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

#220 WHAT MAKES A GOOD CIV GAME (PART 1) In the first of four installments, Spiffor l'Omnivore breaks down the first two of eight points needed towards building a good Civ-style game. #219 A VERSATILE GAME Rasbelin recalls the comforting familiarity of Civilization II. #218 I HAD A WHALE OF A TIME Rasbelin reminisces about the days of MicroPROSE now all in the past. #217 "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS": A PRESENTATION OF THE GAME Mark Everson motions for your attention to talk about a gaming project that he is currently leading. #216 THE FINAL FRONTIER Rasbelin runs through the Stella Polaris project on which he serves as Project Manager. #215 APOLYTON 2007 Rasbelin walks us through his predictions for five years time on the site of the name above. COLUMN ARCHIVE

3. Involvement in the game
When I'm playing a Civ game, I know it will be a long game, and I will grow fond of it, and get some memories. I still remember my fist game of Civilization [I], more than [ten] years ago, when I got spanked by the Russians, or this game of Civilization II on Earth map where I was playing Japan at emperor level and ended up fighting the Mongol empire spanning on whole Eurasia. In a Civilization game, I don't want to think I'm only pushing some pixels, I want to feel like the leader of a civilization, of a society. I want to feel like I reign in those cities, that I fight in those units, that I believe in this religion, that I read this alphabet, etc etc.

In this regard, I think CivII and Alpha Centauri were very good, despite some shortcomings in the latter. In CivII, the description of each tech, each unit in the Civilopedia was very complete, and let me understand why those discoveries were called "breakthroughs". Everytime my scientists made a discovery, it was an event for me (in the form of a screenwide popup). In Alpha Centauri, there was also a short text quoting one of the game's leaders whenever a discovery was made. It made me feel the leaders really lived the colonization of the planet. The wonder movies are also important in this regard. When I see a wonder movie, I understand I haven't got a bonus, but I have built a wonder ! Besides, Alpha Centauri had a storyline, which interrupted the game from time to time, and showed a text relating the story of the planet as it was written. It was also possible in AC to do blind research, with the computer choosing semi-randomly what the next tech would be (the player sets priorities between [four] categories of tec : builder, explorer, knowledge and conquets).

In CiviIization III, discoveries and wonders are mere popups. Descriptions in the Civilopedia are liner blurbs, except those about the civilizations. However, Alpha Centauri wasn't perfect in this domain, far from it : there were no city views, the cities didn't change their looks according to technological progress, and there were no graphics for individual improvements, meaning I had no idea what a futuristic biological lab looked like. Graphics are very important when it comes to feel involved with the game, and CivIII has done very well in this, even though there is room for improvement. Specific architecture styles changing through the eras, really is much better than the standardised icons of CivI. Finely drawn units help me to identify with the era, and UU help me identify with the country.

An ambitious Civilopedia also has a big educational value. This is a definite plus that only applies to historical games such as Civ, because Civ both covers all of human history, but also different domains such as technology, warfare, economy etc. This means an enormous knowledge could be written in the Civilopedia without it being off-topic. Of course, the Civilopedia must not look like a (boring) encyclopaedia from real life. But if it holds basic knowledge, it can both please the history buffs and create others. Until recently, I personally took most of my pre-19th century historical knowledge from Civ1 and Civ2's Pedia, and I got interested in history thanks to it. Also, a complete Civilopedia can help the player to feel more close to the daily life of his civilization, which makes the game more involving.

There is however a risk : It would be possible all these element which help feeling involved get in the way of a smooth interface. After all, Civ3's little popup that appears when you have discovered a tech is very convenient for the game to go on quickly. After all, wonder movies take time, and the player can get bored of them after a few viewings. That's right. But these "involvement elements" aren't doomed to hurt the interface : if a simple click gets rid of a wonder movie, if the tech popup has the exact same functions than the Civ3's one but is simply bigger and more eye-candy, if, if, if... then there is no problem. The player should only be able to dismiss these "involvement elements" easily and immediately, for them to be only a plus in the game.

4. Cohesion
I prefer the word "cohesion" to "realism". Many people have complained how unrealistic Civgames are, but realism is the price of fun, to some extent. It would be realistic to lose after a few turns, because your leader's lifespan is over. It would be realistic to lose once a revolution overthrows your regime and kills the leader. It would be realistic to have all your production wasted if you decide to build something else. But it wouldn't be fun.

Cohesion, on the other hand, doesn't mean realism for the sake of it. It means for the game to be true with its spirit, to have no logical holes. Alpha Centauri, despite being obviously unrealistic had a cohesive environment. Civ3 offers several examples of uncohesiveness, by insisting on the importance of superior weaponry, while it allows low-tech units to destroy high-tech units, for example. By the same token, a cultural victory (an apparently very builder-like victory) has little chance to be achieved without conquering neighbouring civs, to get more cities and hence more culture.

Cohesion helps making a good Civgame because it avoids the player to wonder "how come this happened ?". It helps casual players basing their gameplay more on gut-feeling than on a complete comparison of values. An absence of cohesion helps the player feeling less involved in the game, and makes him feel like he's comparing numbers. Hardcore strategists have no problems with it, but more "roleplay" players can feel slowly alienated. I think the lack of cohesion in Civ3 is the most important source of the "my tank was killed by a spearman" frustration. However, one must admit it is tricky to make a cohesive environment in a historical game, because historical realism must be respected to some extent. But players can buy major historical unrealism without too many problems, when it's consistent with the spirit of the game : who ever complained the Pyramids were a gigantic granary?

Cohesion is closely bound with Involvement, but I felt it was an important part enough to be one whole point.

---------
About the author: Civilization enthusiast.

Comment on this article!
This article was originally posted as material in this thread between April 11-12, 2003, but this version has been modified to correct previously published errors.

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