>>Sid Meier:  Well, a couple things, I think. When we left Microprose four years ago, we pretty much thought we’d never see Civilization again while we focused our attention toward Alpha Centauri and Gettysburg, [Firaxis' first games]. But things somehow evolved in a way where we again had the opportunity to work on Civilization, with Hasbro acquiring MicroProse.

It’s certainly a game that means a lot to us, that we have an attachment to. Enough time had gone by that we had a lot of new ideas, gotten a lot feedback from players, and the technology had evolved – the world had changed from when we put out Civ II, where we put all of our best ideas. The other thing that convinced us was that a lot of the things we did with Alpha Centauri made sense to feed back into Civilization. There were new ideas – streamlining of gameplay – things that we learned from looking at other things that were out there [in terms of] making a game easier and more fun to play.

PCG:  Who made the new ideas going into this new project?

>>SM: Everybody has a new idea as to what should be done; there’s no shortage of ideas. It’s more of what we shouldn’t put in the game (chuckles).

>>Jeff Briggs  Right. For example, we got from this site on the web dedicated to Civ II a document of all the things they wanted to see in Civ III, [as well as] lots of fan email daily about what people want to see. I think the biggest thing, that Sid sort of alluded to, was that we like this game. The idea that Sid designed the original – that this was our game anyway. We all really enjoyed the game, and all had ideas as to what we wanted to try out. It’s not a burden [in terms of meeting public demand]; the great thing about being us is that we make the games we want to play.

PCG:  Is there anything that has stood out from the fan requests?

>>JB:  One of the big things that everybody requests is some kind of improvement in the diplomacy system. This is something that we took some steps forward with in Alpha Centauri and we’re taking even more steps now. Most people also talk about the interface – how do you access different screens? – we’re really thinking heavily about making the game very easy to use. We want the player to have all the information that he needs to make decisions.

PCG: The last Civ was five years ago and the markets have changed since then. There’s probably a whole breed that’s never played Civilization. Are they a conscious part of the design for this game? How are you balancing the demands of the old and the requirements of the new?

>>SM: I think that there were two ways we could have gone. One was to [add] more and more complexity, technologies, units, etcetera, which is a direction that I think kills most genres eventually – the idea that you have to make everything more complicated, take longer to play, and require a bigger manual than the last one. You make a good point: there are a significant number of people out there that didn’t play the original Civilization. Our goal is to capture the spirit of the original Civilization which was easy to start playing. You had one settler moving around, pressed a button, and a city came up. We didn’t want Civ III to be the most complicated Civ or the most difficult Civ to ever play; we wanted to take advantage of the new technology to make the game easier to play and to make the information more accessible, keeping the “easy to get started” aspect and the depth that the original had. That allows new people to play but with enhancements, like new cultures and diplomatic play, there’s [still] a lot of new things for the experienced Civ player as well.

>>JB:  This is something we’ve obviously given a great deal of thought to, and our initial take is that there are about 3 million Civ II players out there. We definitely want them to buy this game, so we have to have a path for them that will make the history of the world more interesting and more compelling as well. But I believe that just because something is deep, doesn’t mean that it has to be complicated. It’s just a question of how slowly you peel back layers, I guess, revealing more and more stuff. Civilization, the game itself, is perfect for new players – you start small, and move on once you get the grasp of the game.

PCG: Are there any games that have come out in the last five years that had influences on Civ III, in any genre?

>>SM: I think we’ve learned from Starcraft and Age of Empires – some of the techniques that streamlined gameplay. I think it’s critical in those games because they’re real time – they have to make everything easy to do with hotkeys, build queues, and things like that. And I think we’re able to use some of those ideas in our turn-based game.  I also think that we’re building on the some of the new ideas from Alpha Centauri, like borders; things that were important to people there. We see from the real-time games that if you establish an interface standard it makes the next game easier to pick up. Like if you played Starcraft, you know that there’s going to be a mini-map over here and some icons over there. Those are lessons that we’re learning and trying to use where appropriate in a game like Civ III. Certainly, it’s great to see games getting better; that’s a trend with games like Starcraft and Age of Empires. There are some really good games out there keeping PC gamers coming back to stores every few months looking for new games. I thinks that’s good for everyone in the industry, developers and magazines.

PCG: Is there consideration in your mind, being so PC focused, that the “bubble has burst?”

>>SM: No, we’re part of the PC market and it really doesn’t make sense to change what we do because we think the market might change. I think that there are really two different audiences; there’s an audience for PC games and an audience for console games. There’s a physical difference [between] what it feels like to use a mouse and keyboard as opposed to what you can do with a joystick and [between] what you can put up on a high resolution screen and a television set. There’ll always be games that will work well on a PC and games that will work well on a console. The games that we like to do tend to be the games that PC gamers like to play.

>>JB: It seems that about every two years this topic comes up again but the PC market is still strong. I just don’t see it going away. The PC is such a great tool.

PCG: The big question is that, with a lot of companies putting out junk, how much intensity do you put into a property like Civilization III? Is the pressure higher this time?

>>SM: The big pressure for us is that we have to play this game, day in and day out, for a year and a half or two. In a lot of ways that’s more pressure than [that from] the people that our out there. Our philosophy is that if we can make a game that’s interesting for us to play and work on for two years, that’ll will be interesting for other people to play. We try not to just put things in the game [for the sake of It] but to make a game that’s fun to play. Frankly, we get so much feedback from our players that we think we know them pretty well, in terms of what they like and what they’re asking for; I think we’re feeling pretty good about that aspect.

