The Definition of "Fun": Understanding Our Differences About Civ3

[yin26]

What is "fun"? The designers of Civ3 certainly have searched their souls to answer this question, and it looks like our forum is doing something similar, though often heatedly and without much attempt or ability to show respect to the "other" viewpoint.

For me, trying to answer this question has helped me understand why I often seem so pessimistic about Civ3. What I have discovered is that Civ3 is shaping up to offer a great deal of fun--but perhaps not MY kind of fun. What follows is a bit long, for which I apologize, but it might be useful for some to consider:

Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote in 'Maypole of Merrymount' about how Cotton Mather (a good old Puritan) locked up and punished a nearby group of people who were dancing around a Maypole. In his eyes, they were disrespecting the Lord (and Mr. Mather himself, of course) by using their lives in such a careless manner. In fact, those revelers were protesters in a sense. Their very act of NOT sitting quietly with a Bible to study God's Word signaled not so much their laziness or lack of intelligence but their very bold (and dangerous) statement that games could provide as much as or even more fulfillment than stern adherence to social convention. For of all the battlegrounds, every battle begins and ends in the human mind...and a mind focussed on wrapping 15 foot ribbons around a tree trunk is a mind the authorities consider AWOL.

Have things really changed so much? Do your parents, teachers, friends and spouse respect the time you spend playing computer games? I wonder how many of you out there don't often feel somehow guilty or regretful after having spent hours playing? I certainly have often said things to myself like: "Gee. If I took all that computer game time and put it toward a Ph.D. or my career or my family, certainly I would have achieved much more MEANINGFUL happiness than what I have now." Is that true?

Face it. Most of us have at some point secretly felt that our countless hours put into discussing and playing these games have been somewhat "wasted." Maybe even some of us wish we had a Cotton Mather to come and kick our asses off the keyboard and shove us into the classroom or office where we can do ourselves some "real" good.

However, I strongly believe that SOME games are not only NOT a waste of time but have actually helped get me through rough spots in life and even helped me develop some advanced problem solving skills. Then, of course, many games HAVE been and could be merely a waste if I don't choose them carefully enough. Sadly, for me, Civ3 looks to make the choosing rather difficult.

To explain that will take a few more paragraphs, I'm afraid...

Countless insults have been thrown between the First-Person Shooter / Real-Time Strategy and Turn-Based Strategy camps as to which one is more "fun." After great thought on the issue, I have come to an amazing conclusion (I'm a bit mentally slow, I guess): They BOTH are. BUT: they do very different things to the brain, and depending on what kind of brain you have, both or neither of those genres are any fun to YOU.

The fact is, I enjoy all kinds of games. I have just finished playing Clive Barker's 'Undying,' for example, which is a SUPERB example of what an FPS should be. I enjoyed the experience immensely because it literally gave me adrenaline rushes at certain points...not to mention bits of shock. Yet, I found myself hardly able to push to the end despite all that because my brain wanted more. After perhaps no more than 20 hours of 'Undying,' I was bored DESPITE how wonderfully done the game is.

By contrast, how many hours have I spent playing and discussing the Civs games? Not 20, but 200? Perhaps 2000? It has taken me a long time to figure out why, but it now seems clear to me that I am finally understanding what kind of fun I like:

** I like a mental challenge more than a visceral one.

** I like to make complex decisions that take into account complex variables more than I like decisions based on reflex and instinct.

** I like to plan and be rewarded for superior strategy more than I like to rush in and be rewarded for superior boldness.

** I like for games to make me WORK more than REACT.

Odd, isn't it, that I play games so I can work? Surely that makes no sense. And yet, it does. While I clearly enjoy a visceral game now and then that takes good reflexes, instinct and boldness (I played on-line Age of Kings way more than I should have and became actually quite good, of all things, at Rushing), I find myself spending the most time and getting the most out of games that make me work through complex decisions to arrive at a superior strategy. True, one of the reasons AoK, despite being an RTS, held my attention for so long is that it did, in fact, involve quite a great deal of work to develop a superior strategy (though slow reflexes always spelled your doom against a good player).

So what's my problem with Civ 3? Or, I should say, 'potential problem' since I clearly haven't played it yet?

"I like a mental challenge..." Nothing about Civ3 so far suggests that anything about the game will be more challenging than what we've had over the past 10 years of Civ. Some new things and some cool twists? Yes. But basically Civ as we know it. That means, to me at least, I've already conquered most of the challenges.

