open sourcing of selected civ3 components

[sophist]

There are several parts of civ3 that I find to be sorely lacking.

1) Artificial Intelligence - we've all seen AIs do stupid things

2) Map Generator - I've seen too many Pangaeas that aren't. And there need to be more parameters, like resource clustering/distribution factor, civs per continent, number of continents, and no doubt more.

3) Editor - Where to begin.... No zoomed out view. No adding of new units/civs/etc. Tools are still clunky to use. Selected/Cut/Copy/Paste not implemented.

Now, these seem to be ready candidates for having their source opened. Why? Well, none of these three are core civ3 parts. They all enhance the game, but are not really a part of the core engine. So nobody would gain from having the code for these pieces; it's not as though they could replicate civ3. And these parts are specialized for civ3, so they would most likely not be of much use elsewhere. And anyway, any competing games studio that tried to exploit the open source would get sued into oblivion. What would we gain? Well, if we had multiple independent AI routines available, the AIs wouldn't be so predictable. Some of them would operate from completely different code bases than others. I don't think Soren is likely to program an AI that does an all-out rush (builds ONLY cities and military units and tries to destroy everyone early), but it might be interesting to play against one (the Mongols, the Huns, etc....). The AI shows real growth from previously, but it still all came from the same minds as to what goals are important, how to analyze a particular part of the game, etc.

With regards to the map generator and editor... The file formats have already been reverse-engineered. People know how to do it. It would just make it a lot easier to 1) improve an existing tool rather than create a new one and 2) distribute said improved tool. Right now there are many tools that all have advantages and disadvantages, and probably aren't known to 85% of civ3 players. If there was a way to work on the official editor and feed improvements back into the official editor, things would be a lot better in this regard.

As far as I can tell, there's no downside to Firaxis/Infogrames to opening the source to the above pieces. They lose no sales, while fans get an improved product that is closer to what they want the game to do. Furthermore, when someone complains about the AI or the editor, Firaxis can just say: "We don't believe that's a priority. If you do, here's the FAQ on how to modify the editor. Good luck." I'm not a zealot who thinks this should all be open; clearly they need to make their money. But I just don't see revenue loss this way; quite possibly, this will even be a revenue gain because their product will be even better.

If you want to see how well this works, look at the Quake3 mod community. It's fantastic! The game's probably sold more as a result of their open attitude. And what about Half-Life? It wouldn't be half of what it is without the Counter-Strike mod. And the continuing work on Doom and Quake 1, games now well obsolete, but with thriving communities based on moving the games forward, and a whole lot of good will thrown id's way.

No doubt there are other candidates for opening, but the above are what came to mind. Clearly the base engine should remain closed (as the quake3 engine is). And it would take some effort to separate the pieces cleanly and allow for a more pluggable architecture. But it would pay off. For one thing, it would make it even easier for Firaxis to develop expansion packs in-house to have the code modularized better (no doubt the intent to open the quake3 game code led to design decisions that made the development of Quake 3's Team Arena much easier).

[CapTVK]

Already asked this question months ago to Firaxis but they never answered. And the answer would have been "NO" anyway for the simple fact that Firaxis doesn't "own" the sourcecode but Infogrames does as publisher.


And why waste efforts on trying to open source Civ3 when we have Freeciv? We should better focus our efforts on making a real open source version of civ even better.

P.S
Freeciv is looking for some good graphics to replace the current Hires isometric set. Want to help? Contact me in the Freeciv forum

[adaMada]

I'd really like a plugin/scripting archetecture for the AI -- ok, I don't expect to get it, but I'd love it anyway . Based off a popular language (personally, I want C/C++, and since that's what the game was written in, it's all that makes sense, but if they did it in another popular language I couldn't complain...), it'd make the mod-making process MUCH more interesting. As for the open-sourcing of the Editor and Map Generator, they're not personal proiorities, but it'd be cool if we had them. Still, don't think we're getting any of it -- if we even get the tools to make real scnerios anytime soon, I'll be thrilled. Also note that, for all of these, open sourcing really isn't required -- for the AI, a plugin or scripting archetcture that allowed the rewriting of individual functions would be enough, and for the map generator/editor, they could release a library that you could compile into another program and make an editor or mapmaker from scratch...

Having said that, I don't really expect it for Civ 3 (as sad as it is). Maybe as an X-Pack (evil words), but it'd be huge changes. Still, I'm all for it, and there's always hope .

-- adaMada

[Ralf]

Originally posted by sophist
There are several parts of civ3 that I find to be sorely lacking.