PCG: Could you explain what role you’re playing on the creative side of Civ III? How much Sid Meier is there left in the final game?

>>SM:  There’s kind of two sides to that. What has been surprising to me, in a lot of ways is that the Civilization system has survived through all the Civ titles. We have a really solid base to build on; it’s not like it’s a new design. My role is to be the player’s eye on things, to play the game and respond to what’s working well, what feels like Civilization and what doesn’t. We have a great team of programmers and artists that are creating the pieces of the game, seeing what things work, while Jeff is leading the design process.

>>JB: Sid’s really good at that. A lot of people have commented about how he takes the player’s side. I’m playing the game probably four to six hours a day every day. This idea that it has to be fun is very important; it’d be really hard to play this game if it weren’t fun. The process went with Sid and I talking about things we wanted in Civ III, I write up some things and pass it out to the team and they start working on it. Then it’s just a matter of time before we get a prototype back that we can play.

PCG: Does this pose any conflicts, with Sid having the ability to reject your ideas?

>>JB: Sid and I have been partners in this business for five years and before that, for eight years. I trust this guy. If I say I want to go one direction and he say he wants to go another, I almost always go with him. You can’t argue with Sid on certain things.

>>SM: We can always sit down with the game and play it and see how it feels. It’s not like we’re arguing whether the walls should be green or blue, we’re talking about how to make this fun.

PCG: For a more general question, have you created a game that you want to be most remembered for yet?

>>SM: Well, one answer to that is if my tombstone says “Sid Meier created Civilization” then that’s fine, I’m happy to be remembered for Civilization. But on the other hand, I’m not finished writing games yet, so maybe I’ll write another game that will be better than Civilization. For me, to quote Steve Jobs, “It’s the journey, not the destination.” Making games is just fun to me. I enjoy writing games and having people play them. If Civilization is the best game that I’ll ever write then that’s perfectly ok for me, but I haven’t stopped trying to write a game that’s just as good.

PCG: Besides this Civilization project, what other things get you out of bed in the morning?

>>SM: I find that I look forward to working each day. I have a ten year old son who loves to play computer games; we spend a lot of time looking at new games and playing them. It’s fun for me to play, but also to see games from his point of view; it gives me another perspective at games. We have a nice place to work, a lot of fun people to work with. It’s a great industry and I’m fortunate to write computer games and do something that I like to do as my job.

>>JB: Other than my dog, this whole idea of Firaxis games still excites me. We’re trying to build something here that’s going to last. My children are going to proud to say their dad started that company. For me it’s not just about creating games but nurturing this environment and making it a productive place.

PCG: Can you tell us anything about projects beyond Civilization III? For example that Dinosaur game?

>>SM: It’s not going to be buried forever. We worked on a couple ways of doing it, but none were as much fun as we wanted them to be, so we’re waiting for some better ideas. I have no idea how long that might be. We’re focusing on Civilization right now.

PCG: Do you think you will stay on turn based strategy or will you do something different?

>>SM:  I don’t look at a game as far as what genre it is. It’s more about the idea. The turn based genre just made the most sense for Civilization, which actually started out as a Sim City kind of game. It really depends on what the idea is, which determines whether we do real time, turn based,  cards, adventure, or whatever. The other game we did while working on Alpha Centauri, Gettysburg, which was more of a real time game. We pretty much pick the genre based on what works best for the idea.

>>JB: To me, it’s a technique. You do turn based games when it makes sense and real time when that makes sense.

>>SM: There are games like X-Com that combine turn based and real time. From our point view, the genre isn’t the most important thing, it’s what’s going to the be the most fun for the player.

PCG:  Many reviews said that Alpha Centauri was a better game than Civilization II, but wasn’t as much fun. Are there any lessons that you learned from Alpha Centauri?

>>SM:  One lesson that we learned was that in Civilization, there were a lot of ideas that you knew before playing the game, that doesn’t need to be explained. What the wheel is, or gunpowder, or the railroad. In Alpha Centauri, there’s quite a bit of complexity that caters to the experienced player but may overwhelm the less experienced player. Given those two things, Civilization III can be a much more accessible and fun game. If we use the streamlining ideas but avoid the “more is better” overload in some areas.

Civilization has always been a broad game. There’s military, diplomacy, economics, culture, ectera. And if its not only broad, but each of those becomes complicated, it becomes work, not fun. The idea of Civilization is to give you a lot of things to do, but make them each easy to understand individually and make the interactions between them where the interesting things start to happen. Going back to that philosophy, hopefully will make the game as fun and broad that Civilization has always been, but make it fun as opposed to work.

>>JB: With Alpha Centauri, it was all future science. You didn’t know anything about it, coming into it. Civilization III and II, are simpler games, and will be more fun.

>>SM: Doing Alpha Centauri made us appreciate Civ more. As you just described, you can discover gunpowder, and that’s exciting by itself. With Alpha Centauri, you would have to be explained what everything was. Science fiction is a nice topic, but we realized that a lot of thing that worked well in Civilization wouldn't work.

>>JB: I think the single player experience in Civ III is the central feature of the game, as it has been in all Civ games so far. We do plan to have a couple of pretty fantastic multiplayer experiences in Civ III. I don’t think you will have seen anything like it. The single player will be the focus but there will be multiplayer components.

>>SM: If we just wanted to go with what sells, we couldn’t taken quake engine and make a massively multiplayer game. We want to be true to the Civilization experience and that’s the approach we’re taking.