Beyond the Sword: A Betrayal of Soren's Vision?

[Willem]

Originally posted by monkspider
Espionage: Beyond the historical absurdity that the new espionage slider presents (when has a country dedicated 10-20% of it's national budget to espionage?!), it adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the game. One thing Soren has said he wanted to do was avoid was the overpowered spies from Civ II. While I don't think things will reach that level in BtS, I think it will put a larger emphasis on espionage than Soren would have done.

What's historically absurd about Spies appearing earlier in the game? Nations have had spies far longer than just in the modern era. Gaining information on an enemy through covert means is not at all a modern development. I think if anything having them appear earlier in the game makes them more realistic.

[joncha]

I don't think he mentioned earlier spies anywhere in the passage you quoted.

[Krill]

[q=Targonis]Since I don't believe that Solver gets money from Firaxis, then a lot of your post isn't being fair. Beta testers are under NDA, that much is true, and they should not post negative comments as well. BUT, Solver would not post a positive comment either if he didn't like what he was seeing. Posting negative comments would be bad, but posting "wait and see" comments imply that he is generally satisfied with what he is seeing. If he didn't post at all, that would say more about the negatives and less about the positives.[/q]

As is Solver over the past month has either posted positive comments, or argued against people who have said that they are worried. From his post in this thread. I'll repeat what I said before, no tester can say anything negative. Nothing, nada, their lips are sealed with superglue. So IF there is anything bad, anything unbalanced or just plain broken, then no one outside Friaxis and the testers will know about it (though the testers will likely not know about one or two broken things, testers aren't perfect).

Hence Solver is biased, it is impossible for any tester to be without breaking their NDA.

The next thing about "Wait and See" comments is that you have too look at hte person who is making them. Solver, for example, likes long games, that take days to complete and he doesn't like warmongering, whereas I prefer quick games that I can get through in a matter of hours where I can be an evil bastard slaughtering poo helpless AIs. The people like Solver, who want the same gameplay as Solver, will indeed be happy with such a reply from Solver, whereas people who perfer a style of game more similar to my own will not.

[eris]

[SIZE=1]


The next thing about "Wait and See" comments is that you have too look at hte person who is making them. Solver, for example, likes long games, that take days to complete and he doesn't like warmongering, whereas I prefer quick games that I can get through in a matter of hours where I can be an evil bastard slaughtering poo helpless AIs. The people like Solver, who want the same gameplay as Solver, will indeed be happy with such a reply from Solver, whereas people who perfer a style of game more similar to my own will not.

You are very perceptive and correct about some of the play style issues. I like long involved games, too, and am therefore excited about many of the hints given. To me, Warlords had a lot of interesting stuff, but was seemingly not as aware of my general play as it could be. I perceive the Beyond the Sword hints as moving the ever swinging pendulum a little back towards my side. Who knows? We are all guessing.

However, I am not sure the changes will terribly affect your militant scour-the-world play style. Much of that play style seems to be inflicted by skilled and aggressive players well earlier in the game than many of the Beyond the Sword features. I have a feeling folks such as yourself will end up looking at things in a "More early Wonders? Fine. That's more to take from someone else." mode, and the poor hapless AI citizens will yet again toil under your relentless tyranny.

As to the original post, parts of it reflect something I observed early in Civ4 discussions. Everyone talked about what genius it was to simplify and streamline the game in so many ways. Then, in the very next breath, everyone wanted their favorite feature or suggestion added. Now we complain about complexity being added! We are a shizophrenic fan base at least. That Civ4 satisfies (or enrages) so many different folk so deeply is evidence of reason for great praise.

[mkorin]

Re: Beyond the Sword: A Betrayal of Soren's Vision?

Originally posted by monkspider
This one reminds me all too much of a another certain expansion that notoriously focused on adding as many new "toys" as possible, at the expense of game balance, namely Civ III: Conquests.

I certainly hope BTS lives up to Conquests. Warlords and the inital expansion to Civ III were not worth the money. BTS looks like it will add much to the game and you can always turn off what you don't like. I am excited to at least try everyone of the new concepts including espionage. The current spy is so lackluster that it removes any real usage for it.

[ben04]

Re: Beyond the Sword: A Betrayal of Soren's Vision?

-More Units like anti-tank, curaisser, Privateers,etc: One of Soren's big goals for Civ IV was to remove unnecessary units like the paratooper. Now in BTS, they are being added right back in. This is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.

