#civilization 7

How Civilization VII's animation MAKES its leaders

Civilization VII is out, a swirling black hole that drains the life-force of thousands of people, a dark curse known as "one more turn."

It's not a series known for its character animation, exactly, but its leaders are the faces of the game, and so the animators have a problem: how do you get a player to connect with these larger-than-life political figures when you only really have a few dozen seconds to make an impression?

Long regarded as a hero of the Philippines, José Rizal was a passionate defender of the dignity and autonomy of Filipinos. He first gained his reputation as a political activist in Europe, criticizing the Spanish rule of his homeland, and though he advocated for peaceful reform and equal rights, Rizal was eventually tried and executed by the Spanish. Yet his revolutionary spirit could not be contained, and has inspired Filipinos ever since.

But what's really funny is that each new installment leans harder into this idea then the last. With Civ 7 making it so that leaders aren't even tied down to their 'historic' civilizations (meaning you can't even argue the 'national personification' thing anymore) and since Civs can change while leaders can't, that means that leaders are also the only constant across an entire campaign.

This means, for example, in the universe of Civilization, the likes of Gaius Octavius, Hatshepsut, Napoleon, and even Gandhi are constantly reborn, take up leadership of a small singular village, live for uncountable eons (unless slain by another Leader or dethroned), rebuild the same nation, people, empire over and over and over again with only slight variations, until one achieves victory over the others (be it by sending their people into the stars, building a society that culturally subsumes all others, conquering the world, or otherwise somehow 'winning history' by the metrics they held dear in their mortal lives) and gains...nothing as far as we know.

We don't know if they wither to dust instantly Gothel style, or reign until the heat death of the universe, or begin aging and live out a mortal life for however long remains to them. All we know for certain is that they are right back there again at the stone age as soon as the next game starts, becoming chiefs of a tribe of thatched roved houses on some unrecognizable landmass, with nothing to do but start all over again from scratch. Build the same walls and monuments and wonders, fight the same endlessly shifting battles against the same rivals. Maybe this time Rome is stamped out in antiquity, and maybe this time is launches the first space colony. Maybe Egypt raises up the pyramids once more, and maybe they raise up the Colossus, or the Hanging Gardens, or Statue of Liberty, or the Sydney Opera House. Maybe Napoleon's France finally achieves perfect ideal democracy, or maybe his warring ways lead a coalition of Japan, China, the Gauls, and Sumerians facing off against him all over again. Maybe Gandhi decides mutually assured destruction is the only way to protect world peace. The names change, the lands and continents change, the ages change, eventually even the civilizations themselves change- Gaius finds himself the Emperor of Egypt and Hatsheput the Queen of the United States of America- but the only thing that doesn't change is the leaders. Their configurations vary and sometimes they face off against a newcomer they haven't before, but always it ultimately comes back to a group of immortal rulers- the great and the good, the wicked and the genius, the mad and the unlikely, and the just plain lucky that one and all ended up in the history books- who keep trying to take one more swing, one more run, one more turn at fulling the ambitions of their mortal life, and leading their people to glory.

Because the only way to break the cycle, to the end the game (both in universe and out) is to stop playing. Give up. Stop pushing that glowing little arrow button. Stop following the ambitions, the ideals, the dreams, the hopes that lead them here in the first place.

In prior Civ games, the leaders are almost universally monarchs, statesmen, and/or military leaders. The exceptions I caught in Civ 6's leader roster include a handful of unusually influential queen, Gorgo (who is remembered as being far more influential than she actually was) (pick Irene of Athens next time), and arguably Kupe.

By contrast, Civ 7 is full of leaders like Ada Lovelace and Harriet Tubman and Machiavelli, philosophers and authors and activists. Now, don't get me wrong, they are in the minority; by my count, about ⅔ of the leaders are unambiguously military/political leaders, and most of the ambiguous leaders should probably be put in that camp. But having maybe 25-30% of the leaders not be kings and conquerors is a notable change!

And it's a change which I think makes sense. Picking Benjamin Franklin instead of George Washington as the Founding Father emphasizes the role those men had in shaping American ideology. Washington and Jefferson and the Adamses didn't shape the United States just by sitting in the Oval Office; they shaped it with speeches and pamphlets and debates before the District of Columbia was a twinkle in their collective eye.

The difference is even starker for older civilizations. Civilization games span six millennia of history, and for the first four games in the franchise (and also the Revolution spinoffs), the primary face of Chinese civilization was 20th-century Communist revolutionary Mao Zedong. Not to downplay his achievements, but he did not make China. Qin Shi Huang is a less absurd pick, but his empire collapsed within a few years of his death.

Chinese emperors and chairmen shape China, but if you have to pick one man to represent the entirety of Chinese civilization, Confucius is the obvious pick. He lived centuries before China was a unified empire, and he never passed a law or lead an army, but his philosophy shaped Chinese states from the Warring States before Qin Shi Huang through the 19th century. And even though Confucian exams are no longer an integral part of any state bureaucracy, Confucian philosophy continues to color the values and worldview of East Asia (China included).

Obviously, the historical Confucius is not a Great Man who single-handedly built China with his own two hands; he wasn't even single-handedly responsible for the belief system bearing his name. Nor was Benjamin Franklin a Great Man who shaped USAmerican society into its modern form, nor do the Founding Fathers collectively deserve such a title.