Tweet
Is Clash history or simulation
The original Civilization was created to be a game about the history of humanity-i.e. in the game you would build pyrimids and all that great stuff that acutally happend. But the problem with this is when you do those things it make the game inherintly hard to truly control because you won't be able to, say, build a huge cube instead of a pyrimid because you like that shape better. But an Egyption Pharoh could do this if he wanted to.
There's another way some people view Civlization, as a simulation of what it would be like to be the ruler of a great civilization. In my opinion this idea is infinitly more interesting because it allows much more of a open ended game.
Now idealy for the later idea you would have a huge dynamic world where ever part of your country's inerworkings could be controled by you and do things no one could ever imagine. That of course is imposible for many, many reasons. But there are definitly different direction where we could be taking this game. So which one is it, down the historical path, or down the open ended idea of a king simulation?
There's another way some people view Civlization, as a simulation of what it would be like to be the ruler of a great civilization. In my opinion this idea is infinitly more interesting because it allows much more of a open ended game.
Now idealy for the later idea you would have a huge dynamic world where ever part of your country's inerworkings could be controled by you and do things no one could ever imagine. That of course is imposible for many, many reasons. But there are definitly different direction where we could be taking this game. So which one is it, down the historical path, or down the open ended idea of a king simulation?
Comment