Gods & Kings: The future of the past (TheVerge, 18.04.12)

[NeverMind]

A very nice article about Ed Beach and Gods & Kings
http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012...er-ed-beach-gods-kings-the-future-of-the-past

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Mostly about Ed Beach.

 

[Haig]

A very interesting article, gotta love Ed Beach as the designer!

(article also says at the end he's releasing another game this spring, a boardgame called Virgin Queen)

 

[CTH]

Good article, nothing directly new but I found this that I am not sure if it has been mentioned before. That one scenario is about the Protestant Reformation. More or less confirm that we will play during the 30 year war (go Sweden for last civ!)
"Along with the expansion will be quasi-historical campaign scenarios, setting the player in the hot seat during some of the world's most tumultuous historical confrontations. Like the fall of the Roman Empire. Or, for example, the Protestant Reformation."

 

[Fern]

Nice find, an interesting read as well.

(Gotta love that picture of Gandhi!)

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

No offence, but Ed's picture is actually really bad... it makes him.. creepy.. anybody agree or is it just me?

 

[AriochIV]

Ed Beach is not a pretty man, it must be said.

One example is the "Holy Warrior" belief. This will allow you to build an army by spending faith. It is the one aggressive use for faith in Gods & Kings, but it can be a powerful one, and it adds yet another layer of complexity.

Just in case anyone was still holding out hope to see Crusader units or the like. Assuming, of course, that the statement can be taken at face value -- there are a few inaccurate statements elsewhere in the article.

 

[Glassmage]

No doubt this amazing man will make Gods and Kings and Civ5 as a whole the best games in the series.

 

[Pouakai]

Just in case anyone was still holding out hope to see Crusader units or the like. Assuming, of course, that the statement can be taken at face value -- there are a few inaccurate statements elsewhere in the article.

Sadly, it's true. The belief we extracted from the demo said 'allows you to purchase pre-industrial units with faith

 

[Scarpa]

No doubt this amazing man will make Gods and Kings and Civ5 as a whole the best games in the series.

I reserve *some* doubt but have high hopes for the following reasons:
- Ed developed the AI and has now seen how it works (or doesn't) in the wild. Given that they now just have to tune as opposed to rewrite the AI, I believe we will see a dramatic improvement across the board.
- He seems to understand and relate to his audience (us) and seems rather humble. Seems he's more motivated by "get it right" rather than "this is my legacy".

 

[Glassmage]

I rather have him than Jon Shafer.

 

[Camikaze]

Awesome find.

Portrays Beach quite well, I think.

Sadly, it's true. The belief we extracted from the demo said 'allows you to purchase pre-industrial units with faith

This essentially represents Crusaders, though.

 

[MARDUK80]

Great article, interesting read!

Only thing I spotted was lack of info about Ed's involvement in Civilization III: Conquests expansion. From the article you got the feel he was hired in 2008 to work for CiV and had no earlier connection to Firaxis/Civ series.

Beach's award-winning board game, Here I Stand, is still selling like crazy. And he's making a sequel, Virgin Queen, due out in May 2012.

He's also still hard at work on Civ. As far as what the future may hold for Civilization and Ed Beach, it's a safe bet to look towards the past.

Really like the last paragraph. I really must buy both of those board games.

 

[klokwerk]

Yeah, but making board games and developing AI are two very different things... I wish some wargame AI specialists helped him.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Yeah, but making board games and developing AI are two very different things... I wish some wargame AI specialists helped him.

No, making board games and programming AI are two very different things. A TBS game like civ is just a board game with a lot more variables. The large problem with making good AI is getting it to put the variables together properly, something that the ciV AI is currently (in a tactical sense anyway) unable to do. However I do think that most of the AI improvements will be the work of their programmers not Ed.

 

[MadDjinn]

No, making board games and programming AI are two very different things. A TBS game like civ is just a board game with a lot more variables. The large problem with making good AI is getting it to put the variables together properly, something that the ciV AI is currently (in a tactical sense anyway) unable to do. However I do think that most of the AI improvements will be the work of their programmers not Ed.

the random point in here is that there *is* a team, and not just Ed. Though he could easily be designing the changes to the AI (Even if it's just 'We need it to do X') with others programming it.

 

[AriochIV]

I'm kind of hoping the fact that he's lead designer means that someone else is actually doing the AI coding.

 

[klokwerk]

My understanding was he was the guy in charge of the AI too. Which makes more sense than what you seem to think in my opinion, since the AI is the most important part in such game.

At least Ed was the AI guy on Civ 5 unless I'm mistaken, so it seems strange to make him the lead designer for the expansion and then take someone else to modify HIS own AI for the expansion.

At the very least he must work on his own AI with someone else. It would make more sense. Which is why I'm worried : there's no reason to think the AI would make a huge leap forward if the same persons are working on it.

 

[klokwerk]

No, making board games and programming AI are two very different things.

Ok, that's what I meant actually. I'm French and my English is not perfect.

Developing means programming in French.

I doubt you can conceive the AI without programming it yourself (outside of generic starting concepts) anyway. You either do it or you don't.

 

[Camikaze]

At the very least he must work on his own AI with someone else. It would make more sense. Which is why I'm worried : there's no reason to think the AI would make a huge leap forward if the same persons are working on it.

Wouldn't it be far easier for someone intimately familiar with the AI to fix it, rather than for someone new to come in and have to start from scratch?