It's not nonsense. I already demolished the argument that it was. If information that a player should have is being withheld from him, he cannot make an informed decision. Many examples have already been given of extremely useful quests attached to seemingly useless buildings that a player would prioritize completely differently if he actually knew the real consequences of his decision. When a player decides to not build an Institute he should know that he is forgoing a free technology. That is so simple a principle that it borders on axiomatic. I cannot believe someone is actually debating that.
The vast majority of people derive fun from games, particularly strategy games, which Civ undeniably is, by making informed decisions and witnessing the positive results that vindicate those decisions. If that type of player cannot make informed decisions then he cannot meaningfully play or enjoy a game. Imagine trying to play a parallel version of chess where a certain number of legal moves will be randomly disabled each turn. You cannot make any meaningful decisions because any plan you make might be foiled for absolutely no reason at any time. The game would be pointless. It would cease to be a game.
I fully understand that there are some people that would prefer to play thoughtlessly, and think that such a playstyle is more fun. I will readily admit to not being able to understand how anyone could possibly enjoy that. Still, if those people want the option to hide information, there can be an option in the game settings to do that. But to make that the default option is absolutely indefensible.
Gentlemen, if you have a minute: The quest tooltip mod is done.
I think it actually gives *a lot* of insight into how they designed the tech web and that some techs are much better than expected. For example now it is obvious that the techs next to Computing all have buildings with spy related quests.
Download: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=334376779
Most bonuses just don't matter enough. +1 gold or +1 hammers? Well, who cares. That's such a small bonus that it doesn't really make a difference. Yes, they probably add up but they feel meaningless. Even if the +1 hammer wasn't just worth so much more, the quest would still be boring.
I'm all for building quests, but they need to define how the buildings work and give real bonuses instead of little output-increases that just don't really change anything.
Also, more choices that are specifically tailored to be more useful for specific types of empires. "+2 Health and 100% cost increase or 20% cost decrease + maintenance free."; "+5 Gold per Building, but Building limited to 5 cities or +1 Gold"; "+5 Hammers, but building costs 1 titanium or +1 Food", etc.
You didn't demolish anything, all you did was repeating the stuff that shows that you have a very narrow view of how the game can/should be played. Some players are just FINE with not being able to make all the informed decisions in their first games. And after that it becomes less of an issue anyway.It's not nonsense. I already demolished the argument that it was. If information that a player should have is being withheld from him, he cannot make an informed decision.
It's funny, because you think you're the main demographic. Simple truth is: Most players never got further than Emporer in Civ 5. Most players won't really care about the information. Most people don't see it as puzzle that must be solved as fast as possible, they just play it as an empire-builder and have fun while doing so. So no, there's nothing indefensible about that. If you want more information, there is now a mod that adds all the quest bonuses to the tooltips.I fully understand that there are some people that would prefer to play thoughtlessly, and think that such a playstyle is more fun. I will readily admit to not being able to understand how anyone could possibly enjoy that. Still, if those people want the option to hide information, there can be an option in the game settings to do that. But to make that the default option is absolutely indefensible.
Well, there are a few really strong quests, but with a few exceptions all of them are no-brainers. I know I probably want to build a fence rather early, get the autoplant for the free trade route and time my free tech right, but quests that give a real, meaningful decision? Very few.You just didn't really find the really good quests yet and think all quests are like this, right? There's some extremely powerful quests hidden behind some buildings and knowing these quests can make or break a match.
Yeah, again: What keeps you from writing down the quest rewards, looking them up in external sources or - and yeah, that's not possible at the moment but should be - look them up in the Civilopedia. "Some of you" play competitive multiplayer, sure, key point of the argument: Most of you don't.The quests should be part of the building description. We're not playing some obscure RPG here with stuff hidden all over the world, we're playing a 4X game, some of us in a competitive multiplayer environment and we like planning ahead.
It's funny, because you think you're the main demographic. Simple truth is: Most players never got further than Emporer in Civ 5. Most players won't really care about the information. Most people don't see it as puzzle that must be solved as fast as possible, they just play it as an empire-builder and have fun while doing so. So no, there's nothing indefensible about that. If you want more information, there is now a mod that adds all the quest bonuses to the tooltips.
Yeah, again: What keeps you from writing down the quest rewards, looking them up in external sources or - and yeah, that's not possible at the moment but should be - look them up in the Civilopedia. "Some of you" play competitive multiplayer, sure, key point of the argument: Most of you don't.
