Civ3 Interview: JEFF MORRIS

[Sabre2th]

Finally, someone that agrees with me.

[Steve Clark]

Ralf has been a long time, level-headed, intelligent participant in this forum, unlike some others who have been here just a long time.

Good to hear from you again, my friend.

[Rhuarc]

I guess u guys are right, my only concern is that you don't have to tweak the game too much to get mroe than 8 civs. I'm ok with the way they have it as long as it isn't too difficult, and as long as the ingame screens support it. If they do that then I agree with their approach

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, that's really all I need in this case. I mean, Civ3 will still have that f*cked up settler-system to take care of tile improvements, still no decent military system, still that boring old government system, really poorly implemented unique units, no minor civs (it's been too silent to still be really alive) and no city-expansion or other revolutionary ideas. Okay, the resources system sounds nice and culture could be promising but other than that, not much special so far. The details of the few things that *are* in may be worked out very well, but that just makes it a very good Civ2.5 rather than Civ3.

Once again someone underestimates the resource model. I've been saying this over and over, but resources will CHANGE EVERYTHING! Civ will be different because of the resource model. Because of this, there is more emphasis on trade to build new, improved units.

Furthermore, I actually liked that f'ed up settler-system (actually, a worker system), I like the military system that Firaxis has talked about, I like the government system (after all, in history, there have usually only been a few governmental systems that were in major use). I also wonder at the term "poorly implimented unique units". What do you mean? I'd prefer for the only unique units to be spy and diplomat. CtP showed that unique units are crap. And no city-expansion ideas? What about the anti-ICS plan of Firaxis? Have you even followed the making of the game?

[Sabre2th]

Unique units in CTP?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Good to hear from you again, my friend.

Likewise!

Also to Techwins and Korn469.

[Locutus]

Ralf (et al),
This interview itself is not the cause of all this 'pessimism' (I still see myself a realist), many people had doubts long before it was posted (or at least I had). For many people this is just more or less an official confirmation that this 'pessimism' is justified.

Yes, the graphics can easily be changed but why accept poor graphics in the first place? CtP(1&2) had a lot of problems. People's (almost) unanimous reaction to this was 'sure, we can fix it ourselves, but Activision shouldn't have screwed up in the first place'. Why accept it from Firaxis but not from Activision?

Sure, this is a much bigger step than Civ1->Civ2 but who ever said Civ2 was a 'proper' sequel? I'm not looking for CtP3 but I'm not looking for Civ2.5 either, the fact that making radical changes is tough doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. (Aux contraire, challenges are what make designing fun!) And it can quite well be done without hurting the basic formula, CtP - though not nearly as good as it could have been - is a fine example of how you can radically change things without losing the basic Civ formula. Should you give the same time and resources as Firaxis had to the CtP development team (complemented with a couple of smart Apolytoners like Harlan and WesW), they would come up with a game that's just as balanced and well-integrated as Civ3 appears to be, so it is IMHO quite possible to do so.

Imran,
Like I said, some people will think Civ3 will be have changed enough and will be happy with keeping it much of the old systems but other people, like me, would like to see some actual changes. Yes, the resource system could make a difference but for me it probably won't be radical enough on itself. You have every right to disagree but I don't think it will change *everything*; there will be a shift of focus and old Civ2 strategies will certainly have to be updated to account for it, but I'm not convinced that the game will change fundamentally because of this feature alone. (Let me stress that, like probably everyone here, I do think that the resource system is by far the best new feature of Civ3 and I like it very much.) And since there aren't any real other radical changes - I think the effects of culture are being overrated by some people, they refine existing systems rather than introduce real changes - I don't think Civ3 will be a real sequel.
Before people start whining about it, yes, this is all very theoretical, I haven't played the game yet so I might be wrong (but the same goes for you).

Uhmm, CtP didn't have Unique Units, you seem to be messing up Unconventional Warfare Units and Unique Units. Unconventional Warfare involves slavery, espionage, religious and economical attacks and uses Slavers, Laywers, Clerics, Eco Terrorists, etc. Now you mention it, the idea behind them is a very essential part of history and shouldn't be left out Civ3 IMHO (though it doesn't necessarily have to be implemented with units) but that's something to discuss elsewhere. Unique Units OTHO are the Impi for the Zulus, the Legion for the Romans, etc. In Civ3 this is done really poorly because some civs will now be better than others, simply due to their Unique Unit (it's impossible to balance everything out so perfectly it makes no difference whatsoever which unit you get). This is not good, it will screw up multi-player games and take a lot of suspense and fun away from the single player game as well (again, theoretically).

