Dislike the direction CIV5 is taking? Tell us how you'd do it!

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Bibor, Feb 18, 2011.

?

How will you build your next game:

  1. Make your next game even more complex, further reducing chances of attracting new players.

    18 vote(s)
    14.8%
  2. Make your game even more complex and add even more complexity through expansions.

    52 vote(s)
    42.6%
  3. Create a simpler game that is going to attract new players; make it more complex through expansions.

    48 vote(s)
    39.3%
  4. Create a simpler game. You'll add more complexity in your future games.

    4 vote(s)
    3.3%
  1. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    On the whole art thing... Good lord, were it up to me the game would be entirely played within Strategic View. No need for pretty graphics; 2D is enough to convey everything required, so it is enough for the game. Rather than try for top of the line graphics with pretty pretty leaderheads, I would prefer the ability to play larger maps, with more civs, at a faster speed.

    This obsession amongst gamers for better graphics with every game is a handicap, IMO. It's important in some genres (FPS, for example), but strategy games? You don't need graphics, you need strategy, depth, thought-provoking mechanics.
     
  2. Harald

    Harald Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    479
    Location:
    Sweden
    I don't really feel any of the options in the poll are any good. As said by others in the thread a game doesn't need to be complex.

    I would rather focus resources on making the learning curve less steep. Try to make the game playable without necessarily delving to deep into it and still retain the depth that the former fanbase is used to. (I do realise that this is much easier said than done.) This is of course based on the assumption that you are trying to widen the fanbase.

    That is how I played it. If nothing else, information is displayed better that way.
     
  3. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,899
    How dare a gaming corporation try to bring in new money.
     
  4. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    There you go! I was delighted with Civ I graphics, I thought II was an unnescessary graphical indulgence. I played it a few hours, but I never owned the game because I didn't have a machine that could handle it until III came out. I've heard tell of some cool features in versions of II, but I never got to experience them.
     
  5. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Yup, that is a gripe I've carried in my heart since Civ IV introduced 3D graphs without any gameplay reason behind ( say, if you could do a layered world and/or have stuff having diferent abilities because of their altitute in game ... ): if a strategy game comes out with a bad AI and with quirky mechanics, than making beautiful graphs was a waste of time.
     
  6. Zyxpsilon

    Zyxpsilon Running Spider

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,250
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Earth
    It may surprise you to hear this on my behalf but... Exactly!
    The whole premise of a TBS strategy game is solid context within a fairly intuitive device called the proverbial optimal UI while challenging the target market with intellectually sharp features.

    BUT... as a bonus, i expect the immersion (sic--fun) to be also there for a number of reasons;

    -- I love Chess, it's extremely tactical and brings pure intelligence to the board for 2. Lame, flat, wood pieces B/W. Direct & obvious.
    -- Gosh, i also enjoy watching the sunrise over the far away horizon and hearing the usual early spring birds flying in joy for a new day. Emotion.
    -- The world is changing, the mathematics of entertainment are computed to bring in the crowds at the BO. People yell at any products to stun them to their seat and never let go.
    -- The gears can handle it and more.

    Thus, the investment (in code/hours) by GameDev Studios has to account for sale perspectives while using every last trick in the book to beat the competition to the golden pot at the end of the sharply colorized half-transparent glowing rainbow.

    Secondly, they *MUST* turn in profits or vanish in a dark fog descending in Hell & Paradise since in this www era of immediate knowledge, the revolutions start at the click of an Iconed button, shadowed in isometric fashion or swooping right out of the virtual realm in astonishing 3D.
    The magic is simple. The graphics are just the illusion.
    Both combining into a result ready to be judged and evaluated by anyone.

    Salvador Dali was right... excentric is an abstraction and a memento to_of reality.

    Melting slowly and as static as the compass that guided it.
     
  7. LostInTime

    LostInTime Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    161
    This is wrong. Simplifying the game doesn't necessarily attract new players either.

