If anything fits these definitions, it should be the civ genre. Civ is about leading a civilization to greatness over 5,000 years of human history. What could be more epic than that?
However I feel that the civ games so far have not conveyed that epic aspect as well as they could. For example, seeing 2 little units fight does not really convey the idea of a huge struggle on the battle field between large armies of legions and hoplites. And how many of us gloss over the Wonder movies after we have seen them for the millionth time?
So, this thread is about how to bring out that "epic-ness" in civ3.

Here are some of the ideas I have come up with:

1. battle screen.
Have a battle screen but not like CTP. If the stack of units are over a certain limit, there would be a battle screen. But it does not simply line up the units like CTP. NO! It would represent each units as a small battalion of men. The player would watch the armies fight it out with "battle" music in the background. Now that would convey the "epic-ness" of the battle. After all, It might be the battle for the capital of Rome itself.

2. Event movies.
Only big events would have special movies just like the wonder mocies. For example, if you conquered an enemy capital or if a civilization were completed defeated, there could a movie to illustrate the event to the player.

3. more elaborate messages.
Instead, of just a quick small window saying:"city X is rioting", let's create some atmosphere. Have a full screen picture illustrating the event with some text. For example, there could be screen showing a city burning and people runnning throught the streets, with the message:"The population of Thebes is revolting. They are burning and looting the city!" This would convey the importance of the event better and force the player to take note and not gloss over things as easily.

4. Narration.
Instead of small message windows to convey the event. How about an audio clip. For example, after you defeat a civilization, the player would hear:"In the year X, the mighty civiliation Y was defeated."

5. A history account at the end of the game.
At the end of the game, there could be a replay showing battles, major events with audio narration maybe.

These are just random thoughts. They might look complicated but they are not meant to be. I am not talking about anything that would require huge CPU power or anything. Any suggestions?

I am just trying to think of ways to enhance the player's enjoyment of the events of the game. Like I said, civ3 should be epic because after all it is about human history. The player needs to be captivated by the events of the game. When there is a major battle, or a great Wonder is completed, or a civilization rises etc, the player needs to feel like they are part of something trully epic!

So, the question remains: How can civ3 convey that epic quality of human history?

I look forward to hearing other suggestions. I am sure other people will think of better, more innovative ways to bring out the epic-ness of civilizations!

For instance, I can think of many a game where the video -- the cut scenes, the victory scenes, etc. -- were as you described. Even in Warcraft the designers were trying to convey a sense of the sheer "hordeness" of all those hordes hording over. At least, I remember it that way. But then the game starts and you're back to looking for a tree to chop down. Which is just as it should be.

But that ain't epic. I'm taking the long way to say I don't think you hit on what would make civ more epic. I think you're dealing in ideas about the presentation of "epic", but not the design of epic. Hence my second question above, What does epic do? What is the design of epic? First comes to mind is that epic does exist in the civ genre. The idea that you are just one lone settler in the dark in the beginning, and struggle, and struggle, and you're a complex, sprawling civilization before it's all over. That is truly epic already. But your saying "and it needs to have an epic feeling to go with it." So true, so true. I agree with your suggestions, although I hesitate on the battle screen and I don't need a full screen revolt screen. There is something elegant about the smaller windows, their demand for my attention isn't out of proportion to their relative importance.

But I would say that the DESIGN of epic gameplay is there and I just hope it is elaborated on. I think the key to epic is focus on the relationship between the beginning of the game with the middle and the end. If epic means "impressive by virtue of greatness of size, scope, or heroism," than the game must include the OPPOSITE of that to prove it so. I.e., just as there is only the one settler in the beginning vs. the sprawling civ in the end, so in general the game that reaches lofty heights of "greatness of size, scope, and heroism" must begin small and diminished in size and scope, and require not heroism but villainy at times. And so it does, generally. But I'm sure Civ 3 could articulate these oppositions in more specific ways. Trade for instance never felt particularly epic, did it? I mean you start with one, but that didn't increase unless you repeated as necessary, ad nauseum. Which is what trade could feel like at times. But if the trade model is tied to resource exploitation, which in turn is tied to infrastructure and unit production, then I can see Trade becoming epic in Civ 3, by my "start little, end HUGE definition." Connecting different elements of the game together and starting them off at zero, or one, and giving free reign to the player to grow them as large as their strategy permits, is a good rule of thumb for being epic. The cities, oddly, also did not feel very epic in Civ 2 at times, and maybe that was due to the infamous ICS problem. I think fewer cities more well developed -- and a varied countryside full of villages and hamlets and towns and cities and large sprawling megalopalises will make cities feel much more epic to me than in the past. Sometimes you felt like you were making a checker board out of CIv 2 cities, and each growing individually.

