Past Forward

(Page 2 of 5)

Crispy Gamer: If someone unfamiliar with ancient history picked up the game, what would you like them to take away from it as a lesson about the period?

Andersson: There are two things that people will talk about. The first one is civil wars. Any character can start a civil war if he is ambitious and has a strong enough power base. It doesn't matter how long the game goes on or how powerful you become, you always run the risk of having your country deteriorate and go through civil war.

The other thing is that barbarians are always a threat. Most of the map is covered with barbarians at the start and you can only colonize slowly. Barbarians will go pillaging whenever they can so you constantly need to think about that fact and keep your guard up.

The game has islands of civilization where might makes right. It's an empire builder, but large states are not entirely stable all the time.

Crispy Gamer: The tension between historically accurate and "fun" game design has been around since the beginning of the industry and your audience and community seems to divide pretty much evenly. Some people want a lot of history and others just want this big history-themed sandbox. Where do you fall in that debate?

Andersson: What I've noticed is a lot of people don't really know what they want. And it's not like there are just two factions there; there are 20 more than that. There are people that want historical accuracy as long as it does not adversely affect their country. There are other people who think a game should only be context-sensitive with regard to historical accuracy, for example an archer should not appear with a machine gun.

My goal is to make sure that there is a balance between what feels historical and what feels like good gameplay. Good gameplay is when you do not "map" a game.

Crispy Gamer: How do you draw that line? There is quite a bit of history in all of your games.

Andersson: So long as you cannot plan in advance precisely what will happen because it happened historically. Have you ever played Europa Universalis II in multiplayer?

Crispy Gamer: Once or twice.

Andersson: In multiplayer the game pretty much breaks down because after people have some experience, they wind up making decisions based on historical events rather than the play of the game. If it is your country, then you are thinking "Oh, I know this historical event is coming, so I don't have to do anything now." It became very, very silly.

Crispy Gamer: Is there anything with which you're especially happy in Rome?

Andersson: I am really happy with all the characters and how you don't know what will happen with them. You have this guy and you put him in charge of your army. He's very successful and becomes very popular because he wins a lot of battles. Then his troops become loyal to him. So you are left wondering "OK. What is he going to do?" Then you try to reduce his power base so he doesn't start a civil war or do something worse.

Crispy Gamer: Is there anything you regret having to leave out of the game?