What's the best part of a SCENARIO?

[CivPartisan]

Hey everyone!

Kobayashi has listed a question about creators, but this question is for everyone...I've been wondering...what exactly do you look forward too when you try a new scenario? Do like the sounds? The events? Maybe you like seeing these things in tandum or you just want play short scenarios? Do you prefer long scenarios or maybe you just like objective scenarios?

I am curious at what players look for. Myself, I like units...especially new art and unique units...if it's unusual, I will probably like it!

John

 

[SunTzu]

Well i myself like alot of things about scenarios, Gameplay is the most important thing, the scenario must be fun to play and addictive enough to keep with the scenario.
Graphics are one thing i like, events also are good

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Good topic for us folk who have a hard time creating our own scenarios!!!

I am more of a history buff, so I go for historical accuracy (In the scenarios that apply). But I like the idea of sitting down and being able to recreate history with a scenario, changing the "what ifs?" to reality. I like long, empire-building scenarios, just for the simple fact that I am not a big war-fighting kind of guy. So I would rather see if I can build an empire with what I am given, instead of a short-term bloodletting that (normally) is predetermined in many scenarios.

------------------
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at THAT man.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

The first thing is always units.

If they are crap, I won't play the scenario.

Second, terrain (if any), followed by icons.

Also, it must have a fairly large events file. (I won't read it, as I like to be surprised, but it must exist).

If the scenario passes the above the above criteria, I will try it.

Otherwise, it's deleated from my harddrive.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blast.gif" border=0><FONT size="4"><FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase:</FONT c><FONT COLOR="red"> I don't know</FONT c></FONT s><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">Tuatha De Denann Tribe</FONT c>

 

[kobayashi]

My first criterion is that the scenario is not to complicated. If there are too many cities and I can't figure out what to build soon I give up.

Second thing is that the scenario must evolve over time - new units, events, new improvements must appear ever so often till the game is more or less near the end game. If I go a few dozen turns and nothing changes -I give up.

I like the game to look and sound nice too but these are not as important as the above.

 

[Magnus]

I enjoy the beginning most. I like to check out the civ I have inherted and look it over and see what plan I am going to take. Seeing that plan blow up in my face comes a close second <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/supersaiyan.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Magnus (edited June 12, 2001).]

 

[PROMETHEUS_TS]

For me :
1) New Nice units
2) Good gameplay

 

[kIndal]

New graphics (units,cities...) are very important, could be good without them, but I always prefer something new.
For me is very important historical accuracy, I hate when somecity are wrong placed, someking are bad named , the flags aren´t the correct ones or there are a WOW that hadn´t been built in this period of time.
I like short scenarios but with a lot of war and speed. I don´t like the scenarios where you spend a lot of time trying to know what are defensive units which attack...I like the things more or less clear.
And last one: I don´t like when there are hundred of units and cities to check at the first turns.
P.s. I had forgotten, and the readmes short, please, I want to play when I download a scenario, not to read a encyclopedia.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

THE most important thing to me, is action that involves the player. Something should happen in the beginning to trigger off a player response, the need to defend, prepare for invasion, careful development etc. The "feel" should be right. Historical accuracy is fine, but it shouldn't stand in the way of player response. I dislike events taking over the scenario, but I like events that give the player(s) bonuses, if he/she does something right.

I once played a scenario claiming to depict the crusades, and I was going all about preparing for this, when all of a sudden events on turn #4 or so declared that the first crusaders (bogus units appearing) had already laid siege to Jerusalem, without me!! That was the end of that scenario to me! -Wasn't this what I was supposed to do?

-And yes! Interesting graphics work, innovative terrain and map layout. There's nothing more uninspiring than vast plains or grassland with 100 cities, without even a sailable river or some variety in the design that offer some interesting strategic challenges. -like combining different land, sea, or air forces to be able to conquer a city.

Scenarios that push the boundaries of the Civ2 framework -new ways of making the game tick -is also interesting, but I usually prefer the games where still the same old "conquer and rule" concept apply.

 

[oryx]

The first thing I check out are the units. If they pass muster, I'll play the game for a few turns. What I look for there is whether the scenario can be played in a reasonable amount of time, and whether it is winnable at all.

Another thing I look forward to in a quality scenario are the ways that the labels and dialogs are altered. Some of these can be quite amusing.

------------------
<FONT size="1">"There is no tiddle-taddle nor pibble-pabble in Pompey's camp." -- from Henry V</FONT s>

 

[Andrew Livings]

No pressure for new scenario creators then

For myself my ideal scenario is fairly open: even when they are objective-based scenarios you can still go your own way and get a good game out of it. Usually I play historical scenarios, and they have to be from a period I'm interested in, which narrows the field for choice, and narrows it further for non-objective scenarios. Then I like an emphasis on evolutionary conquest.

 

[CivPartisan]

Hey Guys,

After reading these posts, basically what everyone is saying is that VISUAL presentation has a lot to do with your decision to play a scenario; specifically, UNITS seem very important.

