"Too Many Clicks!"

[Piscator]

Don't you think that there's a problem when you consider late-game tedium and carpal-tunnel-inducing numbers of clicks to be an integral part of the game?

Yes, there is a problem there that it is not fun to play anymore (for me, others might like it). So I don't play that Either I try to win before or I use the diplomatic victory as escape. Or I don't finish a game at all. But hey, by then I've had my share of fun, so I don't mind much... And I still have to build my first spaceship part...

My critisism on Fireaxis is that they bug-test enough, but don't playtest enough (if at all on some scenario's in Warlords). In terms of playing time, the balance between begin game (too fast) and end game (too slow) is major. And well, rally points are worthless as they work now. But at least Fireaxis seems a game company that does something with critism as I see a huge improvement between Civ3 and Civ4. And as I said before, the article is weak that it targets Civ3 and not Civ4, just about assuming it's the same without actually trying it. Or assuming that because it has a 3D engine, it can't be better.

The part in the article about UI interface profiling is quite interesting and definately something game designers should consider doing in their design/development process to improve games. Actually, I played a RTS game last year (Empire Earh II) which kept track of number of mouse-clicks and keystrokes. And it had a number of innovating tools for resource allocation and strategic warfare. I think I averaged about 600 mouse-clicks and 400 keystrokes an hour and a friend of mine 1000 mouse-clicks and 250 keystrokes. In retrospect, this sounds a bit much too...

@nc-1701. Sorry, I misinterpreted you. I was a bit triggered off by the idea of giving commands through a military advisors screen and directing them to a general area.

 

[SewerStarFish]

Not a bad article. As one of an apparent few who enjoy the end game: I disagree with rule of 7 but that may be because I'll slow down and check more than the average player. Unlike real life is turn based and thus there is no rush to give orders.

I think many Civ players would enjoy some form of victory extrapolation for retirement. I've often read in the forums of the frustration of playing out the end game when the player knows the probable result. E.G. you're way ahead in tech control a good portion of the globe and have the wherewithal to win any way you might opt, but don't feel like playing the hour or two to finish.

 

[agnosticpope]

I totally agree the game gets bogged down the later it becomes.

The biggest issue is early game, you have let's say 20 units throughout your empire while late game there's easily 100. The simplest way to alleviate this is to simply make units much more expensive (say 3x) but also more powerful (so that it's not to your advantage to go up the tech tree). This reduces the number of units in the game by ~3 times. There's no reason a city should be able to build a military unit EVERY TURN.

Rather than merely having "groups", "armies" would be a nice idea for Civ to have. Explicitly put units in and out of an army that moves together rather than using its last grouping.

Thirdly, where is repeat build (I know it exists!) and why can't I have a rally point? I'd rather simply set a bunch of units to autobuild, put them in an army and be done.

Lastly, I despise how oceans work in Civ. It's a pita to transfer anything over the ocean. I have to click a unit, give it a transport, move it across the ocean, then get the unit off the boat. Why not simply abstract the concept and allow certain units to move over water after you reach a research advance (like Alpha Centari. They simply turn into boats, but are defenseless against ocean-going wepaons. If we still want to have transports, have a "freighter pool" and each unit moving across the ocean "uses" one and when he gets on land, he "returns it" to the pool. Anyone can use a freighter from a pool in any location.)

Smaller maps do help enormously, but I still wish I could play a full game of Civ4 in a couple hours.

 

[iheartponeez]

Does this guy even realize that Civ3 is a TURN-BASED game?

He uses the word "turn" quite a lot, counting how absurd the amount of clicks/keystrokes/pans PER TURN it took him. So yes. Do you have a point?

 

[iheartponeez]

Yes, there is a problem there that it is not fun to play anymore (for me, others might like it). So I don't play that Either I try to win before or I use the diplomatic victory as escape. Or I don't finish a game at all. But hey, by then I've had my share of fun, so I don't mind much... And I still have to build my first spaceship part...

My critisism on Fireaxis is that they bug-test enough, but don't playtest enough (if at all on some scenario's in Warlords). In terms of playing time, the balance between begin game (too fast) and end game (too slow) is major. And well, rally points are worthless as they work now. But at least Fireaxis seems a game company that does something with critism as I see a huge improvement between Civ3 and Civ4. And as I said before, the article is weak that it targets Civ3 and not Civ4, just about assuming it's the same without actually trying it. Or assuming that because it has a 3D engine, it can't be better.

