Simulation or Reduction of features for better gameplay?!

[Loppan Torkel]

There are a bunch of features like disasters, corporations, religion, migration, pollution or environmental issues that could be kept or added to the game for the sake of realism, and they might be good additions, but they also could be left out without hurting the core game of war and diplomacy that has been in all civs.

The poll isn't about realism vs gameplay.
If you look at the previous civ-installments, some features were more fun than others. Those features could of course be reworked, but if you had to choose between more features, or features kept for realism versus features cut and a more streamlined game to focus on the features that are "more enjoyed" - what would you choose? Are you more ok with features 'that could be better but it's better to have it as it is than not at all' or do you tend to get annoyed at features that doesn't make the game fun but instead make it bloated?


Myself, I used to turn off tech-trading, I wasn't fond of the way religion or the promotions worked and I set my workers on automate as quick as possible. That said, I want large and epic games.

 

[Shurdus]

You imply that more features is fun and less features is better for gameplay. I do not know what to make of this poll at all or what it is that you are asking if it is not gameplay vs realism.

I am very much ok with more features, but realism has nothing to do with that. Natural disasters and such may be realistic but it is not my idea of fun. Adding stuff like that would be bad imo. adding more stuff like more government options, more different units and such would be a big yes from me.

 

[Ahriman]

Adding low design-goal-value "realism" features just tends to clutter the game, and make the design less elegant.

Units, buildings, techs, government options, etc. potentially have much higher design-goal-yield than adding in entirely new mecchanics.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

You imply that more features is fun and less features is better for gameplay. I do not know what to make of this poll at all or what it is that you are asking if it is not gameplay vs realism.

I wrote the poll the way I did because it's not supposed to be gameplay vs realism. Most people would choose gameplay over realism, but if you ask whether to include religion, corporations and promotions the way they were implemented in civ4 or to cut them out for a more "streamlined" experience (or put more focus on gameplay to put it more bluntly), you'd get other answers.

The question is toward what stance you lean. It's what you thought of the features in the earlier civs and how much you enjoyed or how tolerant you were toward those extra, but perhaps not necessary features.

Also, I'd say that realism has a lot to do with it. Religion is important in the real world and a good reason to try and implement it in a good way if possible.

Adding low design-goal-value "realism" features just tends to clutter the game, and make the design less elegant.

Units, buildings, techs, government options, etc. potentially have much higher design-goal-yield than adding in entirely new mecchanics.

But would adding options to already implemented features make the game better? It would probably make it more realistic, but there's certainly a break-off point where it bogs the game down just like when adding additional features.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

There is obviously a balance, but I tend to favor simplifying it, as long as the simplification doesn't interfere with truly interesting gameplay choices.


However

the core game of war and diplomacy that has been in all civs.

I Vehemently disagree with this.

Civ needs to move away from the War+Diplomacy to more of an actual Empire Builder game.

If I want a 'War+Diplomacy' game, I can play Risk with friends (or Axis +Allies)

Civ NEEDS to have 'Social' aspects (Culture/Happiness/etc.) otherwise it is not Civ.

I'd really prefer if the "Tactical control of Units" feature was removed from the game rather than removing Civics/Governments, etc. (War might be fun+realistic but maneuvering units around interferes with the gameplay of building an empire)

[No I don't want Sim City, but I don't want Panzer General either.. hopefully the new features wil Simplify the military aspect rather than increase it in importance compared to the Empire building aspect.]

 

[Ahriman]

But would adding options to already implemented features make the game better?

The question is too abstract to have any meaning without specifcic context. These things can only be judged on a case by case basis. But if I had to generalize, I'd say that very very few features/options I have seen on these boards would pass the test; almost all would make the game more complex for very little gain other than a token nod to "realism".

So its really impossible IMO for this question to be anything except a "gameplay vs realism" one, which is tautological (gameplay).

I would say in general though as well, the mechanics out there that make the game more "fun" are not necessarily ones that make the game very much more "realistic" (except in the facile sense that any new mechanic will have at least *some* real world component, and thus every mechanic/feature is "increasing realism").

