Here. A nice read.
Jon Shafer:
about Civ:
The thing about Civilization is that its a big, complex game, but its also a game that can be distilled down into very discreet elements. At the beginning of the game you have a settler. Then you tell it what to build. Then what? Then you pick your research. OK. What now? You move your unit. Oh, OK.
Its all these small decisions that together become this humongous web of what can happen, but at the beginning its very small and simple.
about tiles as a concept:
And the tiles are a way of presenting the game world in a way that makes it understandable... I look at the map, and in this tile we have some oil. In this tile, we know that a unit can occupy this space. We know that an improvement can occupy this space. We know what the distance is from this space to this space. If I want to shoot, I dont need to click on the unit to show me the range. I just see, tile tile tile, if I have an archer here he can shoot here. Easy.
Tiles make the game world more understandable. Distances become easy. Its not a matter of What pixel can I build my city on that gets this wheat and then gets this fish and oh! If I move it one more pixel down I could get iron. Its something that would turn into a difference experience completely. Its great because you dont think about it, but really tiles permeate the whole experience.
about AI civs and diplomacy:
JS: I think there are games that have done some really interesting things with it, but I dont think a game has ever gotten it perfect. You could look at Alpha Centauri and say that the personalities of the different leaders are one of the things that makes it so great and gives it such charm. You cant really translate that to a game like Civilization because, Gandhi plays a certain way and has a certain personality, but its not like you can make him a ridiculous fanatic the way Miriam [leader of The Lord's Believers faction] was in Alpha Centauri, because its so strong, its such a driver in the game. You could predict how faction leaders would react to you in Alpha Centauri, depending on how you approached different things. If you stripped the planet of all its resources, you knew the environmentalists would hate you...
RPS: I feel like part of the way you implement diplomacy successfully when dealing with AIs is to allow the player to imprint their own vision of a personality onto the AI. With Civilization, where you have these almost-caricatures of the famous leaders, I feel like youre stopping the player from imprinting a personality or history. Like youre putting up a barrier.
JS: I think it runs both ways. You gain certain things, and it also costs you. On the plus side, it gives you something to recognise. People will ask Why even have leaders?, or [suggest] Build Your Own Leader mode, where you can pick attributes and, like move his eyebrows down to his chin or whatever.
But youd lose a lot of what makes Civilization what it is, I think. You saw there [in the demo]- Thats Ramses, thats Catherine the Great. Its not a game-changing experience, but it still allows for, like- Ive started between Napoleon and Montezuma, oh God. Whereas if you just start between Leader A and Leader B
RPS: Youre talking about a tradeoff. Youd be sacrificing instantaneous colour for the chance to create characters.
JS: Which I think is kinda important, because the rest of Civilization is so open and so broad. If we didnt have the recognisable leaders, all wed have is [Jon zooms the game's camera in on a tiny cluster of infantrymen] these guys. And theyre not exactly memorable. But you see Ramses on his throne, and thats a cool scene.
We want to balance out both sides. We want to add colour and flavour to the game, and the leaders are the best way to do that. If its just a completely open, empty experience then you can fill that, but for a lot of players theres gonna be something missing that they wont be able to fill in for themselves.
Jon Shafer:
about Civ:
The thing about Civilization is that its a big, complex game, but its also a game that can be distilled down into very discreet elements. At the beginning of the game you have a settler. Then you tell it what to build. Then what? Then you pick your research. OK. What now? You move your unit. Oh, OK.
Its all these small decisions that together become this humongous web of what can happen, but at the beginning its very small and simple.
about tiles as a concept:
And the tiles are a way of presenting the game world in a way that makes it understandable... I look at the map, and in this tile we have some oil. In this tile, we know that a unit can occupy this space. We know that an improvement can occupy this space. We know what the distance is from this space to this space. If I want to shoot, I dont need to click on the unit to show me the range. I just see, tile tile tile, if I have an archer here he can shoot here. Easy.
Tiles make the game world more understandable. Distances become easy. Its not a matter of What pixel can I build my city on that gets this wheat and then gets this fish and oh! If I move it one more pixel down I could get iron. Its something that would turn into a difference experience completely. Its great because you dont think about it, but really tiles permeate the whole experience.
about AI civs and diplomacy:
JS: I think there are games that have done some really interesting things with it, but I dont think a game has ever gotten it perfect. You could look at Alpha Centauri and say that the personalities of the different leaders are one of the things that makes it so great and gives it such charm. You cant really translate that to a game like Civilization because, Gandhi plays a certain way and has a certain personality, but its not like you can make him a ridiculous fanatic the way Miriam [leader of The Lord's Believers faction] was in Alpha Centauri, because its so strong, its such a driver in the game. You could predict how faction leaders would react to you in Alpha Centauri, depending on how you approached different things. If you stripped the planet of all its resources, you knew the environmentalists would hate you...
RPS: I feel like part of the way you implement diplomacy successfully when dealing with AIs is to allow the player to imprint their own vision of a personality onto the AI. With Civilization, where you have these almost-caricatures of the famous leaders, I feel like youre stopping the player from imprinting a personality or history. Like youre putting up a barrier.
JS: I think it runs both ways. You gain certain things, and it also costs you. On the plus side, it gives you something to recognise. People will ask Why even have leaders?, or [suggest] Build Your Own Leader mode, where you can pick attributes and, like move his eyebrows down to his chin or whatever.
But youd lose a lot of what makes Civilization what it is, I think. You saw there [in the demo]- Thats Ramses, thats Catherine the Great. Its not a game-changing experience, but it still allows for, like- Ive started between Napoleon and Montezuma, oh God. Whereas if you just start between Leader A and Leader B
RPS: Youre talking about a tradeoff. Youd be sacrificing instantaneous colour for the chance to create characters.
JS: Which I think is kinda important, because the rest of Civilization is so open and so broad. If we didnt have the recognisable leaders, all wed have is [Jon zooms the game's camera in on a tiny cluster of infantrymen] these guys. And theyre not exactly memorable. But you see Ramses on his throne, and thats a cool scene.
We want to balance out both sides. We want to add colour and flavour to the game, and the leaders are the best way to do that. If its just a completely open, empty experience then you can fill that, but for a lot of players theres gonna be something missing that they wont be able to fill in for themselves.
