Do you agree with Will Wright? Is Civ 4 too daunting?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Solver
I don't really think it's fair to say that most games are complex for most people. I'm not of a too high opinion about the intelligence of some people, but frankly, everyone who's a teenager, not to mention adults, has what it takes to play Doom. Of course, if they want to, and if they want to get over the technical stuff. Even controls counts as technical stuff.

Main problem with games like Doom and other FPS games is that it seems to give a lot of people headaches, that's a complaint I frequently hear from non-gamers and quite often from gamers (but strategy or RPG gamers) as well.

Aside from that, yes, getting over the 'technical stuff' IS a big deal for most non-gamers. Yes, of course they are intelligent enough for it -- your average eight-year-old gets it. But for most people learning that stuff and dealing with that doesn't constitute as fun, and that's the magic word when it comes to gaming. They'd do it if it was their job, if they got paid for it, but it's not something they like to do in their free time. And even if they do get over that, FPS games are all about speed and reflexes. A lot of people don't regard that as fun at all, certainly not if the speed curve goes up so fast. With a game like Tetris it starts off really slow and very gradually goes faster and faster. Shooters may have training and easy starting levels but for many people that's still too much: moving, aiming, shooting, taking cover and being shot at all at the same time -- that's a lot to process for someone who's never played a game before and who barely knows how to use a mouse (probably more than 50% of computer users still don't understand the difference between clicking and double-clicking -- both my parents always double-click everything and then blame the computer if something happens twice -- and even then they misclick half the time as well, which is of course also the computer's fault)...

We had to learn all that stuff as well a long, long time ago, but we (or at least I) saw it as a challenge: a goal to reach, something to strive for and to perfect as much as possible. A lot of people just see it as a chore.

If asked to explain Civ, I just say that it's a boardgame on a computer. That's what, in essence, Civ and TBS games are. You could even play Civ4 on a tabletop board, only you'd have a lot of dice rolling and a lot of numbers to keep track of.

So they know what Civ is about, that doesn't make them players yet. Knowing what chess is about (which most people do) and actually playing the game and having fun doing so (which relatively few people do) are two entirely different things.

[CagedCrado]

The Sims is fun but it doesnt have the sort of appeal that other games have, IE you quickly run out of things to do because even though you set your own goals, there arent enough goals to feasibly keep you interested more than a day every once in a while.

Sim City requires most of the same skills that Civ 4 does, management, making decisions at the right times, making a virtual system that grows and changes because of your actions (etc)

Civ tends to last longer for me because you could theoretically play a different game every single time you play. You dont have to research straight to code of laws and get the oracle for civil service, to spice up the next game you can research straight to music and do a culture bomb. You can play as saladin and spread islam to all the cities of the world and reap gold profits from mecca. There are so many ways to play civ that sim city pales in comparison

[Alex]

Well, at least Wright said something that actually makes sense: games like Civ4 are becoming niche games, because they cater to a specific group of people, the strategy hardcore people. Sure, anyone can pick up a copy of Civ4 and play it and have fun in the lowest difficult levels, but only the true hardcore strategy lovers will be able to get the most out of what the game offers.

Civ is a strong franchise, but it is the only successful TBS franchise I can remember. Why is it that we don't hear about other developers working on TBS games anymore? (I mean big studios like EA, for instance). Because this kind of game does not sell enough to justify the investment.

Despite all the efforts from Firaxis to make Civ4 friendly to new users - and they were successful in my point of view - Civ4 is somehow daunting to new players, because most people got used to the simplicity of console games. Few teenagers choose the PC as their prime gaming platform, most of them have a PS2 or a Xbox or whatever these days, and console games simply cannot provide the same level of subtlety and complexity we find (and love) in a PC game, at least not so far.

I was actually surprised when I played Civ4 for the first time and I noticed how deep and strategically interesting the game was. I was expecting a dumbed down version of Civ, but that old magic called intelligence is still present in the game, and I think that part of it is due to the involvement of civ players during the development phase.

So I understand Wright's point of view, but I disagree with him, because I want to actually put my brain to good use when I play a strategy game like Civ.

[Lembit]

As someone who had not played any Civ games before CivIV I think I may be qualified to comment on not only my own experiences but also how they contrast with those of Mr. Wright. (Actually I played the first Civ Game years ago but at the time I was too young and stupid to appreciate it, I'm a lot cleverer now).

At first I have to admit I found it a little daunting, I read the 150+ pages of the manual before I even installed the game and thought that there was no way I would be able to hold all of the relevant information in my head without pushing out other vital information (like my partner's name) to make room. This all changed after playing the tutorial through to 1585 and then playing a full game on settler level (which I was surprised to win, although crudely in retrospect) by which time I realised I would have little need to know my partner's name.