"I like to make complex decisions that take into account complex variables..." Once the few twists in gameplay have been understood, these decisions seem to promise very little in the 'complex' column. Having to work for my resources is interesting, for example, but promises me little when I KNOW I'll already be hogging the map as it is.

"I like to plan and be rewarded for superior strategy..." It will seem a bit anti-climactic to be rewarded for things I already know will work or will work with rather easily implemented modifications.

"I like for games to make me WORK..." Which clearly won't happen once a few new tricks are learned and the same old (or basically same old) strategies prove successful as always.

CONCLUSION:

For me, Civ 3 as 'conservative sequel' after 10 years of Civving won't be MY kind of fun. I wish in some ways I had NEVER played Civ so that I could sit down with Civ 3 and actually enjoy the fun of discovery, looking for new strategies, and being rewarded for work well done. No doubt it would hook me for 10 years all over again, as I'm sure it will do for countless players new to the series.

But I do not fault Firaxis in the least. In fact, THEIR definition of fun seems to be the much more accepted (and profitable) one. Take a look at some dictionary entries:

"FUN usually implies laughter or gaiety but may imply merely a lack of serious or ulterior purpose."

"GAME often stresses mischievous or malicious fun."

"PLAY stresses the opposition to earnest without implying malice or mischief."

Looking at this, I realize that I simply take my fun, games and play too seriously. I WANT (most of) my fun to have a simulated 'serious or ulterior purpose.' And I WANT my games to steer away from something mischievous or malicious. And I WANT my play to be earnest. In Civ, I want to believe, if just for a moment, that I AM the leader of a great nation fighting for its survival and that the world waits with baited breath for my next calculated move.

Yet, this conservative installment won't do much to simulate that feeling after 10 years of having mastered the basic formula. New animated leaders won't do it. Units that bob their weapons up and down a million times won't do it. A few new twists will be too little too late. And, hey: I'll be the first to admit that it must immensely easier to make an FPS/RTS game more difficult just by upping the action while to do a similar thing for TBS, ESPECIALLY for a 10 year-old series, must be mind-boggling.

Sid himself has a strong belief that a successful game makes things "easily understood" and "simple." Well, looking at the accepted definitions of fun (and the number of games he has sold), he is right. And looking at what we've seen of Civ 3, we'll soon have something easily understood and simple.

Well, call me a freak...but that ain't gonna be MY kind of fun after all these years. In fact, I hope you'll understand me now when I say something seemingly as rash and pessimistic as: "Civ 3 is looking to be a waste of my time. Definitely NOT fun." If that statement now makes even the least bit of sense to some of my critics, I'll consider this long-winded post at least vaguely successful.

[Stefu]

Yin, you are thinking too much to enjoy.

[yin26]

Yin, you are thinking too much to enjoy.

Precisely. That has been my blessing and my curse. But if a game is making me think in a meaningful way, then I **do** enjoy the process immensely. Unfortunately for me, I think I'm a neurotic minority...hardly worth programming for.

[Buck Birdseed]

To begin with, let's dispel your first and foremost doubt: Computer games, in any form, are mind-stimulating and help you develop intelligent and well-adapted behaviour. Scientific studies have most certainly shown this. Even Quake will most likely help you in real life.

Now, onto the main issue: What you want is a game that is not Civ. It's pretty clear from your post that what you really, really desire is a game that is new, and fresh, and complex in interesting ways. Which is all well and good, but that game is not Civ! It lies in the nature of a sequel that it treads familiar territory. How about this: You jaded old civ-hounds go play something else, that will stimulate you in new and interesting ways, and leave the Civ sequels to the fresh-minded young newbies. Let's not ruin their fun by making it a game that will only appeal to a very small and obsessive minority, shall we?

[yin26]

Computer games, in any form, are mind-stimulating and help you develop intelligent and well-adapted behaviour.

ONLY if they are keeping your attention long enough to play them. See the point? I never said one genre DOESN'T stimulate...I say different genres stimulate differently.

As for your last point, that may be where I and others are heading. Of course, after 'being involved' with Civ3 the past 2+ years, it can be hard to let go. Keep in mind, I've never generalized to say "ALL players should feel the way I do." In fact, I make the distinction pretty clear.

So let's keep that in perspective, too, shall we?

[Supreme Master]

I have just read all of that and oww my head herts.
But i also agree with almost all of it Especially the bit about people complaning about u playing on games so much, i get that alot . i wont say to much because someone will start staying im going off topic again.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Yin... I was like you before. I was bitter at Firaxis for not standing up to its promises, and I discovered that I was part of the problem.