In CtP2 MedMod however, this system *is* implemented properly IMHO. This is done by making it random which unit is assigned to which civ. You get a different Elite Unit (as they are called) every game, regardless of which civ you play. Better yet, there's no guarantee you'll get any of them while you're opponent might get 3, though never more than 1 per age (not a very likely scenario though). This system can be unbalancing if the units are distributed unfairly but from experience we know this is not very common (note that terrain or distribution of resources can do the exact same thing). This in contrast to the Civ3 system, which makes every single game unbalanced to some extend. The biigest advantage of the MedMod system is that it adds an uncertainty factor to the game which is a lot of fun (people are actually complaining in the forums if they get a unit they don't like or boasting if they get a great unit). I'm currently even working on an improved version of this feature which will add terrain to the equation of determining which civ will get which unit. This means civs with lots of water in their city radii are likelier to get the Longboat while civs with lots of Jungle are likelier to get a Zulu Warrior (MedMod name for Impi). This should be just as much fun, much more useful (it allows all civs to exploit their strengths) and at the same time much more realistic than any other system like this I ever saw before in any other game.
(BTW, no, I don't think I'm not biased because I'm the author of this system; I'm only implementing other people's ideas, the credit for coming up with this system goes to WesW and Harlan.)

You misunderstood me about city-expansion. This is yet another feature soon to be included in the MedMod (though the idea itself predates the MedMod and probably even the CtP-series itself) and means that cities take up more space as they grow larger. One could imagine more 'symptoms' of this feature but in case of the MedMod this means an expanding city radius - like CtP2 already has by default and Civ3 misses altogether (mind you: expanding city radius, not border) - as well as the actual city taking up more than a single tile. This means that some of the squares surrounding the city could automatically turn into what one might call 'suburb tile improvements' as the city gets bigger. This will make less resources available close to the city but make more room for the citizens to live (possibly reducing overcrowding penalties). The details haven't been worked out yet for the MedMod and the CtP2 system doesn't allow very radical things to be done in this area but one could have done some really cool things with this in Civ3. Note that this particular idea served more as an example of new things Firaxis could have implemented rather than a must-have, but the scarsity of such ideas in Civ3 is, to me, disappointing.

[Grumbold]

Well said, Locutus. IMO Medmod is a shining example of what could have been achieved by Activision if they had not been pressured to curtail development and is the true yardstick by which Civ 3 should be measured. Still, if they include the tools perhaps Civ 3 will be able to have a Medmod of its own

[Solver]

An excellent reason for Firaxis not to hurry, if they have learned from the CtP 2 example.

[DATarbell]

Inexperience shows...

Aren't any of you guys software developers?

1) The primary purpose of "beta testing" is to eliminate bugs. Period. A true beta test does NOT allow for new features or enhancements to existing features. Otherwise, your beta is 'tainted' and you have to 'reboot' the process.

2) The opportunity to add new features and/or enhancements is strictly during an "alpha testing" process. If most of the posters to this thread were using the term "alpha" rather than "beta" I would agree with a great many of the points that are being made. Firaxis DOES have the unique opportunity (through Apolyton and others) to an experienced, highly loyal, often extremely insightful and creative, group of players who are 100% dedicated to seeing a Civ3 that (like the box once said) "will stand the test of time."

3) While it would appear foolish to NOT take advantage of that core group of users, Firaxis is at an extreme disadvantage in NOT being the publisher. Thus, they no longer have total control over the schedule. This is one of the numerous costs in the current configuration of the gaming industry: the developer-publisher relationship has become vital in terms of funding new, highly expensive titles, while getting a mass-market distribution. BUT, unlike the "good old days" the developer does not have the luxury of controlling the timing and getting it right before shipping. That call is now made by marketing types who are more concerned with "turns of sales during the prime holiday season" than they are with more "purist" issues.