Also, under the "heroism" part of epic. I wonder how the new leaders feature will improve the epic feeling of the game? I suspect substantially, as will the ability to fight with Armies. However, CTP2 has armies, but the naming feature for those armies in CTP2 was awful. It speaks right to the lack of imagination on the designers part. In CTP2, you end up forming all these armies, but they have these numbered names and every time you dettach or re-attach any one unit that number changes. What a way to kill the suspension of disbelief. Just when you're getting into raising the Army of York, it changes back to Army Number 323, reminding you this is after all not a game created by storytellers, but computer scientists.

1. More involved battle screens, like a turn-based battle mechanism on a 3D map, and

But how to capture that 'feeling' and conveying it the user? Well, Firaxis have got a very hard job!!

In terms of battle, 'epic' to me means one of the battle scenes out of Braveheart, or in modern terms, the beach landing at the start of saving private Ryan. How to put that into Civ3..I dunno - any ideas?

In terms of the empire, you have got to feel 'attached' to your people. You've got to actually care about them, as if a real leader (ofcourse, you may be a ruthless leader, and not give a stuff - which is all part and parcel of the civ experience!!)

Things like end game replay, narration, battle screen, veteran units, feats of wonder (ala ctp2) etc all go along way to achieving this 'epic' feeling.

Civ2 felt quite epic. Raingoons "start small, get huge" idea really came out in Civ2 - I had a feeling of my accomplishments over the last 5000 years.

ctp1 and 2, on the other hand, felt like more of a chore than anything else. So what went from between Civ2 and ctp? (Activision stepped in a royally screwed things up...but that topics kinda been done to death)

Anyway...If civ3 can engrose me so much that the "just one more turn" syndrome captures me again and doesn't let go for months, I think I'll feel I've been involved in something epic.

On the point of capturing the feel of different ages, one thing that should definately change is the money system - do we still use gold in this day and age? Yes, but not really.

The money system really should go - Gold (ancient period, through renaisannce) dollars (industrial through modern) fuseo dollars or credits for future - if the game goes that far. How do other people feel about that?

So my theory to make battles more epic would be to worry less about the visuals -- a battle screen, for instance, would be unnecessary -- but instead, emphasize the CHARACTER of the battle, and the GLORY of the goal. Already you will feel the cause is epic if Firaxis does a good job of giving the player's Civ more character, more things to shape and get involved with. Adding Armies was a great idea, military leaders also. So going into the battle you've got that epic sense of purpose, and of course the army on the other side with IT'S leader that you want to defeat.

Now I suggest there be a "GENERAL'S TENT" the way diplomacy has the "NEGOTIATING TABLE." You go into this tent and there you see a an old fashioned map with curled edges by candlelight, showing tomorrow's battlefield, or if you choose, the entire theater of war, with toy soldiers and cannons that you can move around, indicating your choice of ground, order of attack, march, enemy disposition, etc. As you give your orders arrows of attack direction begin to curl across the map, leaving you with a picture of how you want the battle to go. You should be able to signify on the map which of your units you are giving orders to, which you want to march and when, etc. This would require spy units to have done a good job discovering the enemy's disposition, and could be disasterous if your spies were not veterans or if you had none at all. Anyway, THIS to me would feel like an epic battle, because it was so much more CLEAR like those great epic movie battles. If you want people to be involved in the fight, everything has to be very clear. The minute it's not, the umbilical cord breaks and suddenly you're just watching, no longer participating.

For the actual fight, maybe there is a way to replace your toys and arrows on the map, and suddenly turn the terrain to real terrain with small scale versions of your units and watch as they try to execute your orders against an unpredictable enemy. Perhaps if you have a signal corps you could pause once in the battle to issue new orders, otherwise it's like Civ 1 and 2, you cross your fingers and hope for the best until you either win or are forced to issue a retreat.

