"It's a game," you say.
OK. But what kind of game? In the course of my postings, I've noticed that many of us have what appears to be a fundamentally different approach as to what this game is.
I think that Civ I and II are essentially 'civilization simulators' in the same sense that we use the term 'flight simulator'. Obviously a civilization is immeasurably more complex that an airplane, but the basic idea is to mimic reality as closely as the computer will allow.
Just as flight simulators were very simple at first, so are the Civ games now. But I hope that, as computers become faster and better, Civ games will also become more complex, incorporating things such as weather patterns--which could, as some have suggested, be optional features.
However, in the various forums, some members have written: "Enough with the options!" meaning that we should not make the game overburdened with possibilities such as "autobuild," "customize unit," etc etc. In other words, complexity is bad and the game should be as basic as possible. Or at least, it should just stay as it is.
But to me, this to me is the same as creating the best, most realistic flight simulator in the world and then saying, "Well, there are just too many instruments on this panel. Let's get rid of a couple." What's the point?
Well, it's this: Some flight simulators are played to simulate the sensation of flying, and the operations of the plane are kept simple. Other flight simulators try to give you the full experience of what it's like to fly a specific airplane with as much realism as possible, at least as far as instrumentation, maneuverability, etc. are concerned.
I personally enjoy playing Civ because it lets me experience what it might be like to control a large empire with all the complexities that go with it: war, economics, science. In fact I want more: culture, religion, natural disasters. The effect of individual genius on a society (ie. Einstein). The more realistic, greater the complexity, the better.
What do you think? What is Sid Meier's Civilization, exactly?
OK. But what kind of game? In the course of my postings, I've noticed that many of us have what appears to be a fundamentally different approach as to what this game is.
I think that Civ I and II are essentially 'civilization simulators' in the same sense that we use the term 'flight simulator'. Obviously a civilization is immeasurably more complex that an airplane, but the basic idea is to mimic reality as closely as the computer will allow.
Just as flight simulators were very simple at first, so are the Civ games now. But I hope that, as computers become faster and better, Civ games will also become more complex, incorporating things such as weather patterns--which could, as some have suggested, be optional features.
However, in the various forums, some members have written: "Enough with the options!" meaning that we should not make the game overburdened with possibilities such as "autobuild," "customize unit," etc etc. In other words, complexity is bad and the game should be as basic as possible. Or at least, it should just stay as it is.
But to me, this to me is the same as creating the best, most realistic flight simulator in the world and then saying, "Well, there are just too many instruments on this panel. Let's get rid of a couple." What's the point?
Well, it's this: Some flight simulators are played to simulate the sensation of flying, and the operations of the plane are kept simple. Other flight simulators try to give you the full experience of what it's like to fly a specific airplane with as much realism as possible, at least as far as instrumentation, maneuverability, etc. are concerned.
I personally enjoy playing Civ because it lets me experience what it might be like to control a large empire with all the complexities that go with it: war, economics, science. In fact I want more: culture, religion, natural disasters. The effect of individual genius on a society (ie. Einstein). The more realistic, greater the complexity, the better.
What do you think? What is Sid Meier's Civilization, exactly?
I even think the worst mistake in Civ is to think you're a god. The real pleasure and fun (at least to my mind) is not to command or order units to live and die for you (nor worship you) but to lead the destiny of a whole nation towards the ages. That's a bit different. Perhaps I'll be misunderstood but that's what I think of Civ.
