Sid Meier's Rule of 33s

[Catt_Ironheart]

So just a question. Do you think that the rule was followed in Civ 5?

33% Old
33% Improvements of old
33% New stuff

I think there is more new stuff then old or improved. HEX, CS, 1UPT and numerous more examples.

Improvements to me would be the way some terrain looks, like farms (not rivers!). Also the way the borders move.

Old would be of course certain things we remember and love/hate.

There are of course many regressions in Civ 5. The tech tree got hit by lightning, the trade routes were all looted and towns were abolished.

It is interesting to look back at the rest of the series. Did they follow his Rule of 33s? I actually think they did. Most of the other series had a continual improvement and most of the improvements kept passing along to the next series.

Ok, would just like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[CaptainBinky]

I think that sounds about right, if you take the "33% improved" to refer to all the bits that everyone's arguing about.

In other words, global happiness (for example) could be defined as an "improvement" over per-city happiness regardless of whether we as consumers agree with that.

edit: but it's all rather dependant on how you define things. Are realistic leaders "new" or "improved", or does the fact that leaders still exist in this version mean they're "old"? They're all three really, so I guess they're a pretty good example of the principle in microcosm

 

[Louis XXIV]

I should point out that it's Soren Johnson's rule of thumb, not Sid Meier's. I don't think either Soren nor Shafer have exclusively followed the rule, but Soren was closer to the philosophy. Still, I think they both generally follow the concept.

 

[DarkSchneider]

I'd say that there is virtually no improvement to existing stuff, so no, the rule wasn't followed.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Hold on, are we judging this subjectively or objectively? I.e., is the interest to find out if actual improvements were made or whether the same design philosophy was followed? If it's the former, don't we have a million and a half threads on that same subjective topic? I don't think it's constructive to this discussion unless we're talking about the design philosophy's intent, not its result.

 

[CaptainBinky]

It's only in intent that it makes any sense. How could you really plan for "33% what CivFanatics posters consider as old, 33% what CivFanatics posters consider as new, 33% what CivFanatics will uniformly agree is improved"? That would be an impossible philosophy to follow

 

[The Great Apple]

What about the final 1%?

 

[logintime]

What about the final 1%?

Magic!

 

[rbj2001]

Hmmm... tar?

 

[Junuxx]

Iedit: but it's all rather dependant on how you define things. Are realistic leaders "new" or "improved", or does the fact that leaders still exist in this version mean they're "old"? They're all three really, so I guess they're a pretty good example of the principle in microcosm

Yes of course it's a rather arbitrary thing whether or not you count something as one feature or as ten features, and as old or improved. So the math doesn't really 'work' obviously.

But as a rule of thumb, I think the idea is like, "For every new experimental mechanism you add in a sequel, be sure to carry over a tried and tested successful feature from earlier versions. And learn from criticisms on less popular features, too!"

And there really is plenty of reused material in Civ5, plain to see.

 

[drachasor]

What about the final 1%?

Err, tiles becoming worse? Mountains can't be mined anymore. Terraforming is gone. Desert tiles default to providing no resources. Hmm, I know a lot of that was just Civ2 -> Civ3.

 

[SpurnSpore]

So just a question. Do you think that the rule was followed in Civ 5?

Did they follow his Rule of 33s? I actually think they did.

Yup they did....
Profit from dud game-

33% Firaxis
33% 2K Games
33% Jon shafer
1 % reviewers

 

[Guardian_PL]

Yup they did....
Profit from dud game-

33% Firaxis
33% 2K Games
33% Jon shafer
1 % reviewers

Wooow, that's a nice one!
I wonder what the answers to that will be...

I think it's scary-plausible... O_o

 

[Catt_Ironheart]

I'd say that there is virtually no improvement to existing stuff, so no, the rule wasn't followed.

I actually had to sit here for a while to come up with a reply to this. Was anything improved? I suppose the leaders look better, or farms blend together which adds beauty. 1UPT and hex can be an improvement, although that depends on ones opinion.

I think that sounds about right, if you take the "33% improved" to refer to all the bits that everyone's arguing about.

In other words, global happiness (for example) could be defined as an "improvement" over per-city happiness regardless of whether we as consumers agree with that.

edit: but it's all rather dependant on how you define things. Are realistic leaders "new" or "improved", or does the fact that leaders still exist in this version mean they're "old"? They're all three really, so I guess they're a pretty good example of the principle in microcosm

Yeah I would say global happiness can be described as an improvement depending on how you look at it. Happiness certainly wouldn't be new. Yes it is all on how someone sees it, but I am sure no matter the opinion of Civ 5 there are certain things we can all I agree on as an improvement, or not.

