How to make civ3 more epic?

[The diplomat]

epic: 1. a long series of events characterized by adventures or struggle.
2. impressive by virtue of greatness of size, scope, or heroism.

If anything fits these definitions, it should be the civ genre. Civ is about leading a civilization to greatness over 5,000 years of human history. What could be more epic than that?
However I feel that the civ games so far have not conveyed that epic aspect as well as they could. For example, seeing 2 little units fight does not really convey the idea of a huge struggle on the battle field between large armies of legions and hoplites. And how many of us gloss over the Wonder movies after we have seen them for the millionth time?
So, this thread is about how to bring out that "epic-ness" in civ3.

Here are some of the ideas I have come up with:

1. battle screen.
Have a battle screen but not like CTP. If the stack of units are over a certain limit, there would be a battle screen. But it does not simply line up the units like CTP. NO! It would represent each units as a small battalion of men. The player would watch the armies fight it out with "battle" music in the background. Now that would convey the "epic-ness" of the battle. After all, It might be the battle for the capital of Rome itself.

2. Event movies.
Only big events would have special movies just like the wonder mocies. For example, if you conquered an enemy capital or if a civilization were completed defeated, there could a movie to illustrate the event to the player.

3. more elaborate messages.
Instead, of just a quick small window saying:"city X is rioting", let's create some atmosphere. Have a full screen picture illustrating the event with some text. For example, there could be screen showing a city burning and people runnning throught the streets, with the message:"The population of Thebes is revolting. They are burning and looting the city!" This would convey the importance of the event better and force the player to take note and not gloss over things as easily.

4. Narration.
Instead of small message windows to convey the event. How about an audio clip. For example, after you defeat a civilization, the player would hear:"In the year X, the mighty civiliation Y was defeated."

5. A history account at the end of the game.
At the end of the game, there could be a replay showing battles, major events with audio narration maybe.

These are just random thoughts. They might look complicated but they are not meant to be. I am not talking about anything that would require huge CPU power or anything. Any suggestions?

I am just trying to think of ways to enhance the player's enjoyment of the events of the game. Like I said, civ3 should be epic because after all it is about human history. The player needs to be captivated by the events of the game. When there is a major battle, or a great Wonder is completed, or a civilization rises etc, the player needs to feel like they are part of something trully epic!

So, the question remains: How can civ3 convey that epic quality of human history?



------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Sean]

I am all for increasing the grandure of my civilisation, and being recognised for it! Some good ideas here. I worry you may be over-using the video option. One, the take up space and two, they can become repetitive and boring. People often disable them after the first couple of viewings. But I certainly suport the principle behind your arguments.

------------------
Give me Liberty, or give me death!

[raingoon]

Great idea for a thread! You really have to ask yourself, as you did, what epic means. Also, what does epic do?

For instance, I can think of many a game where the video -- the cut scenes, the victory scenes, etc. -- were as you described. Even in Warcraft the designers were trying to convey a sense of the sheer "hordeness" of all those hordes hording over. At least, I remember it that way. But then the game starts and you're back to looking for a tree to chop down. Which is just as it should be.

But that ain't epic. I'm taking the long way to say I don't think you hit on what would make civ more epic. I think you're dealing in ideas about the presentation of "epic", but not the design of epic. Hence my second question above, What does epic do? What is the design of epic? First comes to mind is that epic does exist in the civ genre. The idea that you are just one lone settler in the dark in the beginning, and struggle, and struggle, and you're a complex, sprawling civilization before it's all over. That is truly epic already. But your saying "and it needs to have an epic feeling to go with it." So true, so true. I agree with your suggestions, although I hesitate on the battle screen and I don't need a full screen revolt screen. There is something elegant about the smaller windows, their demand for my attention isn't out of proportion to their relative importance.

