Selecting levels of Game Play.

[Robert]

Cranc out a few ultra-complex turns is cool too

[Brent]

I don't see why a new player couldn't start with a simple version of Civ4 and eventually use all the advanced features.

Should the simple version include only 8 or so Civs?

I think I'd be willing to pay $100 for the game if they want to make it too complicated for the mass market. If it were to cost more I guess I could wait for the price to come down, as long as it would still have a printed manual.

I think some newbies would be just fine with a complicated version.

[Apocalypse]

A lot of people aren't paying $100 though. MAYBE for a really, really good collectors edition that came with some expensive stuff. Games haven't been in that range for around a decade though.With a $40 or $50 game, a lot of people can get it fairly easily, since it's not too hard to save up a little extra entertainment money. But something like that, unless you have a lot of spending money already, it's hard to save up over a time since you end up spending things on dates and other things.

And the whole "version" thing makes me cringe since it reaks of a lack of customizability. Civ is fine with just having some features that can turn off and on.

And having it be both complex and not complex would really **** with the AI, so you can't have both.

[Drachasor]

Too complicated => less people buy the game

More expensive => less people buy the game

They probably wouldn't make money doing both. I know I like intricacies, but I wouldn't pay 100 dollars for the game, and certainly not 150-180.

I'd much prefer the game had DEPTH as opposed to complexity, and there is a big difference. Chess has depth, but it isn't that complicated. (that seems to be the favorite example of people on the boards). Go also has depth, and it isn't complicated.

I hear MOO3 was fairly complicated though, but I never played it.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

[SIZE=1] And the whole "version" thing makes me cringe since it reaks of a lack of customizability. Civ is fine with just having some features that can turn off and on.

And having it be both complex and not complex would really **** with the AI, so you can't have both.

That is my concern too. If people need to slowly learn the game, have some tutorials where they only need to learn a couple new skills to play. Then they can learn step by step.

-Drachasor

[Brent]

I guess having separate AI for the simple game and the complex game wouldn't go over well with you guys?

I guess depth at the expense of complexity would strain my brain. I don't play the game to be challenged, I guess you could say I play it for a simulation.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Brent
I guess having separate AI for the simple game and the complex game wouldn't go over well with you guys?

I guess depth at the expense of complexity would strain my brain. I don't play the game to be challenged, I guess you could say I play it for a simulation.

Well, play it for whatever you want, but most people play for fun. I am sure you don't actually want a simulation, because Civ is so far from one it isn't even funny. It has some core ideas that are somewhat simulative, but many, many implementations (such as the length of wars and your control of your civilization) are terribly unrealistic.

If you just want to mess around with ye olde empire, and not be challenged, then play it on a setting you find fairly easy or routine.

While I would like unclear cause and effect, or variable cause and effect (variable based on what else is going on), the fact is that when you add those thing in, usually you are already sacrificing a lot of realism. Hence the nuances of reality are already so sacrificed that it is hard to tell what nuances they have put in and which ones they have left out. With nuanced complexity this is a big deal, as a nuance or two left out could mean what you do has the opposite effect it would have had in a more realistic setting. Hence, it is hard to work in.

Now, assuming you don't even want that kind of complexity, then what kind do you want? Simulated battles between units, where it goes into a minigame? I don't mind that, and hopefully it can be scripted in. Overall it would be pretty abuseable though.

Or do you want lots of micromanagement? If the game doesn't offer you enough, then I would be a bit shocked and surprised. The fact is though, that the more micromanagement you add into the game, the longer and longer a game takes to play. This means fewer and fewer people finish their games. Hence it isn't as fun, hence it isn't reviewed a highly, etc, etc.

Anyhow, the best strategy for people who want more complexity than what will come in the box is for them to advocate for a very good scripting system so it can be added in by those who want it. That or become millionaires and finances their own game, because more complexity + higher selling price = far fewer people buying -> no profit. Not a good business decision.

Them's the ropes.

-Drachasor

[Brent]

Well I do play for fun, but for me easy is fun. Hence my taste for Infinite Rail Movement and Civ2's Leo's Workshop. I don't need it to be true to history but I want the feeling of running an empire, particularly certain ones. Playing on a low setting is what I do and will do, but I want options. I want many civs to be available so the ones I want will be there. I want authentic city names, and optional authentic subordinate characters would be nice. It would be nice if peace were as fun as war. It would be nice to have the option of a whole game where everything is internal to my civ, maybe focus on politics.

Just answering questions...

[punkbass2000]

I think peace is much more fun than war.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Brent
I guess having separate AI for the simple game and the complex game wouldn't go over well with you guys?

I guess depth at the expense of complexity would strain my brain. I don't play the game to be challenged, I guess you could say I play it for a simulation.

It's very bad since it drains resources.