What gives Civ its "Feel/Atmosphere."

covok48

Emperor
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Messages
1,150
Location
Texas
Many people come here and ask "Why is Civ I better/ Why do you still play this?" and often the replies are that it just has a better "feeling/atmosphere." Here I'm putting into words what we mean by that...

Here are some aspects that gave civ (windows/mac/DOS version) that 'feeling' that were either left out or diminished in sequels:

1) Customizable castles with a choice of cultural architecture.

2) Victory sequences for space/conquest victories even after score was
recorded.

3) Uncomplicated trade system, just send caravan to a far-away city.

4) Recognizable non ultra-specialized/specific military units.

5) Impressive city view displaying increasing urbanization and technology of your city complete with wonders, improvements, and people.

6) Random events that either benifited/hurt you or another nation.

7) Unique civ attributes that made other nations different from you own.

8) Only the most culturally important and society altering technologies are available on the tech tree.

9) Animated landscape with waves crashing on the shores and rivers flowing downstream.

10) Diplomatic screens were not only funny (advisors smiling and scowling) but also reflected what age and government a civilization was at the time.

11) Foriegn intellengence reporting what other nations were up to. Rewarding embassy screen. All this for building a diplomat!

12) Full color background of a unit indicating what side it's from, not a shield or other poor discernment.

13) All civ events reported on a newspaper who's price reflected the importance of your capital city. Quotes above headlines were classic.

14) The "form and void" animated introduction.

15) Unit limit/uniform map size kept games short(er) and more compact.

16) Rich and recognizable terrian graphics that made world look good even with railroads and irrigation everywhere!

17) Rivers were their own squares and thus indicated a suitable city site.

18) Uncomplicated diplomacy. Either it was peace or war. In a Republic/ Democracy, you could stay at war with an enemy by simply not speaking to them and thus forcing peace.

19) Each government offered a realistic unique change that could alter the entire course of your civilization.

20) Game counterbalance of global warming in response to going nuke-happy. Altered game severely, also made it a hell of alot more interesting.

21) Best damned Civilopedia of all time. Each entry was enjoyable to read and came with a picture. No hyperlinks, no rampant political correctness, only values and a fun description.

22) Money was MUCH harder to make. Budget shortfalls created dynamic element to the game. Same goes for shield production.

23) Random generator evenly divided continents that weren't one massive pangea nor were they connected to any poles.

24) Happiness advisor screen much more detailed. Even included %'s.

25) Combat System: Though frusturating (and sometimes humiliating) all-or-nothing style encouraged decisive battles that could either make or break your nation.

26) Specialized music for each culture you come into contact with. Indicated the infamous "meeting with king" diplomacy screen.

It's the little details like these that makes Civ I a Timeless game and not just a Great game. These concepts were not only revolutionary in their time, but add to the general "feel" that everyone refers to.

That's all I can think of. If there are any other points please post them.
 
in short:
it's a real GAME -
not an overcomplicated 'simulation of all possible events in life/politics/economics'.

it's short and good and reasonable.
you simply can PLAY it. :king:

.
.
.
the other important point:
the simple and catchy graphics of civ.1
- you don't need *new eyeglasses* or something like an secrets-identification-system to see WHAT UNiT, WHAT TERRAiN you have to recognize-to-play-with-it:
you know it intentionally just after some hours of playing. :king:
 
I don't remember squat about the random events (fires, etc.)... How did those happen and what kind of effect did they have?

--Mike, who has not played Civ1 for more than 90 seconds in, oh, eight years
 
GoldBerg said:
in short:
it's a real GAME -
not an overcomplicated 'simulation of all possible events in life/politics/economics'.

it's short and good and reasonable.
you simply can PLAY it. :king:

.
.
.
the other important point:
the simple and catchy graphics of civ.1
- you don't need *new eyeglasses* or something like an secrets-identification-system to see WHAT UNiT, WHAT TERRAiN you have to recognize-to-play-with-it:
you know it intentionally just after some hours of playing. :king:


Totally agree. That Civ 1 has his shorcomes doesn't mean that it is a bad game. In my opinion it is (one of) the best game ever made.
Uncomplicated rules, but otherwise very extensive for its time.

And When I was eight and I first played this game it was one big 'exploration' Every move was as exploring a real world. I was eight, didn't understand much of Englisch, and the rules I never studied. I Lost nor won my first games, but was totally amazed when a captured city grew up to size 16 and later even 19 (Basra). Later i began to understand how the food/shield/commerce system was working and how I could influence almost everything with a wide choice of units, buildings and wonders. I Will never have the same game experience as at the time Basra grew up to 16.

Maybe I'm sounding sentimental, but no game can ever be on the same level of gameplay.

Civlization 1 :king:

Strange enough I have this feelings only for the DOS version.
 
Yep. Civ 1 is timeless. The balance of that game is amazing: it's simple, fast, and still relatively realistic.

The best game ever.
 
Praise the Lord!
 
MikeLynch said:
I don't remember squat about the random events (fires, etc.)... How did those happen and what kind of effect did they have?