On the sea I like to see new units. The game is just to simplistic here. About the paratrooper I honestly do not know what to think. I've never seen a well balanced one so...

-More Techs/Expanded Space Race:One thing that Soren said about Civ III was that it was about 100 turns too long, and one problem he wanted to avoid was dragging the game out when it was clear that a victor had been decided. In BTS, there are new techs being added to the modern era and a space race that is not won until a spaceship actually lands in Alpha Centauri (as opposed to merely being launched). Most players would agree that a game is already decided by the time the modern age is reached a majority of the time. All this does is drag the game out and is completely unnecessary.

If you start in the ancient age then yes it will seem too long to wait for a space win when the game basically is decided. On the other they also try to change the UN and introduce it much earlier and therefore also the diplomatic victory will be changed. Perhaps you will win that way before you get to dominant.

If on the other hand the AI does play good for once and can keep up till the modern age then that age is much too short and is unplayable without the space race disabled. It is however a lot of fun as planes add a whole new strategic aspect to the game.

Also if you start at a latter age then the techs will need to last also longer.

However, their current implementation breaks the game by letting Civs do a complete end-run around the game's resource model. Previously, a source of tension in the modern age was the scarcity of key resources like oil and aluminium.

However I don't like that source. The consequence of somebody not having oil is that he's meat. That's just too simplistic.

Now with corporations, if you lack oil, you can simply use the Standard Ethanol Corp. to convert rice, sugar, or corn to oil! Need Aluminum? Use Aluminum Inc to create it from coal. All strategies of resource denial are right out the window. This may well be the most egregious of the changes in the game. Soren designed the resource model a very specific way and corporations allow players to completely bypass it.

To be honest I dislike the resource system the way it is now. Perhaps it will get better.

New Wonders: This is more debatable, but five new wonders with most of them showing up in the early game is not a good call in my opinion. The only wonder whose effect has been revealed was the Statue of Zeus which adds more war weariness to the game. I don't believe that more war weariness is something the game needs.

Here I agree with you.

Native Americans: While not a true betrayal of Soren's vision, it is just a horrible name and I highly doubt that Soren would have let such a bad idea gain any traction.

Actually a civ named "minor civs" nearly got into the release. It actually is in but not activated.

There are some who might recall that I was one of the most enthusiastic and optimistic posters regarding the Warlords expansion (which I still feel was an excellent expansion).

I think it was a joke, what did it add? A few scenarios that you play once an forget again. Some very slight balance issues were solved. A useless GG was added which actually disbalances slightly the game as it allows you to pump out highly promoted units at a very high rate overpowering warmongering even more. Actually I wonder if the patch devaluing the CS slingshot didn't have a greater influence on the core game than the expansion pack.

I'll at least try BTS out. If it's a bad one can always play warlords and one lost nothing. However it might very well make the core game a lot more fun.

[yin26]

We are ALL biased posters...biased toward what we like. This is the idea behind my reviews in the past where the person reading selects from a menu of responses. I'm working on a spin-off of that idea for BtS, but it's VERY hard to write a review in a way that is objective both about the game and about how myriad different gamers would respond to them. Overall, Solver is about the best reviewer out there in this regard.

[Krill]

Yeah, which is why I said wwait for the reviews, and don't judge him (and others) on what he has said while still under NDA. (Yes I know all the testers will still be under NDA afterwards, but the testers can then atleast voice their opinions).

[yin26]

For that matter, reviews by "professionals" are even more biased. If nothing else, you're hearing from people who played the game a fraction of what guys like Solver has. I hardly read professional reviews any more. Frankly, if you've come to trust Solver, no reason to change now.

[Thedrin]

Re: Beyond the Sword: A Betrayal of Soren's Vision?

The more new features I hear about, the more worried I get. But I'll wait to hear more details. With the exception of new wonders, there isn't any game feature which is obviously bad for game play - just lots of new features which could be mishandled. I was delighted to hear about visible trade routes but that could prove to be a disaster.

Originally posted by monkspider
-More Units like anti-tank, curaisser, Privateers,etc: One of Soren's big goals for Civ IV was to remove unnecessary units like the paratooper. Now in BTS, they are being added right back in. This is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.

I have no problem with more units as long as each of them has a specific and necessary purpose - most probably as part of a paper-rock-scissors system - and a long enough time length during which it can be used.

I was under the impression that the problem with paratroopers was not that they were useless but that the AI couldn't use them making them unbalanced in single player. If the AI can make use of them I will welcome their inclusion.

