Column #116; By MisterHungry

MisterHungry is taking Civilization head on in debating its historical roots in his debute article "Why Civ Is The Greatest And Worst Game Ever".

Comments/questions welcomed.

----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

[War4ever]

Well i agree that civ isn't perfect, and its hard to put a good game out much less a perfect one.

CTP took an interesting approach to civ with some of their ideas, slaver, eco warriors, lawyers, etc..... these are neat in concept but really didn't catch my attention the way they were hyped up to.

too much in a game and you have components that just don't work. Civ is a satire on world history. It doesn't try to hard to recreate all the historical events, it allows you to play as a leader through what we consider the "real" part of mankind, while at the same time providing a fun gaming atmosphere that alot of strategy gamers (tbs) are looking for.

I would love to make many changes to civ, but thats based on the fact that i have played 1000's of hours of this great classic.

I was mesmerized when it first came out and although civ is only really good for MP for the most part as i find it too easy, i still occassionaly SP with major handicaps or try the challenges that other apolyton members have proposed.

This is still the best TBS game out there IMO , but i am looking for civ3 to be as big of a breakthrough as the origional was... although i wont' hold my breath

[Comrade Tribune]

2 short comments:

1) This is one of the best articles I have ever read.

2) One answer might be: Civ is a game, perhaps not a simulation. What it gives You is a certain historical flair combined with a very good game mechanism, which is fair enough. (Of course this "functionalist" answer would just evade Your underlying question: "Is a simulation of real world history possible?"

[TCO]

I agree with comrade above.

What I don't want from CIV III: a whole different kind of game.

What I do want: CIVII on steroids. Better AI, cheats fixed. Nicer graphics, replay back, etc.

[Leonidas]

With regard to Misterhungry's article:

This was a very thoughful article. Imagine a game generating a debate about the nature of man, society and history! That is why Civ II is a classic game of titanic proportions.

Yet most of what Misterhungry discusses (or should I say laments) is actually IN the game. Maybe not in the standard game (although I think an historical person's motivation can be replicated by the gamer: Want to conquer the world? Then be Alexander or Ghengis Khan or Hitler, etc The psychological joy of treading those helpless civs under foot can be just as gratifying sitting at your computer as it can riding across the Russian Steppes).

Yet most of the incidents or periods in history that Misterhungry says are missing from Civ II can usually be found in the many user scenarios that are currently on the web. Name a period in history and you will find a scenario about it: Slave trading? Yes there is a scenario. Colonies? Ditto. Empire? Yes. Want to take on Rome? Then play as a barbarian tribe... I could go on...

What drives history? What motivates a person? A civilization? That can be defined by what Civ you decide to play. It can also be defined by how you approach the game. Do you want to conquer the world in Civ II? What Civilization do you play to accomplish this? You now have many of the answers as to what motivated these world historical leaders and civilizations: greed, power, lust, desire for gain, territorial expansion... (come on it is MORE thrilling to conquer than to build spaceships Don't you feel a thrill when the game announces that you have just destroyed ANOTHER civilization?)

And when the computer AI is beating you - don't you get a vicarious thrill of driving YOUR civilization to whip the tar out the AI's civilizations?

Oh yes, my friends - much in history can be duplicated in this game - the emotions, the psychological aspects, the drives, the desires... Yes my friends - you too can be Napoleon and drive your armies to the gates of Moscow - and you want to succeed don't you

------------------
Go tell the Spartans, passerby:
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

[DirkZelwis]

Hello!
The article was a good one, I agree with most of it. In fact, it tells much of what I've thought of about Civ2, philosophically. One major point is missing, though.
Some years ago Microprose was know (famous?) for doing good simulations. When I look at Civ2, I don't see a simulation, nor a game, though. What I see instead, is the simulation of a simulation. For example, there is no AI in the game, there is the simulation of an AI instead.
Anyway, the article was well done, and nice to read.
MfG Dirk Zelwis
"Dirks and Daggers."

[Carolus Rex]

Amen to GP:s post!

Carolus

[LordGrey]

Looks like I came in too late for the real debate and conversation. MisterHungry's column calls for even a late comment, though...

What I thought upon reading this column incarnation is in agreement with several posters above me: "What an awesome piece of writing and thought!"
My regards to MisterHungry for raising and addressing issues that have long plagued many about this game of Civilization with his eloquent litany of questions.

I can hardly attempt to answer the questions posed. Civ is a game and at that an attempt to be enjoyable, while real history may make a fun and exciting story to read, but would similating it perfectly, its blood, sweat, tears and endless stresses, could that actually be fun? And that is the column's point, isn't it?

The best I can come up with is something of a dodge, even if one that should resonate with many hungry Civers: Civilization III may come closer to the idea of historical simulation that MisterHungry's column wonders about, once I have experienced that game I hope to be a little more ready for a full answer.

[Comrade Dan]

I don't think that it is entirely necessary for the really really small details (sound feedback from, say, clicking a button like in CtP) that slows down my game.

Civ 3 should be Civ 2 with nicer graphics (no overboard stuff like ToT) and the AI should be like Deity on, as GP said, steroids. And if it looks like what it should be - if the tank looks like a tank - it's good enough. I don't need to see a tank from 8 different angles...

[East Street Trader]

Stimulating article, MisterHungry. Thanks.

I've just returned to a new bout of obsessive civ2 after a period playing various other games including Alpha Centauri. Now, I supect some of your thinking would not be at all remote from what the programmers of that game hoped to - and I think did - achieve. Giving a personality to the faction leaders and matching the faction qualities to some of the ideologies which the development of our current civilisation has thrown up undeniably adds nuances and subtleties to the game.

But I HAVE (where is the italic key here?) returned to civ2. And my addiction to other games NEVER gets to the same level. Civ2 (like Civ1 before it) is just a bloody good game. If I was one of those who devised it I'd revel in every one of the endless moans about the A1 cheats. Because somehow, magically given the game's complexity, they DID get some balance in there. And the game can still surprise you after thousands of hours of play.

Chess it is not. Even bridge or poker it is not. But a very, very good game it is. If its a naff simulation, well here's one that doesn't really care two hoots about that.

East Street Trader

[SCG]

quote: But I HAVE (where is the italic key here?) returned to civ2.

try putting an i in greater than/less than signsand then close it with a /i in the same form (ie think HTML)

to see for yourself, find a post with italics and click on reply with quote