Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by bryanw1995, Dec 21, 2010.
Shaun Seckman (currently fixing modding and preparing the SDK in Civ V)
Most units can't move and fire. Very few can, in fact, other than *maybe* considering mutalisks (who just have a little bit of momentum after firing and don't truly move and fire), the only one I can think of isn't in competitive multiplayer.
It's not a real good gauge of how good/bad the game is. I'd imagine a whole slew of micromanaging / balance issues with lots of moving and firing, in fact I'd say that's why we don't see it. Starcraft and Starcraft 2 already have too many micromanagement issues.
//used to be addicted to competitive Starcraft 2 until I realized everything started to turn into "click faster"
Soren Johnson gets my vote. Civ needs the good solid foundation of Back to Basics in order to continue on. In Civ 4, Soren was able to provide that foundation to make a good game into a great game.
Yes but Soren has already designed a civ game. If Soren designed another the difference between it and IV would be approximate to the difference between SCI and SCII. It's not as if SCII's skirmish battles are all that different from the original. I would much rather see someone who hasn't designed a civ game before do it.
On the subject of Starcraft, no the only unit that can move and fire at the same time is the diamondback and it is single player only IIRC.
Sure. Because, as we know, talented creative people are only able to make one version of their work, and the rest are copies. Somebody should have informed Beethoven not to bother making any more symphonies, after the first one. Or piano sonatas. Or quartets.............
That is different. A video game is NOT a symphony! Civ is a video game, specifically one without a story. Your talking about a man making a sequel to a video game he has already done an iteration of. It would be civIV made with modern techniques and resources plus the extra what five? Six? years of experience he has gained since IV.
I don't see how it's necessary that a designer would make the same game twice. Even with the set expectations of what a Civ game is (why?), there's still room for experimentation and evolution by the same one person
Yes, a video game is not a symphony, and shoes are not gloves. But creativity works in similar fashion. A talented intelligence tactician will devise intelligence operations which are creative and original every time - or else they are ineffective. These operations are not symphonies, either, but those who plan them are able to plan more than just one in their lives. A talented perfumer will be able to create several successful fragrance compositions in his or her lifetime. A talented architect will design various buildings during his/her activity, and they will be very different from each other.
Intelligence operations, perfumes and buildings are all different fruits of a creative mind, but in each case, that creative mind is not exhausted after the first creation. How is a video game SO DIFFERENT from any other creative endeavor, that a game designer is only able to create only one original game, in his/her entire life?
He created the best ever mod for CIV, so let's give him a real shot at making a whole new version of Civilization. Definately not Rhye or Sullla. Civ is a strategy game, not a history simulation (rules out Rhye) and I really dislike Sullla's approach to the game (it seems that everything that does not benefit the player just personally offends him somehow)...
I'm not saying that a designer can only create one original game in their entire life. But your talking about making a sequel to a game that has no story and cannot have a story, inevitably they are going to be very similar in gameplay.
A hard choice.
I voted for Reynolds. It would be great to have him back from developing Facebook games. But still, a Civ designed by Kael or Sulla would be very interesting.
It would be awesome!!!
But seriously, I don't understand why you say he would create the same game again. Certainly the Civ series have aspects that could be improved (happines, religion, culture etc.).
A talented designer know how to make the game for its public and not himself. If he worked on Civ again, probably he would take it the way it is and improve/modify and create the way he thinks is best.
Let me cast my vote for Bruce Shelley, who history might someday give more credit for Rail-Tycoon and Civilization considering Sid Meier's startling lack of success as a lead designer of anything in the last decade.
I also have to cast a vote for Russel Williams. The little played game: Rails Across America is an excellent creative addition railroad gaming.
I don't have enough details concerning the names on the list to know for sure who I would want. But I voted for Sid just because I'd like to seem him take a crack at it.
I definately wouldn't want Sulla. He has some good ideas but some of his ideas are scary.
It does not matter who is a lead designer, the result does. But I doubt that man who can't even write his name correctly can build a functional game.
Separate names with a comma.