Disenchanted

[Sikander]

Cunctator,

I agree that one of the game family's problems is the "more is less" late game, where process of getting more stuff (fun) ends up being the process managing more stuff, which is less fun.

I have never understood the slavish devotion to Sid's original Civ 1 model, where a "city" founded in 4000 BC retains most of it's properties until the present era. Why don't things scale? What is already an unrealistic and fanciful level of control by the player in 4000 bc only gets both more ridiculous and less interesting as time goes by.

I wish that a city started out as a one square affair, and as it grew it's influence expanded into adjacent squares. As populations and technologies both advance, so does the "city's" boudaries. It becomes a city state, a region, a nation, an empire. Yet the rapidity and simplicity of play in the early game needn't give way to being the mayor of 100 cities. The game should scale up so that is in fact several games depending on the scale of your empire and the social and political fabric of your state.

This would be one of the ways that crappy AI problems which have never been solved over many years and games could be adressed. Toss the model away, and start thinking creatively. To me the model of Civ isn't all of those painful shortcomings which have been glaring since Civ 1, but the idea of following and guiding a group through history. This is the interesting part for me.

[Zanzin]

An excellent analysis Comrade. I think you've hit some of the nail on the head there, talking about how, in general, civ3 went wrong.

[Arrian]

Comrade,

Interesting breakdown of gamers. I'm not quite sure where I fall, though - probably somewhere around 60/40 Sandbox/Powergamer. I like working my way up in difficulty, and I appreciate a challenge - to a point. I like beating the AI, and I like building a large, prosperous empire (with lots of wonders, of course). MP really isn't for me, I don't think. Yet I hated SimCity. But anyway...

Your conclusion happens to jive with something I was pondering, but having serious trouble explaining, yesterday - that, strangely enough, the AI isn't actually the #1 thing. I think that really threw me, when I realized it. Sure, we all want a smarter AI (then, someday, in my perfect world, playing on "Diety" would mean playing against a really devious AI with all of its "intelligence" toggled on, instead of just a dumb AI with cheats). But the reality is that games can be loads of fun, even if the AI isn't anything to write home about.

I don't think Civ III fails horribly. Maybe that's because I fall in between your two categories... I don't know. I'd probably be happy if they patched in stacked movement, convinced the AI to upgrade (or just gave it upgrades), fixed the "only 2 automated pollution control workers to a square" thing, and beefed up the editor.

-Arrian

[Analyst Redux]

Comrade, that was a very useful synopsys of the competing desires of the core audience. Most people never take it to the next level like that, examining others feedback with objectivity, rather than running it through the filters of their own perceptions. Good work.

The one issue I would take with your bi-lateral division of the core audience is that I think there really is a third group for whom the challenge of a great AI in a stragety environment is the number one priority issue. These folks really do believe that any game should be capable of having powerful AI, if only the game's programmers were talented and dedicated enough. Someone else is going to have to think of a clever name for such folks, as my talents don't run in that direction. Herein, I will refer to them as "AI-loving".

I think that Firaxis believed (and continues to believe) that the AI-loving crowd is the bulk of their core audience. I'm not sure about that, but it is a significant part of the core audience. There are two kinds of posters on this message board who fall into that audience: (i) the kind who are utterly satisfied with the game (who don't really deserve to be derisviely blown off as "fanboys"), because it presents a much stricter challenge to beat than past efforts, and who are not, for whatever reason, bothered by the "Potempkin Villiage" methods used to create that challenge from little-changed AI; and (ii) people like some of those who approve of this thread, who are disatisfied with Civ III's failure to significantly advance the AI, but who also continue to believe that advancing the AI is possible--Vel is one example.

Which group I fall into should be fairly obvious: I'm almost totally powergamer, as my wont to deconstruct the workings of the product demonstrate. I'm consistently disappointed with the low priority treatment of multiplay in this series, as I regard it as the only viable future for it. About 10% of me falls into the AI-lover category, but I beleive that's more wishful thinking than realistic expectations for the game.

Personally, I could care less about the sandbox priorities. That's not correct. As a powergamer, I'm extremely leery of the tendency of sandbox features to undermine the powergame features. When I initially understood that the scenario tools were inadequate, my reaction was that I couldn't care less. But I've come to rethink that reaction and understand the importance of that feature to marketing the game. Further, it is an important feature with respect to preserving MY powergame priorities. Presenting an evenly balanced, not over the top powergame, side by side with all the mod tools any sandbox enthusiast would ever need to satisfy all of his most outrageous fantasies--that's the formula that perfectly serves both such audiences. I now realize that having a bad mod/scenario editor is a really bad thing for myself, even though I never planned to touch it.

Since powergaming, AI-loving, and sandbox playing are all direct tradeoffs, however, players of all groups should be concerned that the favored feature of another group is broken/missing, as the consequence is that your favorite feature is impacted. Every time you reduce the scope of the game, e.g. no MP, a bad editor, compromises get made within the game to make up for it. Those compromises, on this occasion, seem to have made more people unhappy than happy.