I think we're on the same level here. I find the early game quite interesting, and exciting, but by the mid-to-late game, it's a bunch of chores I'm just completing for the payoff. I understand that people who enjoy micromanagement can keep playing, and I can quit and start over, but why should I only enjoy half a game?

I don't know if the author blindly judged Civ 4. For all we know, he may have been told to stay away from it by a friend or something. I don't want to just say that he assumed.

That's all.

 

[Dagoril]

Honestly I never really noticed the clicking in Civ3 or Civ4. There are keyboard shortcuts for most things too.

Diablo2, on the other hand, had so much excessive clicking that I can only play it for maybe 2 days at a time, it's just too rough on my hands.

Starcraft and Warcraft were also kind of bad.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Honestly I never really noticed the clicking in Civ3 or Civ4. There are keyboard shortcuts for most things too.

Diablo2, on the other hand, had so much excessive clicking that I can only play it for maybe 2 days at a time, it's just too rough on my hands.

Starcraft and Warcraft were also kind of bad.

You're taking it too literally. It's not, literally, the number of clicks. It's the time it takes to play, because you are making too many trivial but independent decisions. Diablo is pretty different, because you may think a lot more, but you aren't making a separate strategic decision with each click; you're just doing a lot of fairly automatic actions in pursuit of a single overall plan.

 

[DaveMcW]

So what's the problem? The problem is that designing a good, high-level interface, that doesn't make the player pay a huge penalty compared to direct control, is really, really hard. No one has been able to do it, or get close.

I wonder... is Civ4 worker management NP-complete or EXPTIME?

 

[jalapeno_dude]

It all comes down to strategy vs. tactics. Assuming that AI doesn't get as good as humans, you won't be able to offer both in a game and then realistically expect people to automate the tactics. Games that aren't overwhelming (and overwhelming can be good--see Spore or Civ(!!!)) shouldn't try to have play on multiple levels.

 

[Aloysius]

Shamefuly I must admit I have something in common with the author Philip Goetz. I too love Civ3.
Goetz said he never bought Civ IV. I bought it and I also don't play it. Civ IV (or the stategy guide) touted as an improvement "no more wack a mole aproach to pollution control". I really didn't mind chasing down pollution. If I was efficient with terrain improvements what were my workers to do except remain idle? Ah, just extra clicks.
Is there an option to watch the computer play itself? Maybe Philip would like to sit back, take the strain off his evidentely limp wrist, and watch events unfold without having to dirty his hands with the actual work of tactics.
Sheeze, somebody should give him his "keystroke score" for typing his article. If hitting a key or moving a mouse is so difficult, why bother?
Philip Goetz, why don't you pick up a telephone and call someboby who cares?
aloysius

 

[iheartponeez]

Shamefuly I must admit I have something in common with the author Philip Goetz. I too love Civ3.
Goetz said he never bought Civ IV. I bought it and I also don't play it. Civ IV (or the stategy guide) touted as an improvement "no more wack a mole aproach to pollution control". I really didn't mind chasing down pollution. If I was efficient with terrain improvements what were my workers to do except remain idle? Ah, just extra clicks.
Is there an option to watch the computer play itself? Maybe Philip would like to sit back, take the strain off his evidentely limp wrist, and watch events unfold without having to dirty his hands with the actual work of tactics.
Sheeze, somebody should give him his "keystroke score" for typing his article. If hitting a key or moving a mouse is so difficult, why bother?
Philip Goetz, why don't you pick up a telephone and call someboby who cares?
aloysius

Your post makes it abundantly clear that you missed the point of the article. Specifically your belief that he wants to "watch the computer play," or is unconcerned with tactics, or that "moving a mouse is so difficult." If you'd like me to help you understand the article, feel free to PM me and I'll help you read through it.

 

[Charles 22]

Author makes some very valid points, no doubt about that. Designing a user interface is one of the hardest things about creating games, and the Civilization games are no exception to that rule. I found it interesting that the author chose to use Civ3 for his paper, and specifically two extremely tedious game elements (moving hundreds of workers and haggling over pennies on the diplomatic screen) which were eliminated for Civ4. The most recent Civ game was actually designed to remove the problem of needing hundreds of workers, and with a single click you can figure out exactly what the AI is willing to give you in diplomatic negotiations.

That doesn't take away from the validity of the argument, but it's a bit of a strawman tactic to focus on interface problems which WERE adressed in a game's sequel.