    In this case Civilization has a niche and a loyal fan base they can work from with little to none competing games, so if they keep releasing a good game and keep it's fanbase happy they have a steady income. Good reviews will always attract new players, but since Civ isn't exactly mainstream you can't get them all. But if you read these forums you see that new generations keep coming to play the new Civ games, so our fanbase is by no means stagnant.

    Experimentation should come in other games (like CiV rev etc.) and I think that is where Firaxis fails. They would really benefit from having another leg to stand on. Relying on just the CiV franchise is probably why it's so vulnerable, and releases seem very rushed every time.
     
  8. Greybriar

    Greybriar Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    418
    The less complex a game is the easier it is to learn how to play it. A game doesn't have to be complex to be a lot of fun.

    And make Steam optional instead of mandatory.
     
  9. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Signed under. It simply horrifies me to see that Firaxis missed the oportunity of making a stand-alone Fall from Heaven ( just the more glaring example ) where it could make some more off-the-track stuff and gain some more cash without getting the risk of tarnishing the proper Civilization franchise. They had the code, the coder and the oportunity in hand, but they lost it all for Elemental ( that, let´s be honest, it is pretty close of what a stand-alone FfH would be )
     
  10. SpearMan153

    SpearMan153 Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia
    Excellent points Valkrionn - agree on the depth issue: civ5 has about the same amount as depth as civ4 which is not that much

    5 in terms of depth feels the same to me as every other civ game I've played.

    The formula has changed little since v1:

    grab land to get good tiles/resources and to block ai expansion. improve tiles with workers (settlers in early versions), build army, build buildings, progress through tech tree. food, hammers, gold

    need gold build gold buildings
    need science build science buildings
    need production build production buildings
    need army build units
    ai poor
    diplomacy shallow or non existent

    but all good fun :)
     
  11. need my speed

    need my speed Rex Omnium Imperarium

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    2,208
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    European Union (Magna Batavia)
    This poll is obviously flawed, because adding complexity doesn't automatically mean a decrease in the number of copies sold. It may even increase them. And what if they do decrease? Well, those that did buy your complex game and like it will probably be loyal fans if you continue with complex games. After all, everybody in the gaming industry tries to rush half-finished games (by standards of a few years ago) without any complexity, because that's where the main market is. That's logical, but what if the main market has to choose between a thousand games? Then the small market that has only a single choice (your complex game) will be larger than the main market, if you understand what I mean.
     
  12. Nares

    Nares Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,631
    No surprises there.
     
  13. Brian Shanahan

    Brian Shanahan Permanoob

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,899
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The house that I shaped in my heart
    Fail poll is fail. Bibor you're supposed to make polls as neutral as possible. This one on the other hand was skewed deliberately to return the values you want to see, i.e. your own.

    As regards making a new game, I would try for the principle "easy to learn, hard to master" which is clearly what the devs did not do for this game. So many of their trumpeted features either were already known as exploits (diplomacy, gpt for resource trades, ranged bombards) or ended up being exploits through horrible coding (the return of the Civ 3 patented AI trickle of suicide). It was clearly set up for the casual players to get a quick buzz by winning against incompetant roadblocks, without giving them any reason to stay with the game for a length of time, the Film industry "look after the first weekend, anything else will take care of itself" syndrome.

    And how does increased complexity scare away customers exactly? Bad design and an unbalanced game (either too easy or too hard) will do that far more sucessfully. What is needed with complexity is the right lead-in, whether through a proper set of tutorials explaining the complex mechanics, or by an easy early learning curve (thinking Settler>Warlord>Chieftain thing here).

    As regards 1UPT there are three realistic choices:
    1) scrap them and go back to stacking (whether limited or not is a different question)
    2) give up the ghost and admit that what you wanted was a tactical game build around discrete scenarios, or
    3) seperate the strategic from the tactical in the main game, i.e. allow stacking on the main map, but have a seperate tactical battle map where 1UPT is the king.
    Of the 3 I would like to see the last being tried, as it would both incorporate some innovation into the series while also retaining the strategic feel to the game.

