Keeping everyone satisfied

judgement

Itinerant Polymath
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
322
The "Official Civ 4 Ideas Thread" (which has over 1000 posts) has tons of ideas, many of them good, but many of them very specific. I think its worth discussing the broad, overall concepts (not specifics) that will make Civ 4 satisfying for everyone who plays it (well, as high a percentage as possible, anyway).

The way I see it, there are a number of types of potential players, with some people falling into more than one category:

(1) People who are new to the game and never played Civ 1, 2, or 3.

(2) Casual players who aren't really into computer games but succumbed to the addictive nature of the Civ series.

(3) Semi-serious gamers who like to play the game, among others, but who don't spend all their time posting here ;)

(4) Hardcore, looking-for-a-serious-challenge types who figured out how to beat Civ 3 on the highest difficulty levels and want the same challenge from Civ 4.

(5) Creative, modder-types who enjoy making their own versions of the game, either to add variety to the gaming experience or correct percieved faults with the vanilla game.

(6) Competitve or cooperative social-types who enjoy various multiplayer options.

Now, in my opinion, keeping all these types of players entertained is no small feat, and I give mad props to the Civ franchise for being pretty good at it for the first three versions. But there's always room for improvement... so, what are the major things the designers should consider to try to benefit all of the above types? Here's my attempt at a list (in no particular order), feel free to add suggestions.

(A) As bug-free as possible. Bugs annoy all kinds of players.

(B) Simple, easy to use interface. Civ 3 improved some things relative to Civ 2, but theres a number of things that are still annoying. A prime example is having to contact each rival civ to see what techs they have. This one also affects all player types: better interface makes it easier to hook new and casual players, and lets more hardcore players spend more time doing what they want with less time wasted.

(C) Really smart AI. Type "1" players might not notice AI limitations at first, but all others types benefit. Type "4" of course benefits the most, and they're probably a small percentage of purchasers, but still, type "5" is happier when the AI can handle modified rules and still be a challenge, and type "6" would love it if single-player felt more like multi-player because the AI was harder to predict, behaving more like another human. And a lot of type "3" players, even if they don't post here, read websites like this and/or play enough on their own to discover exploits that take advantage of AI weakness.

(D) Easy mod-ibility. Naturally, modders love a game that's easy to mod, but being able to tweak things can make things for fun for everyone and more challenging for the hard-core types, and it really gives a game legs, so that people keep playing it for years to come.

(E) Things make sense, "historically" and "realistically". Those words are in quotes because Civ is neither a history textbook or a mirror of reality, its just a game. Still, a big reason people like this game is it's historical/epic feel, with the chance to re-write history/reality. If Iron Working allowed Laser Weapons, a lot of people, of all types, would just be confused and put off. That's an exageration, of course, and playability is of course more important than realism, but for a game like Civ, they're intertwined. Unrealistic-feeling rules just give players of all types things to complain about: "That doesn't make sense! This game is stupid!" Modders should mod because they want to, not because they feel they have to in order to get a sensible game.

(F) Good documentation and instructions The Civilopedia is a wonderful thing but there's many things it doesn't cover. People shouldn't need to visit a website like this and read some fan-compiled FAQ in order to figure out how to do basic game tasks. Types "1" and "2" benefit the most but all types benefit if the documentation is both complete and accurate: it makes modding easier, it makes serious play more possible by more people and more enjoyable, and cuts down on the arguments among hard-core players about how the rules actually work (okay, I realize some people enjoy those arguments and like spending time running test cases to analyze rules rather than actually playing :crazyeye: ).

(G) Faithful to its roots and premise. Leave the future age with giant death robots and orbital cities to modders, the same with the wizards and whatnot. Don't even think about real-time: Civ is turn based, and changing that would change the whole type of game. Don't fix things that aren't broken, don't change for the sheer sake of change, focus the improvements on the limitations of the first 3 versions, but make sure to keep their same fundamental spirit because I (and a lot of other people) like them a lot!