[Heliodorus]

Regarding MP versions - my experience suggests that the only players who play MP games are the powergamer variety. For someone like me, an 80/20 sandbox/powergamer hybrid, MP games are always laborious because you have to get on a horse and beat the hell out of it towards the path of greatest returns - there's no time for building the Trans-Polar Railroad (my favorite Civ1 waste of time in the end-game) and no security in colonizing the tiny islands of the South Pacific because your powergamer opponents will destroy them. So with Analyst, I have to disagree that MP is the only viable future for the game.

But for the record, I guess I've had really bad experiences with the sportsmanship of the players I find via MP, and I honestly think that most MP players are borish or are quitters (or both), oh, and don't forget the cheaters in games where that was possible. So I don't like MP.

That being said, AI is critical for my gaming style. As much as I agree that toys make the game, if that were my only source of pleasure, I'd be playing on basic difficulty settings. There has to be a challenge from somewhere, and the AI has to be that source. I'd love to help make good AIs, but I'm not a programmer.

I also think that from a marketing standpoint, MP only games aren't the sellers that SP or SP/MP hybrids are. I'd have to look at sales reports to be sure, though.

[Brutus66]

and don't forget the cheaters in games where that was possible[QUOTE]

Not to mention the players who are slow as hell or those that consistently fail to show or are late for the continuation of saved games. It can be a very aggravating experience.

[korn469]

Heliodorus

That being said, AI is critical for my gaming style. As much as I agree that toys make the game, if that were my only source of pleasure, I'd be playing on basic difficulty settings. There has to be a challenge from somewhere, and the AI has to be that source. I'd love to help make good AIs, but I'm not a programmer.

I also think that from a marketing standpoint, MP only games aren't the sellers that SP or SP/MP hybrids are. I'd have to look at sales reports to be sure, though.

From what I heard the sims just past myst to be the number one selling game of all time, and both of those are singple player only, both of which have sold millions of copies, compare that with

FAIRFAX, VA – JANUARY 16, 2002 – Mythic Entertainment (www.mythicentertainment.com), co-publisher and developer of the massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) Dark Age of Camelot, today celebrated having sold through over 200,000 copies and recognition as Game of the Year in a number of categories by industry press. Co-published with Abandon Entertainment (www.abandonent.com), Dark Age of Camelot continues to be critically acclaimed by reviewers. It remains the fastest growing MMORPG to date, having vaulted past Microsoft’s Asheron’s Call and into the number three spot among US based MMORPGs in terms of peak concurrent players gaining quickly on Sony’s Everquest and EA’s Ultima Online

so multiplayer only games don't seem to be as popular as single player games

plus multiplayer in the Civ genre runs into another problem, the average "good" game of starcraft took between 20-40 minutes to play, start to finish with the player constantly involved in the game, with usually 2-6 players in a game, i played a couple hour plus games, and one time i played a 3 hour marathon game (it was an 8 player FFA)

Civ3 has a maximum of 540 turns, so to be able to consistantly play games that are less than an hour long, we are talking that you would need simultaneous movement a fairly fast conection and an unforgiving turn length timer, and in a 2-6 player game that on average lasts an hour or less if you start from 4000bc, then you are only going to make it maybe 1250AD and that is being very very generous (that is 240 turns, or 4+ turns per minute)

once you start saying that the average player won't mind a 2 hour, or a 3 hour, or even a 4 hour game then you are no longer talking about average players and you are talking about hard core civ multiplayers

so while i do think that a solid multiplayer component is needed that it is of secondary importance compared to single player, in this case the reason that civ3 not having multiplayer pissed me off so bad is because it along with the lack of a demo and the lack of an open beta (which jeff wanted) indicated to me that infogrames said "listen here firaxis, civ3 is coming out for christmas, make it so do whatever you need to"

and although civ3 had a fairly long development time i still think the game was rushed, basically they had to start civ3 development over with a largely different team at the start of 2000, so civ3 was in development for about a year a half, which is average and certainly not some ungodly amount of time to develop a game

not only was civ3 purposely dumbed down to increase the challenge of the AI, but it was also rushed, the U.N. and diplomatic victory probably proves this more than anything, but i am guessing that firaxis took what resources they had and made the product as good as possible, if they had more resources then civ3 would have been better for all players

this is a quote from bill roper from blizzard about warcraft3

Do you have any earth shattering revelations for us about Warcraft3?

We are currently preparing to enter the beta phase of the game and we intend to make a concentrated effort to focus all of our energies into really running the game through its paces. We intend the beta to run for at least 2-3 months so that we can fully test and balance the units while watching and playing hundreds of games with our dedicated beta testers. We have just announced signups for the beta on our website at www.blizzard.com and expect to be playing games with testers within the next 4-6 weeks.

