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

#107 STRATEGY OR SIMULATION? Alert from Glak: why he believes that the style of Civ games is not strategy at all. #108 DEATH OF A GAME korn469 asserts that both Firaxis and Activision can learn from some invaluable lessons from MicroProse as what NOT to do in terms of product support. #109 THE POWER OF A GOOD POLITICAN Gamers shouldn't play demi-god in the world of Civilization, Harel claims, but rather a politican. #110 EXPECTATIONS OF CTPII Atahualpa would like to see us throw our support behind CTPII and give Activision an idea of what we would like to see in it. #111 HOW TO RUN BEFORE YOU WALK Earthing7 conveys why he will not by CivIII, but not CTPII. COLUMN ARCHIVE

In ages past a game emerged called Civilization and went on to be one of the greatest games of all time. Its main strength being the ability to replay hundreds of times and each time have a different game. Some years latter a sequel hit shelves around the world, with better graphics and a larger selection of Units and Wonders. But what did it really add that wasn't in the original? Maybe just enough to stop me playing Civ1 and now spend weeks of my life playing Civ2. Yet still it was essentially the same game.

Again we forward the clock a few years and we see Activisions attempt at the future of Civilization. Had we not already seen greatness then this game would have taken the crown as king of turn-based strategy. Yet despite the modifications it was still the same game as Civ1 and Civ2. Which brings me on to my next question, do we need another Civilization? Personally I would be as happy spending the next week playing Civ1, as I would Civ2, or even Civ:CTP. For me Firaxis need to wipe the slate clean and create a civilization-building game of epic proportions. No single aspect should be retained unless it dominates all other options.

Now this may seem like a large gamble for Firaxis to take, undoubtedly some sections of the Viv community would hate to see anything other than a game with all the cornerstones of classic Civ, but how long can we keep playing a re-hash of the same formula? I am sure by now you are convinced of my madness and think that any second now I am going to try and convince people to turn civ into a RTS game or something similar. Well far from it, I believe above all that any new civ game needs to retain those key aspects that made Civ 'civ'.

So what is it that makes Civ so special? I am sure that everyone has their own opinion but here's what keeps me coming back time after time. For me it boils down to three areas, resource management, scientific development and military expansion.

So what makes resource management special, surely this is just something you have to do and not really something anyone could possibly enjoy. Well yes, for me every city had to have resources maximised and I delighted in seeing a swarm of settlers surround a city irrigating the land and building roads. The net result of course was to see my cities rise high in the top 5 ranking. Scientific development must have the same attraction for everyone, just being the most advanced civ was success enough even if I didn't go on to win in the end.

Finally we come to the crux of the game building up your army and destroying every other civ in the game. Even if all the other aspects of the game were poor, a strong warfare system could save the day. In my opinion the only way civ3 can be 'civ' will be to strike the fine line between having epic battles without reducing the game to a simple battle simulator.

In conclusion I ask you this question: if Civ3 doesn't make the leap then will we ever see a Civ4?
---------
About the author: "100% Civ lover forever".

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.