note: This is The Column, a part of Apolyton where anyone can write about whatever he/she wants :) If you feel like writing, submit your article via the article submission page

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#102 THE ESSENTIAL CTP2: BEYOND THE PR STUFF (PART 1) MarkG hopes that fans and reviewers alike will better receive Activision's next CTP project. #103 THE ESSENTIAL CTP2: BEYOND THE PR STUFF (PART 2) MarkG takes one more day to say his peace on the attitude Activision should take towards CTP2. #104 MICRO FOCUS IN CIVILIZATION KILLING CIVILIZATION III Jason Beaudion surfaces to share his thoughts on micromanaging in Civilization. #105 PORTRAIT OF A WEBMASTER DanQ responds to eight of the most sought-after answers from the Apolyton administration. #106 A LITTLE ADVICE FOR CIVIII AND CTPII Sirotnikov dispenses his advice on how to make CivIII and CTPII better than their predecessors. COLUMN ARCHIVE

A few weeks ago I realized something about the civ style games: they don't fit into the strategy genre.

Don't get me wrong, strategy is key to winning these games but I think they better fit into the simulation category. First let's look at other types of games. We'll start with Starcraft. I use Starcraft as my example because it can be considered the genric RTS. I think nearly everyone will agree that Starcraft is a strategy game, perhaps with the exception of a few people who dismiss it as a clickfest. The truth is Starcraft is a strategy game, and it is also a clickfest. The two aspects are almost independant of each other. If Starcraft were made turn based it would actually have slightly less strategy because some very important distraction techniques wouldn't work. What about the clickfest part though? Oh yeah, the effect of the clicking issue is that sometimes the strategically superior player loses. Does that mean that there was any less strategy in the game? No, it just means the wrong person wins. That is a tradeoff that many people are willing to accept.

Next there is the strategy game RISK. I think RISK illustrates two of the key differences between simulation and strategy. 1) RISK is not realistic 2) RISK is a multiplayer game.

My definition of realism has nothing to do with graphics or even issues such as magic. Realistic games are set in a very logical world. It doesn't have to be our world, it just has to be plausible. Nothing about RISK is realistic. If you have five guys and you attack a place with forty you'll probably kill a guy or two. In a more realistic game you wouldn't have a chance. People never rebel, even though you conscript so many people and send them off to die on a regular basis. You never run out of food even when you keep a large standing army stationed in Greenland, to keep the Europeans out.

RISK is a multiplayer game. I think this is a very important part of the issue. All players start out the same and they play the game according to the same rules. There is no point system, it is either a win, loss, or draw. In simulations you play against the game environment itself and the rules used by different sides are not the same. Perhaps I'd better clarify this a bit. AI players who are treated as humans count as humans. By the game environment I mean stuff that spices up single player. Random events, random terrain, insurmountable odds, stuff like that. In a strategy game it is just you vs the other guy. This leads to the next point: level of randomness.

Simulation games tend to have a high level of randomness while strategy games try to keep it as low as possible. In a simulation your stuff is placed in an interactive environment and you are given room to grow. The enviroment itself is interesting. There could be barbarians or flash floods, whatever. There might be other players in the world that you have to fight but they aren't you main concern, what really matters is managing your stuff, often with broad commands. In strategy games the environment is usually pretty simple, like a chessboard. Even when the environment is a little more complex it is still predictable.

In simulation games you tend to focus more on the big picture. You probably do a little microing too but a lot of your time is spent making the big decisions and seeing what happens. Those of you who have played Populous for the Super Nintendo know what I'm talking about. You control your civilization but you don't directly control your people. There is another player in the game but he is somewhat of an after thought.

Looking at The List I think it is pretty obvious that civ fans crave simulation, they want to rule an empire that could have been. They aren't looking for a duel that takes place in an empty arena. Is that good or bad? I think it's just a matter of personal preference. Once we identify what we're looking for in a game it's easier to find a game that suits us.
---------
About the author: "Just a guy who likes to visit forums".

Want to comment on this article?

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.