Suggest a feature

[ltcoljt]

I used to buy a lot of games, at least one new title at full price per month whether I was interested or not just on the principal of supporting the industry. Not anymore. I now only buy two or three titles a year all at bargin basement prices. Game companies will have to go back to work to earn my money. I won't pay for graphics and sound, if I want culture I can go to museums and concerts and socialize in the process. Games are supposed to provide immersive solo gameplay and/or platforms for competitions. It's gameplay I want and the thicker the better. Let them follow this folly but I will not fund it.

Baseball has been ruined by this sort of thing. If I can live without baseball, and I have, I can certainly live without civ. Geez, there was a time when I wrote five or six posts a day over two or three forums decrying the decline of civ and now I only go on these jaunts once every few months. Soon, I will not even care to do that.

 

[Hyronymus]

I can see why you felt like sharing your disappointment with us one time but 3 times (of which 2 in a row) is a bit overdone IMHO. Just curious btw if you consider Civ4 looking more like RoN a dumbing process btw.

I wanted to suggest a tiny feature too though so here it is: when negotiating with money it would be nice if your advisor automaticly fills in the maximum amount of money you can demand (in exchange or as a 'protection fee').

 

[ltcoljt]

I can see why you felt like sharing your disappointment with us one time but 3 times (of which 2 in a row) is a bit overdone IMHO. Just curious btw if you consider Civ4 looking more like RoN a dumbing process btw.

I wanted to suggest a tiny feature too though so here it is: when negotiating with money it would be nice if your advisor automaticly fills in the maximum amount of money you can demand (in exchange or as a 'protection fee').

Well, I can be a bit passionate about it. As for RON, haven't got it.

Your polite request for a tiny feature illustrates the problem; you are hopefully asking for something that should be in the game by default. There is absolutely no excuse why we should be exposed to the tedium of having to manually enter numbers as part of this trumped up negotiating system. This is just sorry and unacceptable design. I suppose if this is fixed for Civ4 they will expect to get credit, something like a child expecting a reward for not smearing crap on the bathroom walls during a tantrum.

For Firaxis, the joys of diminished consumer expectation. It's awful. If I were running the shop and was presented a game that required me to manually enter 105gpt, then 106gpt, then 107gpt..well, I would be looking to fire a programmer. There is no excuse for that. It is supposed to be a game, not a chore. As consumers we should demand competance and expect excellance, not accept inferior products and meekly request basic functionality like dogs.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm as critical of the business world and the 'profit over everything' mentality that pervades all of our society, especially art entertainment and culture. But I think you grossly underestimate the intelligence of those marketing the game.

There is NO WAY they're going to try to sell Civilization 4 to fans of Doom 3. Not because they don't want more fans and more sales, but because they're just not a logical target market. This would be the same as Sony going into the lawn care business -- it's just too far outside their niche.

In other words, the first rule is to pick a target market that you can appeal to with only small modifications.

For the Civilization franchise, there are two audiences they could steal a few fans from. One is from strategy fans -- whether real time strategy or turn based. The other is from simulator fans -- those who love the idea of building something and adding their personal touch to a huge project, be it a city, a theme park, or a galaxy. They might look at the most popular games in these genres and determine what makes them appealing.

And those are just if you look at game genres. If you look at topics, there's huge audiences to be reached in history buffs. Not to mention the growing number of gamers who never play the single player, but only play against friends and strangers.

None of these target markets involve dumbing down. Quite the contrary, they all involve interesting moves for the franchise, while still staying true to the core gameplay.

- Less micromanagement and more strategy for strategy fans
- Allow simulator fans to personalize their empire in new (and strategic) ways
- More history inspired features for history fans
- Design it with multiplayer right from the start, for multiplayer fans

The key, of course, is making all of these work in tandem. You can't sacrifice flexibility in personalizing your empire to pursue more historical features. You can't sacrifice a smooth multiplayer experience for a rich strategy.

(PS: I'd like to think we found a possible balance in "A Big Vision for Civilization 4", and I'd like to think that the developers are just as thoughtful, even if they don't arrive at the same conclusions as we did.)

(PPS: And be that as it may, I AM just the slightest bit worried that the developers will make "Civilization 3 in 3D", with one or two features that SOUND great but ultimately add nothing.)

