Computer Game: 'Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri' (1999)

This is the turn-based strategy computer game that defines the genre for me. There is no equal, since it combines super smooth gameplay with a nice level of glitz, but not so much glitz that it slows the computer down to a crawl. In second face we would probably find either 'Civilization II' or 'Civilization IV', but they both fail in one respect: They're not science-fiction! 'Alpha Centauri' beats them with a shower of conceits, and by being the rare sequel that works. 'Alpha Centauri' is thematically the story of what happened after someone won 'Civilization' by launching that spaceship to another world...

It's a lovely game. It has all the hallmarks of the 'Civilization' series, but some new features and a new setting. The most novel aspect is setting the parameters of your own society, which carried over to following games, but you also get to design your own units, which was marvelous and didn't carry over! To be fair, it did become cumbersome to micro-manage all the designs and fight the computer's meddling, but I still love being able to mix up the combinations and give them names of my own choice.

This game also has a nice narrative about human beings adapting to a new world, and eventually winning by achieving transcendence, amongst other victory conditions. There is no follow up that beats the transcendence victory condition. None.

The issue that comes to mind when playing 'Alpha Centauri' is much more philosophical than game-based. Since I always go after the peacemongering victory, and always choose one of the two factions that is environmental or diplomatic, it seems as if most of the game is being missed, but I don't want to be a military nut or crazy fanatic. (The factions are very stereotypical and polarised, but that can't be helped now.)

Is it right to play a game according to your own values and never vary? Is that okay? It's a bothersome question to have hanging about your head. It's not as if it's easy to win by your preferred manner, and it's not as if that manner is ever ignored. Sometimes, after being betrayed by The Hive or The Believers repeatedly over several hours, there is a perverse pleasure to be taken in rolling out a defensive counter-strike over their cities, but it always gets reined in once revenge fever cools. For those in the know, it's very similar to going after Genghis Khan in 'Civilization' after he has been similarly attacking you for several thousand years. It's an almost irresistible impulse.

Is it good to always try and win your game the same way? Is it a waste? Is it a good idea to try and do it the other way, even if the other way doesn't really chime with your own attitudes? Isn't that the point of games?

O.