Civ4 complexity

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by 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.

This goes to the technology argument. Not everything in Civ2 was available technologically when Civ1 was out. Read my previous posts.

Originally posted by Master Zen
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.

Again, read my previous posts. I am not against complexity. I like it. I find it more enjoyable personally. But a lot of people don' tlike it. Firaxis, like Trip said, isn't just tossing out every idea either. Just don't expect everything you want to go in and automatically be looked at.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Trip
Soren Johnson, aka the Lead Designer for Civ 4, aka the guy who decides everything that will or will not be in the game, has stated that for every feature added to Civ 4 (compared with Civ 3), another would be taken out. This states, quite plainly, that Civ 4 isn't going to be any more complex than Civ 3.

You don't understand complexity at all.

Complexity is not the same as a heap of unrelated features. Complexity should come from deep interactions of a few well chosen principles.

Prime example is the game of Weichi (Go).

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

No, "change" as in you are glad it's different but lose respect for it because it didn't have the balls to stick up for it's beliefs.

Oh ask the guy... i'm not the author of this sentence and will not break my head on something that for a thing is pretty penny-pitching for me NOW.

But well... changes can be removals (for example remove the unit Zone of Control from civ2 to civ3), replacements (like civ2 city borders by culture borders) or modifications (rip off the civ2 Firepower system of the combat system, it is simplest even if some players don't like it, also it changes the whole battle balance)

Improves are to better link some aspects with other part of the game, like the whole technical thing, interfaces and even game features. Like is the firepower removal an improvement? It is only a modification as if it changes slitely the whole battle system, nothing can tell that it is just better, some players prefer it, some others prefer the old one, some others do not care and go with it. The fact is that there are more units, more action, more randomness. Funnier is a way, heavier in another way. In another hand, more units to build is another balance, like making the gameplay more enjoyable so in this way yes it is better, but it cannot go alone, it have to go with all other aspects of the game like buildings costs and importance, time of game etc...
Improvements are not just about one feature and one other feature, it is more like about the whole system of the game and its gameplay.

In which case goes the complexity? the first one probably, as a more complicated game does not do a better game for everybody. I would see luxury/moral as an improvement.
But depends on the public target so it could be counted as an improvement also.

So nothing is lost.

[Apocalypse]

My first post in this thread was more of a joke...everything else is pretty serious though.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
My first post in this thread was more of a joke...everything else is pretty serious though.

we will become great friends then.

[Apocalypse]

That's ok, I wasn't looking.

[DrGerry]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
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.

This is what you are doing.

For your knowledge, Master Zen was one of the beta testers of C3C

So "newbie"...

[Master Zen]

:sigh:

I still snicker when people think they have certain moral or intellectual authority over others because of post count/date registered/time in the community/massive ego/inferiority complex and that actually justifies them insulting others.

So utterly pathetic it's laughable. Some people just seriously need to grow up and get a life.

[Apocalypse]

Being a beta tester doesn't automatically bring a certain status. Anyone remember Thomas A. Stobie?

What I'm doing to trying to point out that these people know that a very complex game will not sell well. You can't have that much complexity optional too. It leads to the game being unpolished. I've repeated this and you ignore it because you are just on the issue on whether complexity is good or not. I'm on your side in that complexity makes a game more fun for me personally, but it's not the same for everyone. And that is why Firaxis isn't going add everything. No one is saying you can't suggest things. Just that don't be immature and cry if your idea doesn't get in.

[Master Zen]

Apocalypse what you still haven't been able to get into your little brain is that there AREN'T any special status, whether you were a beta tester, whether you have Brian Reynolds on your ICQ list or whether you were admin of a long defunct forum.

What matters is your knowledge of the game, and your ideas on how to make it better. Will all our ideas make it into Civ4? Of course not! But do we still have every right to suggest, to debate and to criticize in a civilized manner? Of course we do! No one is crying yet because we still don't know what will go in and what won't and NOTHING is definitive at this stage.

So, for the last time, drop the "i've been here before all you noobs" attitude because there are countless people with far greater civ experience than you have and can provide just as good ideas as you or anyone else. If you don't like them, so be it. You have every right to counter these ideas. But using the "you are noobs" excuse is simply immature and pathetic and is not likely to get your ideas any respect if you continue with that attitude.

That is all I have to say about this. This thread has been jacked enough but I will repeat my on-topic argument one last time: complexity in itself does not necessarily make the game better or worse and ideas which could add to the Civ experience should definitely be considered without having the mindset of taking out others just because the game is already as complex as it it should, because it isn't.

-MZ

[Apocalypse]

You've been the one who's been changing the subject. And you're just basing the game not being as complex as it should be on your own inflated opinion. The reason I'm saying regristation date can have meaning, is that people who've been around for a while have heard this argument before. We know the reponses and the reasoning. That's why it means something in this particular area. When it comes to strategy and things like that, newcomers can provide really good input, but on certain things, experience is an advantage. Grow up. I've never used "i've been here before all you noobs" - I use capital letters when needed and correct punctuation, as well and generally correct spelling. Your attack using that is a perfect example of how you've been ignoring what I've been saying and going on your own little tanget. Respond to what I'm actually saying and maybe you'll get a little more respect. It is not my intention to troll you, but a lot of people have told me to keep it up just because of your immature reactions. I, having better things to do, still don't set out to do this. I just provide input.

[Tassadar500]

Shall I get Ming in here?

[Naokaukodem]

Master Zen and Apocalypse are actors.

[Jon Shafer]

Apoc: If everything's already been thought of and discussed, why are we here rehashing things over and again?

[Apocalypse]

Not everything. I'm just saying *some* things don't change.