Conspicuously absent from my list is any mention of enhanced graphics and fancy animation. Yes, eye candy can improve a game, and make it more attractive to new players as well as old, but the Civ franchise has never been about beatiful graphics, its about addictive and interesting gameplay.

Please comment on these seven priorities, but also suggest your own! Keep in mind the various types of players I've listed (suggest more if you think I've left some out) and try to suggest design priorities that benefit everyone, not just us fanatical-types!
 
Excellent! This really does seem to sum it all up.
About the issue of graphics, I would like to comment that not only is it not needed, I would even feel I'm wasting my money buying cIV if they put in much effort to improve the visual aspect of the game. Civ3 looks great, it's relatively easy to make new units and graphics in general, I don't want Firaxis' time, my money, and my processor clock cycles wasted on displaying freakin' polygons! The game looks fine as it is, focus on what draws people to it anyway - the gameplay.
The only way I can possibly imagine 3D may improve the game is making the worlds round... But the amount of effort needed for this is not worth the bother, and again, nor is the money or the strain on the machines that already take several minutes between late-game turns - in the best case.

EDIT: Whee! 400th post... That was quick... I was just writing my 300th in what feels like yesterday.
 
Originally posted by Blasphemous
Excellent! This really does seem to sum it all up.
About the issue of graphics, I would like to comment that not only is it not needed, I would even feel I'm wasting my money buying cIV if they put in much effort to improve the visual aspect of the game. Civ3 looks great, it's relatively easy to make new units and graphics in general, I don't want Firaxis' time, my money, and my processor clock cycles wasted on displaying freakin' polygons! The game looks fine as it is, focus on what draws people to it anyway - the gameplay.
The only way I can possibly imagine 3D may improve the game is making the worlds round... But the amount of effort needed for this is not worth the bother, and again, nor is the money or the strain on the machines that already take several minutes between late-game turns - in the best case.

EDIT: Whee! 400th post... That was quick... I was just writing my 300th in what feels like yesterday.


I agree that Civ3's graphics don't need improvement, but you should keep in mind that sometimes, 3D can be rendered faster than 2D!
 
*Digging through old threads*

I feel judgement's post deserves a little more attention, although it's true that it really sums it all up :goodjob:

It's always important in the design of a game to identify properly the types of players and what parts of the game they enjoy. I've seen this done quite thoroughly, and openly, in another game I play, Magic: the Gathering (a collectible card game).

This isn't just a useful exercise for the actual designers, it's also critical for us fans who are trying to influence the design. It's part of the homework we need to do. For every idea we have, we should consider carefully if it might detract from one group's enjoyment of the game.

I want to present my own analysis of three main types of Civ-players. It's based partly on what I gather from reading forums and partly on an analysis of my own style of play (which has been quite variable through the years). I'm mainly focusing on what the players are trying to achieve in the game, while judgement's 1-6 scheme is about the players' backgrounds. Here goes...

1. GAMER
Seeks challenge; pushes himself onto higher difficulty levels, as his skill allows. Typically enjoys arbitrary challenges like OCC, 5CC, Always War, etc. Willing to play "unstylish" strategies as long as they prove stronger, such as Infinite City Sprawl. Skilled Gamers play very carefully in the early game, setting up Settler Factories and optimizing worker moves.
Likes: super-high difficulty levels, barbarians, warfare, solid early-game units (e.g. Immortals, Gallic Swordsmen)
Dislikes: unbalanced traits and UUs (crappy F-15's and Musketeers, etc), tedious late-game micromanagement, bad AI, losing armies to culture flips, "irrelevant" modern age stuff

2. BUILDER
Loves the constructive side of Civ, building up a glorious advanced civilization with high literacy and productivity. Likes building big "perfect" cities with lots of wonders and every single improvement.
Likes: wonders, culture, advanced improvements (e.g. Stock Exchange), demographics, top 5 cities, peaceful wins, the modern age
Dislikes: AI aggression, warfare, high difficulty levels, barbarians, destructive random events, pollution

