I Want Out

[Clement]

Like what? I own about 40 Steam games and have no issues, never have. I bought TF2 for 2 dollars during a steam sale...those things are glorious.

I think you can be offline for up to 3 weeks, it might be two though. All you gotta do is go online and you can immediately go offline again.

With all due respect, we dont own any of those games, we rent them, they can be taken away from us at any time, and up to now i did not know that if i lose my internet connection i have 3 weeks to enjoy my games offline, its quite an unpleasant surprise actually.

 

[callahan9119]

I'm pretty sure I'll always have something...and if I have to move to the woods or there is a global apocalypse and there's no internet I'll have bigger problems to worry about probably.

 

[Clement]

I'm pretty sure I'll always have something...and if I have to move to the woods or there is a global apocalypse and there's no internet I'll have bigger problems to worry about probably.

Or you can dust off your old consoles and play some of the old classics, they wont have evaporated into thin air if you lose your connection.

 

[Nares]

All I wanted was a stupid scout.

I don't have the game installed any longer, and with no XMLs can't check this, but the first place I would look is in the handicap XML.

 

[Randall Turner]

I don't have the game installed any longer, and with no XMLs can't check this, but the first place I would look is in the handicap XML.

I don't see how to modify the player's starting units there, but it does look like the place to modify the AI's - so, if I drop their scouts down to zero and bump my difficulty level up two (from Emperor to Deity), we'll get the end-game difficulty bump while still making the starting difficulty easier (relatively).

End result == easier at first, harder later.

That should do it. That's what I was looking for. Also might have a chance at picking up a ruin or two before the AI snaps them all up.

Edit: fired it up with one of the AI civ's set to my team, yep, works like a charm. Thanks!

Edit2: I'm not really interested in trying to win the game, been there done that. I just want to play for relaxation and poke at different strategies/nation types. One of the most irritating things is plodding along for the first 30 turns or so with one slow-ass warrior and seeing the AI flash in front of me w/a scout, snap up the ruin I was headed for, and go - "hi! I'm from Babylonia, hope we can be friends!" then turn into a bowman and zip off. I'm like, "you little f'er, if I could catch you I'd kill you dead, die in a fire!" At least now they'll have to do their initial exploration with units as slow as mine (albeit more of them).

 

[Solo4114]

It doesn't matter. (Piracy metrics.) It's dead. (PC game industry.) We're seeing the ghostly remnants of an industry killed in its infancy, unlike the recording industry, which was mature when it died.

and I'm not going to get into it. (Lheim.) Not going to start another thread, let it go. All it's going to do is make people feel bad about themselves. Including me - I may not pirate games, but how many mp3's do I have, or music CD's I borrowed from the library and loaded into my car's music box? <sigh>

No industry that depends on people paying for something they don't have to will succeed.

Just don't hammer the underpaid devs for quality issues. That's a greater evil. But I'm not going to babysit you on it.

All I wanted was a stupid scout.

I agree that PC gaming is slowly dying. Console gaming is on the rise. It makes sense, too. It's easier to develop for consoles (single development standard). It's easier to protect (for now) from a piracy perspective. MS' approach with bricking modded X360s is brilliant in that respect. Sure, you can play your pirated game, but if the whole point is to play online and WE are the gatekeepers to online gameplay....well, better pony up.

I also see a lot of innovation, creativity, and -- dare I say it -- variety developing in console gaming.


And I don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily. Traditionally, the divide between console gamers and PC gamers was twofold (albeit connected):

- Console games were developed for MUCH lower-powered hardware, so the overall quality of PC games could be a lot better. That wasn't always the case, of course, but it became the norm around, oh, 1990-1992, and has stayed that way (for the most part) since then. That said, the hardware gap is shrinking, at least in terms of what actually gets used resource-wise (so I hear, anyway). A game on the X360 (a now, what, 5? 6 year old system?) look about as good as that same game on the latest PC hardware.