*edit*
The biggest problem though is all the people who look at the game and say "this aspect could be made more realistic" and then try to design a mechanic to do that (eg: morale, supply lines, wind/ocean currents, flanking etc.)
The right approach is to look at the game and say "this part of the game could be more fun" and then think of a mechanic that accomplishes *that* while still keeping a historic flavor.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. If the realistic features make it more "fun", then there is better "gameplay". If the features are there only to be realistic, but are not fun, then they are detrimental to gameplay. I am in favor of as many of the former as possible and as few of the latter.

 

[Pakhawaj]

I want more features and better gameplay!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The question is too abstract to have any meaning without specifcic context. These things can only be judged on a case by case basis. But if I had to generalize, I'd say that very very few features/options I have seen on these boards would pass the test; almost all would make the game more complex for very little gain other than a token nod to "realism".

So its really impossible IMO for this question to be anything except a "gameplay vs realism" one, which is tautological (gameplay).

It only becomes gameplay vs realism if you avoid looking at your own past experiences with games and more specifically civ. I made an example in the OP of my tolerance level. I'd rather not see religion or promotions if implemented as in civ4, therefor I'd probably lean toward 'less features for better gameplay' whereas someone else might think that those features made the game more fun - 'more features for realism and still (or even more) fun'.

It's not realism vs gameplay because people have different preferences...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The thing to remember is that additional features can ADD gameplay.

For example, Water (and water units) are a feature of civ.. they are realistic, fun, a feature, and also good for gameplay.

So as long as a feature is
1. Fun
and
2. good for gameplay (no redundant decisions, important variations in how one plays the game)
and
3. seems 'natural' (not necesarily realistic)

then it should be in

If not then it should either be tweaked or dropped

 

[Ahriman]

It's not realism vs gameplay because people have different preferences...

It *is* realism vs gameplay if asked only in the abstract. Only by discussing particular examples (like religion) are you able to engage in meaningful analysis.

People have different preferences about particular features, but they don't really have meaningful preferences about "More features for realism or streamlined for gameplay?" except in the simplified "realism vs gameplay" sense.

@Krikkitone
Add "lack of complexity" to your list and I agree.

Every feature imposes an inherent design cost in terms of complexity. A feature must not just be good on its own, it must contribute to the game as a whole, which means that it must be sufficiently valuable to overcome the cost of increased complexity to the game as a whole.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It *is* realism vs gameplay if asked only in the abstract. Only by discussing particular examples (like religion) are you able to engage in meaningful analysis.

People have different preferences about particular features, but they don't really have meaningful preferences about "More features for realism or streamlined for gameplay?" except in the simplified "realism vs gameplay" sense.

It might be too much to ask for, but people are capable of abstract thinking and could apply their own experiences for the question and poll. I'm not overly confident people will do that though.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

.

@Krikkitone
Add "lack of complexity" to your list and I agree.

Every feature imposes an inherent design cost in terms of complexity. A feature must not just be good on its own, it must contribute to the game as a whole, which means that it must be sufficiently valuable to overcome the cost of increased complexity to the game as a whole.

Well I was sort of including that in both the fun and Important decisions. But I agree with you there, a game needs some degree of a limit on how many decisions you need to make on the average turn. All of those decisions also need to be somewhat important (two or more options that are basically equal but different in important ways).

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The thing to remember is that additional features can ADD gameplay.

For example, Water (and water units) are a feature of civ.. they are realistic, fun, a feature, and also good for gameplay.

So as long as a feature is
1. Fun
and
2. good for gameplay (no redundant decisions, important variations in how one plays the game)
and
3. seems 'natural' (not necesarily realistic)

then it should be in

If not then it should either be tweaked or dropped

You could take the evolution from Civ1 to Civ4 and see that there are many new features added to the game, most are probably relatively natural and good for gameplay, by your definitions, but have they all been fun?

Is Civ4 more fun than Civ2? Was corporations or religion features that made the game more fun? People will probably think differently about it.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

*edit*
The biggest problem though is all the people who look at the game and say "this aspect could be made more realistic" and then try to design a mechanic to do that (eg: morale, supply lines, wind/ocean currents, flanking etc.)
The right approach is to look at the game and say "this part of the game could be more fun" and then think of a mechanic that accomplishes *that* while still keeping a historic flavor.

