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 3) In the third of four installments, Spiffor l'Omnivore breaks down the third two of eight points needed towards building a good Civ-style game. #220 WHAT MAKES A GOOD CIV GAME (PART 2) In the second of four installments, Spiffor l'Omnivore breaks down the second two of eight points needed towards building a good Civ-style game. #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. COLUMN ARCHIVE

7. Replay value and moddability
Most good games, in general, have a lifespan of several tens of hours. Their replay value is weak in [single-player], and the industry now uses [multiplayer] to lengthen its products' replay value. But good Civilization games have a lifespan of several years. Civilization II has hit the shelves in 1996, seven years ago, and a CivII community is still important, most fans continue to play it from time to time. This is a phenomenon unique to Civ games: there is nowadays no strong community of Doom II players, nor there is a strong community of Warcraft [1] players, which are both hits about that old. The reason behind such a longevity is replay value and moddability.

Civ has a fundamentally high replay value, because of the map generator that makes every game different from another, or because of the very different starting positions in the same premade map. However, this is not enough to prevent the player from getting bored after several games. Identical development patterns, identical [artificial intelligence (AI)] behaviour can end up dulling the player. That's why moddability is essential in keeping the game alive. With mods and scenarios, the game can be thoroughly refreshed, and be interesting again. Some tweaks in the rules can give a somewhat fresh game experience for a little time, whereas drastic mods completely change the way the game is played.

Scenarios have what the normal game lacks : the necessity for the player to find new ways to victory, rather than the same development pattern. Unlike normal games, scenarios put the player against very specific odds he will not encounter anywhere else. In this meaning, scenarios cannot afford to be mere placement of cities and units on the map. Scenario tools must allow the scenario maker to bind the player whatever way he wants. This way, some of the player's usual methods will be barred from use, making the experience more interesting. That's why scenarios are so interesting to play, even by veteran players.

That's also why new scenarios and mods get created. And that's why people continue to play the game, even years after.

8. "Just one more turn
Civ games wouldn't be the same if the player didn't always want to play "just one more turn" again and again, if the player didn't always want to see what happens next turn. Where does such an addiction come from ? It first has to do with the nature of a Civ game : each game lasts long, and it is reasonable to interrupt it at some point to do whatever [real life] demands. Not many games require to be interrupted like that, with the player being very reluctant. In my opinion, there are two desires at work : the willingness to reach short term aims, and the curiosity to see how the rivals will react.

There are many short term objectives in a Civ game : the construction of a wonder, the discovery of a new tech that'll allow such and such, the conquest of a city or of a civilization, etc. Since these objectives aren't too far away, the player imagines he can get to them before exiting the game. This leads to this kind of thinking: "I'll go to bed next turn, once I discover Gunpowder". Then "I'll go to bed in two turns, once Leonardo's workshop is done. I'll sleep better knowing it is mine". Then "I have newly upgraded knights right next to Madras. I'll take it right away, just one more turn" etc, etc. The key for such a behaviour to arise is for the game to have many objectives which are significant for the player, but yet are can be relatively quickly achieved. If a technology was discovered in 80 turns, the excitement about getting it would be much lower. At the opposite extreme, if a tech was discovered every turn, the excitement for it would be nil.

On the other hand, the game must also offer surprises between turns, to have the player excited about them. Will the Chinese manage to corrupt my Spanish neighbours into entering war against me? Will Wonsan heroically resist the Japanese onslaught? Will the French beat me to the Hoover Dam or not? To do this, the computer needs to offer a good challenge, but the game mechanics also need to require civilizationss to interact much with each other. CivII gives some examples of lack of surprise coming from the AI: a builder strategy could be completely autarchic, and as far as you had peace, you had nearly no business with your neighbours. Besides, there was nearly no thrill when building a wonder, since the AI didn't know to use caravans as well as a player, giving the player a definitive edge. To some extent, this lack of surprises has reduced the "just one more turn" feeling.

There are also elements which ruin the "one more turn" feeling quickly:

- Tedious turns. If the player feels he is forced to micromanage too many things, he can consider the game to be more like a job. And he wouldn't look forward with enjoyement to the next turn. In the Democracy game, I've seen turns lasting more than [three] hours: you can be sure nobody wanted to play "just one more turn" after a [nine-]hour session.
- Long waiting time between turns. CivIII is made such a way, the game becomes exponentially slower on bigger maps, which means even modern computers can experience serious slowdowns on huge maps or more. If the waiting time becomes too much of a pain, the incentive to play "just one more turn" tanks.

In short, the "just one more turn" feeling means the player is excited with the near future, whether it is about his close objectives, or the surprises the opponent will make in an effort to hinder the player reaching them. As a conclusion, I think all the qualities[...] cited are what makes good a Civ game, and I assume each one is carefully thought out during the game design. I hope you have found th[ese] article[s] interesting and exhaustive. Thank you.

---------
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.