The Theory of FUN

[SWPIGWANG The Second]

What makes games fun? Or what make Civ Fun? Without a clear focus any attempt to 'improve' the Civ formula will not work.

realism? control? think? power?

[Dr Strangelove]

These games are called "god games." They should appeal to the inner megalomaniac.

[tonic]

It's a synegistic blend of strategy and chance. The latter is an important fun ingredient in any game comprising as it does both suspense and an appeal to the universal gambling instinct.

[Chris Pine FIRAXIS]

Interesting question...

This happens to be the primary question of the last several years of my life. As you might imagine, talking to Sid is one of the best ways to learn about the 'Platonic Form of the Fun'; though sometimes it's like asking asking a musical genius how he makes good music: he'll tell you what's good and what's not, but the 'why' isn't always that clear. He just 'knows'. It's a bit spooky, actually.

Rather than try to summarize what I've learned from Sid, though (which has no coherent theme as I see it, except that it all happens to be really fun), I'll tell you my latest 'theorette'.

The most fun games have three components:
1) Offense.
2) Defense.
3) The Goal.

This is why I think Team Fort is so much more fun that HalfLife Deathmatch and why winning by colonizing Alpha Centauri is more fun that conquering the world. They both substitute a Goal with extreme success at offense. It's the same reason that Go is better than Chess. It's the same reason that I don't care much for most realtime strategy games.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy deathmatching and conquering the world, and even Chess on occasion. Actually, I'm a pretty big fan of AoK with the Conqueror's expansion. However, these games all lack a Goal (as distinct from offense and defense), and thus just aren't as much fun for me.

Games with all three elements are often fun right up to the end, even if you're losing, because losing doesn't mean being utterly eliminated.

I have more thoughts on this, but I'll leave it open for discussion.

Anyone?

[MarkG]

[fun mode on]
look, look, a firaxian!
dear god, you are alive!!!
[fun mode off]

[serious mode on]
what i find civ games to be fun for two main reasons:
1) they are not one-sided: there is war and diplomacy, economy and trading, science and city building, etc etc...
2) they have a big time span: you start with arrows and you end up with tanks

in most strategy games you are focused on war, and the evolution of your units if from an archer with a 5 range, to one with 6, to one with 7, to...
[serious mode off]

[news reporter mode on]
so how is civ3?
<- (big happy you-can-tell-me-i-wont-tell-anyone smile)
[news reporter mode off]

[Seeker]

Hmmm...whatabout Sim City?

The idea of the computer game as a 'virtual sandbox'

[rremus]

Other games are fun too, but we keep coming back to civ... Because each time we play its different!
The number of posibilities and strategies to adopt is so big, that each time we play we fell it's a different game. One time your a maritime empire, one time your stuck somwhere in the mountains with a huge agresive empire at your borders, the combinations are endless!
So I think civ keeps on rockin' because each game really is a chalange, no matter how long you played before!
[This message has been edited by rremus (edited November 02, 2000).]

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

I personally find games fun if there is a lot of exploring to do, little things to unlock, find, discover, and manipulate. I play a lot of RPG's for this reason. I want to get the cool magic weapons, the superbad instant death spell, etc. Other games I loved for this reason are games like X-Com, MOO and MOO2, Neuromancer, and tons of other classics. Diablo II is doing a good job of keeping this spirit alive with all the rare and unique items.

Another factor is the game's immersiveness, or more accurately, the lack of restriction on what you can do in the game. I think this is one of the reasons games like the Sims and SimCity are fun, because you always want to see what you can get away with, or how far you can take an idea before technical or other limitations make it infeasible. At the same time, as Chris mentioned, without a strong primary goal, the game at some point loses its appeal.

I'd be interested to hear what everyone's favorite classic computer games are... and by classic I mean, more than five years old =)

Dan
Firaxis Games

[rremus]

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS on 11-02-2000 10:17 AMOther games I loved for this reason are games like X-Com

X-COM, that was an excelent game. I just can't understant how come such a good initial idea got worse with each sequel!

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS on 11-02-2000 10:17 AM I'd be interested to hear what everyone's favorite classic computer games are... and by classic I mean, more than five years old =)

More than five year old... Let me think... Has anyone here played 'Vulcan'? That was the granpa of PanzerGeneral style games... But had a really smart feature: You did not move the units one by one, but you give them orders, then adversary gave his orders and then they all move, simultaneously! It totaly changed the tactics!
Another one was LaserSquad, on which X-COM I think is based.
Both were on Z80 platform...

[Seeker]

Strategy
MOO2
Panzer General I
Imperialism I
Sim City 2000

RPG
Ultima6-7
Arena: the elder scrolls
World of Xeen

Shooter
the Fortress of Dr. Radiaki
Doom
Wolfenstein

[Ralf]

What is the Civ-3 formula for FUN? Well, im of course bias, but for me it should mean:

Constantly being forced to make calculated choices that, whatever i choose; *always* going to give me both attractive benefits AND hard-to-swallow trade-offs, in different, but 100% non-extractable mixtures.

In short: Never being able to succeed in ALL areas (resource, science, economy, happiness, military, population, health and more) simultaneously, no matter how good i am. I MUST choose.
I can win, but i CANNOT win simultaneously over the AI in all and every areas. While im perhaps have a 100% comfortable lead in *one* area, the AI might just win the overall game by being even more supreme in another area.

The FUN-part is that i have to constantly worry/make calculated quesses - and never, never being 100% sure before the game is actually over.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 02, 2000).]

[aCa]

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS on 11-02-2000 10:17 AM I'd be interested to hear what everyone's favorite classic computer games are... and by classic I mean, more than five years old =)

My favorite classic computer game have to be the orginal Civilization. Sid Meier managed to get me hooked. I played all day for many months

aCa@civ

Anonymous Civilization Addicts

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS on 11-02-2000 10:17 AM I'd be interested to hear what everyone's favorite classic computer games are... and by classic I mean, more than five years old =) Dan Firaxis Games

Do you remember the old "civ-style" game Empire?

This was a character based game (I think it started on IBM or DEC mainframes and was later ported to DOS). The game would start out with one city and unexplored territory. You could not see any of the board until you explored it (just like Civ). Different letters of the alphabet represented different units (B=Battleship, D=Destroyer, A=Army, T=Transport, etc) that were produced from your cities. There were no city functions other than producing military units and a settler type of unit to build new cities.

It most certainly lacked the finesse and complexity of Civ, but it was essentially a human player building a country using military units to protect the country and defeat AI players. I was hooked on this and later hooked on CIV.

It was a cool game in 1979. When my dad would go to bed, I would go to his office and use his terminal and 300 baud modem to connect to his office to play EMPIRE. (He kept the account name and password on a 3x5 under the phone -- classic mistake!!!

[Joe Bourque]

>>I'd be interested to hear what everyone's favorite classic computer games are... and by classic I mean, more than five years old =)<<

Star Control 2 and Ultima Underworld (1/2) win hands down. They're followed by Civ/MOO, and finnaly, just for nostalgia's sake, all the old SSI Gold Box AD&D games.

Joe

[JESSVG01]

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 11-02-2000 05:40 PM Do you remember the old "civ-style" game Empire? This was a character based game (I think it started on IBM or DEC mainframes and was later ported to DOS). The game would start out with one city and unexplored territory. You could not see any of the board until you explored it (just like Civ.)

This game Empire is alive and well. There are some 50 or so servers that still run the game. There is a freeware client called WinAce that provides a GUI front end to the game. I'd not find it a surprise to know Sid played the Orginal before Civilization was created.