Picking out boring features is one thing but finding place of 'unfun' in a game and make them fun could be trickier. I'd say it's easier to look at other games or the real world for ideas and see if the game would benefit from some new feature (with a low-grade of complexity) that would be meaningful and fun.

 

[Ahriman]

most are probably relatively natural and good for gameplay, by your definitions, but have they all been fun?

Most of the added features have satisfied the criteria. A few of them, even if they've been somewhat fun, have not been good enough to satisfy the cost of their complexity. IMO espionage and corporations fall into this category.

Whereas culture/borders, health and specialists absolutely satisfy all the criteria.

Picking out boring features is one thing but finding place of 'unfun' in a game and make them fun?!

Example: warfare is not that fun. It requires little decision-making once you build up your big stack.
Solution: work on methods (collateral damage, 1upt) that might alleviate that.

Problem: units were too generic, and tended to be too "one-size-fits-all" (strength parameter is everything) and so were not enough fun. Solution: add more RPS options like in Civ4.

Problem: the "best defender fights" mechanic means that RPS is not much fun, because it can't really be used offensively.
Solution: change the combat system so this doesn't happen, eg 1upt.

Its not that hard. That's how good design works. Focus on the game engine, not on realism.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You could take the evolution from Civ1 to Civ4 and see that there are many new features added to the game, most are probably relatively natural and good for gameplay, by your definitions, but have they all been fun?

Is Civ4 more fun than Civ2? Was corporations or religion features that made the game more fun? People will probably think differently about it.

Well in both of those cases there were gameplay implications (which requires balancing to get right)
and implementation issues (which can make an otherwise 'fun' feature 'unfun' if it requires a lot of mindless actions)

I agree that fun v. unfun can be subjective, and in this case the game designers use their own judgment as well as a feel for their target audience.

Civ designed to be fun for 5 year old girls would look different than Civ designed for 25 year old girls. As it is they are targetting mostly previous civ players and people like them, probably with a view to expanding the demographic slightly.

 

[EMT]

The only thing is, if you want realistic gameplay, go play Europa Universalis. If you want more interactive gameplay, Civilization is your game.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I Vehemently disagree with this. ....

I guess I simplified it a bit too much.

Most of the added features have satisfied the criteria. A few of them, even if they've been somewhat fun, have not been good enough to satisfy the cost of their complexity. IMO espionage and corporations fall into this category.

Whereas culture/borders, health and specialists absolutely satisfy all the criteria.

I agree that some have, most have been relatively good, but as a whole game civ4 feels bloated and would, imo, benefit from the streamlining that seems to be happening.

Example: warfare is not that fun. It requires little decision-making once you build up your big stack.
Solution: work on methods (collateral damage, 1upt) that might alleviate that.

Problem: units were too generic, and tended to be too "one-size-fits-all" (strength parameter is everything) and so were not enough fun. Solution: add more RPS options like in Civ4.

Problem: the "best defender fights" mechanic means that RPS is not much fun, because it can't really be used offensively.
Solution: change the combat system so this doesn't happen, eg 1upt.

Its not that hard. That's how good design works. Focus on the game engine, not on realism.

Ok, good example, but my guess is they felt that the combat in Panzer general was better and more or less borrowed from that.

We'll see if they can improve the RPS-system... I hope they keep it simple enough.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

There's nothing wrong with adding layers of complexity to the game, so long as the mechanisms added serve a purpose for the player and are accessible. Gameplay vs. realism does not have to be the typical inequality that people tend to paint it as in their sloganeering, the two can go hand in hand so long as the developers discover the right mechanics that simultaneously make the game fun and more true to history.

The only problem is that the team at Firaxis doesn't have as long as they want to toy around with every idea to get the perfect recipe down. Therefore they have to sacrifice realism when developing some aspects to ensure that players will enjoy the game first and foremost, then go back to them later on in expansion packs or simply leave it to the vicissitudes of the modding community.

The big problem occurs when Firaxis fails to reconcile gameplay with realism...for example, Espionage was added in BTS and they did a horrendous job. Yes, Espionage should be in the game because of its role in history but only if they are going to make the mechanic work for the player; which they failed to do. The Espionage system they provided was unwieldy and painful to use.

So in short, in a game like Civilization, gameplay and realism are very much tied to one another and need to be incorporated together as a whole and not regarded as stark "either, or" decisions.