Civ3 hit beta August 23, it went gold October 8, and it hit stores October 29...so it had a month and a half closed beta, and in my opinion if it had of had a three month open beta to supliment their closed beta starting on August 23 (when they should have announed that civ3 didn't have multiplayer) then many of the problems in civ3 would have came out earlier and would have hopefully been fixed and the game could have still came out in early december in time for christmas while also being a much better game

i think the number one reason that civ3 feels lacking, is because time ran out of the development team and that civ3 is lacking

[pg]

Originally posted by Sikander
Cunctator,

I agree that one of the game family's problems is the "more is less" late game, where process of getting more stuff (fun) ends up being the process managing more stuff, which is less fun.

I have never understood the slavish devotion to Sid's original Civ 1 model, where a "city" founded in 4000 BC retains most of it's properties until the present era. Why don't things scale? What is already an unrealistic and fanciful level of control by the player in 4000 bc only gets both more ridiculous and less interesting as time goes by.

I wish that a city started out as a one square affair, and as it grew it's influence expanded into adjacent squares. As populations and technologies both advance, so does the "city's" boudaries. It becomes a city state, a region, a nation, an empire. Yet the rapidity and simplicity of play in the early game needn't give way to being the mayor of 100 cities. The game should scale up so that is in fact several games depending on the scale of your empire and the social and political fabric of your state.

This would be one of the ways that crappy AI problems which have never been solved over many years and games could be adressed. Toss the model away, and start thinking creatively. To me the model of Civ isn't all of those painful shortcomings which have been glaring since Civ 1, but the idea of following and guiding a group through history. This is the interesting part for me.

to me this says what the problem is perfectly(and i love those ideas, i must admit). you know it would be easier to rebuild (civ) from scratch than to continue to try and rework civ to include everything we want. rebuild, with the goal of doing what you intend, not the goal of making the improvements work in the accepted civ formula. the harder it is to rework something and the more overhead it requires, leads to more bad things in each addition. it's like a house of cards. each successive civ game so far has just been building on the last one(more or less), so if this model continues civ is doomed. once the overhead, and the model itself become the main problem it's time to start over.

civ as it is now will never work for mainstream multiplayer no matter what you do. the basic civ model needs to be trashed. it was good 10 years ago but it's severly outdated, and it shows. however, i realize most people will not give up this model until it proves without a doubt that it is indeed the main thing holding back development of the series. it seems like firaxis and everyone else clings to the civ1 model just because it's all they know. there HAS to be a better way. i think it's time for enlightenment.

btw, i think sid was more lucky than anything with civ1. i agree for it's time it was an amazing game but each consecutive civ game has relatively had less and less innovation and still clings to civ1's core as it's lifeblood.

[Brutus66]

I can see where you're coming from, and I think it would be exciting to see something based on an entirely new, innovative model. I can remember, years ago when Windows 3.1 was the thing and Win 95 came out, I did not accept the change very eagerly. But with each succeeding operating system, I have learned that change is good!

Your view that each succeeding incarnation of Civ was not as not quite as good as the last, well, I just don't go along. I really liked Civ2, right off the bat. Just my opinion though.

[Comrade Tribune]

Analyst, as always your comment is very valuable, and made me think hard.

You are right: There is a 3rd group, which one might call 'AI Perfectionists'. Somehow I suspect they are mostly, themselves, programmers (or working in a related field), and therefore, understandably, very interested in improving AI, because this is a really 'hot' technology. I believe, however, that AI Perfectionists are a very tiny minority; unfortunately, they are probably the only group Firaxians can truly relate to.

However, I think there are quite a lot of Sandbox Players who think they are AI Enthusiasts. However, unlike true AI Perfectionists, they would be perfectly happy with an AI that is strong but not intelligent -an important difference-, or with a challenge that is achieved by other than AI means. That may sound mysteriously, but it isn´t. I will explain immediately, after I am through with reading the new posts.

Finally, I somehow guessed you being a Powerplayer. But with civgames, Powerplayer and Sandbox interests coincide more than you think. Both types would like the game to be very complex, Sandbox Enthusiasts because this is where their fun is, and Powerplayers, because they want a game that can´t be solved too easily. If any fool can figure it out, where is the true Powerplayer´s advantage? You sit in the same boat with us.

[Arrian]

Exactly,

Some people just LOVE peeling layers off the onion - the powergamer, I have noticed, tends to love deconstructing the game. That's where the fun is for them. Me, I never even CONSIDERED the unbelievable things that could be done in Civ II (usually involving caravans) until I found this site. I'm still boggled by the OCC launches in the 1st century A.D. That sort of think requires a mind that enjoys picking something apart, stripping it right down to the "under the hood" stuff that people like me don't care about at all.

-Arrian

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Heliodorus
That being said, AI is critical for my gaming style. As much as I agree that toys make the game, if that were my only source of pleasure, I'd be playing on basic difficulty settings. There has to be a challenge from somewhere, and the AI has to be that source.

I actually agree with all of this, except for the last few words. What if one, I think, critical shortcoming of the entire series was corrected, which is the lack of serious domestic management? What if you had to fight off starvation today, bankruptcy tomorrow, inflation the day after that and revolution -not a revolution you control, a revolution against you- in the near future? What if simply keeping your Empire from falling apart under its own weight, without involvement of any foreign enemy, would be a major challenge? I think, under such circumstances, you would be thankful if the foreign enemies you still have on top of all that, are not too bright.