You see, I used to be the webmaster of Apolyton's SMAC site just as SMAC was released, and I decided that I was not enjoying the game as much as I would if I was just another gamer. This was because I knew too much about the game before it came out. There was nothing left to discover about the game except for the bad points, which game designers never tell you about, of course.

My suggestion to you, if you're expectations of CIV 3 are high, then good, stop learning about the game here, and wait until it comes out so than you'll have something to enjoy.

Trust me, you'll appreciate your purchase much more.

[Urban Ranger]

Hey Yin, isn't that Cotton Mather guy the person who started the Salem witch-hunt? That must be his idea of fun.

All right, I'm not sure Civ 3 is that easy to handle even for us veterans. Yeah, we can jump right in and examine the enhancements, but the changes seem to have made some old strategies obsolete and you'll need to develop new ones. And you get to play multiplayer games online. Put in all the scenarios (puzzles to solve).

At any rate a complicated game is not neceassrily a deep and involving game. in the OTF forum awhile ago we had a discussion on this and we pretty much agreed that often less is more, with Go being the epitome of this.

[Chronus]

Odd, isn't it, that I play games so I can work? Surely that makes no sense. And yet, it does.

Yes it does. My friend prefers powering a motor boat out to a middle of a lake and then sprawling out on the deck to soak up some sun. Why? Because it requires little to no work. Me? I prefer sailing. Why? Because you're constantly tacking, reeling lines in and out, planning where to go, etc. In other words, you must work at it . . . and I love it that way.

Yin, you're experiencing what many of us are going through. We're getting older and our tastes change. I'm tempted to say "We're growing up" but that's belittling. I used to buy and play computer games as if they were going to be banned. Now? Well . . . here's an example: I took a Java class last semester. A funny thing happened. Not only did I do all the homework assignments . . . I did the extra practice assignments at the end of each chapter . . . JUST FOR FUN! Is that sick or what? Even worse, after the class was over, I still kept going to the end of each chapter and doing more of the practice assignments. THE CLASS IS OVER AND I'M STILL DOING "HOMEWORK" AND HAVING FUN!

Someone above suggested not learning more about Civ III which is probably a good idea. I'd miss your posts, but you may end up happier.

[jsw363]

I feel like we're in group therapy here....

You're not going to get as much enjoyment from Civ3 as you did from Civ when it was all new fresh and exciting. There's much more that you know now about how the game and it's strategies work. If you want the same type of intellectual challenge you need to look for a new game that changes all the rules just like Civ did in its day.

I think that there are new aspects to the game that will make it more interesting. We dont' know what's going on with the AI, but I don't think that the same strategies will work, or at least work as effectively. There are new aspects to the game that will force you to modify strategies, but you probably won't have to start from scratch building new strategies. It will be more intellectually challenging than the first game, but you are more sophiticated.

An apt analogy might be the first time you saw "the Ususal Suspects." You have seen it haven't you? It was amazing. The second time the plot was less important and you saw some things more clearly and nuance became more important. Now that you're approaching your third time, you need to look for different things to entertain you; plot alone won't suffice. (Was this totally random, or did you understand?)

I don't think that you should give up on it wuite yet. But yeah, perhaps some time off is in order so that you get a "fresher" perspective when you pick the game up in October (hopefully )

[Ralf]

Originally posted by yin26
CONCLUSION:

For me, Civ 3 as 'conservative sequel' after 10 years of Civving won't be MY kind of fun. I wish in some ways I had NEVER played Civ so that I could sit down with Civ 3 and actually enjoy the fun of discovery, looking for new strategies, and being rewarded for work well done. No doubt it would hook me for 10 years all over again, as I'm sure it will do for countless players new to the series.

Somehow I have a strong feeling of that Yin26:s reaction would basically be the same, regardless of whatever Firaxis would have come up with.

Yin26 quote 06-02-01:

"Dear Firaxis,

At this point in Civ3's development, perhaps the single most important thing to be done is fine-tuning, tweaking, and polishing this baby. Assuming Civ3 is still one year out, I'm guessing you could have a solid 4 major in-house / beta patch cycles. That could make all the difference. A sikly-smooth, highly-polished Civ3 is the surest way to wipe any competition off the market.

If this means dropping some nifty enhancements to Civ3, so be it. I know I have argued against a Civ2.5, but a highly polished Civ2.5 (or 2.75 ) will be FAR BETTER than an unstable, akward Civ3."

