LOCUTUS: Faces of Apolyton #12, 19/Jun/2004

PART 2 | PART 1

Solver: Now that we've had a good discussion about CtP, I'd like to turn to other things Civ. Can you give an outline of the general things you need to see in a civ game for it to be good, along with your priorities?

Locutus: That's easy :) The one thing any game (Civ or otherwise) needs to have in order to be considered a good game is that it needs to be FUN! If it's not fun to play, it's not good. Of course, being fun is very a generic characteristic and there are about a million things that influence the fun-factor, but this is what good game design should always be geared towards. You can add a million cool features, a kick-ass AI, awesome graphics, more forms of MP and SP play than you can shake a stick at, and throw in a dozen goodies (such as posters and bonus CDs), etc -- if all these things don't add up to the player having a good time playing, it's all for nothing. A game might have none of these things and be buggy and unstable to boot, if the game is fun to play, players will be able to live with the weaknesses. The fierce debates people can sometimes have about whether a certain game is the best thing since sliced bread or an abomination also stem from this: different people have different ideas of what's fun (and how many bugs and other problems are needed to take it away).

Example: Dungeon Keeper (the original and gold editions, I'm yet to try part II) has never worked well for me: it's prone to crashing and hanging, the main mission screen is often screwed up, some missions won't load at all, there are some annoying errors in the Dutch translation (but regardless it's still the only game ever for which I find the translation better than the original), it won't load my savegames, it has terrible graphics (particularly the 3D first person mode), an unintuitive and unpleasant UI and a lousy AI. Yet I still thoroughly enjoy playing that game, even after almost 7 years (though admittedly I don't play it nearly as often as Civ). It's the concept, the humour and the core gameplay that seal it for me. On the other hand, a game like Freelancer has everything one could possibly ask for in a space simulation (kick-ass graphics, intuitive easy-to-use UI, fantastic storyline, huge interactive world, great MP options, awesome battles, etc), but after finishing the default storyline I was like “Okay, that was an interesting game. What's next?' -- I haven't played it since. It's not that it's a bad game, but it doesn't grab me by the throat either; it just misses that magical element, that thing that makes me play the Wing Commander games over and over again but that makes me leave this in theory superior game on the shelf.

Solver: It's a good point you make, and we're clearly all are looking for fun. Can you, though, break it up and say what's fun in Civ for you, is it the AI, multiplayer experience, or anything else?

Locutus: In that case, the question of what makes a good Civ game becomes a question of what makes a Civ game fun? There are many factors, but I'll try to list the most important ones (or what I feel are the most important ones).

For one thing, I'm supposed to be the leader of a huge empire guiding my people through human history, so I want to feel like the leader of a huge empire. The game must have an epic atmosphere and give me the feeling I'm actually controlling an empire. As I explained earlier, particularly the latter is something CtP2 excels at. The Civ1-3 series mainly seem to try to do this by making you feel connected to your civ, by giving civs a personality (most notably through AI personality but in Civ3 also by adding things like civ-specific abilities and unique units). Though that's important as well (CtP2 could use a little more of that), it doesn't work nearly as well.

This partially ties in with the previous point, but since I'm replaying history, I also want to feel like I'm replaying history. Familiar historical events, developments, places and buildings should be featured. During the game I should recognize things: “Hey, I can build the Pyramids, just like the Egyptians!' or “Damn, The Plague has killed a third of the population of this continent -- again' or “Wow, ever since I entered the Industrial Age my population has been booming, how realistic'. Though Wonders are from a game-balance point of view actually a bad thing (and some people have argued for abolishing them for this reason), they're absolutely brilliant for this purpose. Historical leaders (with matching AI personalities), city names and styles, etc also help with this, as well as random (and not-so-random) events. And of course, what's also important is good gameplay which actually shows parallels with human history (while still allowing enough room to deviate of course). Every Civ-game has its own strengths and weaknesses in this area, but if I had to choose one winner here, I think I'll go for Civ1.