To sum my first cute little idea up in one sentence: The first enemy of your ship should be the sea.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by pg
...the basic civ model needs to be trashed. it was good 10 years ago but it's severly outdated, and it shows. however, i realize most people will not give up this model until it proves without a doubt that it is indeed the main thing holding back development of the series. it seems like firaxis and everyone else clings to the civ1 model just because it's all they know. there HAS to be a better way. i think it's time for enlightenment.

Exactly. You must be reading my mind. The basic premise is still sound, but they should have redesigned all the models from scratch.

[player1]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
You are right: There is a 3rd group, which one might call 'AI Perfectionists'. Somehow I suspect they are mostly, themselves, programmers (or working in a related field), and therefore, understandably, very interested in improving AI, because this is a really 'hot' technology. I believe, however, that AI Perfectionists are a very tiny minority; unfortunately, they are probably the only group Firaxians can truly relate to.

Try looking at CTP2 forums.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by player1
Try looking at CTP2 forums.

CtP is essentially a copycat of Civ; it didn´t change too much. It changed too little.

Of course, if a) the AI has to play by the same rules, and b) there are no challenges unrelated to the opponents, then the AI has to be strong, or no game. But who says I agree with a) and b) ?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I actually agree with all of this, except for the last few words. What if one, I think, critical shortcoming of the entire series was corrected, which is the lack of serious domestic management? What if you had to fight off starvation today, bankruptcy tomorrow, inflation the day after that and revolution -not a revolution you control, a revolution against you- in the near future? What if simply keeping your Empire from falling apart under its own weight, without involvement of any foreign enemy, would be a major challenge? I think, under such circumstances, you would be thankful if the foreign enemies you still have on top of all that, are not too bright.

To sum my first cute little idea up in one sentence: The first enemy of your ship should be the sea.

Well this in a way has been the problem with Civilization since the first one came out. It's always been a linear thing; you build, you progress, and there's nothing that's hindered you except for the other Civs. But civilization has never worked that way. Up until recently at least, it's always developed in fits and spurts, with a lot of backtracking in between. Look at the fall of the Roman Empire. A great deal of knowledge and previous advancements were lost, and it took centuries in order for the European people to recover. If the game would develop on more of a "two steps forward, one step back" approach, the same way that our own cultures have evolved, then maybe we might find ourselves on the edge of our seat more, wondering if we can survive this particular setback.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hey Vel,

It's such a shame that I didn't get to see this post EARLIER. It's really great to see some people on this forum who are able to make CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISMS about Civ3 (i.e. who can point out the flaws, of which there are a few, without it sounding like a general WHINE!!!) It's posts like Vel's that the Firaxians who visit this site are most likely to take notice of (assuming that they haven't become disillusioned with all the whiners out there), not the people who just say "the game is crap, I don't like it!" or "It's not enough like Civ2, I can't use infinite howie, ICS etc..." well, DUH!!!
I totally agree with the points you've made. Having had the opportunity to see and even PLAY the game (though I still don't have a computer fast enough to run my own copy!!!) I can safely say that I LOVE THIS GAME, but it does have things which need to be fixed!

These things would be (to my mind at least):

1) Bring back sharing of cities and military infrastructure by allies that was present in SMAC (it seems eminintly logical that, given that the SMAC engine was used as a template for Civ3, it would be highly appropriate to bring back this game feature!)

2) Get the hacked Civ3 Editor from this Forum and upgrade and refine it!! Such a refinement could be as simple as the ability to CREATE new flags to attach to units and improvments, and to EDIT existing flags!

3) Bring back and enhance the civil war model from Civ2! Instead of having just the capture of a capital spark civil war, also have the chance for cities to break away if the are very unhappy or rioting, or very far from the capital!!

4) Some form of events language and events editor. Not just vital for scenario makers, but important for the reasons Vel has already pointed out! I know Vel has already made the need for an events language clear, but I just thought I'd re-iterate it!!!

EDIT: To Comrade Tribune. I heartily agree with you!! In fact, in my Civ3 suggestion list that I sent to Firaxis whilst the game was still in development. I suggested a VERY SIMPLE model for domestic situations like revolutions and Civil War. Having things like Factions (religious, workers, mercantile etc), who can, at times work together to thwart your plans, or even cause your cities to revolt or break away from your empire, and even force government changes on you which are more to THEIR LIKING!! It seemed a simple thing to do but, oh well.... maybe next time. Still love Civ3 but!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Comrade Tribune]

OK, to sum up the results of my previous arguments: It seems to have surfaced that the priorities of Firaxis for CivIII, for whatever reason, were totally different from the priorities of (most of) the civcommunity, with the possible exception, as Analyst noted, of AI Perfectionists.

Priorities of Firaxis:

a) Improved Graphics (I don´t think that one was a great success, but they tried.)
b) Improved AI (Though mostly achieved by adaption of the game rules to same old AI behaviour.)