"Having said that, I have immense faith in Sid. He has earned it, afterall. But I just think it would be so sad and silly if some bugs, imbalances or interface problems poke holes in what should clearly be the best TBS game ever made."

Yin26 quote 19-06-01:

"Please take my advice, Firaxis: Take all the time and money you save by avoiding featuritis and pour it into a better AI, better and more extensive testing and superb QA. For given the choice, a rock-solid "feature-lite" Civ 2.5 with an AI that can kick my butt would be eons ahead of a buggy Civ 3 with an AI that dies on the vine, packed full of broken/meaningless features that do nothing more than spin our wheels (even if they sound good on the box."

Sid himself has a strong belief that a successful game makes things "easily understood" and "simple." Well, looking at the accepted definitions of fun (and the number of games he has sold), he is right. And looking at what we've seen of Civ 3, we'll soon have something easily understood and simple.

Well, call me a freak...but that ain't gonna be MY kind of fun after all these years.

Yin26 quote 04-02-01 commenting on Sid Meier interview:

"Sid hates any kind of complexity that doesn't also have depth. And anything that can't be made "more digestible with easily understood subsystems" will NOT make it into the game. Of course, it's hard to tell exactly what those might be, but we can make some educated guesses."

"So I submit to my fellow Apolytoners that Civ3 will NOT depart from Civ in any way that adds complexity without depth or anything else that detracts from "what the game is": A fun, abstract, and rather light approximation of human history."

Yin26 - back then you seemed very positive and enthusiastic about that approach, in above comment.

[To_Serve_Man]

An interesting post.

Just as a friendly suggestion, you may want to check out the game Nomic. If you already know about that game, then just skip this part. Nomic isn't a computer game. Its a "board game" but it has no board. for more info check out: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm


One would think that if someone is not entertained by something, they would leave it. I wonder why you still are here, and not seeking 'Greater' enterianment.

Maybe its because debating over a game is fun by itself?

I really cant respond much to your post other than what i've said... you judge civ3 on your beliefs and definition of fun...

but check that game it... it meets all of those requirements that you set up for yourself


oh, and i finally made it to Warlord!

[LaRusso]

uh-hum, i guess there was already a discussion about this. i did finish darn phd, did everything i should yet i still get ****e from everyone (parents, gf, friends) that i should play less. i only play strategy and i play in 'waves', that is until i drop dead .
there is a stigma against gamers and we are seen as slightly retarded or really childish at best....

[Beckdawg]

yin i am starting to think you and i are related lol. I mean you just put into words the way i have felt about games since i started playing them some 13 or 14 years ago. I have always like the zelda games because they were a challege. You always had all sorts of puzzels you had to solve. Then they would throw you for a loop by putting in the 2nd quest(in the first one anyways b/c it was the best). My sugguestion to you would be to play senarios. They add a whole new sense of fun to me. I like WWII a lot. I have 4-5 good WWII mods for Civ 2 and i can replay them a 1000 times. it is a challenge every time. So i think you should consider designing mods if you don't already. You could try to find ways to out think the player and the game engine. Also as smart as you seem to be i bet you would make one kick ass WWII senario. By the way if you ever do make one email me. i will play test for ya. I specialize in find flaws in game designs and exploiting them and i would enjoy trying to help you make a great WWII senario.

[Steve Clark]

yin, that was an interesting read and a subject that I have written at length about in the context of text-based sports sims. My only "advice" would be to wait for the complex scenarios that Nemo and many others would create for Civ3. As you know, some of the more recent scenarios (with their clever use of the text files and events) have dramatically altered the main game of Civ2. As I have said many times, I am mostly interested in the custom scenarios for Civ3 because it wouldn't be long before some of us will find the main game unchallenging or not as fun. Scenarios will make Civ3 harder and much more fun for me, just like with Civ2.

[Trifna]

Hi Yin.

I kind of see things with the same eye for many things you wrote here. Personnally, my fun about Civ III is also mental chalenge... It's to build a History simulation in some kind and to see how it works. I'm kind of getting out of video games, though. For the reasons you mention. I prefer making fun about some things that not only are fun, but also useful and challenging. But I do, for the moment, keep a few games to play, which are mentaly challenging and many ways, and with some special social aspect.