    As regards things removed, bring back religion (an atheist saying this!), make the religions more unique (through combined boni and penalties, preferably 2:1 ratio), and maybe have a stage where to close an adherence could impede development. Bring in a proper espionage system (not sure what to do myself, but espionage is only a half job in 4, and should have been warning about Shafer too), incorporating a more involving way of using spies than accumulate points>steal>wait for AI to tech up again>steal system we have (being both overpowered and massively boring).

    I'd take out the "play to win" madness which affects the AI civs in all games, which is not a system for allowing the AI to properly play to win a game, just a system to allow them to gang up on you solely to stop you winning. I'd bring back proper diplomacy, where you can build up good relations with your rivals with effort (and it takes effort in 4), which wont be destroyed because of random dice-rolls (as is currently).

    After fixing the problems then I'd look around to see what kind of innovation I could bring to the game, whether in the form of alternative government systems. I actually like the idea of social policies, would just prefer more flexibility in their use. Maybe a combination of having the SP boni unlock over time (using a score keeping mechanism while in a policy) and by teching, but keeping the situational flexibility of the civics in 4. It would allow a system where you can go for the powerful boni by working vertically up the policy tree, or allow you to be more flexible in response to outside events.
     
  14. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    Honestly, Civ4 only held my interest for around four games. If not for discovering Fall from Heaven, I'd have never purchased BtS; Not enough depth in the game. But that's near heretical on these boards. :lol:

    A few things.

    First off, the "play to win" stuff actually is a system for allowing the AI to win. It's not even programmed to gang up on you, it just gives that impression; There's a lot of cases in the game where things seem unfair, simply because they are unclear to the player.

    Another example is the diplomacy. I can guarantee you it's not based on random dice rolls; Turn on logging, and check out the diplomacy logs; It's actually far more indepth than that of Civ4, it's just not presented adequately yet. I don't think it needs to go as far as Civ4 (presenting you with actual numerical values, and even lieing to you about it!), but yes, more data needs to be listed.


    On 1UPT... There's far more than just what you listed. Here's a much larger list of unit-management styles. :lol: Personally I prefer the Armies method. Allows something like the tactical screen you mention, without actually needing that screen.

     
  15. Nares

    Nares Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,631
    Something we can agree on.

    It gives me an idea for that thread about possible expansion titles.

    Civilization V: Sid Goes To Hollywood.
     
  16. davelisowski

    davelisowski Spartan

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    353
    I want more "end turn" buttons and less micro-management like telling a city what to build or telling my units where to go.
     
  17. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    @Valkrionn
    You have some correct points, but IMHO you are not seeing the whole picture on this. In fact , IMHO neither did the devs ;)

    IMHO the "madness" impression that the Civ V AI sometimes gives does not stem from the AI wanting to win, but because it was given the AI what ammounts to 0 compreension of game theory :D Better said, the devs equaled playing to win to going manifest destiny on the world, be pissed with everyone that looks a threat to that regardless of your actual abilities of stopping that threat by yourself and have a sweetooth for any civ that looks weak. This is a good way to play a 2 player zero-sum game, but civ V is neither a 2 player game ( most of the times ) or a zero-sum game , hence this aproach fails miserabily in getting the AI in the path of actually winning in a lot of situations.
     
  18. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Not my own. I made these polls to counterbalance the amount of rubbish (that now finally got sorted out by moderators) that was being dumped on developers and the game. Stuff that nobody wants to hear (deadlines, budget, company politics) are also a part of the game.

    (Just like one cannot discuss the quality of the Catholic Church without taking note on force Christianization or the Inquisition.)
     
  19. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    I remember the days where polls posters still pretended ( and sometimes really believed ) they didn't had a second agenda ;)
     
  20. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    Not really missing it, no. What you described is separate from whether or not teaching the AI to win is a good idea; Rather, you are commenting on the quality of those lessons. ;)

    And for the most part I'd agree with you. Diplomacy especially needs a large amount of work. Yet, given just the few changes in the upcoming patch, it's my belief that it will be better than Civ4's diplomacy already.

    Important note: Better = More interesting, more depth. May not be as easy to play with yet, but frankly, Civ4's diplomacy could be gamed straight down to the minutiae of the system. I don't want to see that come back.
     

Share This Page