 |
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris Pine FIRAXIS
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Apr 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
[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]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
 |
The Metropolis known as Hunt Valley
Mar 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
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).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
StormLord
|
|
Bloemfontein, OFS, South Africa
May 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I'm REALLY looking forward to Civ3.
One of the main elements of fun is being able to do many things, and each one should have some unpredictable consequences. (probably a form of chaos theory, because we even had this in Civ1)
Another thing is that the player should become immersed in the game, a good way to do this is to shape something (an empire or a character usually) around the player.
Also, lots of exploration is good, but there must be something to find... ofcourse
I know all of this has already been said, but I think a summary is always good for context.
My favorite classic games:
1. Civilization (1+2)
2. Anacreon (no graphics, no sound, beats MOO2 with
both hands behind it's back)
3. X-Com (1-4) (No.1 and 3 is in a constant battle to
be the best. I should make my own RTT
someday, to show how it should be done)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The factor of Fun in a computer game seems notoriously difficult to capture. Although one can usually pinpoint an area or feature as fun, it can sometimes be hard to say why, and how to transmute it into other areas as well. However, there clearly are some things that, at least in my opinion, contribute heavily to how good a game is. This post is rather long, and I apologise for that, but I just felt like writing a huge essay on the thing. Maybe I should have posted it as an article for the column instead.
Firstly, there is the important factor of Empathy and Antipathy. One of the failures of Civ, as far as I am concerned, is that it is in some ways a very academic pursuit; you're largely detached from the reality you're supposed to be playing in. No other Civs seem especially good or evil to you, they're just there to be played out against each other in a series of dry, repetitive diplomacy options. The other leaders do not have very fun personalities, just a series of similar templates. And the combat, well, symbolic, detached combat does not make you attached to your units in the same way as low-down gritty, realistic, well-animated combat does. SMAC attempted to remedy this to some extent, but I still think that the diplomacy was too formulaic, the faction leaders did not really act that differently and the story elements felt more like an annoyance than anything else. I think it is vitally important to introduce factors which increase your empathy for your Civ and your citizens into the game.
To begin with, the graphics definitely need a boost. The combat needs to be spruced up, your units and citizens need to feel real, substantial, personal. Secondly, the different civilizations need to feel different from you and each other, there should be cultural clashes, lingual problems, long-standing grudges and hatreds, self-possessed emperors and meek chancellors, evil despots and benevolent rulers, cowardly back-stabbers and holier-than-thou religious maniacs... And this should reflect into the diplomacy. The diplomacy screen should go beyond the very shallow formulas of previous games in the genre, and be fully-fledged cultural clash engines, like in Star Control 2 (for example). Finally, the story elements need to be emphasised more, and more spectacularly than the text messages in SMAC.
A second factor is the sense of achievement. When solving an intricate and complex problem I want to feel a huge sense of satisfaction over having done so. The most important factor here is an appropriate difficulty level, so that one can really feel happy with the achievement accomplished. Other things that help induce the fun factor here is getting something for your effort. A great throne-room/castle is nice, a good city view is always fun, wonder movies are essential, significant and good-looking civilopedia entries are crucial to help you relate to what you've just achieved, and so on. One crucial bit here is the satisfaction of creating some truly lethal tactical combination that can crush everything in its path, to have figured out a way to beat the system, etc., essentially similar to puzzle-solving.
A third factor I consider to be perhaps the most important is that of Creativity. To be brutally honest with you, I never played more than perhaps a dozen games of Civ2 and I have yet to finish a single one (I think I finished SMAC twice), yet Civ2 is still the game I have spent most time with in my entire life (together with Micro Machines 2, for similar reasons). The reason? The wonderful, flawed but wonderful, scenario editor that came with Fantastic Worlds. I'd sit around for hours and hours just designing units for scenarios that I never used later, creating implausible and unplayable mods like my Football Pitch scenario, and just having damn good fun. It is crucial for Civ3 to have proper text-parsers, proper graphics-editing capabilities, a good scripting language and/or macro language, to be totally editable in every way, etc. Absolutely crucial.
---
Favourite classic games:
The Secret of Monkey Island
Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge
Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis
Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers
(Micro Machines 2 and Civ2 were both '96, I believe)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Antonios
|
|
Larissa,Thessalia,Hellas
Oct 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
As one of the most famous writer from Hellas,called Kbafis, wrote in his poetry called {this is an island in Hellas(this the real name of the country you called Greece which in few words has a connection with slavery)(Greeks means slaves)}the most important think in an attempt is not the goal but what you make and face in order to reach the goal.The road which lead in success and what experience you get from the whole trip.He thinks that the attempt is a trip and the goal is the island you want to go.When you finally reach the island you understand that the island(the goal)is not as good as you thought.But what remains is the experience.I think that this is the real GOAL of trying to reach the goal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maccabee2
|
|
Hands down, CivII!!!!!
Civ2's level of management was great. The total immersion of it was magnified by the genius of the Wonders video clips. CTPs little computer animations for wonders were disappointing by comparison.
Civ2s video moviettes for each wonder were better than just eye/ear candy. They made you feel your were there, and genuinely gave you a feel for that culture by exposure to their music, architecture, and indirectly, their values and priorities. That was the greatest part of Civ2's success for me. I'm still playing it, and CTP is sitting on the shelf! (I especially like the modern music played with the clip for Leonardo de Vinci's Workshop, implying that he was indeed a man ahead of his time!)
If Civ3 will repeat this method, they will have my money in their bank as soon as the game can be bought by any means.
Hint! Hint! Please don't opt for cheesy computer animations for your wonders! The video clips are a medium that won't wear out.
Next to the Wonders, the diplomacy was a constant energizer for me. That's why I chose it over the usual game of straight tactics, like Panzer General.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
zyxpsilon
|
 |
Laval,Quebec,Canada
Sep 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
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
|
P-A-C-M-A-N! I was faster than you, i scored Gigapoints and you made me eat some bulky bananas in a maze or two...
But more seriously (or is it?);
In my "freaky mind boggling case":CONFUSED:, Maxis's SimCity-2000 is extremely hard to compare with anything for a very simple reason, the SIMULATION of whatever they meant by it. That's my point here... surprise me, please me, make it so funny, it makes me smile forever.
And CIV's, of course!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
I really like "Seven Cities of Gold."
You play a Spanish adventurer in the new world, and have to explore, interact with the natives, gain wealth, and eventually set up colonies. While technically a strategy game, the item managemant and interaction with the natives make it feel like an RPG as well. The gameplay was really fun, even though the setup was simple. There was no offense or defense, just exploration, diplomacy, item management, and of course the goal of setting up those colonies and getting them enough supplies.
I have no idea how old it is; it was a Dan Bunten game that originally came out for the Commodore 64. I got the PC version an a "Classics" pack that was in a bargain bin about five years ago. I heve never seen it or even heard of it since then. I think this is the best game that no one knows about. I really wish that someone would remake or re-release it, because it should not be lost to history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
Well, why aren't you making a career out of it? I'd love to play a version of Seven Cities of Gold where you have the option to really manage those colonies you create.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-10-2000 10:01
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!
|