3. OVERLORD
Likes the feeling of absolute power over the AI opponents. Prefers style over the Gamer's efficiency, enjoying flashy stuff like precision bombing and espionage missions. May take a long time to totally annihilate an enemy civ by first bombing it back to the stone age and killing every unit on the ground, instead of simply going straight for the cities, Gamer-style. Hates paying tribute to the AI and being inferior in the early game, so high difficulty levels are not a favorite.
Likes: late-game super units (e.g. Modern Armor), espionage, nuclear weapons, massive tech leads
Dislikes: AI cheats, AI tech trading, high difficulty, micro-management


I wouldn't be surprised if this has been discussed a lot already, though I haven't seen such a thread. I'd be happy to know from you all whether this model corresponds in any way to your Civ experience - whether you can identify with one or more of these three types, that is. Note that I'm not saying every player is exactly like one of these three types; most of us will have a mix with some tendencies stronger than others, perhaps having gone through phases of a certain style of play in the past. I myself, for example, have traditionally been a Builder-Overlord type, though I'm now constantly sliding towards the Gamer.
 
Hello judgement,

"I think its worth discussing the broad, overall concepts (not specifics) that will make Civ 4 satisfying for everyone who plays it (well, as high a percentage as possible, anyway)."

Me too.
But come to think about it again, if you are classifying players into groups, there simply will not be a limit to the number of groups you can design (diff perspective shall make diff way to group players) I did similar post as you do in the past
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=74294

If I were the developer of CIV4, the below 2 will be essential:
a) How many groups am I going to classify players (or it is possible to really come up with a clear picture of the number of player groups)
b) How to satisfy all the groups.

IMO may be to determine from the Victory settings that a user choose. (and make it much more detail for the type of victory user can choose). e.g. if one choose to win with simply any of the victory type the game has to offer, this means he/she just want a quick winning. (As how to win does not matter). If one choose to win only by "Conquer victory", you know he/she is going to be brutal (peace is not his way). Base on the combination of victory type a user choose (before tha game starts), some of the internal mechanisms (such as corruption rate) can be adjusted accordingly. This shall make most players happy (whatever group he belong)
 
You will never satisify all groups or all people. It can't be done. Find out who your paying customers are and try to satisfy a lot of them.
 
I like a lot of what is in this thread and in it's first post. My preference is:
1) a faster game. Better "overarching" orders: e.g. switch to build units in every city except X and send them to attach the following cities as soon as they are built. e.g.2 create a road network first.
Things like animating each unit is wonder to behold the first two times, then it becomes nuisance and people disable it because it takes too long.
2) Good documentation and instructions yes, this is a big one. The documentation is severely incomplete, and virtually non esistent for the Editor
3) Easy mod-ibility I agree, the Editor was (poorly documented) and not powerful enough. if you want to creat a new unit it's really tough because you have to have all the ancellary files. I would expect that you can create a new units, civilizations... with greater easy (I don't care that much about having it's own specific graphic)
 
hr_oskar said:
*Digging through old threads*

I feel judgement's post deserves a little more attention, although it's true that it really sums it all up :goodjob:
Thanks! :D
This isn't just a useful exercise for the actual designers, it's also critical for us fans who are trying to influence the design. It's part of the homework we need to do. For every idea we have, we should consider carefully if it might detract from one group's enjoyment of the game.
Absolutely. Warpstorm is right, of course, you can't please everyone. But certain suggestions will please some groups at the expense of others, while other (better) suggestions will please some groups without detracting from the enjoyment had by other groups. So the types of people who play are definately worths considering.

