NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#206 WALL STREET GAMES ONLINE GP would like to live in a branching virtual world. This could be his big chance #205 CIV3`S NOT SO GREAT LEAP FORWARD Civ III's "Great Leap Forward" isn't as great or as forward as Dr Nemo hoped. By.... Dr Nemo #204 TALKING WITH SID AND SOREN Small civ3 details shared by the big heads of the development team. By Jonathan Speelman #203 CIVIII'S BIG MISTAKES A disheartened fan sends a letter of grave concern to Firaxis #202 CIVIII WILL DESTROY FREE WORLD As if Civ couldn't get any more addictive? It didn't #201 THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE It's a matter of fiction... or is it? COLUMN ARCHIVE

    By now I think we've wrung all the surprises out of Civ 3 and we're probably getting itchy for the next move. I don't know about anyone else, but I've already started looking forward to Civ 4. I think it's safe to assume that such a game will emerge, even if it doesn't actually carry the "Civilisation" banner.

    The question that's bound to crop up is- "where do we go next?". Surely we're all getting far too cynical and Generation X-ish to buy into a "new" game that merely cranks up the eye candy a few notches more? This shouldn't detract from Civ's rock solid core of gaming appeal- I fully expect to be still playing (and enjoying) Civ 3 a year from now. However we need more. Surely we need more, right?

    For my money, the obvious answer is to exploit the historical appeal of the game, and severely build on this element. When it comes to strategy games, I can take or leave most of them. Actually, that doesn't do my feelings justice- I'm of the opinion that 95% of the abominations should be tied a big sack and beaten to death. There are some real contenders, though, and I'll single out the "City builder" games including "Caesar 3" and "Pharaoh". What makes those games into such life wasters for me?

    It's the historical accuracy. When it comes to historical accuracy, "Caesar 3" makes "Civ 3" look like the work of Stalinists. There is every chance that I'm outing myself as a rampant and obsessive historo-geek, but the fact that I can buy into "Caesar 3" as a halfway believable recreation of an ancient Roman city really adds to the charm of the game. I learn things from it! The only things I've ever learned from "Civ" is that all multi-players are frightening bastards (the opinion of a catastrophically awful player) and that anything vaguely barbarian-shaped must be stamped on until it's just a vaguely crunchy red goo.

    There's a chance that others might feel the same way. At least, I hope to God there might be a few. Anybody?

    Right. If you're still reading at this point then there's at least an evens chance that I haven't completely alienated you, so I can start getting down to the nuts and bolts of what the proposed changes might amount to. Firstly, I'll be the first to admit that it's far trickier to achieve any remotely convincing level of historical credibility in Civ than in "Caesar 3" due to the scale of the game, as well as it's more free-flowing gameplay. It could be vastly improved by a few simple changes, though. Let's start with the anachronisms.

    How does it feel to be dealing with Mao or Ghandi while your civilisation has only just worked out how to smelt bronze into something a bit pointy? It bugs the bloody hell out of me. Pinning a single famous face on a culture allows for the dubious anthropomorphic appeal of those gormlessly smirking leader animations, but I'd count that particular pleasure as overrated. The same goes for negotiating with Alexander the Great over a deal for space-age technology. The bloke wouldn't recognise a microchip if he caught it in bed with Beucephalus.

    A preferable alternative would be to have a running dynasty. It wouldn't need cutting edge animated avatars- just announcements of who's ascended the throne (depending on the game-year), coupled with an informative text box detailing the new arrival's biography to keep the hardcore nerds (me) happy. So, were you to be playing as the English an announcement would be made in 955AD that owing to young Eadwig's uncontrollable sexual urges, a brief civil war has united Wessex and Mercia leading to a golden age of Saxon power. Then in 1066, the unwelcome appearance of a Norman psychopath and his rabble of murderers sets the whole civilisation back by centuries.

    Admittedly, some artistic licence would have to be used on some of the less obsessively documented cultures (Hi Aztecs! Hi Sioux!), but isn't that what writers are for? Surely it's preferable to the godawful dialogue used in the negotiation scenes?

    This might come across as pointless and anal errata, but it sets the scene for real changes- namely the incorporation of culture-based historical trends into the gameplay. This isn't a novelty- Civ 3 flirted with the notion with "Golden Ages", culture-specific traits and the special units. I would suggest taking this further, and the way I'd do so would be to introduce the "Hard times" feature.

    The "Hard times" feature would be a time of setbacks and suffering, based on the historical heritage of the culture concerned, and the variety is immense. For the English it could be ethnic rivalry between the Viking north and Saxon south in the 10th century, or the dynastic carnage of the War of the Roses. For the Romans it could be the sack of Rome, or the arrival of plague in Constantinople. For the Chinese it could be rampant corruption by ambitious and murderous court eunuchs. Ideally, I'd like to see a number of potential "Hard times" for each culture, which may or may not actually happen. This would liven up single-play no end as the player would always have to be wary of sudden and disastrous changes of fortune. It's about time they learned that most would-be Emperors ended up face-down in their own intestines. If they're feeling particularly barbaric (or wimpy), the feature could be turned off or toned down, just as those window-licking barbarians can.

    The drawbacks? Well Civ players might run the risk of being labelled uber-geeks, but I suspect we've already got that reputation pretty much nailed down already. Would you care to wear the badge with pride?

---------
About the author: Ron is dusting off his codpiece already

Comment on this article!

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