On another note, accuracy and events that depict the theme are crucial to keep your attention...(e.g. if it's a scenario about the Gulf War, you are expecting to see the Sadam Hussein unit, Republican Guard unit, and so forth, do something in an event, such as retreat...hehe)

It would also appear that if a scenario author has come this far, the details that the author addresses impact a players view of the author.

For instance, the Pedia was updated but not the Icons; the units look great, but the names are historically wrong; the events are out of order historically or logically; or finally, you just can't figure out how you can research STEAM DYNAMICS before you discover the WATER WHEEL.

Tell me more about this, your ideas can help reviewers!

John

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by JValdezToo:
After reading these posts, basically what everyone is saying is that VISUAL presentation has a lot to do with your decision to play a scenario; specifically, UNITS seem very important.

You bet, JV. The look is the main reason I like scenarios. No matter how historicaly accurate, or how well the events file or tech tree work, if the scenario doesn't look good, it isn't worth playing.

On another note, accuracy and events that depict the theme are crucial to keep your attention...(e.g. if it's a scenario about the Gulf War, you are expecting to see the Sadam Hussein unit, Republican Guard unit, and so forth, do something in an event, such as retreat...hehe)

It's what makes a scenario a scenario. Events are always a must, as they add atmosphere and accuracy to a scenario. (Or detract from it, if done poorly)

It would also appear that if a scenario author has come this far, the details that the author addresses impact a players view of the author.

Any author, scenario or otherwise, must keep his audience in mind, or he will surely fail.

For instance, the Pedia was updated but not the Icons; the units look great, but the names are historically wrong; the events are out of order historically or logically; or finally, you just can't figure out how you can research STEAM DYNAMICS before you discover the WATER WHEEL.

This can be a pain. I'm testing one now that has this kind of problem, in that you descouver heavy tanks before mobile warfare and light tanks! The problem is that the heavy tanks make the light ones obsolite, but because of a tech progression error, you can, in effect, skip a tech. This kind of mistake detracts from a scenario, but playtesters should detect it, if they are doing their job properly.

Tell me more about this, your ideas can help reviewers!

John

I think I have said enough for now!

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blast.gif" border=0><FONT size="4"><FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase:</FONT c><FONT COLOR="red"> I don't know</FONT c></FONT s><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">Tuatha De Denann Tribe</FONT c>

 

[Dark X 101]

I like events and a great story line, but like the others said, you have to have units that look good, fit well together, and go with the story line of the scenario. If the scenario doesn't have a good look, then I'll tell the person so, wether it be by E-mail or forum. If I think your scenario does not have a good storyline, I'll tell that person so, again by E-mail or forum. Now I just gotta play a scenario on C.F. and tell them so

.

Dark X

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

ALCIBIATIES:
The look is the main reason I like scenarios. No matter how historicaly accurate, or how well the events file or tech tree work, if the scenario doesn't look good, it isn't worth playing.

I agree most of the way. I must admit, that I hardly play the scens that just use all the standard gear of the classic game. I like to see new city styles, new geography/terrain, new unit types etc. And good sound fx is also VERY nice!

But all that said, I think it doesn't always take so much to make something look good and different. What I mean, is that the good scens don't need to revolutionize the concept of the game to be interesting. It can be enough to focus on certain types of terrain, or certain combinations of unit types or techs, to make the game tick. -The interesting, good idea does it. -But this usually involves changing the graphics too!

City placement, map layout, AI setup -all this can really get the game going. Good graphics or units doesn't help me, if this doesn't work out playable and exciting. -Personally I like to play the underdogs. The strong brutes are also nice, but I don't like large empire management, unless I conquered it first! Too many cities to begin with is fine, but not with one player, as there's no incite to conquest & strive for new gains or defend what's left. (Many cities do make room for tight strategy and lots of action, though. -But you won't bother irrigating the lands in those kind of warscens, as settler type units don't get much room.)

-I guess what I am saying, is that scenario makers don't need to change everything all the time. It can be enough to focus on a few aspects of the game, like making a minor incident in the "normal" Civ2 game into a major thing, and focus on the aspect that made this exciting in the first place. ...And small tribes with fewer cities can be more playable than huge donkeys, because you don't need to familiarize yourself with so much, before you can get into the game. -Building an empire is still what triggers me about this game -not being given that empire from day one!

 

[thedirk]

As a historian, I play scenarios to re-live history. Or in most cases re-write history, if only on my hard drive. For example, I like to play the American Revolution as the British and crush those upstart colonialists. Or play the origins of Rome as the Celts and pound Julius Ceasar into the ground.
So in short, I look for historical accuracy and scenarios designed to be played by a number of different civs.

 

[andycapp]

I prefer historical scenarios but I will try Sci-Fi and Fantasy scenarios. My favourite historical period is Medieval, particularly a scenario that involves the Byzantines.

I look for good quality graphics, particularly units: which should be reasonable historical representations but above all look good;
-terrain, I hate psychedelic colours;
-maps must be historically accurate including terrain;
-love to see new city types that look good and reflect the appropriate historical/cultural setting.

