Civilization 4
A lot of my time in the past few days has been spent playing civilization 3. As a game, it pales in comparison to the much more satisfying Alpha Centauri, but with all the expansion packs installed it's pretty entertaining.
Now I hear that civilization 4 is in development - exciting stuff. Alas, the expounded philosophy of 'simplify, simplify' is concerning, since I don't want Civ to be less complicated - I want it to be more complicated. Specifically, I want a unit workshop. I want social engineering on a grand scale. I want to be able to micromanage my empire's budget. I want a painfully complex diplomacy model. I want a mystifyingly complex espionage system. I want civil wars. I want a vast technology tree. I don't want Civilization to be simpler - it's a complex game, its very charm is in that complexity.
Luckily, it seems like most of the game will be moddable - perhaps I can realise my dream of writing an Alpha Centauri scenario for the new Civ when it is released. I had a go at it a while ago, but Civ 3 is a much more limited game than Alpha Centauri, so I didn't get very far.
Anyway, exciting news!
Now I hear that civilization 4 is in development - exciting stuff. Alas, the expounded philosophy of 'simplify, simplify' is concerning, since I don't want Civ to be less complicated - I want it to be more complicated. Specifically, I want a unit workshop. I want social engineering on a grand scale. I want to be able to micromanage my empire's budget. I want a painfully complex diplomacy model. I want a mystifyingly complex espionage system. I want civil wars. I want a vast technology tree. I don't want Civilization to be simpler - it's a complex game, its very charm is in that complexity.
Luckily, it seems like most of the game will be moddable - perhaps I can realise my dream of writing an Alpha Centauri scenario for the new Civ when it is released. I had a go at it a while ago, but Civ 3 is a much more limited game than Alpha Centauri, so I didn't get very far.
Anyway, exciting news!
6 Comments:
Man, I really agree with you. No need to add a single word, just know that I agree.
Mattia
There is a lot things to improve....
But the game is amazing ;)
Yeah, I agree with the original comment! What I'd also like to see is multi computers linked together and cooperative working on the SAME civilzation too.
Say, one guy working on military, one on social and tech, and a third on something else...? Basically in any which way you desire.
In addition to working against each other!
That's a great idea... either setting up multiple players as being in control of certain parts of the government, or perhaps even in control of certain geographical regions. The game would need to be much more complex to really justify that, but I could see it being a huge draw.
It would be like a team deathmatch, but turn-based!
I totally disagree with the first comment. I've been a Civ fanatic since Civilisation (1) and I have played every single Civ Title (including Alpha Centauri). The problem when things get too complicated (as with Test of Time and Alpha Centauri) is that you spend too much time fiddling with tiny details which is a great part of the strategy at the start of a game but becomes insignificant and boring towards the end of a game.
Particularly the tech advances in Alpha Centauri many of which appeared to have been included simply to create such a MASSIVE tech tree.
Civilisation is, and always has been, about the STRATEGY. Simplifying the game makes it easier to conentrate on the STRATEGY. I admit however that there needs to be a balance, and I'm sure everybody would have a different opinion about what that balance is.
I think Civ 3 has had the best balance yet by far.
I hope they don't make Civ any more complicated than it is, I hope instead that they make it more fun by bringing in more clever gameplay elements.
Let's all hope they don't OVER-SIMPLIFY it though!!!
I have to admit, until Civ 3 came out, Civ 1 was my favourite of them all - despite the graphics. It's the gameplay that matters.
I guess this comes down to personal taste. :-)
The problem I found with civ 3 was that the strategy was too prescribed... I wasn't able to capitalise on particular situations simply because I only had available vanilla 'cookie-cutter' potential strategies. Such mechanisms favour the kind of 'dead butterfly pinned to a page' formal techniques so prevalent in games like Chess.[1]
Personally, I like to be adaptive. I also like to feel a degree of immersion. I like to feel like the game is an interface to another world rather than a static set of rules applied to an abstract game state.
Some of the 'simplifications' in Civ 3 are simply criminal - like the fact that diplomacy is so one-dimensional compared to the textured grudges of Alpha Centauri. Unique civ traits are a good idea, but implemented so badly as to make them pointless (or indeed, a hinderance).
There's no reason though that Civ 4 can't cater for everyone with an abstraction layer system. Those who prefer the power struggle over continents could have the standard tax/science/luxury finance system. Those who want more control can expand the dialog and enter a new level of management.
A lot of people who played AC never used the design workshop... that doesn't mean that it should have been removed, because there were also many of us who did. In this way, both groups got the game they wanted.
[1] I'm a big fan of chess, but I already have a chess board. I don't need a bigger one.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home