I want to present my own analysis of three main types of Civ-players....
1. GAMER
2. BUILDER
3. OVERLORD
Brilliant - this matches my own experience as well. Comparing our two lists, I notice that my #4, 5 , and 6 probably all fall under "Gamer", and my #2 and 3 could be any of your three. The interesting thing is my #1: people new to the game. Since they're new, no one knows which of your three types they'll become, which underscores the importance of several of the suggestions I mentioned (namely A, B, E, and F) so that these new people will get hooked and have a chance to become Gamers, Builders, and Overlords! ;)
 
Milan's Warrior said:
1) a faster game. Better "overarching" orders: e.g. switch to build units in every city except X and send them to attach the following cities as soon as they are built. e.g.2 create a road network first.
Things like animating each unit is wonder to behold the first two times, then it becomes nuisance and people disable it because it takes too long.
Suggestions like better "overarching" orders are of course good, but it occurs to me that not everyone may want the game to be "faster". I think the better thing to hope for is more control over the pace and duration of the game. That way, people like me who don't have time for really long games can play quicker ones, while people who enjoy micromanaging huge worlds, watching nifty animations, and having games that take months to finish can still do that.
 
@judgement: Thanks for the comment, I had almost given up on getting comments on that post :)
...

The good thing about my model is that I'm talking about three fairly distinct types of players, so it's reasonable enough to evaluate different parts of the game in terms of who likes and dislikes what, as I did in my list above.

The bad thing is that it's is mostly speculation - I haven't actually researched how people play Civ and what they like about it. However, if enough players tell me that they can relate to one or more of the three types, that's proof enough to me ;)

Modders are actually outside of this model's scope; I wouldn't expect modders to be Gamers any more than other types... I think it's unrelated really. It's not really relevant since the design of the editor is secondary to the design of the game itself , so I think modders should be evaluated separately.
 
I'm definitely a 4 in judgement's initial list or a 1 on hr_oskar's list. I doubt that comes as a surprise to anyone given my postings here....

However, I think both of you have missed a category. Like you, I have no idea how prevalant any of the types are, but there's definitely a

4. ENGAGER
The engager likes the feel of building a civilization -- cares less about gameplay than about realism and how "into" the game (s)he can fall. The engager is more apt to notice historical inconsistencies and non-intuitive gameplay elements (that might be necessary for balance).
Likes: Realism, easy interface, ambiance-inducing elements, accurate representations of units/cities/etc.
Dislikes: Anything against pre-conceived notions (like a spear having a legitimate chance against a tank, regardless of other circumstances), jarring actions which destroy immersion, winning/losing (the play's really the thing)

This is an important group, especially with such a strongly-themed game like Civ. I don't understand this group at all, personally, but they exist and are strong. [Note: I pulled most of this description from a similar discussion about board gamers a while back somewhere else. Used without permission.]

Arathorn
 
Arathorn said:
4. ENGAGER
The engager likes the feel of building a civilization -- cares less about gameplay than about realism and how "into" the game (s)he can fall.
Very good! This one overlaps somewhat with Builder, but I can see that it has distinct features of its own. My wife is a builder but not really an engager at all: she likes the feeling of accomplishment from building up a great big civ with lots of neat buildings and wonders and things, but she isn't very concerned with the "realism" of the game.

I, myself, however... I think engager fits me pretty well, although with a strong dash of builder and ever-increasing amounts of gamer.
This is an important group, especially with such a strongly-themed game like Civ. I don't understand this group at all, personally, but they exist and are strong.
I guess an important word that's key to understanding the "engager" mentality is imagination. Although I enjoy trying to improve my game and get satisfaction out of beating higher levels, I don't play Civ for the challenge of it, thus I'm not very "gamer." And I don't play for the satisfaction of crushing opponents, nor for the satisfaction of building a great empire (although both can certainly be satisfying), thus I'm not really a builder or overlord, either. I play for the same reason I read fiction or watch movies: escapism. Diving into a game like civ sets the imagination free to roam and lets me entertain myself for a while with something totaly different from my own everyday life.
 
Engagers give me a headache.
 
From the first post I would really like to see C and E. A smarter AI with some sense of loyalty would make some scenarios far more interesting. One of the things that seriously limits scenarios like the Napoleonic one is the need for human players to bribe the AI into wars. It would be far more interesting if the computer would stick with one side if they have given no reason to switch and to try and form alliances themselves. It would be nice to see France convince one of the AI civs to join it.

Part E also appeals as I would like to see this extended to allow more possibilities such as civs splitting and new ones appearing as covered in other current threads.
 
Top Bottom