Civ4 complexity

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Ok, it's obvious you really have no compelling arguments to pursue other than newbie calling, I think I'll just leave it at that and address other more intellingent posts.

My response to MrWhereItsAt had nothing to do with you being a newbie. You're just know you can't respond. I personally want it more complex, but through experience I know that developers have reasons for not making games complex.

The difference between newbies and people who aren't is that people who aren't can have substantive posts and still insult people. Newbies can only insult at one time, like you have in the post I'm responding to.

[Nuclear Winter]

OF course, as just a newby and all, and a non-marketing professional and, heh, I´m not even american! ( ) but I really think that a complex history-oriented game is something very interesting, and that in such a context the complexity adds to the feel of history. Of course, we´re not talking about making civ4 a micromanagement hell, just of making it full of options.

And experience tells most of the problems with micromanagement derive from failed gameplay systems rather than from excessive complexity of given games.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Nuclear Winter
And experience tells most of the problems with micromanagement derive from failed gameplay systems rather than from excessive complexity of given games.

And experience tells us that a lot of people quit games of Civ when they read a certain number of cities, because there is too much stuff to do. Thus, a lot of thought needs to go into new ideas to make sure they don't get too time consuming near the end of the game. And there really is a limit to how much time-consuming-whatever you can remove in terms of having many cities.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
I can't say how to implement this, but I just want micromanagement to be available, however, I would prefer that intelligent automation is available as well.

EDIT: I mean intelligent automation too. And by that I mean damn smart. Smarter than me. (Actually, that's not too good an example...how about smarter than TEH OMFG SID or TEH OMFG SORNE?)

The beauty of civ is that you decide how much complexity you want to add to it. Obviously you can't win Deity without some heavy dose of micromanaging and which is why they appeal to those hard-core complexity freaks. On the other hand, good regular players who don't even frequent boards can win Monarch with smart play but not resort to such overwhelming detail.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The beauty of civ is that you decide how much complexity you want to add to it. Obviously you can't win Deity without some heavy dose of micromanaging and which is why they appeal to those hard-core complexity freaks. On the other hand, good regular players who don't even frequent boards can win Monarch with smart play but not resort to such overwhelming detail.

You can win on diety with very little micromanagement and just 1 city....

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

And experience tells us that a lot of people quit games of Civ when they read a certain number of cities, because there is too much stuff to do. Thus, a lot of thought needs to go into new ideas to make sure they don't get too time consuming near the end of the game. And there really is a limit to how much time-consuming-whatever you can remove in terms of having many cities.

A lot = the great majority? Where are you basing your "experience" on? I for one have quit many games while also finished a whole bunch more, same with most people I know. You don't need to end games to enjoy them, moreso, the fact that you just bought the game pretty much proves that you did find some interest in it. Btw, I'll remind you you can set world size customizing it for those who like small quick games with a small number of civs and cities and those who enjoy gargantuan giant maps.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

You can win on diety with very little micromanagement and just 1 city....

... and with a HIGHLY beneficial start which less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of all random starts ever would allow.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Master Zen
A lot = the great majority? Where are you basing your "experience" on? I for one have quit many games while also finished a whole bunch more, same with most people I know. You don't need to end games to enjoy them, moreso, the fact that you just bought the game pretty much proves that you did find some interest in it. Btw, I'll remind you you can set world size customizing it for those who like small quick games with a small number of civs and cities and those who enjoy gargantuan giant maps.

I'm basing it on being in the community for over 7 years and talking with various developers. I know you don't need to end a game to have fun, and I know about map size. I'm saying that the majority of people don't want to deal with that much complexity. It's a shame because I like complexity. And don't get all your ideas from people on this forum about what people like. It's mainly dedicated people who go to this forum. There are a lot of casual gamers who don't browse forums and just want fun.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I'm rather disappointed that this is the attitude taken towards development. There are many areas in Civ3 which could definitely require additional sofistication while leaving others the same or simply ironing them out.

Refining existing features does not really increase complexity, at least at the user-end of the equation. It doesn't add a new feature, so it is doubtful it would require some other feature to be removed.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Master Zen
... and with a HIGHLY beneficial start which less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of all random starts ever would allow.

Now you're backtracking.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

I'm basing it on being in the community for over 7 years and talking with various developers. I know you don't need to end a game to have fun, and I know about map size. I'm saying that the majority of people don't want to deal with that much complexity. It's a shame because I like complexity. And don't get all your ideas from people on this forum about what people like. It's mainly dedicated people who go to this forum. There are a lot of casual gamers who don't browse forums and just want fun.

And they don't have fun playing Monarch and below? I was a regular Monarch winner before joining this site. Most people I know even being in this community have fun with the game without micromanaging so what's the point? The mad-micromanagers are a very small minority EVEN in "the community". As you can see, the majority of people have fun with Civ3's current complexity level and I see no real problem in making it a bit more so as long as it is done in a way which makes the game more fun. Civ2 did it wonderfully with respect to Civ1. Civ3 also accomplished this with respect to its predecessor, it's main drawback was not its increased complexity but rather many features which were far from being polished and actually detracted from the fun.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Now you're backtracking.

You are saying you can beat deity without micromanaging and with only one city. I dare you or anyone to accomplish this with 9 out of 10 starts. A regular deity game requires a lot of micromanaging, in constrast with the lower difficulty levels where it is not needed to win. As you can see, Civ3 allows both players who love complexity and those who don't to enjoy it.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Master Zen
it's main drawback was not its increased complexity but rather many features which were far from being polished and actually detracted from the fun.

And why do you expect it to be different this time?

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Master Zen
You are saying you can beat deity without micromanaging and with only one city. I dare you or anyone to accomplish this with 9 out of 10 starts. A regular deity game requires a lot of micromanaging, in constrast with the lower difficulty levels where it is not needed to win. As you can see, Civ3 allows both players who love complexity and those who don't to enjoy it.

You said "heavy dose of micromanaging" without any qualifier. If people can with it in a good position with 1 city, it doesn't take too much more to win it with a few more.

[Master Zen]

Civ2's additional complexity added GREATLY to the game. Not all of Civ3's complexity did. You cannot tell beforehand whether complexity will be good or bad to the game.

It seems to me that you and Soren are of the idea that complexity in itself is something bad and will make the game boring and daunting to a singificant majority of potential sellers. I disagree with that opinon with the reasons I have posted. I am of the opinion that complexity, added correctly, can greatly increase the quality and fun in Civ4. It is our jobs as members of the community to suggest these things which we think can make the game better and it is up to the developers to pay heed at these possibilities, not discard them off the bat thinking that the game is already as complex as it could get.