-More Techs/Expanded Space Race:One thing that Soren said about Civ III was that it was about 100 turns too long, and one problem he wanted to avoid was dragging the game out when it was clear that a victor had been decided. In BTS, there are new techs being added to the modern era and a space race that is not won until a spaceship actually lands in Alpha Centauri (as opposed to merely being launched). Most players would agree that a game is already decided by the time the modern age is reached a majority of the time. All this does is drag the game out and is completely unnecessary

In agreement with Cybershy - an extended end game is only a problem if it has no bearing on the end result.

The possibility that an empire might split could potentially go a long way to expanding the competitive range of the game.

Espionage: Beyond the historical absurdity that the new espionage slider presents (when has a country dedicated 10-20% of it's national budget to espionage?!), it adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the game. One thing Soren has said he wanted to do was avoid was the overpowered spies from Civ II. While I don't think things will reach that level in BtS, I think it will put a larger emphasis on espionage than Soren would have done.

In Civ terms, devoting commerce to an espionage slider is little different from devoting part of a national budget to furthering foreign policy aims. What is historically absurd about that? Rename the slider if you want to.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Krill
Solver, you do understand that you are possibly the most biased poster here with regards to BtS? As a tester, you can't post anything about the game that isn't already public knowledge. If you posted anything negative, then you're liable to get sued by Firaxis, so you're unlikely to do that and so only post positive items about the game.

Hey, but you know I like it. Check the forums a year ago, when Warlords was in development. I didn't post positive stuff back then. I was under a NDA as much as I am now, but I think Warlords to be an average expansion at best, so I didn't post any good stuff pre-release.

Besides, that isn't bias anyway. I may be somewhat biased because I am involved with the game, but I do frankly believe that my ability to judge objectively remains solid.

EDIT: But yes, I'm not pretending to be voicing my full opinion on the game now. I wouldn't be able to even if there were no NDA - it isn't gold yet. When I publish my review of BtS, that will constitute my full opinion.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by yin26
For that matter, reviews by "professionals" are even more biased. If nothing else, you're hearing from people who played the game a fraction of what guys like Solver has. I hardly read professional reviews any more. Frankly, if you've come to trust Solver, no reason to change now.

IMHO Solver's reviews are much better than the professional reviews. Besides, why pay for a professional review from a magazine or game guide when Solver's is better quality and free? He tells it like it is, and if he really likes it, you know it's good.

[Solver]

Solver's is [..] free

Now, there's an idea

[Murg]

Soren is an amazing designer and I wouldn't dare to speak for his opinions one way or another. But I was most impressed with his removal of the un-fun aspects from civ and ways to make the core mechanics of the game fun.

Thats really the trick, not in cutting features or in adding features. Neither of those 2 extremes is the goal, its making sure that the feature is enjoybale and adds to gameplay enough to be worthwile.

I'll let Soren speak for himself, from the "How to design a mod" interview:

Q: How do you balance between complex ideas that bring new elements to the game and the difficulty they cause casual players?

(Soren Johnson) The best place to introduce complex ideas are at the fringes, in places where the player doesn't have to understand the complexities if they he or she doesn't want to. For example, many Civ4 players probably didn't realize how Great People probabilities are calculated - but not knowing the details didn't necessarily stop them from progressing and enjoying the occasional Great Person that they got naturally.

And when asked what his favorite games of 2006 were he listed Fall from Heaven among them (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-t...1&postcount=45). A game that adds tons of new features on top of those already present in Civ4.

Again I don't know what Soren really thinks. But from what I have read of his work I think he is okay with adds as long as they make the game more fun. If he cut paratroopers its because they werent fun enough in that implementation. Not because not having paratroopers alone makes the game better or worse.

[Solver]

Solver, for example, likes long games, that take days to complete and he doesn't like warmongering, whereas I prefer quick games that I can get through in a matter of hours where I can be an evil bastard slaughtering poo helpless AIs. The people like Solver, who want the same gameplay as Solver, will indeed be happy with such a reply from Solver, whereas people who perfer a style of game more similar to my own will not.

That's not entirely correct, BTW. You're quite right about my tastes, but most game features are independent on what speed you prefer. Things like espionage and corporations are either balanced or not, and either fun or not - no matter if you like Epic or Quick.

Granted, BtS will probably appeal more to builders than to warmongers, but I believe the quality of an expansion doesn't depend on playstyle as much as you imply.