But I would say that the DESIGN of epic gameplay is there and I just hope it is elaborated on. I think the key to epic is focus on the relationship between the beginning of the game with the middle and the end. If epic means "impressive by virtue of greatness of size, scope, or heroism," than the game must include the OPPOSITE of that to prove it so. I.e., just as there is only the one settler in the beginning vs. the sprawling civ in the end, so in general the game that reaches lofty heights of "greatness of size, scope, and heroism" must begin small and diminished in size and scope, and require not heroism but villainy at times. And so it does, generally. But I'm sure Civ 3 could articulate these oppositions in more specific ways. Trade for instance never felt particularly epic, did it? I mean you start with one, but that didn't increase unless you repeated as necessary, ad nauseum. Which is what trade could feel like at times. But if the trade model is tied to resource exploitation, which in turn is tied to infrastructure and unit production, then I can see Trade becoming epic in Civ 3, by my "start little, end HUGE definition." Connecting different elements of the game together and starting them off at zero, or one, and giving free reign to the player to grow them as large as their strategy permits, is a good rule of thumb for being epic. The cities, oddly, also did not feel very epic in Civ 2 at times, and maybe that was due to the infamous ICS problem. I think fewer cities more well developed -- and a varied countryside full of villages and hamlets and towns and cities and large sprawling megalopalises will make cities feel much more epic to me than in the past. Sometimes you felt like you were making a checker board out of CIv 2 cities, and each growing individually.

Also, under the "heroism" part of epic. I wonder how the new leaders feature will improve the epic feeling of the game? I suspect substantially, as will the ability to fight with Armies. However, CTP2 has armies, but the naming feature for those armies in CTP2 was awful. It speaks right to the lack of imagination on the designers part. In CTP2, you end up forming all these armies, but they have these numbered names and every time you dettach or re-attach any one unit that number changes. What a way to kill the suspension of disbelief. Just when you're getting into raising the Army of York, it changes back to Army Number 323, reminding you this is after all not a game created by storytellers, but computer scientists.

So I'll close with that word. Storyteller. In my ear, "epic" is usually followed close by with that word, "story." I think Sid Meier is a genius game designer because he's a natural born storyteller. I think that your suggestion, diplomat, for an elaborate post-game review/history is right on. I hope they do something like that, or like what Markos suggests in his poll based on that other game -- what was it called? Stars something? That's a good idea, I think. It tells you what happend here WAS epic, and a rich story, and the hero ultimately was you.

[Steve Clark]

For me, truly epic features in Civ3 would be:

1. More involved battle screens, like a turn-based battle mechanism on a 3D map, and

2. Having a ground-level view of your city

[raingoon]

From the column today, by MarkG, or host. I think this is epic thinking:

quote: CTP2 already introduced the idea naming your armies. Why not take it to a unit level? Can you imagine being able to see the most glorious of your units? In how many and which battles it participated, how "old" it is, etc. Do you want to take this out of the "it's a cool feature" category and have it affect the game? Create a formula to replace the random creation of veteran units with something more sophisticated.

[The diplomat]

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your concerns about videos.
The ideas I suggested were more to get the discussion started than anything else.

I look forward to hearing other suggestions. I am sure other people will think of better, more innovative ways to bring out the epic-ness of civilizations!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Zanzin]

Yes, yes and yes!! All these ideas are great. Because, at the end of the day, building a civilization is an epic experience.

But how to capture that 'feeling' and conveying it the user? Well, Firaxis have got a very hard job!!

In terms of battle, 'epic' to me means one of the battle scenes out of Braveheart, or in modern terms, the beach landing at the start of saving private Ryan. How to put that into Civ3..I dunno - any ideas?

In terms of the empire, you have got to feel 'attached' to your people. You've got to actually care about them, as if a real leader (ofcourse, you may be a ruthless leader, and not give a stuff - which is all part and parcel of the civ experience!!)

Things like end game replay, narration, battle screen, veteran units, feats of wonder (ala ctp2) etc all go along way to achieving this 'epic' feeling.

Civ2 felt quite epic. Raingoons "start small, get huge" idea really came out in Civ2 - I had a feeling of my accomplishments over the last 5000 years.

ctp1 and 2, on the other hand, felt like more of a chore than anything else. So what went from between Civ2 and ctp? (Activision stepped in a royally screwed things up...but that topics kinda been done to death)

Anyway...If civ3 can engrose me so much that the "just one more turn" syndrome captures me again and doesn't let go for months, I think I'll feel I've been involved in something epic.

On the point of capturing the feel of different ages, one thing that should definately change is the money system - do we still use gold in this day and age? Yes, but not really.

The money system really should go - Gold (ancient period, through renaisannce) dollars (industrial through modern) fuseo dollars or credits for future - if the game goes that far. How do other people feel about that?