The article is spot-on at the theoretical level, but I start having my doubts about the actual implementation of some of these ideas. The author seems to be suggesting that games should be streamlined by removing direct control over units, cities, etc. Instead he appears to want the player to work through governor mediators, who would deal with the nuts and bolts details of the game. Well - that's a noble goal, and maybe a designer will be able to implement such a vision successfully one day, but I'm a bit leery of the overall idea. This very concept was attempted by the game Master of Orion III, and it was one of the biggest duds ever. You literally had to fight the game's automation to issue any orders, and if you weren't willing to do that, the game would play ITSELF with no input, building fleets and settling new colonies on its own. It was possible to click "next turn" 200 times and win the game without doing anything. All in all, it was one of the least-entertaining games of all time.

So again, it may be sound in theory, but when you start taking away control of the game from the player, you may not be left with very much stuff that would constitute fun!

Thats' basically the point I was making earlier, that you don't know just how awful the to-date implementation of such as idea has been. A lot of people talk about terrible AI in games, and you would think that for what AI focus any game may have, would certainly be more focused on an opponent's AI as opposed to some supposedly friendly AI that makes your job easy.

Like I alluded to earlier, there are people who don't have the time to play, so they dream about this nonsense, whereas the people who HAVE played these ideas out in games know how pointless it all is to one who can play for extended periods. It's not that extended play makes you want to click 100 times to build up power for some unit, but that there is such a thing as any given action being worth it's clicking and there is such a thing as a pointless click and a pointless let-the-computer-do-it. There's an easy way to get what he wants, just watch somebody else play and you won't have to click at all. Of course the player may ignore you just like the AI might do, but that's another subject.

 

[Aloysius]

to iheartponeez
I take the greatest umbrance to your second sentence.
Did I say he wants to "watch the computer play"? No I did not. I asked if there is an option available to watch the computer play itself. Your use of quotation marks in this instance is reprehensible.
Did I say he is unconcerned with tactics? Certainly not. Nobody wants to lose. I stated perhaps he does not want to have a hands on approach to this issue.
Did I say he finds moving a mouse or typing is difficult? Yes. Wasn't that the point of the article? Oh, keeping track of more than seven objects can't be done by the human mind. It's not fun anymore.
I think the people who enjoy Civ3 are above the average intelligence. I think they can track hundreds of units and if they make a mistake, that's part of being human - not a computer. If Civ3 is so messed up why treat it as the benchmark of stategic games?
Young lady, we live in a free enterprise society. If you think smokers bother you at the bar, go to a bar that does not allow smoking. The bar should thrive with enough like minded people. This is a form of natural selection (theory of evolution). By the same concept, deprive yourself of a wonderful and unique game like Civ3 if you feel you can not handle the physical requirements to play a pc game. If you want a better game, make it yourself. I'm sounding like my hero Ayn Rand right now.
In ending, if you keep up "quoting" people out of context, you might be able to get a job with mainsteam media.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I'm sounding like my hero Ayn Rand right now.

To me, also. And that is definitely not a compliment!

 

[Charles 22]

No-No-No.

Thats not what I mean. I don't want the AI to control your stuff any more than it does now. I just want you to move your soldiers as large groups that can be split or added to and can cover more than a single sqaure of the map. This is still civ but a far more realistic combat movement system than is currently used by ending the unit system. The AI would not have any control battles would still be fought by the RNM. This way the arbitrary 'units' can be broken down or added onto continuosly. Similarly to civ4's grouped stacks except all the troops would engage at once instead of the unrealistic one after the other approach. It would be similar to the armys vs units except you could remove and any number of units to your armys. Just imagine each HP represents 1,000 people Instead of healing units you 'add' them to another unit wars would be fought basicly by pileing all your units into several large mga-units with hundreds of hp. That can later be broken down agan after the war. All this could be handled from the military advisor screen.

The AI would not be given control of it. All that would happen is that you would a better more fluidic interface as aposed to the rigid unit based interface. This would be more realistic, faster, less clicking, and allow more time for diplomacy ad other usefull things.

I think you're wanting what the game already provides. You can group units together in a hex. the only difference is that instead of making one click to move say 50 units in one group covering 5 spaces, you would instead move 5 10 units groups in 5 spaces. I really don't think a lot of us realize just how much clcik reducing potential is in the group concept. I just don't know the particulars like just what unit will attack first and so on, but experience ought to clear that up.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I think you're wanting what the game already provides. You can group units together in a hex. the only difference is that instead of making one click to move say 50 units in one group covering 5 spaces, you would instead move 5 10 units groups in 5 spaces. I really don't think a lot of us realize just how much clcik reducing potential is in the group concept. I just don't know the particulars like just what unit will attack first and so on, but experience ought to clear that up.