Priorities of Civvers:

a) Rich, Complex, Immersive Environment
b) Multiplayer

Now my thesis is I firmly believe that a civgame is doable (and not utopian) that caters to the 2nd set of expectations.

Of course not without some blood flowing. Or, to put it less graphically, not without some sacrifices in other departments.

First of all, the overflowing Granaries producing people have outlived their purpose; they must be squashed.

In other words, apart from the main map, I´d throw out the entire graphical representation of things and replace it by numbers. Instead of a half-filled Granary you get: 'Population: 2.411'.

It´s simple. It´s logical. It´s precise. It´s easy to program. It appeals to the serious. It puts much more information into one screen.

To rephrase Shakespeare: First thing we do, we kill all the Icons.

[Comrade Tribune]

OK, I christen this (so far) hypothetical project 'The History Simulator'. (The title is, purposefully, as dry and unassuming as I´d like the game to be.)

One purpose of such a production would be 'Eliminating Marketing People Influence', because, in my conspiracy theory , it tends to be the marketing people who insist on unnecessary Fluff and thereby tie up the resources that could be used to create complex, working models, instead. Of course, if the designers themselves think like marketing people, it´s even worse.

If my coming proposals seem pretty ambitious, and you think it can´t be done, because it can´t be programmed, keep in mind that I am very radical in cutting presentation stuff, if it gets in the way. What´s so bad about text adventures, after all? (Hey, the last one was a joke. )

Ambitious Design Goals: More Units, Improvements, Techs and Wonders than have ever been seen in a TBS game. I am talking about hundreds here. Essentially, the approach is, you name a Wonder, Unit or Improvement (Historical, not SF), and chances are 90% I put it in. Probably the first game that features Argyraspides.

Second Priority: Make the game eminently multiplayable.

No, I don´t have lost my marbles. Remember: I am cutting the Fluff. A Unit, essentially, is an icon and a few numbers. A Building is a Unit that doesn´t move. So the idea is to keep the engine itself very simple, and graphical representation as non-existent as possible.

But can the AI deal with all that stuff, you say? Believe it or not, I have some pretty radical ideas here, too.

Tomorrow: My AI Approach

[korn469]

Ambitious Design Goals: More Units, Improvements, Techs and Wonders than have ever been seen in a TBS game. I am talking about hundreds here. Essentially, the approach is, you name a Wonder, Unit or Improvement (Historical, not SF), and chances are 90% I put it in. Probably the first game that features Argyraspides

Remember: I am cutting the Fluff. A Unit, essentially, is an icon and a few numbers.

Comrade,

just mindlessly filling the game with buildings, wonders, and units isn't going to make the game better, each building needs to fill a role and that role needs to vary enough from all others so it actually stands out

having the following three units 4.1.2, 3.3.1, and 1.4.1 unit presents a much greater range of diversity and therefore challenge than having the following four units

20.20.2 21.19.2, 19.21.2, and 22.18.2

this was a problem with the RTS game Total Anihilation because it had too many units that were too similar, simply throwing numbers at a problem doesn;t solve it, just ask the civ3 (or especially the smac) AI

also

So the idea is to keep the engine itself very simple, and graphical representation as non-existent as possible.

while many people might say that the civ3 graphics are ugly, this means they are demanding BETTER graphics not worse...this comment is completely out of touch with the entire history of computer games, each time a game comes out it should have better graphics than the last, i would rather spend my money on a game that had good graphics and good gameplay rather than a game that had poor graphics and good gameplay

thats just my take

Civ3 aimed to be the best Civ game ever and missed the mark

if you aim to be a barely decent civ game and you miss the mark that wouldn't be good at all

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by korn469
having the following three units 4.1.2, 3.3.1, and 1.4.1 unit presents a much greater range of diversity and therefore challenge than having the following four units

20.20.2 21.19.2, 19.21.2, and 22.18.2

Korn:

You don´t think I would keep the Civ combat system, do you?

Don´t you believe World War I units armed with machine guns would have beaten American Civil War units most of the time?

And they were just 50 years apart.

You don´t doubt real history supplies us with, say, 200 significantly different land units, right? (Sea and Air not counted.)

Now I don´t presume to be a genius, but it lies within my abilities to create a combat system that makes these differences felt.

Also:

while many people might say that the civ3 graphics are ugly, this means they are demanding BETTER graphics not worse...this comment is completely out of touch with the entire history of computer games, each time a game comes out it should have better graphics than the last, ...

The question is what 'better graphics' is supposed to mean. I adhere to the SSI philosophy that the best graphics for a TBS are functional graphics that convey as much information as possible, and don´t distract from the strategy. I don´t want to design a game for the mass market, rather for hardcore strategy gamers only. And I have not often met a strategy gamer yet who wouldn´t have preferred less graphics and more game to the opposite.

[korn469]

You don´t think I would keep the Civ combat system, do you?

Don´t you believe World War I units armed with machine guns would have beaten American Civil War units most of the time?

And they were just 50 years apart.

You don´t doubt real history supplies us with, say, 200 significantly different land units, right? (Sea and Air not counted.)

