Friday, January 25, 2013

Critique: Europa Universalis III

The problem with westernization.

Hello there! Games have many problems these days. I recently came across a great game that is ruined by such a problem and thought I would elaborate upon it here. Let us start the story from the beginning!

In celebration of having half a million registered forum users, Paradox gifted each of their forum users an activation key for the steam version of Europa Universalis III: Chronicles.
"For starters, to thank you for being one of our half-million forum fans, Paradox Interactive and Paradox Development have got you a little present: A copy of Europa Universalis III: Chronicles for Steam! Look below for a unique code that you can redeem on Steam, and add this iconic Paradox strategy title to your library, (If you already have EUIII Chronicles, you can share your love of Paradox with a friend by letting them have the code!)." - Mail sent to registered forum members
A good friend of mine gifted me his spare key and I, being a fan of strategy games, gleefully leaped right into the game. I have had some fun times with Paradox's games in the past, particularly with Hearts of Iron III so I was expecting this game to be of the same level of quality. Since this is not a review as such but rather a critique of a specific feature of the game I will simply state that Europa Universalis III: Chronicles is a well made game that will appeal to many fans of the 4X genre.

Each of those little color blobs is a country you can play as. Glorious isn't it?

DISCLAIMER: Before I move on I must state clearly that I have not seen this kind of message implemented via a feature in other Paradox games and as such I am not criticising their company or any specific person working there. This is merely me pointing out a bad design decision so that we can all learn to avoid making the same mistake in the future.

The feature that made me turn off down the game and will probably prevent me from playing it again is the westernization mechanic, in order to explain why we must start with understanding the mechanic itself.

Each country in EUIII belongs to a technology group, of which there are several. Each tech group has a certain modifier to research efficiency and begins the game at different technology levels. Westernization is the process by which a country advances to a more efficient tech group. This does not affect a country's current technology level but only affects the research speed modifier and slow limit. Countries researching technology below the slow limit receive less of a penalty to research speed.

The different technology groups are as follows, arranged in order to efficiency:
  1. Western: 100% research speed, begins at level 3.
  2. Eastern: 85% research speed, begins at level 3, slows down at level 6.
  3. Ottoman: 80% research speed, begins at level 5.
  4. Muslim: 75% research speed, begins at level 5.
  5. Indian: 50% research speed, begins at level 3, slows down at level 7.
  6. Chinese: 40% research speed, begins at level 3. slows down at level 7.
  7. Sub-Saharan: 20% research speed, begins at level 3, slows down at level 6.
  8. Nomads: 10% research speed, begins at level 3, slows down at level 6.
  9. New World: 10% research speed, begins at level 0, slows down at level 4.
Why would I have a problem with this? At first glance it seems like a valid long term goal for certain countries to improve their research efficiency to be competitive in the end-game.

The problem lies with the research speed modifier and slow down limits. Europeans will always be the most efficient researchers in the world with this system, the only thing the other countries can do is try and catch up by abandoning their own culture in favor of the western European one. Note that only the western, ottoman and Muslim technology groups can research high level technology without penalty.

According to this mechanic it takes five sub-Saharan scientists to match one European scientist, or ten (!) American Indian scientists to match one European scientist. This is not related to form of government or access to natural resources since almost all countries share the same form of government at the beginning of the game (in 1399) and the countries of the lower technology groups have access to great natural wealth. The mechanic also states, via the slow down limit, that the lower technology groups are unable to wrap their heads around more complex research.

There is one word that adequately describes the message this mechanic sends to the player. Racism.
"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." - The Oxford dictionary
What makes it even worse is that this mechanic will affect the way players play the game. Research is immensely important in EUIII since it unlocks bonuses for all aspects of your country. Games are teachers, and what this teaches the player is that other cultures than the western European one are inferior by default. I have not read any credible research that concludes that western Europeans are smarter and more gifted in the art of science than anyone else. 

I find this mechanic to be distasteful. It is one thing to have countries begin at different technology levels, since this was probably was the case in 1399 (the American Indians did actually possess technology at this time though and should probably not start at level zero, how else could they construct Machu Picchu), and quite another to make a blatantly racist statement. This is by no means limited to EUIII. It is a visible problem in many games where the glorious western hero mows down hordes of the uncivilized barbaric brown people. 

Racism is as big a problem as sexism in games. Both are serious problems that need addressing. We can start by becoming aware of the mechanics in games, analyzing what message they send and by doing so learning how to avoid this all to familiar trap.

A better way of implementing this would to simply let countries start at different technology levels based on their actual situation in 1399 and base research speed on funding instead of inherent cultural modifiers. I understand that this will take a lot more research (pun intended) on the part of the developers but if you are going to make such a distinction in your game you would do well to do it properly instead of falling back on racist stereotypes.

I hope that you found this post interesting and perhaps even learned something. I stress again that this is not an attack on Paradox or any of their employees. It is simply a very clear implementation of racism in games and as such should be held up as an example. 

Leave a comment down below if you wish to participate in this discussion, have another point of view or simply does no agree with me.

I wish you all a pleasant day.

6 comments:

  1. I think that, although you are correct in many points, even though it might appear that a certain race or culture is portrayed as being less intellectual, I think that was not what Paradox intended with this design decision.

    I think that Paradox was trying to, with as little effort as possible to complete the task, demonstrate that populations in different areas of the world had different levels of success in what is, in this game, defined as "technology".

    I think that some nations at this time had technological advances in different areas than what is generally defined as "technology". Some nations, with a different belief and culture, might have invested more resources into improving their situation in ways that made more sense for them - and these things might not have been relevant to the game or in general to the standard European who considers technological advance to be advanced warfare, gunpowder, astrology, infrastructure etc. They might be advanced in trading among populations in their area, hunting (a "western" hunter wouldn't stand a chance against an African hunter with the advanced game they had to figure out ways how to catch. It's not like an African hunter can just go out in the desert and catch himself a cow).