The problem is that you get significant tactical advantages by moving all of your units separately. So, you can move them in groups, but you're paying a penalty to do so. Just like automating workers, etc.

If the game made you move your units in groups, or at least gave you a benefit from doing so, that might be much better, than just making it an option (but an option that you know is costing you, whenever you use it).

I don't buy the argument that some have made that you can't reduce the micromanagement without making the game like MOO3. Most everyone seems to agree that the first 100-200 turns of Civ3/4 are just right. The problem is just that the game scales out of control. Only one new idea is needed, I think, to make the later stages of the game capture the playability of the earlier stages. We just haven't discovered that one idea, yet. But it's different than making Civ be like MOO3, where beginning, middle, and end were all unfun.

 

[Charles 22]

The problem is that you get significant tactical advantages by moving all of your units separately. So, you can move them in groups, but you're paying a penalty to do so. Just like automating workers, etc.

If the game made you move your units in groups, or at least gave you a benefit from doing so, that might be much better, than just making it an option (but an option that you know is costing you, whenever you use it).

I don't buy the argument that some have made that you can't reduce the micromanagement without making the game like MOO3. Most everyone seems to agree that the first 100-200 turns of Civ3/4 are just right. The problem is just that the game scales out of control. Only one new idea is needed, I think, to make the later stages of the game capture the playability of the earlier stages. We just haven't discovered that one idea, yet. But it's different than making Civ be like MOO3, where beginning, middle, and end were all unfun.

Just to touch on your latter point first if I may. I don't like the first 200 turns, they're almost worse than the end. There is basically no fighting, and in my games anyway it's a matter of dodging animals with a few scouts; far too purposeless to be the cream of the game. That was the part of the game that made we quit after the first hour, the first time I played it, because it was so much more boring, or so it seemed, compared to civ3 (probably lack of music did that actually). There's such a thing as too many units, but the first 200 turns is far too few units and far too much scouting in general.

As for your first point, if you just mish-mash a bunch of units together your group movement will hit some disadvantages, but it needn't be that way. Remember, we're talking hundreds of units for the civ and not 50-100, though there is a level of tedium for even that. For example you could group together 30 units of various movement rates, totally destroying the more mobile movement, or you could group them into seperate 15 unit groups: one movement of one, the other movement of two. I really think the end-game problem with groups is just that people don't want to adapt to trying group-think and instead think they should be able to one unit it all the way. So if your mid-game you're moving 10 units a turn, and late game am moving 100, it's perfectly clear that attaining the ten moves a turn isn't that far away if you can learn to manage groups very well. It's not like you can't move nay individual units for whatever edge that may give, but that we can simpplify it if we want. having said that, I'm not so sure it works all that well, but at least when it comes down to moving from one spot to the other it can be done better than just sticking to individual units. If I ever get warlords to let me play a 12 civ huge marathon without skitzing out, I will learn these advantages and be thoroughly enjoying the end game I imagine. I just love tanks!

 

[DaviddesJ]

Just to touch on your latter point first if I may. I don't like the first 200 turns, they're almost worse than the end. There is basically no fighting, and in my games anyway it's a matter of dodging animals with a few scouts; far too purposeless to be the cream of the game.

Civ4 is about managing your production and workers. The "fighting" is definitely secondary, although it can take most of the time. If you really are interested primarily in the fighting, why are you playing Civ, instead of an alternative game that has a lot more emphasis on tactics without all of that annoying economic development that you find uninteresting?

For example you could group together 30 units of various movement rates, totally destroying the more mobile movement, or you could group them into seperate 15 unit groups: one movement of one, the other movement of two.

You're paying a huge penalty, either way.

 

[iheartponeez]

to iheartponeez
I take the greatest umbrance to your second sentence.
Did I say he wants to "watch the computer play"? No I did not. I asked if there is an option available to watch the computer play itself. Your use of quotation marks in this instance is reprehensible.
Did I say he is unconcerned with tactics? Certainly not. Nobody wants to lose. I stated perhaps he does not want to have a hands on approach to this issue.
Did I say he finds moving a mouse or typing is difficult? Yes. Wasn't that the point of the article? Oh, keeping track of more than seven objects can't be done by the human mind. It's not fun anymore.
I think the people who enjoy Civ3 are above the average intelligence. I think they can track hundreds of units and if they make a mistake, that's part of being human - not a computer. If Civ3 is so messed up why treat it as the benchmark of stategic games?
Young lady, we live in a free enterprise society. If you think smokers bother you at the bar, go to a bar that does not allow smoking. The bar should thrive with enough like minded people. This is a form of natural selection (theory of evolution). By the same concept, deprive yourself of a wonderful and unique game like Civ3 if you feel you can not handle the physical requirements to play a pc game. If you want a better game, make it yourself. I'm sounding like my hero Ayn Rand right now.
In ending, if you keep up "quoting" people out of context, you might be able to get a job with mainsteam media.

