c#209 THE CURSE OF CIVILIZATION

MarkG · June 27, 2002, 10:20

==================================================  ===================
===================== COLUMN INFORMATION: #209 ======================
title      : THE CURSE OF CIVILIZATION
date       : June 27, 2002
intro      : The full feature of Jonathan Speelman on his experience
with Civ and his meeting with Sid Meier and Soren Johnson
======================== AUTHOR INFORMATION =========================
author     : Jonathan Speelman
about      : When not playing civ3, Jonathan is professional chess
player and writer

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/209_curse.shtml

Incan_Warrior · June 27, 2002, 10:49

Cute article....but it's pretty void of real information and interaction with Sid & Soren. Are you sure he didn't just pass them on the street?

MarkG · June 27, 2002, 10:56

this is the continuation of this
http://apolyton.net/misc/column/204_sidsoren.shtml

Switch · June 27, 2002, 14:51

This is probably my favourite article since joining Apolyton a few months back. It isn't just another repeat of about five other articles in which all the author does is bash Civ3. Sure, people should share their views, but several hundred people have already shared this view either in the forums or in a previous article. This guy was original, went against the mold, and even implied a liking for Civ3.

Good job!

MarkG · June 27, 2002, 15:08

Quote:

Finally, not another Civ3 basher

and some people accuse us of being overly supportive to firaxis up to the point of implying that we're geting payed

TCO · June 27, 2002, 15:21

great article. More like this, Mark...

notyoueither · June 27, 2002, 22:11

I agree, that's a good one.

The chess player reference was an interesting one. I wonder how many chess players find Civ3 too simple.

monkspider · June 28, 2002, 01:59

Best article in a while Mark, it certainly puts at ease my fears that all this negative Civ 3 propaganda you have been running lately was proof you were being payed by one of Firaxis' competitors.

asleepathewheel · June 28, 2002, 02:23

nice article.

I didn't know Sid was a Canuck. Alas, but even that knowledge cannot keep me from playing this damn game

MarkG · June 28, 2002, 03:05

GP, unfortunately of the two articles we have in the row, one is from yet another "dissapointed" fan

i think i'm going to write an article on how negative feelings make you vocal

TCO · June 28, 2002, 10:54

Mark, those dissappinted fan articles are getting boring. We've heard it all before. The game was released a long time ago. In many cases, the articles are rather trite. I can find posts that are better than them (here I refer to Duckman's article).

Anyway, you promised two "different" articles in a row!

SanPellegrino · June 28, 2002, 12:18

I liked this article, because as a (amateur)chessplayer myself, I didn't knew that even serious grandmasters like speelman or "someone in the top 10" play civ 3! In fact computer strategy gaming put me a little off chess and i am glad I am not the only one

Maybe the long-term planning in civ makes it atttractive to chess players (I couldn' tell for myself cause I love ALL strategy games)

Any other chess players around?

TCO · June 28, 2002, 13:28

go to "other games" and start a chess thread. I have already seen a few.

punkbass2000 · June 28, 2002, 15:57

I like chess, though I haven't played recently.

rwprice · July 3, 2002, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by SanPellegrino
I liked this article, because as a (amateur)chessplayer myself, I didn't knew that even serious grandmasters like speelman or "someone in the top 10" play civ 3! In fact computer strategy gaming put me a little off chess and i am glad I am not the only one

Maybe the long-term planning in civ makes it atttractive to chess players (I couldn' tell for myself cause I love ALL strategy games)

Any other chess players around?

Yes! Chess was the "original strategy game" for me. Although I'm no good at it, I love chess, but lately my addiction to these strategy games has kept me from playing. I'm interested in knowing the thoughts of chess players who also like Civ--how would they compare the two? I wrote a note to Speelman asking this very question, but he hasn't responded. I'd like to hear the opinion of someone who has played both Chess and Civ at some depth. People who only know the moves of chess, yet play Civ, have dismissed chess as not deep enough. That just shows their ignorance.

Those who know and love both games--what do you think?

alva · July 3, 2002, 14:49

Quote:

, he is a genial Canadian of 48 who has lived most of his life in the United States, married with an eleven-year-old son and has two rabbits which are looked after by his wife Susan - who also accompanied him on the tour

I was alwayss under the impression that the U.K. had very strict laws as to bringing animals into the country

good article

CapTVK · July 3, 2002, 16:12

-edit-

mispost

War4ever · July 3, 2002, 18:32

interesting read and a change of pace from civ3 bashing.....

i still am not a real fan of the game though....perhaps when mp comes out

Firebird · July 4, 2002, 11:01

Quote:

Originally posted by rwprice
People who only know the moves of chess, yet play Civ, have dismissed chess as not deep enough. That just shows their ignorance.

Those who know and love both games--what do you think?

Well, I can't say I am very good at chess or civ3, but here is my oppinion nevertheless:

Chess is certainly deep and I still love to play chess.

But Civ is much more open. You can have a different board in every game. In chess there is only one terrain. There is only 6 different units. There is only one opponent. There is no resources. There is no diplomacy. In civ 3 you can be a warmonger, a diplomat, a builder, a whatever-makes-you-happy. The possibilities in civ 3 is simply endless and you haven't lost the game because you have lost your queen and all your pawns. There is many ways to get back at that pesky rival, that just took your three best cities although it might be a challenge.

Which is precisely what makes it so damn difficult to make a really good human-like AI. In chess the rules a much simpler.

Which is precisely why chess in some ways are much deeper than civ-games. In civ it is impossible to overlook everything and every possible event in the next couple of turns. The randomised combat for one thing makes it impossible. The immense number of possible moves for every opponent and for yourself is another one.

But in chess you can overlook everything and you can - to the extend of your chess-playing-ability at least - often foresee the upcomming moves of your opponent.

In civ 3 many things is left to the goddess of luck.

In chess everything is up to you!

I like playing civ 3 to meet the unknown and rise to the challenge.

I like playing chess to meet the known and rise to that challenge!