Now I don´t presume to be a genius, but it lies within my abilities to create a combat system that makes these differences felt.

Comrade

soilders armed with Spencer Repeating Rifles at the end of the civil war were much better than soldiers armed with model 1855 rifle muskets, the on the surface the tactics of the seige of Petersburg and life on the western front weren't all that great, and both also resemble fighting in the korean war after 1951, but that is beside the point

if you are going to create a realistic history simulator game for hard core strategy fans, then i advise you, no i implore you, forget about Civ's scope, no game that tries to realistically model history from 4000bc to 2000ad will work, first you'll gloss over realism here and there to actually make the game enjoyable, until your doing almost as much glossing as civ does

to make a history game of the entire world that strives to be realistic, i wouldn't start it any earlier than 1300ad, but that's just my opinion

and while history supplies us with 200 different units, only a fraction of them would be of any value at any given time

The question is what 'better graphics' is supposed to mean. I adhere to the SSI philosophy that the best graphics for a TBS are functional graphics that convey as much information as possible, and don´t distract from the strategy. I don´t want to design a game for the mass market, rather for hardcore strategy gamers only. And I have not often met a strategy gamer yet who wouldn´t have preferred less graphics and more game to the opposite.

Hi i'm korn, it's nice to meet you

really i want a game that has good to great graphics and smooth, entertaining, challenging, and immersive gameplay

i would rather buy one AAA title for 50 bucks than 5 second rate titles for 10 bucks apiece, the game doesn't have to have top of the line FPS graphics, but it had better be of equal or better graphical quality than all of the other strategy games like it, if it comes out later but has worse graphics then there is simply no excuse, just incompetence

a game is a sum of all of its parts, and it has been my experiance that games with poor graphics for their time are either bad games, or games made by second class developers

if you have the resources to make a strategy game with good graphics then you usually have the resources you need to make give it good game play as well, if you don't have the resources for good graphics, you usually don't have the resources for any number of other good ideas

a good game is going to come from a strong team backed with adequate resources (or one seriously dedicated person with a great deal of talent for programming and art)

because of a lack of resources SE4 suffered, Malfador is one of the strongest strategy development teams out there, but SE4 could have benefited from better graphics etc

TBS games is quite possibly the only market where you can get away with having poor graphics if you have good gameplay this certainly doesn't hold true in FPS, or RTS, or MMORPGs, or RPGs, or Sports Games, or Racers, or Platformers, or even adventure games really

but graphics only enhance the experiance, even if Civ1 did have the best gameplay, i would be hardpressed to appreciate that fact after playing Civ3, just because Civ1's graphics would detract from my experiance

i'm just trying to be the harsh voice of reason here, just highlighting some problems and different perspectives that you really need to take into account now, because if yoou don't then your project will never get off the ground, just look at the Open Civ project which transformed into GGS, it had the same general goals as you, but even after participation by many different people (some of them actual programmers) its stillborn and not going anywhere fast

if you can confront the problems now and overcome them, then you might actually be able to succeed

my very best advice to you is this: build a team actually capable of building a fully functioning game first, then once you have that team then develop the design document...without having the actual ability to turn designs into reality then a design document is about as good to you as gold was to king midas

also you don't need a design document while you are recruiting your team, all you need is an idea that outlines the goals of the game, highlights what innovative things it will bring to the genre and also clearly states how this game will be different from other games in the genre, presto decided on that forget the specific details, build a team then flesh out that idea and make the games

its much simpler said that done though

just my $0.03 (it was $0.02 but it got rounded up because of inflation )

ps
what actual fluff does civ3 have in it?
can you name 10 seperate things?

[Sikander]

Comrade Tribune,

Perhaps you / we should start a new thread, and post a link here for it. I am interested in this discussion, it's just that I think we have jacked Vel's thread to death at this point, and it's already pretty long.

I agree about the graphics, I still play some of those SSI games because they are fun. Still, I do appreciate good graphics, though animation really tends to suck, and use up ungodly amounts of resources. I found SMAC's graphics to be good with the exception of the 3D unit stuff. It both conveyed the information and looked good (IMO). The argument over whether graphics are important was decided in the board gaming era in the 1970s (or perhaps earlier, but that's when I became convinced). SPI cranked out game after game, and many of them had horrible graphics and cookie cutter units. I remember looking at the difference between SPI's "War in the East" and GDW's "Drang Nach Osten" and just laughing. DNO made you want to build a room in your basement so you could leave it permanently set up.

One problem with graphics tends to be low resolution. In order to appeal to a large international market, with old machines and laptops the resolution tends to be kept down a couple of standards lower than most desktops are capable of. That's too bad, because I really like being able to either zoom out and still read the map, or zoom in and have a lot of lacy detail that doesn't interfere with information presentation, but does add a certain pleasant atmosphere.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I actually agree with all of this, except for the last few words. What if one, I think, critical shortcoming of the entire series was corrected, which is the lack of serious domestic management? What if you had to fight off starvation today, bankruptcy tomorrow, inflation the day after that and revolution -not a revolution you control, a revolution against you- in the near future? What if simply keeping your Empire from falling apart under its own weight, without involvement of any foreign enemy, would be a major challenge? I think, under such circumstances, you would be thankful if the foreign enemies you still have on top of all that, are not too bright.