- Console games were "dumber" because of the limited control scheme (the controller). You can't make a console flight sim because you have a far more limited number of inputs. That gap is shrinking as well, though.



Ultimately, I don't see PC gaming "dying" per se, as much as I see consoles becoming increasingly more like PCs. More powerful, more range of input, more variety in game design, larger "servers," etc.

That is, at least, the potential I see for console gaming. I can see where the distinction between console and PC will shrink and the gameplay experience will remain pretty consistent across each version. But we'll see, I suppose.

 

[SuperJay]

Not going to start another thread, let it go. All it's going to do is make people feel bad about themselves. Including me - I may not pirate games, but how many mp3's do I have, or music CD's I borrowed from the library and loaded into my car's music box? <sigh>

Bummer, I was looking forward to reading that new thread. It's very interesting (and edifying) to read your insights from "the inside" of the industry. Obviously the vast majority of gamers (as consumers) don't understand the first thing about the realities of game development - and that's not because they're stupid, they just don't work in that business and don't have the experience. Most automobile owners know next to nothing about the car manufacturing process either, but for some reason we gamers tend to think we know more about the processes that go into creating games than we really do.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts here. It's appreciated.

 

[Randall Turner]

I agree that PC gaming is slowly dying. Console gaming is on the rise. It makes sense, too. It's easier to develop for consoles (single development standard). It's easier to protect (for now) from a piracy perspective. MS' approach with bricking modded X360s is brilliant in that respect. Sure, you can play your pirated game, but if the whole point is to play online and WE are the gatekeepers to online gameplay....well, better pony up.

That's not quite accurate. At least, with regard to "easier to develop", it's certainly easier to protect a console app. But developing for the consoles (ps3 and 360) isn't exactly "easier", it's "different". We don't have to worry about different configs, but we have to worry about low-level performance in ways that are just irrelevant for a PC. A common refrain here is, "screw it, it doesn't matter, it's the PC". ie, It'll work even if it's badly coded.

I also see a lot of innovation, creativity, and -- dare I say it -- variety developing in console gaming.

.. because we have bigger teams, more senior engineers, and longer development cycles. All due to bigger budgets.

And I don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily. Traditionally, the divide between console gamers and PC gamers was twofold (albeit connected):

- Console games were developed for MUCH lower-powered hardware, so the overall quality of PC games could be a lot better. That wasn't always the case, of course, but it became the norm around, oh, 1990-1992, and has stayed that way (for the most part) since then. That said, the hardware gap is shrinking, at least in terms of what actually gets used resource-wise (so I hear, anyway). A game on the X360 (a now, what, 5? 6 year old system?) look about as good as that same game on the latest PC hardware.

- Console games were "dumber" because of the limited control scheme (the controller). You can't make a console flight sim because you have a far more limited number of inputs. That gap is shrinking as well, though.

Someone's giving you bad information there. At least with regard to modern hardware. The hardware gap is larger now than it's ever been, in the PC's favor. At the point the 360 was released it was equivalent horsepower-wise to a mid-high range PC. Now, of course, modern PC's are so much more powerful that when porting a console app to them, again, "screw it, it doesn't matter, it's a PC." And I'm working on what might be the most processor-intensive game in console land, not a lightweight.

Input device, mass storage, and display fidelity, yep, all that's valid and define the difference between console and PC design limits.

Ultimately, I don't see PC gaming "dying" per se, as much as I see consoles becoming increasingly more like PCs. More powerful, more range of input, more variety in game design, larger "servers," etc.

That is, at least, the potential I see for console gaming. I can see where the distinction between console and PC will shrink and the gameplay experience will remain pretty consistent across each version. But we'll see, I suppose.

Well, PC games and console games are likely to become similar simply because most PC games will be console game ports. It's not a hardware issue. So, you're right in that the distinction will shrink, but you've got the cause wrong.