It's been a while, but I do rember that there were some rendom events. The only one I rember clearly, was if a city did not have a temple, there was a chance that you would get a message saying that a volcano had erupted and the citizens wanted a temple. I think that maybe that city lost a population point.
 
I still play Civ 1, for four reasons:

1. Believe it or not, I find it more challenging than Civ II. In Civ 1, I have had to fight for my life many times against the Russians or the Mongols backed by hordes of armor. By contrast, in Civ II the AI seems disjointed -- it will make an isolated attack on a city but it never seems to really follow through. I've never been seriously threatened in a military sense by any Civ II civilization unless I was totally overwhelmed in technology.

2. Better diplomacy screens. Dealing face to face with Stalin or Genghis Khan is just so much more personal than a faceless, robotic herald without discernible personality. The facial reactions -- smiling when they're trying to sucker you, angry when they declare war -- seem much more "real" than the computer generated doll in civ 2. Also, each country had it's own music, and it was deeply evocative. Hearing the ominous sounds of the Volga Boat song when I dealt with the Russians just who and what I was dealing with. It felt like a much more dramatic, much more powerful confrontation.

3. Better illusion. Although the graphics are incomparably better in Civ II the problem is that they look a little too .. uh, realistic. I feel like I'm moving models around on a mat, as if I were still playing with a kid's dolls. By contrast, Civ 1 is much more of a "map" game, and thus preserves the illusion better. It felt more like I was looking at a 2-D map of a country, rather than a playbox.

3. Recognizable advisors. Don't get me wrong -- I LOVE the Civ2 advisors and their sense of humor. But there was always something about looking at my Democracy advisors when playing the Americans -- knowing that you had Ben Franklin as your diplomat, Sam Clemens as your domestic, Thomas Edison as your science, and TR as your military advisor -- maybe it's different for other people, but those gentlemen are some of my personal heroes. Yes, they were only pictures, but it was still a wonderful picture. In truth, that's a lot of the reason why I got the game again -- so I could experience the illusion that I was on the same side as, and being advised by, such great men.

Of course, the other advisors weren't bad either. In particular, the modern despotic advisors gave the perfect feel of a Latin American banana republic, with comical-looking buffoons wearing pseudo-military uniforms.

I guess it's precisely because the graphics are more primitive that it holds the illusion better. Being more obviously a cartoon, it leaves more freedom to the imagination. By contrast, the ultra-sharp graphics of the new games remind me -- all too often -- that that's just what they are, games.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

PS. First post, sorry. -- BDP.
 
One hell of a first post, Brian. I have to say I agree with every one of your points, which is peculiar since I've been playing Civ2 with no Civ1 interruptions for years and years now. Maybe this is the inspiration I needed to dust off The Game That Started It All.

there was a chance that you would get a message saying that a volcano had erupted and the citizens wanted a temple.
Ah yes, I remember that now. I specifically remember ignoring it whenever it came up.
 
Don't forget the music!

It's always exciting when you hear the music and you know that something good is about to happen before the animation shows you that you have discovered "Automobile"!
 
I agree with all previous points. Other editions, being more "multimedia", lost something. I would add that the top view in civ 1 is clearer than the pseudo 3D. There's no ambiguity where your units are going. It has already been said in other threads but it's so important to me.
 
I would add that the top view in civ 1 is clearer than the pseudo 3D. There's no ambiguity where your units are going.
Fair point -- even now I sometimes have moments of doubt with Civ2 and I've been playing it nearly nonstop since it came out.

Good news, then, that apparently they may be going back to squares for Civ4.
:eek:
 
I love civ2, I really enjoy civ3, and I'll probably love civ4 when it comes out.

They are all worthy successors to civ1.

However, they will never introduce the concept of the game again, they can't. The entire concept of civ1 was new when it came out. Civ2 goes into more detail, but it doesn't introduce a new concept. Civilization is definately my type of game, it's only natural that I feel the most nostalgic to the game which defined the series.
 
I played civ 1 and 2 not yet 3 coz my comp cannot support it....

after playing civ 2, i prefer to play civ 1....simple and fast but meaningfull...every move i make is more precious than civ 2...the terrain can make me feel that every single move is important...the simple negotiation is a compllete negotiation...the complexity of civ 2 makes me bored...larger place to explore is very boring...:D

The songs...hahahha...i feel funny everytime i think about the intro song...it sound nothing...but it means a lot...haha...

this is the first game that makes me love to play strategy games....


Eddy ^^
 
Great post covok48. Every one of your points are true. You've put words to what I had always 'felt' about Civ I but didn't know how explain it!

Another thing I've always thought with Civ 1 DOS and other DOS games - when they went to Windows something was lost, for some reason (for me anyway) having everything in set out in separate windows in the style of whatever OS you were on turned me off. hat probably doesn't make much sense to people who have always played the Win or MTac version (which i play now seen as i own a mac these days), as its exactly the same game, and I got over it quickly enough!
 
Back
Top Bottom