Does Civ3 even attempt to be realistic?

[:) Smiley]

I looked through my Civ1 manual yesterday, and noticed a very different Civ than what we're now used to. To begin, Civ1 wasn't technically even a game, instead titled as a "computer simulation". Realistic drawings of historical scenes began each section, one of which was a seven-page narrative on human history and technolgical advances. The last section even listed about ten books "for further reading". As a whole, it seemed less a game and more an academic exercise.

Now, Civ3... There are talking leaderheads, cities that look like themeparks, unit animations and unique units, lots of style, and maybe some substance also. But as a whole it feels more like playing with toy soldiers than real empire building.

[Kropotkin]

I'm a long time player of the old games but just got civ3 the other week. To a certain degree I can agree with you. Surely they are patronizing their consumers, as most companies seems to do. I guess they are affraid to scare away people with looking to serious. Often it's the other way around. Anyhow, compared to CTP (I don't know about CTP II as I've never played it), Civ3 is much better. No tv-evangelist and other 'funny' units. Of cource, I think they are overdoing it all with Conquests. I haven't looked into it much, but seems to be going down the road most travelled. And that's a bad thing.

[Plotinus]

Well, to be fair, the sometimes "jokey" look of CivIII doesn't mean the game isn't serious, and has no bearing on the realism or otherwise of the gameplay (or simulation, if you prefer). Personally, the more realistic it is, the more I like it, and I do miss some of the features from the original (especially an Alexander who looked like the real one!)

I'd disagree that the Conquests make it less realistic - on the contrary, in fact. The fact that these are "snapshots" of particular moments in history means there's lots more era-specific detail in there, not to mention vast amounts of information in the Civilopaedia. Computer games have become vastly more educational than they were in my day - it'd be impossible not to learn *something* of history after playing through a few of the Conquests, I'd have thought. I have to admit, I relied on the information in the Middle Ages scenario to understand how Charlemagne's empire was split up among his grandsons in 843, a subject with some bearing on a book I'm actually writing at the moment. You could probably get a degree if you absorbed all the information in the entire Civilopaedia. It's pretty impressive!

[Kropotkin]

I have to admit, I relied on the information in the Middle Ages scenario to understand how Charlemagne's empire was split up among his grandsons in 843, a subject with some bearing on a book I'm actually writing at the moment.

So you got a fotnote that states *) Civilization III Conquests (software), Middle Ages Scenario.

[steven8r]

I think that Civ3 is about as 'realistic' as it can be within the confines of a 'playable/enjoyable' game. Sure, Aztecs w/ Ironclads is certainly not historical by any means, but certainly a possibility if things had turned-out diffrently.

Historically accurate, NO. Historically based, mostly so.

Steven

[Alex]

realism vs. fun = fun wins. otherwise, we'd have a boring game. (and it has always been a game, not a simulation - SimCity is a simulation, because it has no "goal" and you can't win or lose).

[:) Smiley]

Hmm, what would happen if I were to uncheck all of the victory conditions in the game setup screen?

The first Civ was marketed as a simulation though. About the realism vs. fun argument, the main case here isn't about realism vs. fun, it's about the type of fun. Civ3 lacks the epic fun and instead has Saturday morning cartoon fun. Biggest case in point being that horrendous POS you get when you build Magellan's Expedition. No documentary movie, just a picture of a water park.

[Kropotkin]

I'd like to watch your 'saturday morning cartoon fun', my germans just sacked Vladivostok, razed it and sent the population in exile to clear up a jungle south of München. Doesn't anyone has any imagination of their own anymore?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Smiley
Hmm, what would happen if I were to uncheck all of the victory conditions in the game setup screen?

Someone would get a score victory in 2050

Anyways, there isn't really a point to unchecking Conquest victory; if you kill everyone else, there's no way you WON'T win.

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

So you got a fotnote that states *) Civilization III Conquests (software), Middle Ages Scenario.

Shhh! I won't tell anyone if you don't!

[Kropotkin]

Your secret is safe with me.

As for the original question; Smiley claims that "Civ1 wasn't technically even a game". Surely this was the case. It was a game all right. Just because they called it a "computer simulation" didn't make it less so. Pirates! was more of a simulation of a sea-captains life in comparison for example.

[Filippo]

I think if you want realism you should look into reality and not into a game. A game is fiction. If you want to live the history as it really was, read history books. That way you will know how the Charlemagne Empire was split in better details than just a few crappy and general lines. If you want to SHAPE history at your own will, you'll have to play a game, namely you'll play Civ3. In case you didn't notice, this is what it is advertised about this game.

[Stefu]

Now, Civ3... There are talking leaderheads

That's certainly very much unlike the talking leaderheads of Civ1.

[Plotinus]

[Filippo] Yes, but there's a difference between realism and fidelity to actual history. Those who want Civ to be more realistic don't want every game to follow how history really happened - that would be ridiculous. But they would like each game to be how history *could* have happened - or, to put it another way, it would be good if, in theory, a game *could* play out just as history really did.

[Cookie Monster]

Realistic - no because how can a spearman defeat modern armor?
Fun - a big yes
Historically based - yes


Overall the new CivIII shouldn't be taken too seriously from a realism point of view, but from a gamer's point of view CivIII can be one serious game. Meaning there are lots of subtle tactics you must discover to win at the harder levels.