Well cya. I gotta go make some maths, since I went on my computer all day or almost. I think that happiness isn't in playing 96 hours non-stop (except a little of sleep), which I guess I've allready done. It's to gain a balanced style of life. By playing more and more, I'm only playing more by hoping this fun that I have with a LITTLE of playing after some work will come back. And it's also to not wanting to put efforts, which are hard when we don't make fun in something that demands efforts. Like I said, I'm gonna go make some fun with my maths


PS: But I still consider some mentally challenging game as giving something to me. Little doses of Rogue Spear (a slow enough/not rushing fast-paced shooter), Myst-Riven-Exile... these type are the two last. Annother one would be one giving a good opportunity for some fun social contacts with people I like. (mmm... It've been 10 minutes I said "Cya")

[dainbramaged13]

i have a sugestion... go play majestic... have any of you heard about it?

by the way, dont lump fps and rts... rts is not the same level as fps, its more of a middle ground between fps and tbs

On a more serious note, you provide some interesting (and true to your nature, pessimistic) ideas. While I found myself agreeing with most of your reasoning, I really can't accept your conclusions.
FOr one, about your conclusion that you will be able to use the same old civ2 strategies... while the basic idea may be the same, and you'll obviously have a big head start on newcomers to the series, you will NOT be an expert at civ3 the first time you play. from all the big things like culture, borders, and the added importance of diplomacy and trade, to the little things, like small measures to prevent ICS, settlers and workers, you will HAVE to come up with some new strategies. I could win a civ2 game easy just by building up my military and expanding. I truly believe that my empire would grow too thin to survive using these strategies with civ3, because of the importance of roads and domestic trade, as well as the bigger foreign diplomacy/trade picture.

Also, with 5 ways to win, there will be a multitude of pathways you can explore, and last but not least, everyone has mentioned scenarios, because its true! Scenarios make the game a lot less monotonous, and you can play them for ages after you lose interest in the regular game.

I for one, think that you will NOT be bored with civ3 for quite a while, and if you are, it is DEFINIT++++not the fault of Firaxis. After all, how much did you want them to change it? They're making a sequel, not a new game. If youre talking about the basic formula of the game, when you say that you know how to win and stuff, you must realize that keeping the basic formula is inherent in the word 'sequel.'


I know my arguments are not well-organized or well-put, and i apologize, but i think through the whole thing, I do get my point across.

[old timer]

Although I never played Civ I or Civ II, I did play SMAC, and because of how much I played it, I too suspect I'll quickly bore of playing Civ III.

When I first bought SMAC, it was the first TBS game I had played since Empire Deluxe for the Amiga back in the late '80s. At the time, I thought SMAC was the greatest game ever, but now, unfortunately, it would take a radically better AI for me to be able to enjoy another Civ like game.

I've experienced the same thing with other genres, such as RTS, FPS, flight sims, etc., and I now find little satisfaction in playing new games of these types.

But... I've discovered that I really like modifying games and that is what has kept me interested in game playing. My main reason for wanting to buy Civ III is so I can make the AI much better. I'll play the game mainly for this reason, because I don't expect any challenge from the AI (unless it's truly revolutionary). And before anyone tells me to play MP, that's not a very good option for me because of various physical problems I have.

So Yin, maybe you should try modding Civ III and see if that could be fun for you? Just a thought.

[Mannamagnus]

Look at it from the bright side: at least you are having fun posting about civ3 Yin!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Even Quake will most likely help you in real life.

Damn right! Where else could I have learned to circle-strafe?

Yin: I agree wholeheartedly. Games are kind of like books: Stephen King might be a good read every now and then, but read him too often and I grow incredibly bored with him. The books that actually make me think (good Sci-Fi, good literature, good non-fiction) are much more preferable to the books that are usually at the top of the best-seller list. FPS (and rehashed games, like Civ III may turn out to be) are all well and good for brief periods of time (or when I'm drunk), but otherwise I grow quickly bored with them.

[yin26]

I would just like to thank all of you for some excellent advice and perspective. In particular, I've come to grips with two things:

1. Civ3 won't be re-inventing the wheel (though I was hoping that it would and did my best to push it further up the 'radical departure' scale).

2. Working on MODS and trying to learn the ins-and-outs of the AI routines highly appeals to me. It may be that I am getting so old and crusty (at age 30, I've played too many hours of these things) that I need the 'ultimate' challenge of getting under the hood and doing some creating of my own.

For now, my plan is this: IF I buy Civ3, it will be primarily to tweak it and to try to give the community something really cool. But I will keep that effort behind the scenes, so to speak, such that if I can't deliver the goods, you'd never even know what I was up to. This is to keep any criticisms I might have off the boards.