 

[Randall Turner]

Bummer, I was looking forward to reading that new thread. It's very interesting (and edifying) to read your insights from "the inside" of the industry. Obviously the vast majority of gamers (as consumers) don't understand the first thing about the realities of game development - and that's not because they're stupid, they just don't work in that business and don't have the experience. Most automobile owners know next to nothing about the car manufacturing process either, but for some reason we gamers tend to think we know more about the processes that go into creating games than we really do.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts here. It's appreciated.

Yeah, well. To get full coverage we'd need one of the PC developers, preferably a dude from Firaxis, to engage in a dialogue. Every project is different, I'm making a lot of hand-waving assumptions. And although I'm working on the PC as well right now, it's adapting console designs to it - that're only taking advantage of a limited subset of the platform's capabilities.

 

[CyberChrist]

Well, PC games and console games are likely to become similar simply because most PC games will be console game ports. It's not a hardware issue. So, you're right in that the distinction will shrink, but you've got the cause wrong.

So basicly you are predicting that the next version of Civ on the PC will be a port of CivRev2?

I would have to question the competence of anyone deciding/supporting that such a strategy is the way forward for the software industry - as I fail to see how it could possibly improve customer satisfaction and thus reduce piracy levels ... and thus improve revenue from the PC market.

 

[Randall Turner]

So basicly you are predicting that the next version of Civ on the PC will be a port of CivRev2?

I didn't say anything about any particular game, did I. If you think I did, go re-read the post.

That said, if there's a console version of Civ in the works, you should be happy. (I wasn't aware that was the case, but okay.) It means the developers you're beating like a rented mule on these forums have at least a chance of staying in business for a while. It seems like a good idea to me, they can drop a PC front-end on it and take advantage of the platform-agnostic systems (ie, AI).

I would have to question the competence of anyone deciding/supporting that such a strategy is the way forward for the software industry - as I fail to see how it could possibly improve customer satisfaction and thus reduce piracy levels ... and thus improve revenue from the PC market.

CyberChrist, the "way forward for the software industry", assuming we're talking about gaming software, is to get off PC games entirely and develop console games. It's what's happening now. Not because it's the "strategy" to develop a game for the consoles before publishing it on the PC, but because it's economically irresponsible to develop standalone games solely for the PC. (Or really, even make a PC port - I'm a bit shaky on why we do that for some of our products.)

Electronic Boutique is phasing out their PC gaming section entirely, and have their stock on clearance sale. WalMart and the like have one five-foot section of PC games, where they used to take up an entire wall. Over half of standalone PC games are going to be console ports (or at least available on consoles) NOW. I just went and checked a local video game store for fun, btw. That's how it is. <shrug>

And I'd have to question the competence of anyone who doesn't realize this is already the case, partner. It's pretty obvious.

 

[CyberChrist]

I didn't say anything about any particular game, did I. If you think I did, go re-read the post.

In your post, you are clearly advocating that the future for PC games will/should be reduced to ports of console games. Following this logic that would of course also include future versions of Civ.

That said, if there's a console version of Civ in the works, you should be happy. (I wasn't aware that was the case, but okay.)

Why would I be happy about if that was the case? CivRev is a travesty imo ... even worse than Civ5. Having the only future versions of Civ merely be ports of console counterparts would be the definete end of the franchise altogether for many previous diehard fans of Civ (myself included).

It means the developers you're beating like a rented mule on these forums have at least a chance of staying in business for a while. It seems like a good idea to me, they can drop a PC front-end on it and take advantage of the platform-agnostic systems (ie, AI).

Honestly, then I couldn't care less if developers following the console->PC path stay in business or not as they haven't been able to deliver anything I would be willing to invest either time or money in so far. For all I care they can file for bankruptcy here and now - and save us all (themselves included) from continued future disappointments.

CyberChrist, the "way forward for the software industry", assuming we're talking about gaming software, is to get off PC games entirely and develop console games. It's what's happening now. Not because it's the "strategy" to develop a game for the consoles before publishing it on the PC, but because it's economically irresponsible to develop standalone games solely for the PC. (Or really, even make a PC port - I'm a bit shaky on why we do that for some of our products.)

