NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#219 A VERSATILE GAME Rasbelin recalls the comforting familiarity of Civilization II. #218 I HAD A WHALE OF A TIME Rasbelin reminisces about the days of MicroPROSE now all in the past. #217 "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS": A PRESENTATION OF THE GAME Mark Everson motions for your attention to talk about a gaming project that he is currently leading. #216 THE FINAL FRONTIER Rasbelin runs through the Stella Polaris project on which he serves as Project Manager. #215 APOLYTON 2007 Rasbelin walks us through his predictions for five years time on the site of the name above. #214 THE COURTS OF CANDLE'BRE: AN INTRODUCTION Vel opens the door of the Candle'Brewing laboratory just for glimpse of what's happening in there... COLUMN ARCHIVE

This question occurred to me when I first started Alpha Centauri after a very long leave from it. I regretted how many cool features weren't ported from AC to Civilization III, and at the same time noticed how many cool features from CivIII weren't designed yet at the time AC came out. It led me to wonder what are the core principles that make a Civilization game enjoyable? It led me to think of the abstract qualities of a good Civ game.

To me, a good Civ game must have the following : 1. Complexity 2. Simple Interface 3. Involvement in the game 4. Cohesion 5. Challenge 6. Various levels of micromanagement 7. Replay value and moddability 8. “Just one more turn”

1. Complexity
When I'm playing Civ, I am not playing Starcraft or Unreal. These games are fun because they give you adrenaline rushes, but Civ's fun is completely different. Civ is fun because the player uses his head calmly, and develop the best strategies to overcome the odds.

What is complexity ? "Complex" is very different from "complicated". In a "complex" game, you have to weight several pro and cons, and no decision is obvious, there is no decision that is absolutely superior to the other. On the other hand, a "complicated" game asks you to do tedious tasks to reach a decision whether complex or not. Complexity requires every decision to have drawbacks, but also requires there are several dimensions of positive impacts and drawbacks. In a one-dimension game, there are only two factors which impact on each other. More clearly, in a one dimensional game, you have:

- Decision A will do good for your economy, at the cost of military prowess.
- Decision B will do good for your military prowess, at the cost of the economy.

As simple as that. A multi-dimensional complexity means you have several kinds of pros and cons. Economy, War, Science, Happiness, Diplomacy, Culture... In a multi-dimensional game, you could take this kind of decisions:

- Decision A has a good impact on your treasury, but a bad impact on your military and your culture.
- Decision B has a good impact both on your treasury and your military prowess, but your culture and research tank.
- Decision C gives you more culture and diplomatic skill, but at the cost of military prowess and research. etc, etc.

A good example of successful complexity in a Civ game is the diplomatic screen of CivIII.: there are tons of possible deals, and you haggle anything for anything, but it is extremely easy to do so. In the diplomacy screen, everything has a drawback: To get Invention from Cleopatra, do you prefer to lose money, to disclose the secrets of Education, to give all your workers, to ally with Cleo against her old foe Elizabeth ? It's your call. Getting Invention has a price, but there are many different prices whose natures are different. And that's why CivIII's diplomacy is complex. I love it.

2. Simple interface
A simple interface doesn't go against a complex game. However, it is more challenging to develop a simple interface for a complex game than for a simplistic one. A simple interface means you can take any action in a few clicks, or in one key-shortcut. By the same token, a simple interface lets you get any information you want in a few clicks.

Firaxis has done great efforts in making a simple interface. for CivIII: most available info can be found in pleasant, easy to use screens. All actions taken by units were accessible by a shortcut or by a simple click on the screen. All interactions with anything on screen were accessible by a right click. An example of the progresses made by CivIII in the matter is the comparison between diplomatic dealings in CivIII and Alpha Centauri: in AC, it was also possible to trade various things for other various things. But to merely trade a tech for another tech, you had to follow a rather long dialogue : "Let's have a deal. -> I want to access your research. -> I am ready to let you access my own research. -> Don't you want the other tech instead ? -> Deal !". In CivIII, you have to click on the tech that interests you, and to click on the tech you're ready to disclose : the advisor tells you whether it will work or not. In short, the concept is the same, and is equally complex (a tad more complex in CivIII actually), but the interface is much more simple.

However, CivIII offers an example of bad interface, when it comes to gathering info on other civs : to figure whether Bismarck has discovered Mobile Warfare (and the dreaded Panzers that go along), you have to go each turn in the diplo screen to check. Those who base their scientific success on tech-whoring have to check every single Civ every turn to know if there is something new : the information is here, the player is allowed to access it, but there is no convenient way to access the info = bad and complicated interface. In fact, simple interface goes along well with a complex game. Should the interface be too tedious or poorly designed, many elements of the game would be too boring to use. The designers would have to dumb-down the game to avoid boredom to appear.

---------
About the author: Civilization enthusiast.

Comment on this article!
This article was originally posted as material in this thread between April 11-12, 2003, but this version has been modified to correct previously published errors.

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.