To sum my first cute little idea up in one sentence: The first enemy of your ship should be the sea.

BINGO! Let me second that statement.
I don't know if that would REALLY solve things, but it would help. And if all the "domestics" are AI driven, then the AI civ "rulers" shouldn't have that much trouble dealing with mechanisms it already "knows" about.
Or would it?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Willem


Well this in a way has been the problem with Civilization since the first one came out. It's always been a linear thing; you build, you progress, and there's nothing that's hindered you except for the other Civs. But civilization has never worked that way. Up until recently at least, it's always developed in fits and spurts, with a lot of backtracking in between. Look at the fall of the Roman Empire. A great deal of knowledge and previous advancements were lost, and it took centuries in order for the European people to recover. If the game would develop on more of a "two steps forward, one step back" approach, the same way that our own cultures have evolved, then maybe we might find ourselves on the edge of our seat more, wondering if we can survive this particular setback.

Bells are going off again! I just wanted to bring attention to this idea again.

[Captain]

Hi folks,

I take a few days away from reading and here you've all come up with these fantastic ideas! kudos to all contributors here.

Very good analysis about types of gamers comrade!

Now where would I fit in?

I like both the sense of excitement and competition and urgency generated by powergamers but also the idea of playing around in an immersive environment like sandboxers (sometimes I just walk around FPS without actually fighting, just to get a "feel" for the locale).

Most of all, I like elegance. If I'm faced with a problem, I don't just want the most convenient solution with the most output benefit for the least input effort. But I don't want a half-assed solution either. I want a very elegant solution.

For example, if I get into a war, I want to see how well I can use superior playing to provide an elegant win.
I don't just want to mass-produce units and use the human wave approach (which is easier and in Civ 3 works really well.)

But I don't just want this for war. I want to build cities where they get exactly what they need, not ubiquitous factories everywhere. I want unique cities with personality!

Other things I like to do but usually don't get to:

Build the perfect cities in "personality".
For example, build a large ecologically friendly city.
Always act honourably towards other players.
Never raze a city or do anything I wouldn't in real life.
Donate to other players (humanitarian aid in gold, tech, resources, MPPs).
Fight off belligerent neighbours who pick on weaker friends, but give back captured allied cities.
Preserve forests and other rare terrain tiles instead of developing them for boosted production.
Give my citizens something useful to do besides build military units once the infrastructure's done.
Build a wonder in every city.
Have no unhappy people at any time.
And as someone else mentioned, build the transwhatever railline. It just feels like an accomplishment. Especially to complete it while you're in the middle of a raging war!

But none of these are really recognized by the game as an achievement. (eg. the game favours playing dishonourably and mercilessly to get the upper hand, then at the last minute jacking up your luxuries).

Sounds loony, but I like to be a "good" guy.

I'm not sure my profile fits either category (though maybe I'm in the extreme small minority here.)

I just spent 12 hours in class straight - sneaking out once for lunch, and have a pile of work to do so I won't be around here much. So there's no urgency for response but I really would like to know if there's anyone else out there that has the same playing style or if you all think I'm wasting my time with a game like Civ 3.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Analyst Redux

The one issue I would take with your bi-lateral division of the core audience is that I think there really is a third group for whom the challenge of a great AI in a stragety environment is the number one priority issue. These folks really do believe that any game should be capable of having powerful AI, if only the game's programmers were talented and dedicated enough. Someone else is going to have to think of a clever name for such folks, as my talents don't run in that direction. Herein, I will refer to them as "AI-loving".

May I suggest Heinleiners? No, I retract that! Stop hitting me already!

I think that Firaxis believed (and continues to believe) that the AI-loving crowd is the bulk of their core audience.

While this is idle speculation, I can't bring myself to think that. As far as I can tell there has been serious attempts to "Disneyify" Civ as a brand, and I think they're shooting more for the kid market than for any particular group of obsessives. All feature-cuts from Firaxis last effort, SMAC, notwithstanding the one thing that really sets it apart is the change of focus - I feel that SMAC was an attempt at creating a game for grown-ups. While you could play it for what it was an basically ignore everything, Brian truly attempted to convey some of his thoughts and speculations about man, ideology, politics and Our Place in the Universe. All this is gone in Civ3 - it's a game that attempts nothing but to be a game. I'm cool with that; I didn't particularly think those aspects of SMAC were especially successful, but it speaks clearly, in my thinking, about who Firaxis' designed this game for.

But I agree they may have overestimated how much enjoyment the general player derives from playing against a strong AI - the kids don't care, the powerplayer disregards any AI anyway, and the sandbox player is just irritated at the confiscation of his toys. I really don't think that those who appreciate AI for and in itself are all that many.

