Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Firaxis, you confuse me. Do you know how to create great games or not? Because you've certainly proven that you can. So what's the deal? Why the hesitation?
First, let me explain my insight. Acquired through the last three decades of my contact with computer games, and Sid's games in particular. All computer games, regardless of their shape or form, are an experiment at communication. Between its creator, the game itself, and you. We are fully aware that, say, people on television, aren't really aware of us, the viewer. Yet, by some magic, we absorb their actions, fears, stories and events, and turn them into our own. We feel happy or sad, elevated or distraught, all these emotions generated by soundwaves and moving images coming from a mechanical box. A box we don't even need to touch. If that's not magic, I don't know what is.
Computer games, even the first ones, changed our world forever. Just as you can't really compare a person who experienced a radio or TV broadcast with someone who never did, you can't really compare a person who played computer games with one that didn't. Our mindsets are completely different – we experienced interactivity. Something that no radio broadcast can ever hope to achieve.
Over the ages, this new interactive experience expanded and grew, absorbing all the benefits of soundwaves and moving images that were previously the domain of radio and television. For us, gamers, passive entertainment was a thing of the past. What we have, TV can never achieve – we have the power to change things. To put ourselves into the story.
Getting now back to Sid games, I'd divide them into four ages:
1. The Originals: Pirates, Civilization, Colonization, Railroad Tycoon
2. The Upgrades: Civilization 2, Railroad Tycoon 2, Civilization 3
3. The Renaissance: Alpha Centauri, Civilization 4
4. The Dark Ages: Civilzation 5, Beyond Earth, Civilization 6
5. A New Dawn: X-Com, Civ6: Gathering Storm
The success of computer games can be divided into two factors: interactivity and audiovisual experience. Much like a two-step adhesive, these two components don't interact with each other until we, the player, combine them in our mind. This is the reason why you can have games with horsehockey graphics and sound, like the original Civ and FTL, but being fun to play. And have games like Civ5 or Vanilla Civ6, that have gorgeous graphics and sound, but horsehockey gameplay.
A game mute is a game dead
If I tell you Wololo, Kiri-dazu?, Tempest Keep Was Merely a Setback or Work Work
... at least one of these will put a smile on your face. And I don't even need to explain why.
You see, games are about interactivity. Games talk to us, with us, they push back on our attempts to interact, they test our experience or skill. At least, that's what games should be about.
It is no coincidence that Civilization 4 had worker sounds, that it had silly leader graphics and very chatty AI leaders. It is no coincidence that The Planet had a mind of its own and offered expanded AI communication in Alpha Centauri. This was by design. All these served a singular purpose – for us to feel a two-way communication with the game.
A curious example of this is Sim City 4's Rush Hour feature of having citizen events. Although the game was about building cities and soothing our inner OCD, you could click on a single citizen and help out with a "quest", perhaps even go on a wild car chase across town. Technical implementation was lacking, but the spirit was there. It made you, the player, feel a true part of your city.
Civ5 and 6 had none of this. Or if they did, it felt forced and out of place. These games truly feel less like an interactive game and more like a monument placement tool. If you zoom in or zoom out, everything feels like "it's just there".
One voice in the cosmic fugue
Can we get future games to be built by creators who understand interactivity? Can my voice overpower the apparent tendency of 2K/Firasix to disregard this critical component when putting people into positions of power? Perhaps. Who knows.
I'm not sure Firaxis knows what makes a game good anymore. There's Civ6, but then there's Gathering Storm, an expansion that is mostly about putting interactivity back on the map. It might be by design, or by lack of other ideas. It's hard to tell.
And... I fully understand now where the confusion of decision-makers is coming from. On one hand, you have a very wide population new to gaming that comes from television and radio (and it's derivatives). For them, expectations of interactivity are very low. But these people are also the main source of revenue. At least for a while. Because if the interactivity doesn't blow their minds, they will just return to TV and radio. If you, the player and paying customer, after playing a Civ session, still can't decide whether to watch a TV show or continue playing Civ, you'll know you've lost your customer. At least in the long run.
You can't just throw graphics or sounds at players anymore. We have Marvel movies for crying out loud. With budgets no game can hope to match. So, is the budget for Civ intro videos really worth it? Hard NO! And it's not really needed either. What we need is games that experiment and push the limits of interactivity, graphics and sounds taking the well deserved back row.
