crusader Kings, and Stellaris. It could potentially result in interesting content similar to this video. Furthermore, I highly suggest adding timestamps to your video descriptions to take advantage of the chapter feature. This enhances the overall viewing experience, particularly for longer-form content. It's convenient for viewers taking breaks and returning to the video. Your channel is underrated, and I genuinely hope that you'll win the UA-cam algorithm lottery.

Also I had to split my comment as UA-cam wouldn't allow me to have it as one. lol

"This video is dumb no I'm not going to explain just trust me bro I'm totally smart enough to tell you why"