Hold on, are we judging this subjectively or objectively? I.e., is the interest to find out if actual improvements were made or whether the same design philosophy was followed? If it's the former, don't we have a million and a half threads on that same subjective topic? I don't think it's constructive to this discussion unless we're talking about the design philosophy's intent, not its result.

So if there are a million and a half threads should we stop? Pretty much that thinking would mean we don't post any new threads because there has to be some threads on whatever it is we are wanting to post. I was going more for subjectively because I admit I do not like Civ 5 and Ham, and I will not play them in a box.... I am interested in seeing if this is a total new game, or the old philosophy was followed and maybe I can't see that.

What about the final 1%?

I wondered about that too, but I can;t think of a good reply to that. One too many Aventinus'.

But as a rule of thumb, I think the idea is like, "For every new experimental mechanism you add in a sequel, be sure to carry over a tried and tested successful feature from earlier versions. And learn from criticisms on less popular versions, too!"

And there really is plenty of reused material in Civ5, plain to see.

Yes that sums up what / how mechanisms should be carried over.

Well the reused material is ... the basics of Civ? You know build city, make colony, research things, build stuff, and make war? Oh and lastly; Let the modders fix the game for us, after all it is cheaper than us doing it.

 

[Catt_Ironheart]

Yup they did....
Profit from dud game-

33% Firaxis
33% 2K Games
33% Jon shafer
1 % reviewers

That is funny. The reviewers only got 1%? I saw a 9 rating on IGN .. sounds like they got more than that.

 

[Louis XXIV]

So if there are a million and a half threads should we stop? Pretty much that thinking would mean we don't post any new threads because there has to be some threads on whatever it is we are wanting to post. I was going more for subjectively because I admit I do not like Civ 5 and Ham, and I will not play them in a box.... I am interested in seeing if this is a total new game, or the old philosophy was followed and maybe I can't see that.

My point was, if you want to continue a complaint about a previous issue, there's probably a good thread devoted to that subject. If you wanted to bring up a new complaint, that's fine too. But to take a discussion about design philosophy and remove the "philosophy" half of the equation leaves you with nothing new to talk about.

By what I mean with subjective vs. objective. Quality is subjective. If the game was good or bad/improved or not improved, that's an opinion. However many people share it doesn't matter, it can't, by definition, be a fact. An objective discussion would be about design philosophy. I.e., what they intended to improve, what they intended to add new, what they intended to remove, etc. I was arguing for a thread about objective (or apparent, at least) intent because it makes for a more interesting discussion (i.e., a fresh discussion). Now you can still criticize them based on either whether or not they followed this philosophy or whether or not they followed it too much/too little, but at least it's a fresh take.

 

[CaptainBinky]

I was arguing for a thread about objective (or apparent, at least) intent because it makes for a more interesting discussion

I think it's safe to say that what they intended to improve are all the bits that have changed

A different discussion, yes, but not a terribly long one

 

[ButSam]

I think there is about as much new stuff in Civ V as there was new stuff in Civ IV. Improved is subjective, though. I like a lot of the changes, but for some of it I just see a ton of potential once the game is out of its current beta form. Some improvements I like: policy tree, each civ is truly unique (not just mix-and-match a small number of abilities), combat is much better (in execution...but the AI needs to improve).

Once the details are worked out, we are going to have a killer game on our hands. In the meantime, I'm still having a lot of fun with it. The latest press release is encouraging -- they know Diplomacy and AI are the two biggest issues (other than multiplayer, which they already suggested would be fixed in a patch).

 

[joyous_gard]

I'm with the "dud game" guy's percentages.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think it's safe to say that what they intended to improve are all the bits that have changed

A different discussion, yes, but not a terribly long one

Well, the question is did they go with the 1/3 rules. 1/3 improved, 1/3 new, 1/3 the same? It's always ambiguous because what's a change and what's dropping something and replacing it with something new? Was the maintenance system in Civ4 new or a change (modification of corruption)? Is the way science works and the removal of the slider system in Civ5 supposed to be an addition or a modification? I don't think this is a short thread because there's a lot of ambiguity in all design philosophies. I could probably start the same thread in Civ4 (for which the phrase was coined) and get a bunch of different responses as well.