 

[ltcoljt]

The big vision document has some good thinking in it and some bad, the point I am making is that Firaxis isn't even trying to make a good game better, with Civ3 and almost certainly with Civ4, it is only trying to minimize costs of production and maximize the market. What you fear is the best that you can hope for and the worst
of the possible outcomes lie far beyond the wall of darkness.

 

[dh_epic]

How do you know they aren't trying to make a good game better?

I think it's because you tacitly assume that maximizing the market is diametrically opposed to making a good game better. It isn't -- for all the reasons I focused on.

(Although you seemed to focus more on the two PS comments instead of the main points.)

 

[ltcoljt]

How do you know they aren't trying to make a good game better?

I think it's because you tacitly assume that maximizing the market is diametrically opposed to making a good game better. It isn't -- for all the reasons I focused on.

(Although you seemed to focus more on the two PS comments instead of the main points.)

Okay then, I will respond point by point, but it will take some time. I disagree with you.

 

[ltcoljt]

I'm as critical of the business world and the 'profit over everything' mentality that pervades all of our society, especially art entertainment and culture. But I think you grossly underestimate the intelligence of those marketing the game.

There is NO WAY they're going to try to sell Civilization 4 to fans of Doom 3. Not because they don't want more fans and more sales, but because they're just not a logical target market. This would be the same as Sony going into the lawn care business -- it's just too far outside their niche.

In other words, the first rule is to pick a target market that you can appeal to with only small modifications.

For the Civilization franchise, there are two audiences they could steal a few fans from. One is from strategy fans -- whether real time strategy or turn based. The other is from simulator fans -- those who love the idea of building something and adding their personal touch to a huge project, be it a city, a theme park, or a galaxy. They might look at the most popular games in these genres and determine what makes them appealing.

And those are just if you look at game genres. If you look at topics, there's huge audiences to be reached in history buffs. Not to mention the growing number of gamers who never play the single player, but only play against friends and strangers.

None of these target markets involve dumbing down. Quite the contrary, they all involve interesting moves for the franchise, while still staying true to the core gameplay.

- Less micromanagement and more strategy for strategy fans
- Allow simulator fans to personalize their empire in new (and strategic) ways
- More history inspired features for history fans
- Design it with multiplayer right from the start, for multiplayer fans

The key, of course, is making all of these work in tandem. You can't sacrifice flexibility in personalizing your empire to pursue more historical features. You can't sacrifice a smooth multiplayer experience for a rich strategy.

(PS: I'd like to think we found a possible balance in "A Big Vision for Civilization 4", and I'd like to think that the developers are just as thoughtful, even if they don't arrive at the same conclusions as we did.)

(PPS: And be that as it may, I AM just the slightest bit worried that the developers will make "Civilization 3 in 3D", with one or two features that SOUND great but ultimately add nothing.)

I do not underestimate the intelligence of those marketing the game; I think you misunderstand their purpose. I have followed the evolution of this game genre for years. Civ3 was a giant step backwards from its direct design predecessor, which was SMAC. In fact, Firaxis intentionally omitted many of the design improvements from SMAC, on the stated basis that they were not applicable to the Civ setting but that was clearly misleading. The fact is that SMAC was quite an achievement. Its primary flaw was the AI and rather than port the best of SMAC into Civ3 and then work on the AI Firaxis took the easier (and less expensive) track of dumbing the game down which made the AI seem better by comparison. The result was the worst Civ game in the series, but of course, the basic Civ addiction was still there. Civ is like sex; at its worst it is still good. We should not be willing to settle for bad Civ however.

What Firaxis is trying to do with Civ4, by their stated intention, is to broaden its appeal. I think they would be glad to woe over fans of Doom3 and many people who play that sort of game do play Civ. I played the original Doom to death. But what they are really trying to do is position Civ in the manner of Myst. Myst was a socially acceptable computer game for people who consider computer games as juvenile or beneath their social images. Civ is already close, but still retains enough of a geek factor that many people would not buy it as gifts for others as many did Myst. Myst was the game for people who bought computers as status symbols. They bought a computer and then they bought a game for it, and Myst was what they bought.

