What is the meaning of Civilization?

[Trade-peror]

As suggestions for Civ 4 accrue, I occasionally wonder whether a suggestion is really for Civ 4 or a new game altogether. What is "Civilization"? What characteristics allow a game to be called a Civ game?

That, of course, assumes that the concept of Civilization has persisted throughout the three versions of it so far, and in essentially the same form as it began. Should that or is that the case, however? If the some Civilization concepts were modified, is the new product a result of Civ conceptual progress, or is it no longer a Civ game at all?

More importantly, perhaps, which is preferrable? Everything has space for improvement; is it better to simply tack on new features to an essentially old but potentially flawed concept? Or is it better to alter a few core concepts to correct fundamental flaws, but risk a departure from the Civ legacy?

Any thoughts on the subject are welcome!

 

[GeZe]

Turn based, tile based, game. That is based on human history and its evolution.

 

[Philips beard]

Turn based, tile based, game. That is based on human history and its evolution.

Oh yeah!

 

[ybbor]

a game in which a person can simulate a nation's journey throughout history that allows the player to make decisionsas to how the nation they are guiding will continue its oddessy through time.

 

[warpstorm]

I'm not sure tile based is in the future of Civ.

 

[Trade-peror]

Very interesting. I notice very few specifics being mentioned, which is I personally find to be excellent!

@GeZe:

I agree that the overall "objective" of Civ is to allow a player to opportunity to influence human history and its evolution, as a game. Whether Civ should always be tile-based is a little more difficult for me to say, as that is a matter of interface and technicality rather than actual game concepts, yet I understand its importance. For the time being, I will say that keeping Civ tile-based (as opposed, perhaps, to 3-D)would be best.


@ybbor:

Absolutely! Civ indeed allows players to guide their "nation's journey throughout history."


With that considered, it would not be against the "concept of Civilization" to experiment with fundamental concepts, right? I should hope not, for how many new and interesting features can Civ acquire in its evolution, if it is always limited to upgrading the same old concepts?

 

[Jaca]

A CIV could be seen as the largest group of people possible with the same (strong) cultural resemblance. History however should play a role. In short:

1. A group of people => resources should remain the key as human depend on them. Resources should give both civil and military benefits, not military only;

2. Culture should play an important role: people can associate themseleves with a (much) larger group, but also create tension between different civilizations, as they don't associate that well sometimes. Cultural groups are possible (Asian, Western,...).

3. The growing human network should be simulated, with all it's benefits and problems: trade (resources, luxuries, techs, units), war, spread of desease, growing pressure on the environment (Earth's resources are limited !). This throughout clear technological or social ages, as it is now. We had three revolutions: Agraric (the first Settlers and the Workers!), Industrial (Steam Power! Energy becomes a measurable quantity) and Informational (The Internet ! Information became a measurable quantity) In between fall the Middle Ages with their new social platform (). I like it as it is now. That shouldn't change.

Regards,
Jaca

 

[ybbor]

@ybbor:

Absolutely! Civ indeed allows players to guide their "nation's journey throughout history."


With that considered, it would not be against the "concept of Civilization" to experiment with fundamental concepts, right? I should hope not, for how many new and interesting features can Civ acquire in its evolution, if it is always limited to upgrading the same old concepts?

of course not, as long as it is a player guiding a nation, then i don't care if tries to implement stupid things that make the game play horribly , it'll still have the right to be called civilization

okay i lied, i do care about those things

 

[judgement]

Turn based, tile based, game. That is based on human history and its evolution.

For better or worse, the "essence" of Civilization is a lot more specific than that! Take a look at Civ 1, 2, and 3: they all have quite a bit more in common than simply being turn-based, tile-based, and history-based. The basic mechanics of units and combat, the economic system of shields, gold, beakers, etc., the city mechanics including happy, content, unhappy faces, etc.

Each new version of the game changes some things and adds/subtracts some things, but the fundamental mechanics haven't changed much. To me, that's a good thing, since I really enjoyed Civ 1. I certainly don't think the original concept is "flawed" - its been enjoyed over three versions by countless people. Sure, there's room for improvement, but the fundamental concept and structure of the game has been very successful so far, why break it?

I'm not saying that a game that changed the fundamental mechanics wouldn't be fun: it might be. I am saying that it wouldn't be civ. There's already many other games out there that were "inspired" by civ: they take the same turn-based, history-based concept but implement it with totally different mechanics. Some of them are quite good, others are not so good. But if Civ 4 is going to be named Civ 4, then my opinion is that it should be more similar to Civ 1-3 than these other games.