Their overestimation, if indeed is an overestimation, of the true AI aficionados, however, isn't all their fault. "Better AI!" has been the standard reply from people when they've been asked what they would like to see in the next Civ installment. As a community, the vocal Civ players here may be just as guilty as Firaxis themselves.

Also, I think it's significant that almost everyone who has replied to Comrade's post has stated things like "I'm a 80/20 power/sandbox" gamer. The truth, I belive, is that most people go through phases when playing any particular game; first, almost everyone is a powergamer, reveling in the joy of discovering new things and learning how to play better. Many then move on to start tinkering with their game when they reach a level of proficiency they are satisfied with (and, I should note, I belive that the fact that this level is often the most difficult difficulty level the game provides is another reason people are disappointed with Civ3 - on Diety, the successful strategies left are so few that once you've reached the proficiency necessary to master it there is precious little left to tinker with in the game).
Those who don't move on leave the game behind at this point, looking for other challenges to master.

[Cunctator]

Well this in a way has been the problem with Civilization since the first one came out. It's always been a linear thing; you build, you progress, and there's nothing that's hindered you except for the other Civs. But civilization has never worked that way. Up until recently at least, it's always developed in fits and spurts, with a lot of backtracking in between. Look at the fall of the Roman Empire. A great deal of knowledge and previous advancements were lost, and it took centuries in order for the European people to recover. If the game would develop on more of a "two steps forward, one step back" approach, the same way that our own cultures have evolved, then maybe we might find ourselves on the edge of our seat more, wondering if we can survive this particular setback.

YES! That's the point, been a straight line of accumulation, turn after turn, from turn 1 to 540. Changing this kind of behaviuor would be the real revamp of the civ formula.

There should be "turning points" when your achivements are assessed and you need to build upon them. Using an analogy, first you find a suitable terrain and build the bricks, solid bricks, then you start building the house. May be you need more bricks in the process but here the "automation features" are useful, speaking in gameplay terms, because you are focused on something else. Now the civ formula is build "more" and "bigger" bricks.

What i mean is that these turning points should open new parts of the game, involving different achievement with different strategies.

This is why "regions" seemed promising to me. There should be a point where you are no more focused on cities but "that" cities you have build are used to achieve something different.

That's why the lack of a "council" is so detrimental. It' should be a turning point in the modern era where relations with others civs are handled in a different manner, on a "heart community" basis.

Now civ is a straigth line, what we need is stepped curve.

Yes, don't tell me, i known i'm dreaming.

[Comrade Tribune]

Hello, Korn. Nice to meet you, too!

Originally posted by korn469
if you are going to create a realistic history simulator game for hard core strategy fans, then i advise you, no i implore you, forget about Civ's scope, no game that tries to realistically model history from 4000bc to 2000ad will work, first you'll gloss over realism here and there to actually make the game enjoyable, until your doing almost as much glossing as civ does

to make a history game of the entire world that strives to be realistic, i wouldn't start it any earlier than 1300ad, but that's just my opinion

I´d really skip the Stone Age and start somewhere around 2000-1500BC. While I agree with your general argument, the other era I would skip if necessary for gameplay/realism would be the 20th century! Change in the Atomic/Computer Age was so fast that just possibly a rules system made for slower times (and no planes/A-bombs/rockets/...) could not handle it.

But I would be relatively confident about a rule system for 1500BC-1900AD.

and while history supplies us with 200 different units, only a fraction of them would be of any value at any given time.

But that´s my argument! I must say I felt a bit when you said I wanted to mindlessly clutter the game with useless units. I thought I had totally failed to explain my point.

One reason why I think a History Simulator needs a lot of units is the Spearman/Tank problem. Now I am not given very much to defending CivIII , but there is a (sort of) reason why a CivIII Spearman can sometimes beat a CivIII tank: This is because the Spearman is meant to 'somehow' 'symbolize' a lot of other things like 3rd class Militia units of a much later age and even unshaved 3rd world 20th century guerillas armed with bazookas.

There is something in this line of argumentation, but this is exactly a reason why I want to have explicit 20th century guerillas armed with bazookas, so that the Spearmen finally represent nothing but half-naked Ancient Era men (and very, very rarely women) armed with Spears. Then we could all agree on a rule that Tanks (and all other 20th century units) not only beat Spearmen all the time without a single exception, but actually disperse them without even a fight.

Seriously outdated units being entirely without any value is precisely what I want to achieve.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by korn469
a game is a sum of all of its parts, and it has been my experiance that games with poor graphics for their time are either bad games, or games made by second class developers.

On this point I really disagree. The 2nd best historical strategy game series ever (just a tad behind EU) was Imperialism I/II, but no one ever said it had state-of-the-art graphics.

It´s not that I don´t want super-duper graphics, but my priorities for the History Simulator go something like this:

1) Drama
2) Multiplayer!
3) Historicity
4) Graphical Presentation
5) Sound/Music

So, if it turns out the game is only possible with somewhat retro graphics, and no sound at all, this would be what I would be doing. I mean, better to hear the bad news from the chef de cuisine beforehand than to find it out after you open the box.