Raingoon - I totally agree with what you're saying about giving the battle character to achieve the epic feel. But wouldn't a pretty unit graphic be more engaging than a sprawling arrow? Also, it's a tough decision to decide how "involved" the player should be in battles. Civ isn't a game just about war. You could have it as it is in civ2 and "hope for the best", or go to the complete oposite extreme and have a command and conquer depth battle management thing (which would make the game take forever). This is probably where the Army leaders will come into play in civ3, in that they can choose strategies for you and what not. I'd definately like "battle music" during a battle.

To be epic, the game must be able to:

1. Conceal micromanagement.

2. Make it so you feel like you are in control of a nation. That means take away many fuctions at the city level and put them at the nation level.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 03-12-2001 10:54 PM I have said this a thousand times already and I am going to say it again. Civ 2 isn't epic because it doesn't really give you the feeling of controlling a great nation, but controlling a bunch of cities. That's not epic. To be epic, the game must be able to: 1. Conceal micromanagement. 2. Make it so you feel like you are in control of a nation. That means take away many fuctions at the city level and put them at the nation level. 3. Progressively gives the players more info as new advances are researched. For example, maps aren't permanent until Mapmaking is discovered.

ABSOLUTELY! I agree with all your points. I have been a proponent for a long time of moving city functions to the empire level and reducing micromanagement.

Also, I think that a world map with a parchment look, and that looks more like those atlas maps, you know those maps of the babylonian empire that shows how far it extended. It would be cool to see a map with colors showing the expansion of your borders over time. The player needs to look at it, and say "wow, look at how big my empire has become!"

I also really like Zanzin's comments:

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin In terms of the empire, you have got to feel 'attached' to your people. You've got to actually care about them, as if a real leader (ofcourse, you may be a ruthless leader, and not give a stuff - which is all part and parcel of the civ experience!!)

It was one of the things that made AoE really cool. You saw your villagers walk around and do things. You saw them fight, build things, collect ressources, hunt etc. As a result, the player felt more connected with their empires. Civ2's city screen is more impersonal because you never really see your people other than the little citizens. Sometimes, you would hardly know that your empire even has a population!
I am not suggesting RTS. I am not suggesting a detailed map and the kind of micromanagment of AoE. By no means!!
I am suggesting perhaps to replace the city screen with a city view. let's see your cities in a little more detail. I want to see little huts in the stone age gradually turn into small wooden houses, into stone buildings, and eventually a large metropolis!! I want to see my villagers fighting, working, playing etc... I want to feel that my people are real! Again, in AoE, you see your little villagers work. And you also see them die, and turn into skeletons after a battle. As a result, you care about them. And that contributes to an epic game!

Also, if a city rebels, instead of a generic message, you would get a message from the governor. For example:
"The people of Thebes are tired of your policies. You care nothing for our city. I am their new leader. We are no longer part of your empire. If you attack us, we will defend ourselves. So, leave us in peace!
signed Gov. Ross."

The player would feel like "Aargh, the traitor! I can't believe that Ross is betraying me!"

This would make the game more personal and get the player more involved emotional, thus contributing to a more epic game!

When I think epic, and this may have something to do with the effect described in my first paragraph, I think Civ 1. Watching those little buildings get built, seeing my scientist guy show me a picture of the tech I just researched, watching the little Connestoga(sp?) wagons set up really made me identify with them. I think lots of the ideas presented here build on that idea of making the game more "personal".

Another possibility that may make the game more interesting is the naming of regions of land. For example, if a civ ran into a large desert, they may name it something. Or if there was an important moutain chain nearby, they would name that. Seas and oceans could also be named. When a civ comes across a major land feature, they would be able to name it, with suggested names depending on the civ. For example, if the Americans came across a large lake, they would name it lake Superior. Or if the Russians came across a large area of tundra and glaciers, they would call it "Siberia." This would be part of a civ's features, similar to the naming of cities. Exploring units would give a message like "Our men have reached a large chain of forbidding mountains. The natives of the area call it the 'Andes.'" Then next to the message, there would be a button allowing you to erase the name completely or rename it. It would also be possible to name any area anything.

Where can we fit these? We already had palace/throne room for our ego, the monolith of achievements on SMAC (uninspiring to say the best ).
We had the replay at the end of game, too.

I suggested (and reiterate here ) to replace the ego palace/throne room with a long list of age-related Civ celebrations, from gardens to castles, from statues to paintings, from city or province renamed to your leader name (e.g. Stalingrad for Stalin, Virginia for Queen Elisabeth the iron virgin ) to special buildings (highest tower of the world, longest bridge, new modern hospital or university, etc.).