1) Artificial Intelligence - we've all seen AIs do stupid things

Are you kidding? Sure the AI can be adjusted somewhat here and there, but frankly, the AI is really the very best part in Civ-3. Its substantially better then it ever was in Civ-2, SMAC, or CTP/CTP-2. One cant even compare. Its much, much better then I would have hoped for.

What this game need is instead some bug-fixing (ALL new PC game-releases needs that, by the way), some gameplay-adjustments based on non-whining constructive player-feedback, and finally a really worthwhile upcoming commercial Civ-3 extension-package, including complete scenario-building support (the current support is hopelessly inadequate); complete MP-support; a lot more tabs/options in that Civ-editor; of course lots of quality scenarios; more Civs, and perhaps some few nice tech/unit/city-improvement additions as well - Alien Crossfire-style.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Ralf


Are you kidding? Sure the AI can be adjusted somewhat here and there, but frankly, the AI is really the very best part in Civ-3. Its substantially better then it ever was in Civ-2, SMAC, or CTP/CTP-2. One cant even compare. Its much, much better then I would have hoped for.

It's better, I grant (and did above). But there are still obvious issues. Read the thread on AI foolishness in fighting wars for lots of examples.

Originally posted by Ralf
What this game need is instead some bug-fixing (ALL new PC game-releases needs that, by the way), some gameplay-adjustments based on non-whining constructive player-feedback, and finally a really worthwhile upcoming commercial Civ-3 extension-package, including complete scenario-building support (the current support is hopelessly inadequate); complete MP-support; a lot more tabs/options in that Civ-editor; of course lots of quality scenarios; more Civs, and perhaps some few nice tech/unit/city-improvement additions as well - Alien Crossfire-style.

True, true, though I believe the bug-fixing, gameplay adjustments, the scenario building support, and civ3 editor improvements should be part of a free upgrade to the current package. Charging for fixing what is broken in what we've already paid for is ludicrous.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by sophist
Charging for fixing what is broken in what we've already paid for is ludicrous.

Sophist - what you paid for was the currently existing game, with its currently existing game-features. Once you paid for that game, you accepted that deal. Now IF those currently existing game-features dont work 100% as they should - then obviously, you should be able to download completely free patch-updates, in order to remedy these faults.
Nobody is questioning that - least of all Firaxis, who is busy playtesting their first (of many) free patch-updates, at this very moment (well not on weekends perhaps).

As for major ADDITIONAL game-features (like complete MP-support, for example), on top of the currently existing ones - then you simply have to pay more money. It is as simple as that. If you dont belive me, just look around. This is the way big commercial software-updates are handled in the real world out there.

[G.A]

Originally posted by sophist
2) Map Generator - I've seen too many Pangaeas that aren't. And there need to be more parameters, like resource clustering/distribution factor, civs per continent, number of continents, and no doubt more.

Pangaeas, huh.

Try to get Archipelago by selecting "Archipelago"

You`ll get 2-3 huge continents.

Now when I select "Random", 3 times of 4 I get the true and quality archipelagos

[sophist]

I know there's a patch coming; I was just differentiating between what I thought was acceptable to put off in a pay-for expansion pack and what I thought we deserved for paying our $50 for the game retail.

As far as paying for the existing game features, it gets into a grey area regarding what a bug is. It could be an implementation bug, it could be a gameplay bug, or it could be a discrepancy between user expectations and what was actually delivered. If the expectations were reasonable (i.e., based on what Firaxis/Infogrames/other official source stated, or the level of quality of the previous releases), I think it should be part of a patch because it would reflect that we were given an unfinished product when we paid for a finished one. Just because a flaw doesn't cause the program to crash doesn't mean it's not something that should be fixed. In the cases I name above, well, the AI thing is just a wishlist item. And bear in mind that I'm not saying Firaxis should go out and do a new AI just because I say. I'm saying that it would benefit everyone if they made it easier for developers outside Firaxis to create these AIs. As far as the map generator and editor go, the current level of support is far below what was in Civ2 and (I believe, though I didn't play much) SMAC. Our expectations were set based on those releases, and reasonable expectations were not met. I'm trying to give Firaxis a way to improve their product, save money, and quiet complainers like me .

Originally posted by Ralf


Sophist - what you paid for was the currently existing game, with its currently existing game-features. Once you paid for that game, you accepted that deal. Now IF those currently existing game-features dont work 100% as they should - then obviously, you should be able to download completely free patch-updates, in order to remedy these faults.
Nobody is questioning that - least of all Firaxis, who is busy playtesting their first (of many) free patch-updates, at this very moment (well not on weekends perhaps).