I think the best way of defining the "meaning" of civ is to consider this: in the manuals for Civ 2 and Civ 3, there were sections titled "What's changed?" (or something similar). If you were familiar with previous version(s) of the game, than the "what's changed" section was specifically for you. These sections were very short: they did not take up most of the manual. In other words, a player familiar with a previous version had a very easy time learning to play the new version because most of the game mechanics were the same as before.

So, IMHO, in order to be worthy of the name "Civ 4," the new game must be similar enough to Civ 1-3 that the difference don't take an entire manual to describe, but can instead be described in a single "what's changed" section. If I have to learn a few new things, that's okay, its a new version, but if I have to learn a completely new set of rules, then its not the same game anymore and shouldn't be called Civ (even if the new game turns out to be very fun). If the designers decide (for some strange reason) that the mechanics of civ are so flawed that they should start from scratch, they're welcome to do so, but if they do, then they should also start from scratch with a new name. Calling a game "Civ 4" implies directly that it has plenty in common with Civ 1, 2, and 3; much more in common than just being tile-based, turn-based, and history-based.

 

[judgement]

I'm not sure tile based is in the future of Civ.

You've said similar things in other threads, so I'm curious why you feel that way. Did Firaxis make some announcement about this that I missed? All I've read about is changes to religion and civics, reduction/removal of "whack-a-mole", and changes to unit experience/upgrades. Not having seen any announcement about tiles, I'm left to assume that Civ 4 will use a similar tile system to Civ 1-3.

 

[Trade-peror]

@judgement:

Very interesting. Actually, I do agree with your essential conclusion that if a game does not contain essentially the same research, military, economic, and interface concepts as they appear in Civ 1 through Civ 3, then it is not really a Civ game.

More importantly, however, is whether that is a good thing. Certainly the Civ series has been very successful, and experimenting with the time-honored Civ title is incredibly risky, but do people only want more versions of Civ? I mentioned above that I see the future of Civ as rather limited if all the old concepts were only to be improved upon and no more, for how many upgrades can the same old idea take?

Of course, Civ has also often added features to the game; for Civ 3, culture is a significant example. That does open up more possibilities, but such a process will likely get more difficult with time, as everything added must basically fit with what is already part of the game.

What if, however, some element of the game is underdeveloped? I unfortunately see too little improvement on features of the game that initially appear underdeveloped. In fact (and many of you are well aware of this ), I see the economic aspect of the game extremely underdeveloped. If you would like to see some of my suggestions, go to this thread . I welcome any discussion on that matter in that thread.

More generally, why can a Civ game add new concepts and still retain the "spirit of Civ" yet cannot modify any concepts without losing it? Adding and modifying both have significant impacts on gameplay, and are thus ultimately the same in terms of degree of change.

Finally, and perhaps a treasonable question for some of you , does anyone want Civ to "try something new"? Be something new and different in the future? Depending on your definition of "Civilization," it may no longer be a Civ game, but is that really as important as having something new and possibly interesting? Any opinions are welcome!

 

[Perfection]

Warfare on the massivest of scales

 

[judgement]

@judgement:

Certainly the Civ series has been very successful, and experimenting with the time-honored Civ title is incredibly risky, but do people only want more versions of Civ? I mentioned above that I see the future of Civ as rather limited if all the old concepts were only to be improved upon and no more, for how many upgrades can the same old idea take?

A very important question. Obviously, Civ 4 must be seen as an advance over Civ 3. If the changes are too minor, then its not really a new version, its just another expansion pack or modpack. And, as we've agreed, if the changed are too major, its not really a new version of Civ but is instead a new game altogether, merely "inspired" by Civ and having a similar theme. So the question is: is there room in between, or is anything short of such a major change going to be seen as just rehashing the same old concepts? Personally, I'm optimistic that there is room in between: that the new game can have small enough changes to still feel like Civ, but big enough changes to justify its purchase. I admit its a question open to debate.

More generally, why can a Civ game add new concepts and still retain the "spirit of Civ" yet cannot modify any concepts without losing it? Adding and modifying both have significant impacts on gameplay, and are thus ultimately the same in terms of degree of change.

The 2nd and 3rd versions of civ did not merely add new concepts, they also modified existing concepts as well. Trade, for example, was completely redone in Civ 3, replacing the old caravan system with the new resource-based system. Also, the unit support system was significantly modified (recall that in Civ 1+2, each unit was supported from a specific home city).

So I would contend that the issue of retaining the "spirit of civ" is not an issue of additions vs. modifications, it is an issue relating to the number and extent of modifications.

Finally, and perhaps a treasonable question for some of you , does anyone want Civ to "try something new"? Be something new and different in the future? Depending on your definition of "Civilization," it may no longer be a Civ game, but is that really as important as having something new and possibly interesting? Any opinions are welcome!

In my previous post I found myself pointing out how much Civ 1, 2, and 3 had in common, and arguing that it takes a lot more than "turn-based, tile-based, and history-based" to be an extension of the Civ franchise. Now, I find myself pointing that there's plenty that Civ 1, 2, and 3 don't have in common! I'd say that, relative to Civ 2, Civ 3 did "try something new" on several fronts. I already mentioned trade and unit-support, and you already mentioned culture (which includes new ways to win, citizen nationality, and the entire concept of borders). Civ 3 also, among other things, drastically changed the way aircraft and artillery units work, altered the espionage mechanics to remove spy and diplomat units, split apart settlers and workers (the same unit, in Civ 1 and 2), introduced the concepts of colonies, armies, and great leaders, changed rivers from going through tiles to going along the edges between them, significantly improved the diplomacy options, made upgrading units an inherent ability of all civs (it wasn't possible in Civ 1 and you needed Leo's Workshop in Civ 2), made it possible to capture enemy workers and artillery, and made different civs more distinct by introducing civ traits and unique units. Some of these are small changes, but others, I think, are reasonably significant. And of course, I'm not even counting the graphical and interface changes which alter the feel of the game and affect how easy and fun it is to play even though they don't relate to game mechanics.

So, my personal feeling is that there's plenty of room for Civ 4 to both add new features and to modify existing game elements, while still being as similar to Civ 3 and 3 was to 2 and 1. The changes I expect (and want) to see are changes of approximately the same significance as the ones I mentioned above. When I bought Civ 3, I felt like I was still playing Civ, but there was also plenty of new fun to be had. For many of the changes I listed, learning the new game mechanics took no time at all, but fully comprehending how they changed the game took a lot more playing. In other words, even though some of the changes themselves were small, they often had large effects. And that's exactly what I'm looking for from Civ 4: changes that are small enough that I still feel like I'm playing the Civ I know and love, but that have significant effects so that the gameplay feels "new and improved."

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the biggest problem in the Civ series was that Civ2 was not a significant enough advance over civ1! Aside from some nicer graphics and some video based stuff, it was really just civ1 ALL OVER AGAIN! I often jokingly referred to civ2 as Civ1b. Don't get me wrong, I did prefer civ2 over civ1, but with the time between the two games, I really did expect a great deal MORE change. It really took SMAC and civ3 (and, at the risk of being struck down by Sid HIMSELF, CtP 1&2? ) for the civ genre to become genuinely 'revolutionary'!
With this in mind, I hope and pray that, whatever changes and modifications are made, we truly get civ4 and not merely civ3b!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Ballazic]

hold your tongue. Civ2 is a signifigent advance.

 

[Trade-peror]

@judgement:

While I do see your point, unfortunately I must disagree on a few details. As an example, you mention the reworking of trade from Civ 2 caravans to Civ 3 strategic and luxury resources. I see the Civ 3 resources as merely an additional feature, not a modification, but all of the old caravan functions have been scrapped. Although I see that caravans did carry "resources," and the new Civ 3 system deals with these resources, I see the similarity to be superficial and only in name. In gameplay terms, Civ 3 resource trading no longer actually generates any commerce, wonder-rushing is no longer available (fortunately), and food supply routes are absent. The Civ 2 "resource trading" system has completely disappeared, and a Civ 3 system has beenadded in its place.

Also, I agree that the unit support system in Civ 3 is quite distinguishable from previous Civ versions. However, the basic idea of paying a unit of a resource per turn for each unit over a set limit determined by government remains. Thus, the fundamental idea remains, only the means of carrying it out changes. Unfortunately I do not see how much more tweaking would improve on this basic idea.

On the same note (and unfortunately I do not have time to get detailed on each example), I see artillery and aircraft as entirely new additions (I see no connection between previous "artillery" and "aircraft" other than name). Although I will concede that various diplomacy options were modified (such as alliances and trading possessions), I find the primary change in that area still to be the addition of resources, trade embargos, MPPs, etc. The splitting of workers and settlers is a rather minor change in terms of theory--workers still improve the terrain the way terrain has always been improved and settlers still found cities as in all previous civ versions. Colonies have also been added to Civ 3 (but seem quite useless in general). Leaders and the resultant concept of armies is no fundamental change--it is essentially combining multiple units into one special unit--and this now-single unit continues to function in the same Civ style of warfare. Upgrading has been extended, but the concept and upgrading remains the same. Moving rivers to the border merely allows rivers to confer trade benefits to more tiles; the elimination of the road benefit and the addition of the defense bonus still have no effect in terms of actual modification of the original concept of a river generating additional trade. More additions include civ traits, UUs, and capturing units. The only modified concept I see is the espionage system. All of the other differences between Civ 3 and Civ 2 seem to be either eliminations or additions.

Of course, I find the graphical and (some of the) interface changes to be trivial.

To be more general, I would say simply that most of the modifications of the previous Civ concepts have been limited to only the details, or the forms, of the same essential ideas. Newer versions have primarily added new features to distinguish themselves, but old concepts (or aspects, i.e. warfare, population growth, trade, etc.) never seem to be modified any deeper than the surface.

My essential point is that I would not be too excited if each version of Civ was actually only an expansion pack of the previous--bugs are removed, details are tweaked, and a few extra features are added, along with a few annoying features deleted. Yet I do not know where to draw the fine line between maintaining the "spirit of Civ" and truly creating a new version of a game.

Any thoughts and comments are of course welcome!

 

[judgement]

@judgement:

While I do see your point, unfortunately I must disagree on a few details... all of the other differences between Civ 3 and Civ 2 seem to be either eliminations or additions.

Well, its really a question of semantics, I suppose. To me, adding something where nothing existed before is an "addition" but adding something to replace something else that was eliminated is a "modification". If I build a new room of the back of my house, that's rightly called an addition, but if instead I tear out all the cupboards, counters, appliances, and floors in my kitchen, and replace them with all new things, that's a modification (or "renovation"). Its true that I've "added" new cupboards, counter, etc., but I don't consider it an addition to the house if the new stuff is just replacing something else that was removed. In the same way, Civ 3 removed caravan/freight from the game and replaced them with a different system.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, though, whether you call something an addition or a modification. To go back to the house example, its certainly possible to spend as much or more on a renovation than on an addition. Also, either one could be a relatively minor change to the house, or could be a huge change that drastically improves the house. What matters is not whether the change consists of additions or replacements, what matters is how much it changes the house, and whether those changes are for the better or worse.

To risk beating the analogy to death, when I switched from Civ 2 to Civ 3, I felt like I was still living in the same house, but the renovations/additions really improved how much I enjoyed that house. There were a few new rooms to enjoy, but more importantly, many features in existing rooms had been updated so that the whole house was better.

Now, just as there's no clear way to define the "spirit of Civ", there's no clear way to define "the same house". Most people would agree that if I completely demolish my old house and build a new one, its not the same house, even if its built in the same place on the same lot. But what if I tear it down to the ground but build the new house on the existing foundation? Its probably still a new house, but its less clear. Or what if I leave the existing exterior walls standing, but completely gut the inside, so that when I'm done, the number and layout of rooms bears no resemblance to the original floorplan? There's an infinite number of possibilities, and while the two extremes are clear, there's a lot of middle ground where it could be debated whether a construction project results in a new house or a renovation of an existing house.

Of course, I find the graphical and (some of the) interface changes to be trivial.

To be more general, I would say simply that most of the modifications of the previous Civ concepts have been limited to only the details, or the forms, of the same essential ideas. Newer versions have primarily added new features to distinguish themselves, but old concepts (or aspects, i.e. warfare, population growth, trade, etc.) never seem to be modified any deeper than the surface.

I agree with you about the graphical (and many of the interface) changes. To continue to stretch my analogy, those are nothing more than new paint on the walls of existing rooms: purely cosmetic. But the other changes? I like the old concepts (for the most part): I like the layout of the house, how its organized, how its arranged. I've "lived here" a long time, and while tearing out a wall here or there or renovating parts of the house sound fun, I don't see any need to gut it and build something on a completely different floorplan. Certainly I think that the foundation is strong and shouldn't be bulldozed to make way for something new.

My essential point is that I would not be too excited if each version of Civ was actually only an expansion pack of the previous--bugs are removed, details are tweaked, and a few extra features are added, along with a few annoying features deleted. Yet I do not know where to draw the fine line between maintaining the "spirit of Civ" and truly creating a new version of a game.

Question: were you excited to buy and play Civ 2 and Civ 3, or were you disappointed that they seemed like mere expansion packs of Civ 1? If the latter, I don't think I'll ever convince you of my point of view, because in general I was pleased with the level of change between the different versions so far, and would like to see a similar level of improvement between 3 and 4. Obviously, its very hard (if not impossible) to clearly draw the lines between expansion packs and new versions, and between new versions of the same game and new games altogether. I'm merely contending that the differences between Civ 2 and Civ 3 are clearly in the "new version of the same game" category, and so that amount of change is what I'm expected next time as well. I think that Civ 2 and 3 clearly differ much more from each other than Civ 3 vanilla differs from PTW or Conquests, so I certainly wouldn't classify the 2-3 transition as a mere "expansion pack."

The problem with more drastic changes is that the might be good and they might not. The closer Civ 4 stays to Civ 1-3, the more its design capitalizes on the experience gained from the first 3. If I buy a brand new game that I've never played before, I'm taking a risk that it'll be good enough to be worth my time and money. The only way to mitigate that risk somewhat (with a brand new game) is to read reviews of other people's opinions, none of whom have all that much experience with the game because its new. If I'm lucky, its tons of fun, while if I'm unlucky, I wasted time and money. On the other hand, when a game comes out that is a new version of an existing game, I expect that my experience with previous versions should give some indication about the quality of the new game. I'll choose to buy Civ 4 instead of some other game because it feels less risky: I know that I and a lot of other people liked Civ 1, 2, and 3, so I have more to go on when evaluating the chances that Civ 4 will be good than simply reading reviews.

Sometimes I'm in the mood for a little risk. If I happen to have plenty of extra money to kill on video games, and plenty of extra time to try games that may or may not turn out to be really fun, then I'll go ahead and buy a game that I have no experience with. But other times, I'm less in the mood for risk. And that's when I want to be able to by a sequel to a game I already know and love: because its a sequel, I have a reasonable expectation that its similar enough to the versions that I'm familiar with that I have a higher-than-average chance of enjoying the new version.

I certainly understand and agree that going too far in the "sameness" direction is quite bad: there's no point in wasting money on a game that's merely an older game repackaged. Perhaps my opinion about how much change is desirable stems from the fact that I'm getting older and at this point in my life, time is more precious than money. If I waste $20-$50 bucks because a game turns out to not really offer much new, well, that's a bummer, but at least I know I'm enjoying the new game (since I enjoyed the previous game that its so similar to). My time playing it will be well spent, even if the money wasn't. On the other hand, if I buy a game that's radically different, and it turns out that I don't enjoy the game very much, then I've wasted a number of hours playing it but not enjoying myself, and I've wasted the money because I'll soon stop playing an un-fun game.

Many of the suggestions posted in this forum have the potential to be quite entertaining, but I don't see them as being obviously good. I think it'd be great if other, brand new games came out (distinct from Civ 4) that incorporate some of these concepts. If those concepts turn out to be really fun, then those other games will become popular: I'll read good reviews, and hear good things from my friends, and decide to buy those games once it's not so risky. But I don't want to have to wait a while to see if Civ 4 is going to be good: I want to know that its good right away because its not radically different from the first three versions I loved.

As a final point, consider the Master of Orion series. MoO 2 differed much more from the original MoO than Civ 2 did from Civ 1. It turned out that MoO 2 was also quite fun, and I was glad that I had purchased it, even though it wasn't nearly the same game as MoO 1. But the fact that they changed things so much from 1 to 2 made me very wary of purchasing MoO 3 right away. I followed its development closely, and saw that it indeed was shaping up to be quite a different game than MoO 1 or MoO 2. Many of the concepts that were being discussed looked very good "on paper" - as I read about them, I got quite excited, and started looking forward to MoO 3 quite a bit. But still, my wariness was still there, and when MoO 3 finally came out, I didn't buy it right away. And I was glad I waited, because it turned out that the reviews of MoO 3 were not good at all. Thus, the MoO series is a great example of what can happen when there are lots of big changes from one version to the next: sometimes (like MoO 1 to 2) it works, and the new game is great, but sometimes (like MoO 2 to 3) it doesn't work. I do not want Civ 4 to be the equivalent of MoO 3: experimenting with major changes that sound great in concept but may not turn out well in practice. I'd much prefer that Civ 4 build on what I consider to be a very solid foundation established in Civ 1, 2, and 3.