What I am particularly looking forward to is Master of Orion 3, which (though a '3' just like the next Civ) has a team really trying to rachet things up with some great or potentially ruinous ideas. But they are pushing the envelope at the very least, and I have immense respect for that.

I also had a near spiritual experience when I read that MOO3 has 3-4 programmers FULL-TIME on AI!!! And the fact that they will NOT be releasing this game for a holiday deadline (early 2002?) also indicates to me they are 'risking' missing Christmas because they are confident a superior but later release can make up for and surpass any lost holiday sales.

Thus, I am off the boards indefinitely. If I am able to do some cool things with Civ3, I'll be back. Otherwise, it really has been great discussing all this stuff with you guys these many, many months.

Take care...and ENJOY Civ3!

Yin

[tniem]

Good bye Yin! It is going to be well different without you.

Consider returning when Markos allows the MoO3 section to be finished. Any way thanks for all the arguments and heading up the Civ III section for a while.

[lord of the mark]

I very much enjoyed your post yin.

While i have disagreed with you in the past, clearly you take both this game and history seriously. Your presence will be missed.

As you prepare for being a mod developer please feel free to drop in on the Scenario league board - a different and sometime quite interesting place.


LOTM

[rah]

Good luck Yin,
You've provided a lot of entertainment while we wait.

While I agree with a lot of your reasons for taking a CIV vacation, I'll counter with just two points.

1. After reading/posting here and checking out the new web site. I really don't know a lot more about the game now than a few months ago, So I know when the game comes out, they'll still be enough discovery to keep it interesting. The details that are not being mentioned can change everything.

2. Multiplay. Even after years of MP with CIVII, exposure to different people and ever evolving stratagies makes me rethink what I'm doing damn near every game. The only thing consistent in MP is that if you are consistent (predictable) someone will find a way to kick your ass. Screw the AI, it will never be a worthy opponent after a few games. And the AI is no where near as satisfying to beat.

RAH

[CapTVK]

I have a stange feeling that this really is Yin's final post. Thanks for all the excellent and thought provoking threads. You always seem to hit the nail right on the head. Enjoyment of a game depends on our personal taste and thru the years our appetite changes. I'm not really interested in the main stream games these days (haven't been for years). The fact is that most of them seem quite boring to me. Some years back I would have probably played them through till the end. But I no longer care to put the effort into it. Why should I?

I do still play though, the occasional quick game of Civ2 plus some of the indie/freeware gems like bridgebuilder and stalin's dilemma. Games that show they can be different and interesting at the same time. If you're looking for innovative fresh ideas you're better off here.

You can find these gems at www.theunderdogs.org


P.S

Yin,

If you're really interested in creating something why not throw your skills and intellect into Freeciv. The windows 1.12 binary now works straight from the box these days and is starting to look the part (now we need a better interface and some better eyecandy). While freeciv always can use programmers they need non-programmers even more, new game mechanisms (trade system, diplomacy), graphics, sound, manuals and civilopedia's don't appear from thin air! (hint hint hint!)


So long, and thanks for all the fish!

[vonManstein]

Will the pessimists disband with the loss of their leader?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by yin26
I also had a near spiritual experience when I read that MOO3 has 3-4 programmers FULL-TIME on AI!!!

Hmm. It would feel reassuring if Firaxis expressed the same kind of AI-develop commitment in Civ-3 as well.
"Something like SMAC" just aint good enough. They must go beyond that.

[Steve Clark]

Ralf, it's the quality of AI programmers, not the quantity.

[Wittlich]

Hmmm, What can I say except - Ciao Yin! You're past posts have fueled a hoard of discussions here.

However, for some reason I think that you'll be back. After all, IMO, you have some very strong views and not posting them here is...well...just NOT the Yin I'm familiar with.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by vonManstein
Will the pessimists disband with the loss of their leader?

Well, until "pessimism" means to pull the rope to the other side of a bit too much entusiastic team, hoping to re-fitting things in proper perspective (not in pessimistic view, only more realistic), someone will be here.

Before proper game release anything could be slighty changed (I'm speaking about game enjoyment because of very nice little features, a wonderful AI, a very good balancing); some patch and a very strong MOD can still "save the boat" for anyone not happy about conservative sequel.
May be Firaxis will add some more courageous new game features with the very likely Expansion Pack...

Yin did a lot of job with The List (he wasn't alone, of course, lot of credits must be distributed), I hope he can add some more efforts around here, with a great Scenario or, better, with a new revolutionary alternative Civ game. Good luck Yin!