    All in all, even though how they designed the game comes across a bit offensive to different races and cultures, I think they were trying to make the game historically accurate so that the technology in year 1500 for Nation X would be just as accurate as Nation X:s technology in year 1700, whereas Nation Y might have had lower technology advances at year 1500, but higher in year 1700. And now I don't mean by game terms - I mean historical solid fact. Now, Nation X may have had their technology rate constant to Nation Y, but because they were invaded by whatever they were halted for a certain amount of years, where Nation Y wasn't and was free to spend their resources on technological advances instead of engaging in warfare. To accurately calculate all of these factors in a game like EU3 within the time frame they had to develop the game I fear is near impossible - so they made generalizations that unfortunately had the side effect of making Native Americans, Africans or whatever populations of people look inferior to western populations of people.

    I wouldn't call them Racists, but I would call them sloppy. As you say, there are certainly other paths they could have walked down when working on this part of the game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we can safely assume that Paradox never intended for their mechanic to send this message but I still argue that it does.

      Different levels of technology can be simulated by having the countries start at different levels in technology, this is the case in EUIII. The Muslims were more advanced than the Europeans at this time and as such they begin at technology level five instead of level three.

      The player's current research focus is set by adjusting the research funding sliders in the research window. As such it is quite possible to have different countries start with different priorities without making Africans 20% as smart as Europeans. This could be done by, for instance, having the Africans starting out with a stronger focus on Land technology than Government technology and then leaving it up to the player to change and adapt as she sees fit.

      EUIII lets the player start at different dates. It would be a simple matter to have different starting conditions for each date in order to simulate what you say about different countries advancing at different pace due to invasions, bad/good luck or whatever.

      What I am saying is basically that such conditions should be set at the beginning of each game but once the game begins all cultures have the same research potential. As it stands right now everyone but the Europeans are hard coded to fail since they cannot keep up with their research, unless they convert to the western European culture. The cultures do not simply look inferior, they are.

      This mechanic stereotypes cultures to make them inferior/superior to other cultures. In this case making all cultures worse than the western Europeans'. This fits the definiton of racism and as such the mechanic is racist. We should call it for what it is.

      Don't get me wrong. I have the outmost respect for Paradox but in this case they slipped up and they should have discovered this before they shipped the title.

      Delete
    2. But the people who lived and belonged to the western culture did, in fact, race past the Muslim population in terms of research and technology. How, if all nations have the same technology increase rate, could the game live up to history (playing from the earliest date in the game to the latest just for the sake of this argument) then? Western technology would never surpass the Muslim technology and it would be less likely that the game follows history the way it was meant to.

      I see it as a setting to simulate historical accuracy rather than putting "intellectual stamps" on certain races or cultures. The game is not meant to be balanced, but to run more or less side by side with history.

      I think, that the technology "rate" should be dynamic. In certain times it should be high for Western and low for Muslims (for example) and in other times it should be the opposite - depending on the time in history and the historical events that took place - like for instance the year this dude, whatever his name is, brought gunpowder to Europe. That should boost the technological advancement rate for those nations for their Warfare Tech, which might put them ahead of other areas of the world.

      I think that by dynamically adjust the technology rate, we can both keep the history accurate AND take away the unfortunate implication that some groups of people are inferior to others - because of their race, religion or culture - but rather less fortunate with technological advancements because of the circumstances these nations are affected by at the current moment.

      This problem has several possible solutions, but just as you say I also believe they went for the wrong one. They took the "easy way out", probably understandable with all the pressure pre-release, but when rushing things and doing things fast rather than thought through, things like this happen - even if not intended.

      I think this is a great topic to bring up, I find it very interesting, not many people discover or even think about things like this. :) Kudos, boi!

      Delete
  2. I agree that dynamic research rate is the best way to go. However this is already implemented in the game. Research speed increases if you increse research funding. This means that whoever makes the most money will research the fastest.

    In this way it is possible for the Europeans to surpass the Muslims since the Europeans could very well found colonies leading to increased wealth that in turn lead to increased research funding. By increasing the natural wealth of the European provinces you ensure that if the Muslims do not expand they will be surpassed by the Europeans due to lower wealth.

    And I am a personal fan of historical events that give game mechanical bonuses such as special people being born or inventing something. This would give another layer of historical accuracy to the game.

    I agree that the game should not be balanced but I also believe that research rate should depend more on the actions of the player rather than cultural stereotypes.

    Thanks for the kudos! I think that game developers in general need to analyze their games so that this kind of sloppy design does not get implemented into the final produkt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all about finding the balance, but yeah - I feel quite powerless as a player to even try to compete with the "big countries" if I play as an inferior country. Maybe the possibility of adding an "ambition" (inspired by Crusader Kings 2) to the nation (not the ruler this time though) where a country can decide to put a focus on something that it normaly wouldn't as a NPC nation. This way, the player could play any country and "re-configure" it through the "ambition" to focus on, perhaps, the things that the western cultures focused on in order to discover the things needed for their technological advancement.

      I don't know, I'm just brainstorming now really. Don't have much more to contribute to this discussion, I think we both kind of nailed our points and we are not really disagreeing much so... I'll go and have a beer.

      Have a nice weekend! I'll start following your blog more thoroughly from now on. :)

      Delete
  3. Just read this and while I don't see any point in beating a dead horse I feel like I should point out that it is very easy to change things so that all countries have the same research speed.

    ReplyDelete