+1 Thank you for posting this Sefren!
Petek said:
1. Brian feels that the Unit Workshop wasn't a success because it wasn't "fun" and resulted in units all looking alike. Now, he would prefer that each faction have units that appeared unique.
I was very surprised at how negative BR was at first towards the Unit Design Workshop. I think it was the second time it was brought up in the conversation that he sort of lightened up and made a comment to the effect that if they had given it more effort, then it would have been better. My take on the UDW was that it made me think of what was the best unit I could build to counter/ take advantage of the situation I was finding myself in at the moment in the game, as opposed to being spoon-fed pre-designed units (i.e. more of a "here it is - take it or leave it" approach). Also, as a SMAC(X) modder I loved the fact that if I wanted to put a new unit into a mod, then all I needed to do was add one line to the #UNITS section of the alpha(x).txt file (as opposed to everything that needs to be done in cIV or ciV just to add one unit).
Some thoughts/ observations on the discussion:
1. BR's comment regarding "rubbing two sticks together", and BR doing it all himself in regards to the dialog (as opposed to now in that a gaming company hires people specifically to do each facet): I never knew that he had written most of that material himself, and that Le Miserable was a source of inspiration for this. Very interesting!
2. The comment "the AI should never be caught cheating" (as opposed to "the AI should never cheat"):
3. The comment that the programmers "don't see the code the same way the players do": I've run into something similar on several occasions in the past where I as a tester have to teach/ show the programmers what it is they are coding, and why its important to code a certain way. Also, as a SMAC(X) modder I did tend to look at the scenarios I was building from the player's perspective in that I took into account (took advantage of?) the AIs' tendencies, as well as compensated for the AIs weaknesses (i.e. I was seeing the code as to how it operated in the various "environments" I created, as opposed to reviewing how it was written).
4. Too bad they didn't go more into Factional development - I would've liked to have heard more about how they went about fleshing out the leaders and their factions.
5. The comment about backstabbing, and that it didn't make sense: I disagree with that in that backstabbing is routine in SP, as I'll do it in a heartbeat if I think its going to improve my overall position. Therefore I think AIs should be able to do it as well. And to expand upon this a little further, why as a gamer a lot of what I do in a game is conditioned thru multiple iterations of playing (I guess sort of a Pavlovian approach, if you will), and if an AI has intermittently backstabbed me (say once every ten games or so), then this is something I have to take into account in my current game (i.e. I can't leave my long border with my friendly neighbor AI completely unguarded). Or, to put it yet another way, its to the AIs' advantage.
6. As a devout Gaian player I loved how they kept using the Gaian/ Morganite conflict to discuss interfactional tensions.
7. Too bad they didn't go into the combat mechanics moreso, as well as what improvements were made in cIV et al.
8. I would've also liked to have known why they chose pink for the fungus - that color always hurt my eyes! Blah!
9. I've also wondered what the feedback Firaxis received regarding SMAC: my opinion was that a lot of people simply found the game too dark.
10. Concerning AC2: yeah, they were pretty down on that. I would absolutely love an AC2. That being said, there hasn't been any game released by any company in this genre (planetary sci-fi 4X TBS) since SMAC, so I've always believed that there is an untapped niche there for something in the same vein/ theme.
D