1. "Umbrance" isn't a word. You're trying to say "umbrage."

2. Please look up "reprehensible." You're really stretching with that word.

3. "Maybe Philip would like to sit back, take the strain off his evidentely limp wrist, and watch events unfold without having to dirty his hands with the actual work of tactics."

Right here you very blantantly suggested that he was unconcerned with tactics.

4. The "rule of seven" is obviously not a hard-and-fast rule, since the human mind is variable, as he even elucidates with his Chess example. That said, it is supported with quite a bit of research, and more importantly it demonstrates that the amount of objects one can reliably track is not limitless.


And that's just the beginning. Here's where you REALLY went wrong:

It's not that he finds typing difficult, it's that he (along with quite a few others) find the EXTREMES that Civ goes to to be hyperbolic. What you are not understanding is that the sheer amount of micromanagement is not inherent to a good Civ game. You seem to be under the impression that an unwieldy amount of clicks is part of the "ambiance" of your bar analogy, but it simply isn't.

To put it as David Hume would, "Is does not mean ought," which is to say that just because Civ 4 IS full of clicks, does not mean it OUGHT to be, and that there's no alternative. There are a number of ways that the game could be altered, and improved while staying true to what it is, and perhaps even becoming a truer, deeper approximation. The concept is to deepen strategy and complexity while reducing sheer tedium that STANDS IN for complexity.

You will find yourself in the extreme minority if you claim that having to manuever 100 units per turn, for 50+ turns just to conquer the last two enemies that I am obviously going to destroy anyway is a positive part of the Civ 4 interface. I understand if you are willing to put up with it, but that's different than actually enjoying it. Many are willing to tolerate the ridiculous amount of management, very few actually find it entertaining, especially compared the early "sweet-spot" of the game. Firaxis is a damn good company with some very intelligent employees. Notice that in Civ 4 some of the micromanagement aspects have been removed by simply allowing overflow. I assume you were unhappy with this change, as you believe that if one wanted to play a Civ game with overflow, they should have found another bar, but thankfully Firaxis saw things differently. Now, I fully believe that the pros at Firaxis can continue this trend, hopefully in a more radical way, and streamline the game while using the "mental space" freed up by this streamlining to deepen some of the potential strategies.

Another issue I take with your post is that, ostensibly, you believe that Mr. Goetz's "clicks issue" is that it's too challenging for him. The problem is not that so many objects is a challenge, it's simply tedious. If it were hundreds of distinct objects with numerous different jobs and abilities, goals, etc. it would be a different story, but in reality it's 80 of the same unit type, all sent to the same part of the map, one after another to do the same thing. That's not intelligent thought, or useful challenge, it's busywork.

Finally, the last problem is your belief that Civilization is a static entity which is what it is, and will not change. That is simply a fallacy. If it were true, we would all be playing Civ 1 right now, but instead changes are made to the system over and over again. I don't have to make a better game myself because Firaxis is hard at work doing it for me!

Now, I'm sorry that I had to go explain the whole article to you, but there you go. Better luck formulating a coherent argument next time.

PS: You do sound like Rand, which is to say you sound like someone with anger issues ranting about pieces of writing they barely understand. With you it's Phillip's article, with her it was Kant.

PPS: This is what being served feels like.

PPPS: I'm a fellow, not a lady, but I actually think it a compliment if my writing comes off as feminine.

 

[Pvblivs]

Philip Goetz, why don't you pick up a telephone and call someboby who cares?

With your above-average intellect (as you love Civ3 I hopefully concluded this correctly) and polite advertence you'll have noticed for sure that the authors point is not that he doesn't like to move his computers mouse but that he discovered issues in some famous computer game(s) like 1 turn lasts half an hour in a turn based strategy game without very much to happen during this turn except lots of mouse moving. I think the authors point is rather about game evolution and improvement.

If and only if this game should ever improve in such a way, we're very fine if you just continue to playing Civ3. You see, a fitting solution can be found for everyone, for those who are curious to try something new and for those who like it old-style.