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

#114 CIVII: DEITY STYLE Bauser discussed his strategies at winning at the Deity level in Civilization II. #115 TERRAFORMING ALPHA CENTAURI Alexander shares his future Civ suggestions. #116 WHY CIV IS THE GREATEST AND WORST GAME EVER MisterHungry is taking Civilization head on in debating its historical roots. #117 HISTORICAL APPLICATION OF ALPHA CENTAURI Keith Medlin showcases Alpha Centauri for its historical applications. #118 FREEDOM AND OBLIGATION: CTP2 What does freedom and obligation have to do with a game? MarkG wonders... COLUMN ARCHIVE

When I found this site a few days ago (searching for info on Dinosaurs, but that's another matter entirely), among the sections that seemed most attractive to me was the Civilization 3 Sugestions section and the related forum- I always thought there were some things in Civilization 2 as well as in Alpha Centauri that needed improvement for future games. Small things, mainly- Better artificial intelligence, slightly improved graphics, maybe a midgen more customizability, and maybe more diplomacy options. This is the sort of things I expected to find in the "List" and on the forums- ideas that actually have a chance of making it into the game, small practical suggestions.

What I found instead, much to my dismay, was ideas that would totally transform the game into something else entirely. Ideas such as hexagons instead of squares, spherical planets, totally changed support systems and whatnot. It's ludicrous. Civilization games are not Civilization games without the basic formula of a flat, square map, on which simple empire building is coupled with simple combat. What people are suggesting are total rewrites of that formula, ideas that would totally change the way the game plays.

One can see a pattern (obvious even to a humble observer such as myself) in the ideas suggested, and if you indulge me I'll try to explain what is wrong. Firstly, almost every idea pushes towards increased complexity of the game. This is not necessarily a good thing. Why would Civilization games, built on their inherent simplicity (while maintaining the all-important Epic Scope), need a disease model or a religion model, or even regions? I cannot see the point of such factors. They would baffle the beginner and make micromanagement even more tedious.

The second factor worth mentioning is game balance. The genre Civilization supposedly resides in is "4x"- eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate. In other words, sciencentific and geographical discovery, territorial expansion, economic exploitation of resources and military conquest. Why is it, then, that the majority of ideas seem to want to make the first three more difficult and the last easier? Already in Civilization 2, it was easier to win by conquering everyone early than by any other method. What most, if not all, suggestions in the forum seem to want to do is to create complex and difficult-to-work options for micromanagement, while creating yet more ways to defeat your enemy. I think this is the wrong way to go- War is supposed to be a bad experience, and almost prohibitingly expensive. Yet many suggestions seem focused on the war machine and how to "improve" it.

Thirdly, are the ideas fun? To me, there is no appeal to political parties, for example. A lot of the ideas seem to stem from the veteran players who only want more of a challenge, and do not consider whether it is fun for a beginner or not. It should be, because that's probably the thing over all others that made Civilization 2 such a great game- the instant appeal.

So, if the people from Firaxis are reading this: forget major changes. The change from Civilization to Civilization 2 was perfectly large enough, and I certainly hope the change to Civilization 3 will be no larger. What the game really deserves is better AI, better graphics, and a better scenario editor, as well as small gameplay changes- a new unit there, a new option here, perhaps a slightly changed combat model. What we do not need is major refocusing or rebalancing. Civilization is a concept close to perfect as it is- a large majority of changes and ideas will only make it worse.
---------
About the author: Ken Bregott is a long time Civilization game player, and works as an aid worker in South Africa. He only recently found this forum, and hopes to become a regular poster.

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.