Over the next few months I persevered and was constantly surprised and excited by the added layers of complexity that can be incorporated into my game playing style to allow me to progress through the levels. The only other real strategy games I had played before this was Settlers III which I loved (I used to play this on my Amiga) and Sim City which I would enjoy for one game until there came a point where I would just go through the motions. I don't think I ever completed a second game.

I feel that Will Wright is underestimating the consumer, if I had only glanced at the manual then played the tutorial I feel I would have fared just as well. It is quite possible to play the lower levels in Civ IV without taking into consideration many of the underlying game mechanics. In my first games I had little care for generating great people, city management and even religion and chose which techs to research mearly on a whim.

The thing I found about Sim City is that there is pretty much an optimum play-style which needs little adaption from game to game where Civ IV there are a multitude of tactics which need to be recombined differently even in almost identical games. Sim City may sell more, but I bet Civ is played more.

[Sarxis]

To me cIV is simplistic compared to SMAC and AoM. So not daunting to me; but then again I like depth and complexity so its easy to see why I'd think this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Solver
I don't see why anyone should be in the one camp but not the other. I'm a hardcore Civ fan, and I don't like Will Wright's games, but that doesn't make me treat him personally with any kind of disrespect or such. It's just clear that the games Will and Sid make are very, very different.

It's not disrespect. It's just, as you said, Will Wright makes games with no real goals, except what the player gives, ie toys. Some games are simplistic and some are complex. To say that complex games should be simplified because they are 'too daunting' to newcomers, is silly coming from Will Wright because he doesn't make any complex games. He doesn't do the genre that he is asking change from.

[Locutus]

He's not saying complex games should be simplified, he's just saying complex games don't appeal to mass audiences -- and that's where he's right (58 million people can't be wrong )

[Urban Ranger]

There isn't a mass market. There are only a whole bunch of niche markets. Each market has its own idiosyncrasies. To appeal to a bunch of markets, you remove the bits in your game that go against these idiosyncrasies. However, some of these are mutually exclusive, so, you will come to a point that you have maxed out the potential market with a very simple and bland game.

[Mudhut]

Hmm. At first, I read Will's comments and scornfully laughed at his failure to understand the whole point of a strategy game.

But then I thought about it a bit more, and I can see some basis for what he said.

How many of you hung the tutorial because you'd done something out of order? Remember desperately trying to work out how you could select one particular unit in your stack of 30? Every other Civ hated you because you'd "traded with their worst enemy", but you couldn't work out who that was!

Now, I've been playing since Civ 1, and so none of these took me too long to work out. But there are definitely issues for the new player, particularly with regard to user interface and a few of the more difficult concepts.

So IMHO Will is right to a certain degree.

But of course, he primarily fails to understand that Civ's appeal is in its depth.

It's like taking people scuba diving for the first time. you can do a lot to make people comfortable: explain how everything works, slowly get them used to it. But there are always the Wills of this world, who would prefer to paddle in the pool because the depths of the ocean are just too scary - no matter how slowly you try and work them up to it. That's fine, they can stay in the pool and splash. But me, I'll take the ocean depths any day.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Locutus
He's not saying complex games should be simplified, he's just saying complex games don't appeal to mass audiences -- and that's where he's right (58 million people can't be wrong )

UR is right. Civ isn't about appealing to the masses! The masses don't want to play turn based strategy. So the question is, what is Wright trying to achieve by saying Civ4 is too daunting? The only other possible explination is that it should be simplified.

Civ is a niche market, like most games. Most gamers will camp in a few niches. Few will play all sorts of games, but you will find RPGers, TBS guys, RTS players, FPS junkies, and MMORPG addicts. Most of these games will not appeal to the 'masses', but that's not the point. If they try to appeal to the 'masses' with those type of games, they won't make money, because the gamers who will put in the time and effort required to enjoy the games will be put off. While the masses will find it too complex to begin with.

Even an RPG that sells well, like Oblivion, is part of a niche market and requires complexity to get the majority of its audience, RPGers (who may ***** and while anyway).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So the question is, what is Wright trying to achieve by saying Civ4 is too daunting?

I think Will Wright wants to develop SimCiv

"Play a Sim in an empire that is going to stand the test of time! Start as a slave, work hard, move up in the ranks, and you too may become emperor one day. (yeah right).

"If you don't get pop-rushed first, that is."

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I think Will Wright wants to develop SimCiv

"Play a Sim in an empire that is going to stand the test of time! Start as a slave, work hard, move up in the ranks, and you too may become emperor one day. (yeah right).

"If you don't get pop-rushed first, that is."

So when is SimCity 5 coming out?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And will it be as 'daunting' as SC4?

[Rommel2D]

What was so 'approachable' about the original Civilization? Crude graphics?

[Silver14]

The original civ came out in the early 90's. The graphics weren't crude for the time.