BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
I can't wait to find out more about this game.
What does newell pour money into that hasn't taken off? All I really know are the valve titles and all of those are good, half life series, counter strike, left 4 dead series, dota 2, team fortress. All really popular and fun titles.
I have thought for a number of years now that Firaxis have tended to ignore their core supporters. Unfortunately, it seems to be all at the whim of Sid Meier. Games companies work best when they are run by gamers. Not some messianic figurehead who pours money into what they think might be successful (Sid Meier and Gabe Newell take a bow). Sid might actually be part of the problem in Firaxis. They ought to remember the reasons that made them successful in the first place. If they could retain their accessibility and playability but increase their complexity in line with paradox games then they might be on to a winner. Otherwise I can see their title of “strategy kings” getting taken away from them by the likes of Paradox and Amplitude.
I was just reading an overview of Sid Meier's Railroads, after having played some RT3 this weekend (and being a longtime RT2 fan). The impression I got was that some of its simplifications would make for interesting mechanics in a boardgame, such as the highest bidder on new technology getting a monopoly on it for 10 years, and the first one to build in certain areas with rough terrain having a distinct advantage over anyone coming later (which was also true in earlier iterations, but it sounds like it was turned up in Railroads). But in terms of the complexity that a typical strategy fan would enjoy - including fans of Meier's early games - it sounds like RT2 or RT3 would be the best in the series (I can't say for sure as II is the only one I've played for dozens of hours).
Which got me wondering... maybe the disconnect is that Sid moved away from core strategy games years ago, whether consciously or unconsciously, and just has never really articulated that. There are still strategy elements in his games, but not to the degree that you'd see in Civilization or Railroad Tycoon. So maybe the reason that strategy fans keep being disappointed is not that Sid can't do a good core strategy game anymore, but that his interests have moved on. In which case it's just a communications issue.
Or perhaps it's the later iterations of his old series that led us astray. Civilization II was a lot more involved and deeper than Civ1; similarly with Railroad Tycoon II. Perhaps the 1990-era originals were among the deepest strategy games at the time, but the designers of the sequels made them much more complex and in-depth, to the delight of some but beyond what Sid would ever have planned.
I'm really curious how Starships turns out. A decade ago, Sid Meier was the top name in strategy for me... but it was really Brian Reynolds, Soren Johnson, and whoever designed Railroad Tycoon II whose work I was experiencing, built on top of the base Sid had created. I do plan to take Covert Action for a spin this year to see more of old-time Sid games, but I'd like to see this be a success as well, and see Sid create at least one more really well-done game as a designer.
For now, however, Paradox already has become the strategy king for me. I stay at CFC rather than Paradoxplaza due to the community - and Civ being my long-time favorite - but the crown is Paradox's to lose currently, for me. Firaxis is still the leader overall, but Paradox's star is also rising.
As someone pointed out on reddit, the planets are just scattered in space and not orbiting anything like a sun :/
you have to keep in mind that civ1 had more severe resource caps than civ2.Which got me wondering... maybe the disconnect is that Sid moved away from core strategy games years ago, whether consciously or unconsciously, and just has never really articulated that. There are still strategy elements in his games, but not to the degree that you'd see in Civilization or Railroad Tycoon. So maybe the reason that strategy fans keep being disappointed is not that Sid can't do a good core strategy game anymore, but that his interests have moved on. In which case it's just a communications issue.
Or perhaps it's the later iterations of his old series that led us astray. Civilization II
was a lot more involved and deeper than Civ1; similarly with Railroad Tycoon II. Perhaps the 1990-era originals were among the deepest strategy games at the time, but the designers of the sequels made them much more complex and in-depth, to the delight of some but beyond what Sid would ever have planned.
I'm really curious how Starships turns out. A decade ago, Sid Meier was the top name in strategy for me... but it was really Brian Reynolds, Soren Johnson, and whoever designed Railroad Tycoon II whose work I was experiencing, built on top of the base Sid had created. I do plan to take Covert Action for a spin this year to see more of old-time Sid games, but I'd like to see this be a success as well, and see Sid create at least one more really well-done game as a designer.
Wait, so this will be purely combat? So much for drawing from Beyond Earth,
However, I detest the marauder/pirate home planets thingy. They are game-changers.
As far as I understand it, it is supposed to be what happens after your game of BE ends. So basically, when they say it draws from BE, they only mean in terms of story and setting.
you have to keep in mind that civ1 had more severe resource caps than civ2.
the first civ is Sid's baby. all others are not:
civ2 -> Brian Reynolds
SMAC -> Brian Reynolds
civ3 -> Jeff Briggs
civ4 -> Soren Johnson
civ5 -> Jon Shafer
Sid explicitly stated that civ:rev, civ world and Starships are his babies.
civ:rev is a simplistic civ port for the console/mobile market.
civ world was a facebook game. Sid failed to balance a player paying and a nation winning. the project was canned.
Starships - ? we shall see.
I am cautiously optimistic about Starships. However, I detest the marauder/pirate home planets thingy. They are game-changers. All else seems to fit together nicely.
I dislike Cid game design. He is big believer in simplicity and we way pass that stage. personally i believe Civ1 was a fluke, it is soo different from his other game designs so..
Simplicity =/= bad. Simplicity often makes a game significantly better, as you can focus on playing the game rather than juggling systems.
What is bad is simplicity without depth (i.e. replayability). The reason Chess has been around for so long is that it's a very simple game on the surface, but there are thousands of different ways to approach and play. The same goes for other classic games (Checkers, Go, etc.).
A civ, or simulation game, doesn't need to be competitive. Sure, make the pvp as balanced as you can, but without taking away from the fun of the pve. For me, and I would say for most old time civ lovers, the good part about civilization games is the simulation of a civilization, not the balanced competitiveness. For that you play another type of game. A 4x strategy game can't possibly be balanced enough for competitiveness.