[Henrik]

Dollar is hardly used all over the world, there are and have allways been lots of different currencies/valutas, the dollar when it was first introduced in the 15th century by a german lord did quickly become the valuta used all over europe (but in germany(and the rest of europe back then) it was called Taller, Reichstaler or from the begining; Joachimstaler. Taller became Daler and Daler became Dollar). But it wasn't used all over the world, in China tey had paper money by this time for instance.
Also, "gold" was hardly ever used as the valuta of a nation, bronze and electrum coins of different kinds have been used ever since people stopped trading whit furs, etc.
Instead you would have a more relative way of naming the valuta, first there is "goods" (or no money at all) then "coins","papermoney/notes" then there would be credits. More sorts of money could be inserted here I can't think of more right now though.
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited March 12, 2001).]

[Stuff2]

I think the player should earn points with all kinds of different events.
- how civilized or how well educated and healthy etc
- first ship around the world, first man on the north pole etc
- biggest civ, happiest civ (in comparison to size) etc
- and ofcourse those already included: wonders of the world
The point is that your status (and not only the population) should be measured in the scoring.

About making the game more epic i actually think three easy-implemented features is a must:
1. More demographics
2. More random events like plagues and disasters
3. More ancient turns

[raingoon]

Regarding battles, I agree with Braveheart and Private Ryan as great epics, but also so were the Alamo and other smaller engagements epic. I have a theory that all these battles are epic because of one thing -- we understand what the goals of winning were, where the glory was, and that is conveyed in the way we picture the battle visually. Once you know the goal is for the 30 rebels to withstand the entire Mexican Army, or the Allies to take the beach head, or the Scottish tribes to surprise the English Army in flanking attacks, it's impossible not to visualize those battles in that epic way. On the other hand, WITHOUT either side having a distinct character and distinct stakes in the outcome, there is no epic feeling, only so many units colliding into each other. No matter how dark the sky or grand the image, it's just stuff crashing around.

So my theory to make battles more epic would be to worry less about the visuals -- a battle screen, for instance, would be unnecessary -- but instead, emphasize the CHARACTER of the battle, and the GLORY of the goal. Already you will feel the cause is epic if Firaxis does a good job of giving the player's Civ more character, more things to shape and get involved with. Adding Armies was a great idea, military leaders also. So going into the battle you've got that epic sense of purpose, and of course the army on the other side with IT'S leader that you want to defeat.

Now I suggest there be a "GENERAL'S TENT" the way diplomacy has the "NEGOTIATING TABLE." You go into this tent and there you see a an old fashioned map with curled edges by candlelight, showing tomorrow's battlefield, or if you choose, the entire theater of war, with toy soldiers and cannons that you can move around, indicating your choice of ground, order of attack, march, enemy disposition, etc. As you give your orders arrows of attack direction begin to curl across the map, leaving you with a picture of how you want the battle to go. You should be able to signify on the map which of your units you are giving orders to, which you want to march and when, etc. This would require spy units to have done a good job discovering the enemy's disposition, and could be disasterous if your spies were not veterans or if you had none at all. Anyway, THIS to me would feel like an epic battle, because it was so much more CLEAR like those great epic movie battles. If you want people to be involved in the fight, everything has to be very clear. The minute it's not, the umbilical cord breaks and suddenly you're just watching, no longer participating.

For the actual fight, maybe there is a way to replace your toys and arrows on the map, and suddenly turn the terrain to real terrain with small scale versions of your units and watch as they try to execute your orders against an unpredictable enemy. Perhaps if you have a signal corps you could pause once in the battle to issue new orders, otherwise it's like Civ 1 and 2, you cross your fingers and hope for the best until you either win or are forced to issue a retreat.

Anyway, there's an idea for epic battles. The "GENERAL'S TENT" (which btw, if you win and the enemy decides to surrender the war, would lead right to the "NEGOTIATING TABLE" that already exists).

[Zanzin]

Henrik - Sorry if I didn't make myself clearer, I didn't mean simply dollars. I should have said something other than gold. I said dollars cause thats the currency I use. I agree that it could be a problem to implement in civ3 due to the fact there are many different currancies world wide. Maybe you could invent your own national currency when the time comes along, and even go as far as the game having international money markets and what not.