Civ is being morphed into that sort of product. And for fans of the original concept it will suck. Take micro-management for an example. The shallow gamer crowd, the Mystics, is attacking it as a negative aspect of the game. Well, micro-management is the very essence of the game that makes Civ addictive. Eliminate it and Civ is dead. But the problem is one of definition. Micro-management of the individual tiles or units or sliders that is central to excellent play is positive and essential. Moving 100 units and resolving repetitive combats is negative and is the direct result of poor design. That should be eliminated, but the garden variety of these Mystic gamers cannot discern the difference because they are the kind of dolt that can’t be arse to explore and discover the subtleties of the game, or arsed to grapple with even the slightest learning incline.

They can however infest our forums like the bubble headed sycophants they are. Firaxis wants to cater to this crowd, not in small measure because they realize that there are a lot of them, they have money, and they spend it. Also, Firaxis is aware that it is easier and cheaper to make games like this than superior games like SMAC. Firaxis can hire programming drones to make games for this crowd, no creative effort required. And they can do it for a fraction of the cost of designing something like SMAC or even Civ2.

I disagree with you on stealing strategy and simulator fans. I think true Civ, of the Civ2 or SMAC variety already appeals to these gamers in droves. Who do you think buys Civ games anyway?

I do think you have some good ideas about how to improve the game. Look at the incorporation of historical elements into EU. If Firaxis would only delve into that it would be a tremendous improvement. But it’s a matter of dollars and sense. Firaxis is not willing to commit the dollars to create that sort of product. It would not appeal to their business sense.

The difference between you and I is that you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Not I. My purpose is to be the voice in the wilderness crying that the Emperor has no clothes.

I want them to take the risk of attempting to make a great game rather than milking the cow.

 

[Conflicted!?]

I am always looking for customization in my units in strategy games. Like Earth 2150.

I vote for more customization of units!

I agree. I am tired of seeing people complain about micromanagement. I bought civ for this very reason, because I like having an element of control in my games, and a feeling of intellectual accomplishment. In civ3 I get this feeling, which is why I am hopelessly addicted.

 

[Hyronymus]

ltcoljt, maybe it's a good idea to start a seperate thread for your passionate quest for the perfect game. If you do so I sincerely hope you acknowlegde that whatever you think, feel, know or seem to notice doesn't necessarily reflect THE truth. You're being pretty dogmatic and that's not a good starting point to spark a debate.

 

[ltcoljt]

ltcoljt, maybe it's a good idea to start a seperate thread for your passionate quest for the perfect game. If you do so I sincerely hope you acknowlegde that whatever you think, feel, know or seem to notice doesn't necessarily reflect THE truth. You're being pretty dogmatic and that's not a good starting point to spark a debate.

I am quite certain, sir, that whatever I may be saying is true, at the moment I am saying it.

I am not interested in having a debate, I insist on having the final word.

Your sincere hopes are not my concern and, sir, my acknowledgements are none of yours.

 

[dh_epic]

Itcoljt, it seems to me like your hard feelings rest on two respects. One is that Civilization should have been more like a space game, another is that micromanagement is the essence of Civ. Both I disagree with, in spite of the fact that I think the game needs to make huge strides forward, at risk of stagnating.

When you get right back to it, most of the people on these forums are hardcore gamers. In fact, most of the people on the forums are hardcore civ fans. You won't be hard pressed to find anyone who's played RoN, SMAC, GalCiv, AoE, CtP, and so on. Strangely enough, I've only played a demo of GalCiv because it came up on these forums. And I think there are lots of people who play AoE or even Warcraft, for example, who have very little experience or interest in Civ.

In other words, there's a large overlap between Civ fans and fans of other strategy games, but it's a huge market that Civ has not yet monopolized. To have no fans to steal in the strategy genre, Civ would have to be the equivelent of Microsoft Windows. Just as Windows has a 95% market share of every person using a computer, Civilization would need to have 95% market share of every person playing a strategy game. It's not there yet.

And reaching these people isn't a question of dumbing the game down, but of making it more interesting.

Of course they could make Civilization real-time and create units with magic powers and futuristic craziness, but I don't see them doing that.

They're getting rid of corruption and pollution, which -- while realistic -- were not a challenge but a nuisance. The question is what they'll replace it with, and what else they'll be able to replace.

 

[Hyronymus]

I fully agree with you, dh_epic.