dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I know this will be considered off topic... or even worse, an attack on our beloved Civ. But I was reading up on Galactic Civilizations by Stardock (someone told me it was pretty good). There's an interview with one of the key developers of GalCiv.
He seems to snipe Civilization. But looking passed some of the bitterness, I think there's an important point that Firaxis ought to keep in mind for Civ 4. The game doesn't become better by "wouldn't it be cool if...?" The game becomes better by identifying key problem areas, and discussing a solution to that problem that would make the game more fun.
Link here:
http://www.galciv.com/docs/qa.html
I can't help but feel like this is a dig at Civilization's "expand or die" gameplay. (Even though some people do the artifical challenge of a self imposed One-City game.) But by identifying it as a problem, they could begin to find a real solution, and expand gameplay in a variety of fun ways. I like the "competitive Simcity" analogy.
Here are their thoughts on AI:
I know dozens of people who think this is a legit problem for Civ. Me personally, I don't mind if the AI cheats so long as they are realistically competitive. But there's no doubt that this kind of goal is a "holy grail" for AI design. By identifying this key problem, they look for a solution that makes the game top notch fun.
There are a lot of little tidbits in the interview. My point isn't whether Galactic Civilizations is a particularly great game. (Otherwise I would have called this thread "make Civ 4 more like galactic civs!!") I haven't played it, so I don't know. It could very well be crap. That's not the point.
But it would be nice to know that the Civ 4 developers "get it" -- that they're not just arbitrarily picking the coolest sounding feature. That's what impressed me about this interview, and why I use it as an example. I hope the Civ 4 developers are approaching the development of a new game from the same angle. They should identify the underlying gameplay problems in Civ 3 that make it less than perfect, and using those to discuss new goals for Civ 4.
Soren talked about a few things like corruption, or pollution. That gives me some optimism. But I'm curious if they're looking at the big picture about how to create a more perfect game than Civ 3?
He seems to snipe Civilization. But looking passed some of the bitterness, I think there's an important point that Firaxis ought to keep in mind for Civ 4. The game doesn't become better by "wouldn't it be cool if...?" The game becomes better by identifying key problem areas, and discussing a solution to that problem that would make the game more fun.
Link here:
http://www.galciv.com/docs/qa.html
Lots of times games will come out and boast how they allow players all these paths to victory. And then you sit down and play it and it turns out that theres really only one way to victory thats any fun and the other ways are either virtually impossible or incredibly not fun. What weve done in GalCiv is work especially hard to make sure the different paths are enjoyable. In fact, the star bases, for instance, werent in the original design. We put those in along with the modules to upgrade them just this past Fall in order to ensure that winning through cultural and economics was as enjoyable as building fleets of ships and sending them into battle. Kind of a competitive Simcity type feel to it when you start building up your civilization and watching the little trade ships going back and forth by your star bases and such.
I can't help but feel like this is a dig at Civilization's "expand or die" gameplay. (Even though some people do the artifical challenge of a self imposed One-City game.) But by identifying it as a problem, they could begin to find a real solution, and expand gameplay in a variety of fun ways. I like the "competitive Simcity" analogy.
Here are their thoughts on AI:
The AI is multithreaded. What this means is that while you are taking your turn, the computer players are generating their strategies. Thats why there is no please wait, computer players moving screen when you hit the turn button. Theyve already calculated much of their moves. The only thing you have to wait for is the actual moving of units on the map.
The real benefit though is that it gives computer players much more time to think about their strategies. It means we can implement much more sophisticated strategies for them so that they play more intelligently.
None of this means that the game is harder to beat. But what it does mean is that we dont have to dump tons of free money or whatever to the computer players in order for them to be competitive. They can play the same game youre playing. We think many players gain a certain satisfaction knowing that when theyve destroyed an Economic Starbase that it really did hurt that player. Most games I play I have to wonder whether blowing up some key building or unit really affects the AI or not. But in GalCiv, theres no doubt because its playing the same game you are.
I know dozens of people who think this is a legit problem for Civ. Me personally, I don't mind if the AI cheats so long as they are realistically competitive. But there's no doubt that this kind of goal is a "holy grail" for AI design. By identifying this key problem, they look for a solution that makes the game top notch fun.
There are a lot of little tidbits in the interview. My point isn't whether Galactic Civilizations is a particularly great game. (Otherwise I would have called this thread "make Civ 4 more like galactic civs!!") I haven't played it, so I don't know. It could very well be crap. That's not the point.
But it would be nice to know that the Civ 4 developers "get it" -- that they're not just arbitrarily picking the coolest sounding feature. That's what impressed me about this interview, and why I use it as an example. I hope the Civ 4 developers are approaching the development of a new game from the same angle. They should identify the underlying gameplay problems in Civ 3 that make it less than perfect, and using those to discuss new goals for Civ 4.
Soren talked about a few things like corruption, or pollution. That gives me some optimism. But I'm curious if they're looking at the big picture about how to create a more perfect game than Civ 3?