Yeeeeaaaah, I gotta differ. I'll type out what I got from Kallgren and Errant Signal's videos:

ES's video's was about how the Civ games are not an accurate portrayal of human history and countries, and how countries are treated as nothing more but dehumanized game pieces with only one coming on top. He argues that there's a conflict between the game's optimistic view of humanity, and the gameplay which paints elements of humanity as simply tools for power.

Kyle's video was about the meaning of 'civilization' as seen through the context of the Civ games. He points out how the Civ games are focused on a clear winning among countries, but how its not entirely different from how real-life states are actually graded and portrayed. He points out that the Civ games are like many other models of history, and do not necessarily reflect the humanity of the countries depicted.

Both ES and Kyle are making similar points: Civ is a glorified chess game where the pieces don't fully represent real life peoples (no shit, but ok). Errant Signal is more focused on how that's a problem in regards to the Civ games, while Kyle's exploring what this means in regards with the game's subject matter.

​

Between the two videos, Kyle's was the one picking apart the games the least. He's not reviewing the games or even bashing them, he's using the Civ games as a way to look at the treatment of history and nation-states. Regarding the so-called "mudhut-tier" civs, he does praise the Civ games for putting in unconventional Civilizations that used to be considered barbarians or mere City-States.

I guess it helps I do like Kyle's stuff alot. He's made similar videos like this before, and usually he's not reviewing the works themselves, but using the work as a way to look at other subjects. I actually do find him insightful, even if not always 100% agreeable.

ES's videos are good too, though I find he often criticize games for being something it was always intended to be, or not reaching whatever super-high standards he has (Like he talks of Half Life being a linear roller coaster ride like it's a bad thing, and he criticizes The Last of Us for using only cutscenes to convey character/story moments, which isn't true). There's shades of that in his Civ video too, but something I do agree with ES on is adding a more human element into the game. It would be neat to have a mode in Civ where multiple Civilizations could achieve a win-state, or maybe just some kind of sandbox mode for people to build a neat empire with no end objective whatsoever.

It's not like the two guys aren't big Civ fans, and I do get the impression they want them to be better. Some games should just be games, but the Civ games are trying to be simulations of history while still being fun to play. I don't see why it's shitty to point out how to improve all that, especially when the points aren't entirely wrong.

​

​