And Music! Music is under used in Civ, while it had a very relevant place to keep historical memory, as in popular ballade.
Folk tradition was (and is) most relevant when literacy skills where not widely diffused. Do you realize how ANY epic movie has epic music too?

Every time you Civ do well (or very badly) you have some "sign in history" to celebrate and remember it: "The great Victory of Land of Elks" (e.g. a battle monument) or the Bloody defence (and defeat) of the city of Berlin (e.g. a MP3 very short sad ballade).

You can see it right on the city view (statue, fountain, bridge) and/or as lot of icons (easy to customize) or short movies (in standard format, so Firaxis and dedicated fan can upload some new on Web sites) in a interactive part of civilopedia that show them as our Civ progress, with a bit of descriptive text.

It will be "The Great Book of your leader name here Dinasty" or better "The Great Book of your civilization name here Civilization".

Until the game end, you can see the Book as you like (starting by default every time you reload a game, just to bother that lousy cheating reloader players -just kidding-), but only related to your Civ (to mitigate cheat as stopping game and see the replay to discover others civ position ).

In Civ/Civ II and SMAC any city/base destroyed disappeared into nothing.
Great battles are fighted with some sound effects and that's all.
City facilities destroyed and even Wonders disappear into nothing, not after some centuries (as you can understand) but in a single turn!

I know Colossus doesn't survived till now, but Rome Colosseum do, and so do Pyramid, the Great Wall of China and so on, with some damages.

Where are the Great Ruins?

Why the map can't show some city ruin for some centuries? Just for example, I propose every cities left a ruin for as many centuries as its max population reached (a city once pop 4, if reduced ro ruins will completely disappear after 4 centuries).
It can give some small benefit, too, i.e. give a shield bonus if you build a new town in radius of ruins (reuse of stones and metals).

Something similar can happen about destroyed Wonders: think about showing half demolished Oracle for some dozen of turns.

Main battlefields must be specially displayed for a while, too.
I know bones and blades will disappear quite quickly, but the special tile display should reproduce the persistence of legendary battles into people memories.
I don't want to clug the screen with lot of unnecessary memories of every battle, but I suggest to show the "battlefield tile" of every fighting that will see more (let's say) than five units involved or see the same square attacked for more than two turns in a row.

I would like to see small/short movies for individual science advances, but to make it truly epic, they should only be played when your civ is the first to discover or invent it. That way, you get a true sense of achievement, like you already do when completing a wonder. The opposite of this is what appeared in CTP, which was a generic screen merely stating the name of the science, with even a crappy cheer only added in a later patch.

To further add to the effect, the movie should be in the theme of a revelation or discovery, as befitting the event. They don't need to be long ov overly elaborate, just enough to whet the apetite

I'd like to add one thing, slow the passage of time through each era. This would mean slowing the arrival of tech, which would allow the development of game play using each tech. The time of Napoleon might actually last long enough to use those musketeers. WW1 and the dominance of artilery...

A game replay feature has already been mentioned by firaxis, and my idea is based off that. At the end of your game, it save a "Game History" file... it not only shows the game (how in depth I dunno), but interupts it with imbedded movies... scenes of celebration from conquest/Discovery/Ect., it heralds in new technological eras and feats of wonders... not to mention the construction of Wonders of the World.

In the end you'll have a file which shows as a pageant your civ's history, and you can view it to reminiss or share it to gloat... perhaps it could even be a screen saver... and if Firaxis reads this, it would make a great demo loop!

quote: The Diplomat: It would be cool to see a map with colors showing the expansion of your borders over time. The player needs to look at it, and say "wow, look at how big my empire has become!" Akron: Another possibility that may make the game more interesting is the naming of regions of land...

All the suggestions here are really good, but the above two really jumped out at me. Diplomat's idea of a map view showing your own territory (and that of other civs, where known) is something that I've wondered about for a long time -- it's great to see someone else expressing the same thought! I've envisaged it as an alternative "political" map: i.e., you would have a button alongside the main map screen that would toggle between the normal "geographical" or "terrain" view, and a "political" view with different colours shading the areas occupied by the various civs. As Diplomat says, this would really add to the 'epic' nature of the game, to be able to see your borders expanding (or contracting!) as the game progresses.