A good tip would be this: if you can't sell a Civilization game to your customers based on interactivity alone, you're doing it wrong.
First, let me explain my insight. Acquired through the last three decades of my contact with computer games, and Sid's games in particular. All computer games, regardless of their shape or form, are an experiment at communication. Between its creator, the game itself, and you. We are fully aware that, say, people on television, aren't really aware of us, the viewer. Yet, by some magic, we absorb their actions, fears, stories and events, and turn them into our own. We feel happy or sad, elevated or distraught, all these emotions generated by soundwaves and moving images coming from a mechanical box. A box we don't even need to touch. If that's not magic, I don't know what is.
Computer games, even the first ones, changed our world forever. Just as you can't really compare a person who experienced a radio or TV broadcast with someone who never did, you can't really compare a person who played computer games with one that didn't. Our mindsets are completely different – we experienced interactivity. Something that no radio broadcast can ever hope to achieve.
Over the ages, this new interactive experience expanded and grew, absorbing all the benefits of soundwaves and moving images that were previously the domain of radio and television. For us, gamers, passive entertainment was a thing of the past. What we have, TV can never achieve – we have the power to change things. To put ourselves into the story.
Getting now back to Sid games, I'd divide them into four ages:
1. The Originals: Pirates, Civilization, Colonization, Railroad Tycoon
2. The Upgrades: Civilization 2, Railroad Tycoon 2, Civilization 3
3. The Renaissance: Alpha Centauri, Civilization 4
4. The Dark Ages: Civilzation 5, Beyond Earth, Civilization 6
5. A New Dawn: X-Com, Civ6: Gathering Storm
The success of computer games can be divided into two factors: interactivity and audiovisual experience. Much like a two-step adhesive, these two components don't interact with each other until we, the player, combine them in our mind. This is the reason why you can have games with horsehockey graphics and sound, like the original Civ and FTL, but being fun to play. And have games like Civ5 or Vanilla Civ6, that have gorgeous graphics and sound, but horsehockey gameplay.
A game mute is a game dead
If I tell you Wololo, Kiri-dazu?, Tempest Keep Was Merely a Setback or Work Work
... at least one of these will put a smile on your face. And I don't even need to explain why.
You see, games are about interactivity. Games talk to us, with us, they push back on our attempts to interact, they test our experience or skill. At least, that's what games should be about.
It is no coincidence that Civilization 4 had worker sounds, that it had silly leader graphics and very chatty AI leaders. It is no coincidence that The Planet had a mind of its own and offered expanded AI communication in Alpha Centauri. This was by design. All these served a singular purpose – for us to feel a two-way communication with the game.
A curious example of this is Sim City 4's Rush Hour feature of having citizen events. Although the game was about building cities and soothing our inner OCD, you could click on a single citizen and help out with a "quest", perhaps even go on a wild car chase across town. Technical implementation was lacking, but the spirit was there. It made you, the player, feel a true part of your city.
Civ5 and 6 had none of this. Or if they did, it felt forced and out of place. These games truly feel less like an interactive game and more like a monument placement tool. If you zoom in or zoom out, everything feels like "it's just there".
One voice in the cosmic fugue
Can we get future games to be built by creators who understand interactivity? Can my voice overpower the apparent tendency of 2K/Firasix to disregard this critical component when putting people into positions of power? Perhaps. Who knows.
I'm not sure Firaxis knows what makes a game good anymore. There's Civ6, but then there's Gathering Storm, an expansion that is mostly about putting interactivity back on the map. It might be by design, or by lack of other ideas. It's hard to tell.
And... I fully understand now where the confusion of decision-makers is coming from. On one hand, you have a very wide population new to gaming that comes from television and radio (and it's derivatives). For them, expectations of interactivity are very low. But these people are also the main source of revenue. At least for a while. Because if the interactivity doesn't blow their minds, they will just return to TV and radio. If you, the player and paying customer, after playing a Civ session, still can't decide whether to watch a TV show or continue playing Civ, you'll know you've lost your customer. At least in the long run.
You can't just throw graphics or sounds at players anymore. We have Marvel movies for crying out loud. With budgets no game can hope to match. So, is the budget for Civ intro videos really worth it? Hard NO! And it's not really needed either. What we need is games that experiment and push the limits of interactivity, graphics and sounds taking the well deserved back row.
A good tip would be this: if you can't sell a Civilization game to your customers based on interactivity alone, you're doing it wrong.
Last edited: