Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The History of Civilization

Posted by Zonk on Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:40 PM
from the canon-with-cannons dept.
Entertainment Games
You may recall back in March, when a group of smart folks got together to form a game canon. They essentially nominated the ten most important games, ever. Gamasutra has begun a series of articles which will explore the storied history of each of these titles, and they've started with Sim Meier's Civilization series. Benj Edwards' history of Civilization begins with a rundown on the series itself, and wraps with a lengthy Sid Meier interview. Required reading, essentially. "Meier [is] comfortable with a legacy inextricably tied to Civilization: 'I think that if that's what's on my epitaph, "Did Civilization," that would be fine.' In musing about the fate of his beloved series, Meier finds himself satisfied with what the future might hold for the franchise: 'There's probably somebody getting ready for their first day of college that's probably going to be a part of Civilization in ten to fifteen years from now. I think it'll be around for quite a while.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] The Ten Most Important Games 577 comments
Taking a page from the National Film Preservation Board, the History of Science and Technology Collections at Stanford University and a group of five prestigious games industry figures have inducted ten games into a sort of 'canon'. The New York Times reports that some of these titles represent the start of weighty gaming genres, while all are laudable for their place in gaming history. "[Henry] Lowood and the four members of his committee -- the game designers Warren Spector and Steve Meretzky; Matteo Bittanti, an academic researcher; and Christopher Grant, a game journalist -- announced their list of the 10 most important video games of all time: Spacewar! (1962), Star Raiders (1979), Zork (1980), Tetris (1985), SimCity (1989), Super Mario Bros. 3 (1990), Civilization I/II (1991), Doom (1993), Warcraft series (beginning 1994) and Sensible World of Soccer (1994)." Most likely, future years will see additional titles inducted into this game canon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The History of Civilization 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • The History of Civilization (Score:5, Funny)

    by GrayCalx (597428) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @12:42PM (#19903891)
    I believe Douglas Adams said it best...

    "In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move."

    • The ver excellent Civilization strategy guide "Civilization, or Rome on 640K per day" or something to that effect, had a section on modding the game.

      One of the mods was editing the text that was part of the opening cinematic, and the example the guy used was, in part that very sequence, as well as the digital watches bit.

      • They only make slanting references to Civ II onward. No mention of the fact that Civ spawned an entire user community, a complete user created manual on the early internet describing all the intricacies of the game and "cheats" (utilizing bugs) that could stretch the game score far beyond what was envisioned.

        Then there's the entire segment of history regarding CivNet, the user community generated effort driven by the fact there would be no Civ II originally. Or the fact that CivNet's efforts were wrapped in
    • I prefer Neil Gaiman's (I think) version: "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then the Lord said 'Let there be light'-- and there was still nothing, but you could see it."

  • Just one question Mr Meier... (Score:5, Funny)

    by HexRei (515117) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @12:46PM (#19903967)
    All I want to know is how the damn Zulu spearman could possibly defeat ALL my tanks. HOW!?!?!?
    • Any Italians here that can answer that question?

    • Re:Just one question Mr Meier... (Score:5, Funny)

      by uberjoe (726765) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @01:01PM (#19904197)

      All I want to know is how the damn Zulu spearman could possibly defeat ALL my tanks. HOW!?!?!?

      That's easy, hundreds of them getting squashed gum up the treads immobilizing the tank. From there hundreds more take turns sticking their spears down the barrel of the turret causing the tank crew to expend all their ammo unclogging the main gun. Then its only a small matter of blocking the air vents of the tank with zebra skins and elephant dung and waiting for the crew to asphyxiate.

      • Re:Just one question Mr Meier... (Score:5, Funny)

        by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @02:18PM (#19905291)

        All I want to know is how the damn Zulu spearman could possibly defeat ALL my tanks. HOW!?!?!?
        That's easy, hundreds of them getting squashed gum up the treads immobilizing the tank. From there hundreds more take turns sticking their spears down the barrel of the turret causing the tank crew to expend all their ammo unclogging the main gun. Then its only a small matter of blocking the air vents of the tank with zebra skins and elephant dung and waiting for the crew to asphyxiate.
        Ok, Mr. Smart Guy, now explain how the spearman shot down my stealth bomber.

        • Re:Just one question Mr Meier... (Score:5, Funny)

          by east coast (590680) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @02:21PM (#19905341)
          Ok, Mr. Smart Guy, now explain how the spearman shot down my stealth bomber.

          Two words: Cheerleader pyramid.

        • Re:Just one question Mr Meier... (Score:5, Funny)

          by Belacgod (1103921) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @02:24PM (#19905383)
          Seen Black Hawk Down? What I want to know is how that phalanx sank my battleship.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by uberjoe (726765)

          Ok, Mr. Smart Guy, now explain how the spearman shot down my stealth bomber.

          OK here goes. It's not a matter of the spearman actually shooting down the stealth bomber. Rather the stealth bomber 'rolls a 1' to put it in RPG context. He fumbles. Catastrophic engine failure, the bomb fail to explode, or they explode in while still in the bay, etc. The spearman doesn't take down the plane, the plane just utterly fails.

          Sorry, I can't have a cute/funny explanation all the time. I tried to come up with one but I'

          • In Martin Caiden's "Dark Messiah", a primitive African tribe knocks down a helicopter gunship squadron using hundreds of giant crossbows. Since the stealth aren't armored, they should be even more vulnerable to giant crossbow bolts than the helicopters.
            I bet they would be even more vulnerable to giant catapult boulders. The question is, would they really be flying so low and what are the odds of hitting them?
    • Ask the North Vietnamese.

      Besides, that's what you get for not softening them up with artillery first.

    • All I want to know is how the damn Zulu spearman could possibly defeat ALL my tanks. HOW!?!?!?


      Unfortunately, this isn't just a problem in Civ. I was playing Rise of Nations the other day, and had a very similar experience. I watched in awe as an archer sunk a missile cruiser that was sitting just off shore. Why is fixing this such an issue in all of these historical RTS or strategy games?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SEE (7681)

        Why is fixing this such an issue in all of these historical RTS or strategy games?

        It's an inherently difficult problem to scale things so near-tech-level rivals have approximately correct interactions while zeroing the chance against far-tech-level opponents. You need lots of special-case rules to handle interactions; numerical "unit strength" values and formulas don't work. Call it the "Hot Lead" problem, because it was bedeviling Steve Jackson long before any of these computer games came along.

        • It's an inherently difficult problem to scale things so near-tech-level rivals have approximately correct interactions while zeroing the chance against far-tech-level opponents.

          World of Warcraft has an extremely effective way of dealing with a similar problem.

          If you are significantly lower level than an opponent there is no way at all that any number of you will do any damage at all to an opponent. When the level difference is in the tens its pretty well impossible to harm them.

          In the case of the spearmen t

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by drsquare (530038)
            But Civ 1 has more modern units like riflemen and mechanised infantry. Phalanxes aren't upgraded, they stay exactly as they are.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by a_ghostwheel (699776)
            For those of us who old enough to remember Galaxy e-mail based game (and other variants like VGA Planets and Galaxy Plus): when ship had offence 4 times opponent defense it meant automatic kill (and when defender had defense 4 times greater than opponent offense attack did absolutely nothing). And this was long before even Civ 1.

            I am not sure why such logic was not included into Civ. Personally, I am going with "catastrophic failure" explanation given by somebody above.
    • The Zulus are tricky, but it's Montezuma you've really got to watch out for. He just loves to back stab you.

  • Damn you, Sid! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Fyz (581804) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @12:59PM (#19904183)
    There's probably someone just starting out in college who will be there for the next ten to fifteen years because of Civilization!
    • Mod parent +1 insightful. I thank God that I didn't find out about Civ until right at the end of my college career. My friends and I used to take "Civ" days instead of sick days. Those were the days we'd call in sick to work because we'd been up all night playing Civ. Now I play on lunchtime and a turn or two at night on a PBEM game. Just enough to feed the addiction!

  • Shouldn't smart people know what a "canon" is? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @01:13PM (#19904375)

    You may recall back in March, when a group of smart folks got together to form a game canon. They essentially nominated the ten most important games, ever.


    Shouldn't smart people know what a "canon" is? (Or is "smart folks" a knock on their intelligence to begin with?)

    http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off &defl=en&q=define:canon&sa=X&oi=glossary_definitio n&ct=title [google.com]

    (In other words, 10 specific games cannot be a "canon", unless you are saying that these games are a "bible" and all other games are heresy. 10 specific game design principles, however...)
    • I think it is delightfully ironic that a religious term is having it's meaning twisted to further a secular goal.

      Considering how religious people have been claiming their own definitions for well-established words these past few decades...
    • Game Canon. Isn't that a new unit in the new expansion?
    • Neither a film canon nor a literary canon have anything to do with a "bible", so why should a game canon?

      • Neither a film canon nor a literary canon have anything to do with a "bible", so why should a game canon?

        First, film or literary canons are specific to a particular author/artist, genre, era, geographic region, etc.

        Second, film or literary canons do not arbitrarily limit themselves to "10 items"; they instead include as many as are required to provide a well-rounded assortment of high-quality examples of the film or literature of the particular author/artist, genre, era, geographic region, etc.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by disassembled (977342)
      The term "canon" is used in literature to describe a generally-accepted set of "great" literary works, and it makes perfect sense to extend this concept to games.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon [wikipedia.org]

      Perhaps next time you'll educate yourself (or at least read your own link) before denigrating others!
    • The idea is to establish a level of quality which other works can either reach or not (thus deciding whether they will join the "canon").

      I think 10 is an arbitrary number but you need to be arbitrary in deciding such a cut off so it's a good start, pretty soon other people will bring up games of a similar quality which they think should be included, some will be included other's won't.

      That's the purpose, to establish a baseline level of quality for "excellent", "provocative" and "insightful" games.

      Th

  • The real Sid Meier? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @01:14PM (#19904391) Journal
    Or did they interview the robotic dopelganger, Sim Meier? Not Sid Meier, but an incredible simulation.
  • I can't wait until you can build and empire over 2000 years, and then walk through the streets ala GTA3. Maybe steals some cars and hit some pedestrians too, it would probably be straight if you didn' build the courthouse improvement.

    • Re:Ultimate Civilization (Score:5, Interesting)

      by spun (1352) <loverevolutionar ... com minus distro> on Wednesday July 18 2007, @01:31PM (#19904639) Journal
      You know, I've given some thought to a game like that. You know the 'great people' of Civ IV? What if, to gain the benefits of a great person, you had to play that person and complete a short RPG style quest in the civilization you've created? Like the 'Rush Hour' expansion to Sim City 4, where you can gain cash, popularity, and other benefits from completing driving missions.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HoboCop (987492)
        I really like this sort of idea, but taken a bit further out. A game like civ, that creates content, for another game, like WOW or another MMORPG/RPG/ or even FPS. With the right kind of infrastructure and reporting / management tools. It's a neverending cycle of content and players that can evolve together. I think some games are drifting towards this, but I don't think anyone has seen the really big picture yet. Couple this with some good competition, prizes, and a serious rendering engine, and you h
        • And then we can finally accomplish our goal of building virtual cities in the shape of a giant wang [penny-arcade.com].
      • What if, to gain the benefits of a great person, you had to play that person and complete a short RPG style quest in the civilization you've created?

        Yes, that would certainly fix my number one complaint about Civilization: it's not time-consuming enough.
        • My number one complaint is that it isn't addictive enough. I mean, to my knowledge no one has ever actually died from starvation or dehydration while playing Civ. We need to combine it with an MMORPG and a collectible trading card game. That should have players dropping like flies.

          Just, you know, doing my part to combat overpopulation.

      • Interesting.

        Personally, I would hate this. Civilization is (to my mind) a strategy game with a large-scale strategic focus and, furthermore, an open-ended strategy. That is, there are almost no "wrong moves." But quests are closed-ended with fixed goals, which completely reverses the Civ paradigm. I don't think they would mix well.