Another important thing is that, at least later on in the game, I'm supposed to be in control of a huge empire. This is nice, this is what I want, but it carries the risk that I end up having to do so many things so often that it starts to become a chore. A classic example is moving Caravans and Diplomats around the map in Civ2, or controlling hordes of Settlers (or Workers, in case of Civ3) to terraform and maintain the infrastructure. To prevent such problems, a good, stream-lined and intuitive User Interface is important, as well as game sound concepts that don't require excessively more work as the game progresses and the empire grows. Again something CtP2 handles really well, with its macromanagement screens and features like Public Works.

Of course what's also very important (if not the most important) is the core gameplay: how do game concepts like combat, resource gathering, scientific progress, governments, trade, diplomacy, etc work? They shouldn't be too simple or too complex, they should be intuitive, historically accurate, easy-to-use and fun -- they should 'work'. I could list all concepts in Civ and explain what each of them should be like, but what's most important is not how but the fact that they 'work' and moreover, that they work together. They should interact with and affect each other and form a cohesive unified game model. If you look at individual concepts, probably every Civ game wins in some categories and looses big-time in others, but as far as cohesion between concepts in concerned, I think I have to declare Civ3 the winner.

The fifth and final of the major factors that make a Civ game fun is variation: in principle, every game of civ is very similar: the tech tree is always the same, you build the same buildings and units, you always go through the same 4X phases (exploration, expansion, exploitation, extermination) in every game, etc. If you always played the game on the same settings, it would no longer be able to surprise or challenge once you've become so good you can consistently beat the AI at Deity. It would quickly cease to be fun. But the numerous start-up options that you can configure in all versions of Civ, the different kinds of maps, the scenarios and mods, forms of MP play, etc -- they're all things that spice up the game and keep it challenging by adding variation; they make every game unique and interesting.

Of the various features that add variation, it should be obvious to those who know me that moddability -- the power the fans have over the game to change it themselves and to create mods, scenarios and other ways of playing -- is the most important one for me. It's exactly this which makes that I'm still playing the CtP series more than five years since its initial release: the mods make that the game always keeps evolving into something new and fresh. So it goes without saying that CtP2 wins this category hands down, no other Civ-game comes close in how easily and extensively it can be modded (even if you disregard the fact that it's open-source now). However, Civ2 deserves an honorary mention here, not on technical merit but on the sheer volume of fan-made material available. As far as default start-up options and MP are concerned, RoN wins those categories (at least, if you can call that a Civ-game), but to me these features (especially MP) aren't nearly as important as moddability as I don't think Civ is the type of game that lends itself well for MP, and I'm not a very competitive player anyway.

There are many other things that are important factors in making a Civ-game fun, but these five issues are the most important ones. Things like AI, graphics, various bells and whistles, etc matter, but not as much. Of course, AI is important to give you a challenging opponent, but personally I don't play games to compete, I play them to enjoy myself. I want to see my own civ flourish and develop into a beautiful, rich and happy nation at least as much as I want to crush the opposition. Of course, accomplishing my own goals is a lot more satisfying if it's done while struggling with rival civs for the same resources and terrain, but to me an AI that behaves 'naturally' is just as important as an AI that builds and fights well. And while it's often said that graphics don't matter in a Civ-game, that's not entirely true: since games are long and you often play for hours on end, the graphics should be easy on the eye and everything on the map should be instantly recognizable. Civ graphics are traditionally terrible to look at and especially in Civ3 it's sometimes difficult to recognize what or where things (units, resources) are on the main map. In spite of its age, I feel Civ1 still has the best graphics of all Civ-games (though CtP2 is a close second). Finally, various bells and whistles such as the Palace Screen, Wonder movies, cutscenes, city view, replay options, statistics, demographics and rankings, etc are often described as unnecessary and distracting (and are often disabled/ignored by experienced players), they are important things that add atmosphere to the game.

PAGE 1 | PAGE 2 | PAGE 3 | PAGE 4 | PAGE 5

Interview Comments? Click here to let your voice be heard!

INTERVIEWS INDEX PAGE