The bottom line was "Brian, do you have the money to pay the programmer to implement this? If so, we'll talk some more."
If they were able to get the funding for all the other things they included or rather changed (they didn't really ADD all that much), then the idea of a Civ3 scripting language should not be as dead as it seems. Quite frankly, if that's the simple answer you get whenever the topic of Events comes up, it would seem that it's not anywhere near being a priority for them. I don't see why you think otherwise, but since you have direct contact with them, I will give them and you the benefit of the doubt.
I contend that more people bought the core game with no expansions than bought the expansion that allowed events. In this industry it is very rare for an expansion to sell more than a quarter of the sales of the core game.
Of course more gamers bought the original installment. That's to be expected. I will reiterate my point: the expansions were far more popular due to the Events (i.e. the added tools with which to design better scenarios) than they would have been without all that. I have read many a post concerning this and spoken with other Civ2 players directly, and have found that it was the scenarios that caused them to stick with the game --more specifically, the great amount of depth given to scenarios though the use of Events.
I assumed that since Firaxis has gradually intorduced new features into Civ3 rather than giving it to us as a single package, that Conquests, being as scenario-based as it is, would include some sort of new Events system.
If sales are any indication, then they have little to worry about.
I players' reaction to the final product is any indication, the Co. will have to really struggle to regain player confidence. And if their progress up to now is an indication of what's in store for us, they have plenty to worry about.
As I see it, Conquests will determine whether CIV survives the test of time. If it's a flop then...:arrow:
The game, as it is, is great.
Some players would beg to differ. Besides the game is not as it was in Civ2, things were changed. This is a deviation from Civ2's 'perfection.'
No game is great until the general public says it is. That has yet to happen --Civ3 can live of of Civ2's popularity for only so long. Until then, there are plenty of things that could (and should) be included in this game that are presently not there. I'll know that day has come when I can sit pretty much any gamer in front of a screen with Civ3 on it and (s)he says, "That's cool." As things are, Civ3 is far from being what it should (i.e. Civ2 and a bag of chips). Events wouldn't be the answer but it would play a substantial role.
I have played games that had extensive events systems and on each of these there was usually a gem or two that players made.
Really? Which games are these? Surely nothing out there comes close to the diversity of Civ2's macro language?
I rarely use events in my scenarios, but I have messed around with them a little bit. It adds some nice things. I get the impression that Firaxis is adding a lot of great stuff so it can be fine without events.
In Civ2, one of the events gave you the ability to have a unit created every few turns (The Midgard scenario that came with the game used this for Goblins). In C3C, they're adding the Knights Templar Wonder, which does the same thing.
You rarely use events? Shame on you (kidding).
Yeah, that C3C wonder will do something like the CREATEUNIT action. But actually the beauty behind Events are the triggers --things don't just happen automatically but rather according to circumstaces (e.g. If CITYTAKEN then CREATEUNIT, or If RECIEVEDTECH then CREATEUNIT, or what about the UNITKILLED trigger?). For the game to be fine without Events, they'll have to do better than what we've seen so far.
Or whatever else strikes your fancy.
Well, let's not push it. One wonder in Civ3 can't even come close to doing what Events do in Civ2.
Why do I say that? Because if money were a major goal for them, they'd leave the industry and get a regular 9-to-5 day job and get paid twice as much. The reality is that games programmers are one of the lowest paid sectors in general. So why do they put in 16 hour days for months at a time to meet a schedule made up by a publisher to match an arbitrary deadline for less money than their 40 hour a week VB programming brethren? Maybe it's because they like games and like making games. Those that don't, don't stay in the industry long.
He is from Firaxis. Some may know who I am talking about, 
...... But I thought that PTW was the solution to my problems... but no
, thanks for explain about my country:love
)