Whilst the quality of the graphics is the 'glitz' that will probably attract me to play a scenario in the first place, it is the quality of the game play that will determine whether I play it again. I am prepared to see historical accuracy sacrificed (as long as it's not glaringly stupid) for the sake of improving game play.

Well thoughtout events files can really make an historical scenario (the reverse is true too), not just by setting the scene and creating the historical atmosphere but also by adding to the game play. Well constructed random events will ensure the scenario holds interest to play again and again.

One of my pet hates in scenarios is too many cities. I find a scenario that really interests me, with great graphics and then I start to play and I see a zillion (slight exaggeration) cities I'm supposed to manage and I think, "you've gotta be kiddin' I'm outa here!"

I also think some scenario designers put a lot of work into their graphics and events file but spoil the scenario by not putting the same effort into the terrain - unfortunate, because well constructed, properly placed, good looking terrain adds not only to the atmosphere but also the game play. Creative use of barbarians can greatly add to a scenario by giving the impression that there are more civs in the game.

That will do for now but if I think of any more I'll post again.

One final dislike - a scenario that is suposed to be an 'English version' with units and/or cities that have a European version of the name/s

 

[CivPartisan]

Ok, let's see here...

It also seems to me that what I am hearing is that there is a strong need for a challenge to these scenarios. I am starting to realize that historical accuracy to a POINT is expected, but the scenario designer has to do something; SOMETHING that is within the boundaries of believable and just pushes the envelope enough to give the player the opportunity to "rewrite history on their hard drive" so to speak.

Well, if this is the case then "looks" get the attention but don't keep it no matter how accurate your history or storyline is if there is no challenge or loophole for changing history. In fact, and correct me if I am wrong, civers look forward to the challenge of "building an empire" that stands the test of time in whatever form presented. It's the challenge of building (not just staying alive)in dire circumstances then, that could be said to be the key to a great scenario or at least the focal point.

Also, I think sounds add more to a scenario than what most people realize. I am really very picky about "inappropriate" sounds. I just think that a mechanized unit making an elephant sound is super cheezy. At least give it the large explosion sound, no sound engineering required. (I say this because I recently played a scenario with a similar effect).

Quite a bit here to consider; AoA you're on the way to a Ph.D. in scenario play

These comments I hope, will also be read by scenario designers and maybe it will help them in their future scenarios.

John

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by JValdezToo:
Ok, let's see here...

It also seems to me that what I am hearing is that there is a strong need for a challenge to these scenarios. I am starting to realize that historical accuracy to a POINT is expected, but the scenario designer has to do something; SOMETHING that is within the boundaries of believable and just pushes the envelope enough to give the player the opportunity to "rewrite history on their hard drive" so to speak.

We used to say in the old wargaming days, that YOU make the history, but things are accurate from the starting position.
The civ-2 engine makes absolute historical accuracy immpossible, so slight distortions of history to game play are exceptable, as long as they are withen the preview of believeablity. Things like tanks and planes before the 20th century ruin a scenario.

Well, if this is the case then "looks" get the attention but don't keep it no matter how accurate your history or storyline is if there is no challenge or loophole for changing history. In fact, and correct me if I am wrong, civers look forward to the challenge of "building an empire" that stands the test of time in whatever form presented. It's the challenge of building (not just staying alive)in dire circumstances then, that could be said to be the key to a great scenario or at least the focal point.

Think of it this way. Imagine you had a date with, say Liz Hurley, a beautiful woman. You get all excited, and can't wait! Then when you meet her, she is shallow and stupid, and won't even talk to you, let alone anything else. You wouldn't bother with her again, I'm sure.
This is the same with scenarios. No matter who good it looks, it has to be worth your while. If it's boring, why play?
I personnally detest large numbers of units at start, but others like that. I prefer to build my own.

Also, I think sounds add more to a scenario than what most people realize. I am really very picky about "inappropriate" sounds. I just think that a mechanized unit making an elephant sound is super cheezy. At least give it the large explosion sound, no sound engineering required. (I say this because I recently played a scenario with a similar effect).

This is under appreciated in my book.
Sounds make all the difference. Take Kob's STBAQ for example. If it didn't have accurate sounds for the ships in the game, would you like it as much? Probaly not, but since he went the extra mile with the sounds, we get a classic instead of a good scenario.

Quite a bit here to consider; AoA you're on the way to a Ph.D. in scenario play

I'll be on my way to divorce court if I don't pay more attention to you know who!

These comments I hope, will also be read by scenario designers and maybe it will help them in their future scenarios.

John

I hope would be scenario reviewers also take these comments to heart when considering the relative merits of a given scenario.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blast.gif" border=0><FONT size="4"><FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase:</FONT c><FONT COLOR="red"> I don't know</FONT c></FONT s><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">Tuatha De Denann Tribe</FONT c>

 

[Exile]

Chris, you're such a know-it-all. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif" border=0>

So, are you gonna give your already-done-review of Modern Age to the new CivFan review league?

Huh? Huh?

Exile

[This message has been edited by Exile (edited June 26, 2001).]