So you are admitting that you are a in favor of the current trend to abandon innovation and quality, if there is even a small risk that a project could end up hurting the fiscal bottom line - and running for the 'safe' mediocre bets instead?

Electronic Boutique is phasing out their PC gaming section entirely, and have their stock on clearance sale. WalMart and the like have one five-foot section of PC games, where they used to take up an entire wall. Over half of standalone PC games are going to be console ports (or at least available on consoles) NOW. I just went and checked a local video game store for fun, btw. That's how it is. <shrug>

This has as much to do with more and more people making use of digital downloads as anything else though.

And I'd have to question the competence of anyone who doesn't realize this is already the case, partner. It's pretty obvious.

You are starting to come across - more than a little - like a crusading console fundamentalist - lol.

Seriously though, then I think you are overly negative about the future prospect of the PC market and I certainly do not subscribe to your point of view. As long as there are willing buyers on the market there will be companies wanting to tap into that market.

Personally then I can only salute if the companies that lack motivation, innovation and/or courage to produce quality products for the PC market (realizing that they can't make enough money on their 'safe' mediocre mainstream products from the PC market) moves on to the produce solely for consoles - leaving those companies that DO possess those qualities to make the PC games we all want to play ... and pay for.

 

[callahan9119]

I don't buy into all this garbage, retail sales have fallen dramatically, but digital purchases are through the roof. I own 40 steam games (or licenses) and have never been anything but happy with it. If you don't like digital distribution then move on or get ready to complain and dispense tenuous ethical and philosophical arguments for the rest of your life.

 

[JoeBas]

So how loud will your howling rage of frustration be when the day comes that Steam says "So sowwy, we bankrupt now, buh bye"?...

 

[drachasor]

So I take it from this thread the AI is still extremely stupid?

 

[SuperJay]

Maybe slightly less extremely stupid than it was back in November.

 

[Randall Turner]

In your post, you are clearly advocating that the future for PC games will/should be reduced to ports of console games. Following this logic that would of course also include future versions of Civ.

"following this logic?" You believe that when I say, "most standalone PC games will be console ports", it logically follows that future versions of Civ will be console ports? Really?

If I were to say, "most animals are insects", would you also believe it logically follows that humans are insects?

You can believe what you want, of course. But at some point, replying to your protestations of "we don't have wiggly antennae!" or, "I have far too few legs for that to be true" and correcting the underlying misconceptions becomes pointless.

Good day.

 

[CyberChrist]

"following this logic?" You believe that when I say, "most standalone PC games will be console ports", it logically follows that future versions of Civ will be console ports? Really?

You do realize that you are posting on a forum thread dedicated to Civilization, right?

 

[esemjay]

You do realize that you are posting on a forum thread dedicated to Civilization, right?

Since he did qualify his statement, saying "most" PC games will be console ports... your assumption was flawed. He shouldn't have had to qualify it even further by spelling out certain specific exceptions to his statement; especially considering that Strategy Games as a whole don't port well to consoles.

 

[CyberChrist]

Since he did qualify his statement, saying "most" PC games will be console ports... your assumption was flawed. He shouldn't have had to qualify it even further by spelling out certain specific exceptions to his statement; especially considering that Strategy Games as a whole don't port well to consoles.

If he had posted it on random forum then I would agree, but since he posted it on a forum dedicated to Civilization then it is more than fair to assume that sweeping statements includes Civilization as well - unless it is specifically stated that it does not apply to Civilization ... or if it is obvious that it does not.

In this case I could see no point in even making such a statement in this thread if it was not meant to apply to Civilization as well.

Also, in case you failed to notice it then Randall Turner DOES state in his answer that he thinks it would be a good idea if future versions of Civ would be produced on consoles and then ported to PC.

... if there's a console version of Civ in the works ... It seems like a good idea to me, they can drop a PC front-end on it ...