Raingoon - I totally agree with what you're saying about giving the battle character to achieve the epic feel. But wouldn't a pretty unit graphic be more engaging than a sprawling arrow? Also, it's a tough decision to decide how "involved" the player should be in battles. Civ isn't a game just about war. You could have it as it is in civ2 and "hope for the best", or go to the complete oposite extreme and have a command and conquer depth battle management thing (which would make the game take forever). This is probably where the Army leaders will come into play in civ3, in that they can choose strategies for you and what not. I'd definately like "battle music" during a battle.

Ofcourse, it's all up to Firaxis in the end - lets hope they can get it right
[This message has been edited by Zanzin (edited March 12, 2001).]

[Urban Ranger]

I have said this a thousand times already and I am going to say it again. Civ 2 isn't epic because it doesn't really give you the feeling of controlling a great nation, but controlling a bunch of cities. That's not epic.

To be epic, the game must be able to:

1. Conceal micromanagement.

2. Make it so you feel like you are in control of a nation. That means take away many fuctions at the city level and put them at the nation level.

3. Progressively gives the players more info as new advances are researched. For example, maps aren't permanent until Mapmaking is discovered.

[Zanzin]

Yes yes yes!!

Return of the city view!! But a highly developed one from Civ2. Maybe something along the lines of "Streets of Sim City" which was an expansion for SC2000 where you could walk/drive through your cities. Alas, Firaxis don't seem big on true 3D programming...so it probably won't happen..there may not even be a city view at all! (gasp shock horror) Let's hope it's something good

[The diplomat]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 03-12-2001 10:54 PM I have said this a thousand times already and I am going to say it again. Civ 2 isn't epic because it doesn't really give you the feeling of controlling a great nation, but controlling a bunch of cities. That's not epic. To be epic, the game must be able to: 1. Conceal micromanagement. 2. Make it so you feel like you are in control of a nation. That means take away many fuctions at the city level and put them at the nation level. 3. Progressively gives the players more info as new advances are researched. For example, maps aren't permanent until Mapmaking is discovered.

ABSOLUTELY! I agree with all your points. I have been a proponent for a long time of moving city functions to the empire level and reducing micromanagement.

Also, I think that a world map with a parchment look, and that looks more like those atlas maps, you know those maps of the babylonian empire that shows how far it extended. It would be cool to see a map with colors showing the expansion of your borders over time. The player needs to look at it, and say "wow, look at how big my empire has become!"

I also really like Zanzin's comments:

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin In terms of the empire, you have got to feel 'attached' to your people. You've got to actually care about them, as if a real leader (ofcourse, you may be a ruthless leader, and not give a stuff - which is all part and parcel of the civ experience!!)

It was one of the things that made AoE really cool. You saw your villagers walk around and do things. You saw them fight, build things, collect ressources, hunt etc. As a result, the player felt more connected with their empires. Civ2's city screen is more impersonal because you never really see your people other than the little citizens. Sometimes, you would hardly know that your empire even has a population!
I am not suggesting RTS. I am not suggesting a detailed map and the kind of micromanagment of AoE. By no means!!
I am suggesting perhaps to replace the city screen with a city view. let's see your cities in a little more detail. I want to see little huts in the stone age gradually turn into small wooden houses, into stone buildings, and eventually a large metropolis!! I want to see my villagers fighting, working, playing etc... I want to feel that my people are real! Again, in AoE, you see your little villagers work. And you also see them die, and turn into skeletons after a battle. As a result, you care about them. And that contributes to an epic game!


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited March 13, 2001).]

[GaryGuanine]

I really like some of the ideas here, I Think it's a good thread. A concern of mine, though, is that I thought Civ and Civ2 were "epic" when they were new. Controlling my civilization, building armies, I had a great time. By the time I had played them a lot, they lost their sense of novelty, and I was just trying to beat the computer. I still loved playing it, but it wasn't "epic" anymore. I feel that way about most games, after you play it a lot, you no longer become immersed in it, since you know the game so well.

When I think epic, and this may have something to do with the effect described in my first paragraph, I think Civ 1. Watching those little buildings get built, seeing my scientist guy show me a picture of the tech I just researched, watching the little Connestoga(sp?) wagons set up really made me identify with them. I think lots of the ideas presented here build on that idea of making the game more "personal".

Diplomat's idea of just making the messages you get more detailed may seem superficial, but I think it's a really good idea, and it may help a lot. The history is another good idea. Those narration things are a good idea, too.