  • Ghandi the warmonger? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by myowntrueself (607117) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @01:38PM (#19904731)
    What I'd like to ask Sid is why was the AI behind the Indians so agressively warlike when their 'face' was Mahatma Ghandi?

    It always seemed strange to see that kind old man on your screen and to know that you had a huge long protracted war ahead of you.
    • I was once playing Civilization and Ghandi told me something like "Give us what we want. And take notice that we have NUCLEAR WEAPONS!". Very not ghandish...
    • I always hate playing against Ghandi. Usually, he expands quickly and makes friends with everyone...making the only way to be successful is to take him out. Of course, when you attack him, you get attacked by all his friends. I try to kill that peace lover early if I can.
    • I always love playing against Ghandi (at least in Civ4) because if I'm nice to him, I always have a useful ally the whole game. He won't randomly declare war on you despite 1000s of years of peace like say, Julius, Catherine, or the worst, Alexander.
    • Worse yet is that the feller's name was Gandhi. So was Indira's last name... Although she fits the war-o-phile portrayal of 'Ghandi' on Civ.

      Cheers!

  • I always wanted to see more nonmilitary victories (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @02:24PM (#19905381)
    My computer isn't up to the task of playing Civ4 but I see from the strategy guides that more attention was given to peaceful expansion and influence. The problem I always run into with these 4x games is that you have to claim a lot of territory early but it's tough to strike the balance between research, industry, and army. I'd always end up buttoned up in my cities/solar systems/castles until I had an economy together, constantly fearing attack by strong enemy forces, then by the time my fleet/army is ready to kick ass, the enemies have collapsed. Anyone else remember Master of Orion with the massive fleets of 32,000 weak-ass ships constantly attacking your planets and fleeing before the mass of defense missiles?

    So, for people who have played a lot of IV, how are the non-military victories? Are they better than just building spaceships?

    • Re:I always wanted to see more nonmilitary victori (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EMeta (860558) on Wednesday July 18 2007, @02:40PM (#19905647)
      In Civ IV, you can win via Space, Diplomatically, or Culturally. Space is by far the easiest (and the easiest for the computer if you let them). The cultural victory is hard, but doable. The corruption rates are scaled very well in that a few cities can easily have the same or better technology learning rate as a similar Civ with lots of cities. If you keep ahead of the Tech curve & get most of the cultural wonders, you can win with 3 uber cities. The opponents are rather aggressive on higher levels, but culture enhances your defense, and computer opponents lose their aggression if you keep giving them techs & money (Which you can get by selling techs to others). You might need the right leader to pull it off on any significantly hard difficulty (I'm thinking Industrious + Philosophical would be best).

      You can also take other cities via culture, and much more reliably than in III. So yeah, get a new graphics card & play. It's worth it.

    • I won my first few games of Civ III by culture, without ever knowing how I managed it at first. I just was very cultural it seemed. I once won a game of the original Master of Orion in about half an hour with the humans. I just expanded like mad, made friends with everyone, and pumped spending into population. The game quickly reached the threshold for voting for galactic emperor, and I had a relatively large population and was allied with everyone but the Silicoid I believe, so I won.
      • Also, in the original Civ, this is sort of a non military victory. I once had a game where I built only my first three cities in the best spots I could find in the near east of the Earth map. I then buffed the heck out of them. Diplomats back then had no support, so you could build as many as you want. I pumped my economy, and got the united nations wonder. I then surrounded enemy cities with diplomats so they couldn't work the land. When the population got sufficiently low, I would send a diplomat in
    • I once won a culture victory as the English in which the only battle I ever fought was when a barbarian attacked one of my spearmen during than beginning. This wasn't because I was trying to play pacifist...it's just the way that game worked out.
    • I find the diplomatic victory to be occasionally frustrating. Build the UN, get elected permanent Secretary General by being extra nice to everyone. The point of the game is playing, not winning though. I find it to me much more rewarding to forget about victory altogether and focus on experimenting with the game mechanics or toying with the AI. Meticulously micromanaging every city can make a few turns last all evening. It is worth the upgrade and purchase. I would also like to point out that there a

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.