And Akron's idea of being able to add your own names to map features is superb! That would really give a sense of ownership and involvement with your civ. This was a feature of one of the early versions of SimCity that I greatly appreciated. I'm not sure if they still have it, but you could name a suburb of your city, and a little sign would appear on the map. How much more emotionally-involving it would be to see that the enemy have stationed troops on "the Rockies", rather than on "that chain of mountains near Denver"!

I believe this kind of emotional involvement with your civ -- as shown by these and many other suggestions in this thread -- together with the grand sweep of 6000 years of history, is what really gives an 'epic' feel to Civ. If we get bored and blase and bogged down in the mechanics of the game, it's because somewhere along the line we've lost our emotional involvement.

About making the game more epic i actually think three easy-implemented features is a must:
1. More demographics
2. More random events like plagues and disasters
3. More ancient turns

Thank you for making the point about more ancient turns. I feel that that period is too quickly rushed through. (Perhaps I'm biased in favor of the ancient period. It is my favorite era of history.)

Let there be each turn after a city is built a chance of natural catastrophe, depending on geography as follows:
1. City on river: flooding, say 1 in 20 (odds for flood could increase the farther downriver the city sits)
2. City near mountain range: Earthquake, say 1 in 100 (odds for quake could increase with the length of the mountain range. This would be consistent with the tendency of seismic fault lines to create long moutain ranges, like the Pacific "Ring of Fire".
3. City near longest mountain ranges: volcanic activity, a flow or even more destructive eruption with blast (say 1 in 500, but with much worse consequences)
4. City on plains: Tornado (say 1 in 10, but much less damaging)

The logic for this lies in the historical trend that the same geographic locations that help a civ grow faster (rivers, mineral rich mountains, fertile plains) also put "speed bumps" in the path of their growth (all the catastrophes mentioned above.) A natural catastrophe would destroy certain city improvements and reduce the city's population, requiring them to be rebuilt and repopulate over time. Below are a few examples of Wonders being destroyed by natural catastrophes:
Lighthouse of Alexandria: destroyed by earthquake
Great Library of Alexandria: while many scholars continue to repeat that it was burned by the Romans, it is much more likely to have burned from the fires that inevitably follow an earthquake. Alexandria has been shown by recent archaeological discoveries to have been rebuilt many times following earthquakes.
Temple of Jupiter (at Athens?): destroyed by earthquake
Temple of Artemis: arson (okay, so its not natural, but a nut with a torch is still a catastrophe)
Hanging Gardens: flood? I'm not sure on this one, but since it was made of mud bricks and built on a flood plain, this makes sense.
Tomb of King Mausoles(sorry if I misspelled his name): earthquake
Colossus of Rhodes: earthquake after standing for less than 60 years

What do you think?

I just thought of another idea:
what about having faces and pictures with your cities' governors? This would make the game a little more personal. When you get a mesage about that city, instead of just a generic message, it could be a little message from the governor, like:
"Mr. President, my city of Milano is experiencing a famine. I request some help immediately!
signed Gov. Sanchez."
Also, if a city rebels, instead of a generic message, you would get a message from the governor. For example:
"The people of Thebes are tired of your policies. You care nothing for our city. I am their new leader. We are no longer part of your empire. If you attack us, we will defend ourselves. So, leave us in peace!
signed Gov. Ross."

The player would feel like "Aargh, the traitor! I can't believe that Ross is betraying me!"

This would make the game more personal and get the player more involved emotional, thus contributing to a more epic game!

quote: Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 04-06-2001 12:12 AM Say, my quotes aren't coming out blue! Forgive my ignorance, how do I put someone's quote in blue? I don't want to risk anyone thinking another's ideas are my own.

Easy question . Quoting can be automatic if you click on that little button un the upper right of the post you want to quote (I've just done that, replying your message). It will add all the original post (please cut unnecessary parts, as netiquette required) with a reference.

If you want to do it manually (e.g. you are quoting inside a different thread) you must start the quoting with a UBB control code, write your quote, then end quoting with the closing control code.

The codes are the word quote written inside square bracket to start, the word /quote inside square bracket to end.

If you look at the upper part of the main Forum Page you can see the link to FAQ, select it and follow the next link about UBB code (and the others about smiling, if you like), to see all the available UBB features.