The developer makes a game for his audience. If his audience likes not to have all the information or just doesn't care about having all the information, then there's no reason to put all the information into the games UI. You spend a lot of time explaining what a game should and should not be like without ever explaining why that is the case. Who if not the majority of the games audience decides what a game "should" look like? Where do you draw these conclusions from? Sounds like you're just giving your opinion but making it sound like those were facts.Look, when you play civ, are you pressing random buttons? No? Then you are trying to make informed decisions. So actually, everyone is in "my demographic," including you, even though you will refuse to recognize that. Even if the typical player is so apathetic so as to not care about game quality for it's own sake (as they should be, as they can go play any other game until this game is patched), that is no excuse for the developer, who existentially should care about making a quality game. There are only a few axiomatic principles that all games should aspire to uphold. An intuitive and informative UI is one of them.
I'm sorry, but if you really think there has EVER been a game that had more than 3 rules and was able to be played "perfectly" without using external sources to fuel your knowledge, then... I really don't know in what kind of delusional world you live. Also, getting building for their quests are surely not "basic decisions". That's advanced strategy. And your answer doesn't even make sense - I already SAID that these information should be available in the Civilopedia ingame.Again, there is no way that any quality game should ever *force* a player to use external resources just to make basic decisions.
I don't know about you, but when I started gaming in 1993 or something, having pen and paper lying next to me was a given for many games. ^^ Sure, games have evolved, but still today, what's so bad about writing down stuff? I do that all the time when I'm playing a game for the first time.You should NEVER have to write down anything from game to game.
The fact that this stuff isn't even documented is terrible
If the actual quest rewards aren't in the tooltip there should be at the absolute Minimum part of the tooltip that says quest rewards are available in the civilopedia (and they should actually be available there)
The point is the game should not make information complicated to find out.
But yeah, sure. They should put it in the Civilopedia. Still don't like the tooltip-stuff though.
Look, when you play civ, are you pressing random buttons? No? Then you are trying to make informed decisions. So actually, everyone is in "my demographic," including you, even though you will refuse to recognize that. Even if the typical player is so apathetic so as to not care about game quality for it's own sake (as they should be, as they can go play any other game until this game is patched), that is no excuse for the developer, who existentially should care about making a quality game. There are only a few axiomatic principles that all games should aspire to uphold. An intuitive and informative UI is one of them.
Again, there is no way that any quality game should ever *force* a player to use external resources just to make basic decisions.
No, I just like the quests being available as replacement for random events for new players.As in you don't like tooltips in general?
ie your tiles and cities don't display yields, so you just tell your city to build a clinic and 'its done when its done'...if you want to know build times then check the civpedia and pull out a calculator.
The issue is the UI should make potentially useful information easy to find.
If you want to ignore it and play blind, then put the tooltip delay on 10 seconds.
You cannot make any meaningful decisions because any plan you make might be foiled for absolutely no reason at any time. The game would be pointless. It would cease to be a game.
I'm pretty sure quests are the stopgap answer to the problem of players having too little to do due to Civ V slowing expansion and production rates (because of 1UPT). This was probably revealed in testing so they started throwing things in to keep the player clicking on something.
Look, when you play civ, are you pressing random buttons? No? Then you are trying to make informed decisions. So actually, everyone is in "my demographic," including you, even though you will refuse to recognize that. Even if the typical player is so apathetic so as to not care about game quality for it's own sake (as they should be, as they can go play any other game until this game is patched), that is no excuse for the developer, who existentially should care about making a quality game. There are only a few axiomatic principles that all games should aspire to uphold. An intuitive and informative UI is one of them.
Again, there is no way that any quality game should ever *force* a player to use external resources just to make basic decisions.
There is another game that doesn't tell you much about how to play it. Maybe you have heard of it, its a little game called Minecraft. It doesn't tell you how to make sticks, or make a pick, or anything else.
Adding an advanced option that shows them in the tooltip.
Except that its not about difficulty but about immersion.Hidden gameplay rules and consequences that are not reasonably knowable before committing are fake difficulty, and strategy games should have no place for fake difficulty. In a genre where you choices are supposed to matter, it's vexing the amount of hand-holding players get, only to have inaccessible-to-new-player junk tossed in alongside :/.