Tweet
This may be stating the obvious, but a conceptual thought dawned on me recently. There are three strategy games that I absolutely love to play more than any: Civ2, Imperialism 2 and Pharaoh. I have played each one again recently and in thinking what I love about those games comes down to this thought:
Each of those games allows me, as a player, to plan for and execute short-term strategies in which I can measurably see the results, whether good or bad. In other words, each strategic step or phase along the way, there are short-term strategies that you plan and execute in which you will see whether they are successful or not. That is the reward/feedback system that I believe is the crux of playing strategy games.
For example, in Civ2, deciding to build a SSC requires some planning and execution in which you can tangibly see the results directly through increased science. In Imperialism 2, for example, there are critical moments that diplomatically allows you to conquer some provinces without risk. Planning for that time and in choosing to build the right mix of units at the appropriate time might reward you with the results of seeing new provinces added. In Pharaoh, deciding to start the clay/pottery industry will reward you with seeing your housing move to the next level. In each of these (and in many other games as well), there are short-term decisions that you choose to plan and executing that you will see very measurable results. It is very rewarding, as a strategy gamer, to have these short-term decisions and watch how they directly affect what is happening.
To make a long story short, in the few times that I played Civ 3, I never caught this reward system. I believe it is due to the needless complexity of many disparate elements trying to work as a whole. However, as much as I can criticize Civ 3 for being too complex and unwieldy (too many ideas thrown together), it is far better than the purposely vague reward/feedback system of EU. Some likes to see results in an intangible way, while others, each action should see results in a measurable way. That, imo, is the essence of a positive ‘one-more turn’ syndrome instead of a negative ‘do I care to keep playing?’ syndrome.
Each of those games allows me, as a player, to plan for and execute short-term strategies in which I can measurably see the results, whether good or bad. In other words, each strategic step or phase along the way, there are short-term strategies that you plan and execute in which you will see whether they are successful or not. That is the reward/feedback system that I believe is the crux of playing strategy games.
For example, in Civ2, deciding to build a SSC requires some planning and execution in which you can tangibly see the results directly through increased science. In Imperialism 2, for example, there are critical moments that diplomatically allows you to conquer some provinces without risk. Planning for that time and in choosing to build the right mix of units at the appropriate time might reward you with the results of seeing new provinces added. In Pharaoh, deciding to start the clay/pottery industry will reward you with seeing your housing move to the next level. In each of these (and in many other games as well), there are short-term decisions that you choose to plan and executing that you will see very measurable results. It is very rewarding, as a strategy gamer, to have these short-term decisions and watch how they directly affect what is happening.
To make a long story short, in the few times that I played Civ 3, I never caught this reward system. I believe it is due to the needless complexity of many disparate elements trying to work as a whole. However, as much as I can criticize Civ 3 for being too complex and unwieldy (too many ideas thrown together), it is far better than the purposely vague reward/feedback system of EU. Some likes to see results in an intangible way, while others, each action should see results in a measurable way. That, imo, is the essence of a positive ‘one-more turn’ syndrome instead of a negative ‘do I care to keep playing?’ syndrome.