4) Compatibility testing is no longer best addressed via beta testing. While that was once the case, it is no longer. Two things have changed. First, the complexity of compatibility testing has increased by magnitudes through hardware diversification and vendor choices. Second, dedicated compatibility testing labs (such as the one that JM cited in his response, earlier in this thread) have come into existence for the express purpose of satisfying this demand. A dedicated testing lab provides a controlled testing environment wherein the developer can, if necessary, easily access and duplicate the suspect environment when changes are deemed necessary. This has become increasinly difficult via a beta test for the simple reason that, as the market continues to expand, the user community--in general--has a lower and lower technical experience level. And it is extremely difficult to determine that experience level when selecting beta testers, severely hampering the developer's ability to incorporate test results into their process (e.g., "Is this really a 3D video card problem, as is being reported, or did the user forget to mention that he/she also has recently added or removed this other component to their system, or has been experiecing intermittent problems relating to memory, et cetera).

5) I'm tired of hearing about "improved graphics." The fact of the matter is that "improved graphics" have NEVER made a poor game a great game. The joy of Civ and Civ2 has always been its replayability, its scope, its variety, and (IMHO) the sense of 'personal involvement' (which I personally believe was lacking in SMAC). While a strong case can be made that poor graphics can make a great game less so, I would contend that the graphics in either case are merely "icing on the cake": the game is either poor or great in concept, design, and implementation, and the graphics are merely a means by which those elements are presented to us the users. To this day, one of my greatest gaming joys was an enhanced version of "Colossal Cave" for the CP/M operating system. (Oops, my age is showing! Pardon me.) That was a purely text-based game, but it remains one of my enjoyable and immersive gaming experiences. Graphics could have done FAR more damage than good to that game.

Bottom line: I believe that Sid (and company) has (have) consistently displayed a remarkable, and somewhat unique, ability to create games that truly inspire the "just one more turn" style of gameplay and I FULLY expect that Civ3 will reinforce that belief once it comes to market. Sign me up with the optimists.

[down th' pub]

Mr. Tarbell sir, excellent post. Thankyou.

[DATarbell]

Hmmm...

"'Woke up in my clothes again this morning.'"

Sounds like a software developer to me!

[Locutus]

Thanks, Grumbold. Yes, for me Civ3 will indeed have to compete with the MedMod, the best Civ game I've played so far (and AFAIK I played almost all games on the market, including most of the Alt. Civ games). I certainly hope Civ3 will be as advanced when it comes to customizability but I fear it may not be. I'm sure the tools and editors we were told about will be near-to-perfect for making scenarios and Civ2-like mods but to make a Civ3 MedMod much more is required. It requires the AI, UI and all other aspects of the game to be open for modification and it requires a scripting tool at least as advanced as SLIC. Civ2's rules.txt is nice but it can't compete with CtP's SLIC (except maybe in ease-of-use and number of bugs). Firaxis doesn't have a great reputation in this area and I hope Civ3 will change this but I haven't seen any evidence of this so far.

Solver, I couldn't agree more (or CtP1 for that matter).

DATarbell,
I am more or less a software developer myself and I as well as others have pointed out those issues in the past (both for Civ3 and CtP) but people don't seem to read, remember or care about them. IIRC people were still suggesting improvements for CtP2 when it was already gold!

I disagree about the graphics though. It's absolutely true that great graphics can't make a poor game a good game but poor graphics can make a great game a mediocre game (or worse). There are many great games with poor (or no ) graphics and it doesn't always take away from their greatness, but when I look at the screenshots from Civ3 I see some of the worst graphics I've ever seen! (No offense to the Firaxis artists: the individual graphics in themselves are quite nice, it's the combination of them that makes it ugly) They are confusing and distracting, they actually make it difficult to see of what type a certain unit is or who owns it (among other things). Also, the graphics are overall just ugly, which makes it less likely for me to play the game for hours and hours, it might starts hurting my eyes after a while. I never played Civ2 (or SMAC) all night long while I have done this more often that I'd like to admit with Civ1 (and CtP). This regardless of the fact that Civ2 was in all aspects except graphics superior to Civ1! Heck, I still play Civ1 every now and then today while I gave up on Civ2 altogether as soon as I bought CtP1. The graphics won't make me not buy or play Civ3 but they can have a great impact on how addictive and fun the game is.

[Solver]

I've often said Civ 2 improves graphics over Civ 1 and adds new units, but there was nothing fundamentally new. Of course, Civ 2 was great, but not that different from Civ 1, while from what little we know, Civ 3 is a lot different.

[Ming]

The difference between civ civI and Civ II are well noted. I can only hope that civ III lives up to my expectiations.....