We are doomed. We want a more complicated game, but the casual gamer doesn't

[Dis]

This is the part that still bothers me

Apparrantly they believed people wanted the game to be simpler. At first this seemed like a good idea. But I think we know how that turned out.

I'm guessing many of you hard core guys wanted more depth. Myself included. I wanted a lot more depth in combat. I've seen some great ideas, but I doubt they will be implemented. I like the idea of private land mentioned in the other thread. And there are many other ideas along these lines that can be done. But will they? Unlikely. The more complicated they make it the worse the ai does. CTP might be an indication of this.

I believe the genre has peaked with civ2. I suggest moving on to other types of games.

[Willem]

Re: We are doomed. We want a more complicated game, but the casual gamer doesn't

Originally posted by Dissident
This is the part that still bothers me

Apparrantly they believed people wanted the game to be simpler. At first this seemed like a good idea. But I think we know how that turned out.

I'm guessing many of you hard core guys wanted more depth. Myself included. I wanted a lot more depth in combat. I've seen some great ideas, but I doubt they will be implemented. I like the idea of private land mentioned in the other thread. And there are many other ideas along these lines that can be done. But will they? Unlikely. The more complicated they make it the worse the ai does. CTP might be an indication of this.

I believe the genre has peaked with civ2. I suggest moving on to other types of games.

Speak for yourself. If you want more complexity, spend some time with the Editor, create a few improvements, change some of the rules. I'm looking at the "as is" game like a template, from which I can customize it the way I want it to be. It was far more possibilities in this way than any of the previous games released, which could be one reason why they haven't released an MP option. Civ II didn't start out with one either if I recall, but eventually appeared.

Granted that it doesn't have much in the way of event triggers yet, but I'm guessing that's because they want to see first what will actually work, and what will cause the game to crash. Judging by the number of times my game has crashed due to some minor change, introducing triggers at this point would be a major headache, and would no doubt leave the critiics fuming even more.

[Dis]

the editor cannot add complexity. Trust me, I looked at it. There are some cool things you can do with the editor, but nothing complex.

[Comrade Tribune]

Sure, Willem, with the crappy editor we will be able to transform the ugly duck into a Swan. Dream on!

Dissident, welcome to the Light Side!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dissident
the editor cannot add complexity. Trust me, I looked at it. There are some cool things you can do with the editor, but nothing complex.

I guess we have different definitions of complexity. And they are still working on it, I've read a post from the designer as such, Dan something I believe, so not doubt more options will become available in time. It's a new approach after all, and the game has only been out for a very short time. And like I said, my experiences with the Editor has resulted in numerous crashes in order to find out what my limitations are. And that's not the fault of poor programming, it only means that this a complex game with a lot of unknown variables and repurcussions. It's to no one's advantage to release an Editor that just causes problems for the game.

[Dis]

see Vel's disenchanted thread. He's got some good ideas about complexity. And I also liked the private land and manpower ideas in the radical ideas thread.

But my question is. Does the casual gamer want more complexity? If not, then we will probably never get the game we want. Unfortunately the people here in these boards only make up a small % of the total people buying civ3.

[Barnacle Bill]

I agree somewhat with your analysis, but not with your conclusion. You are never going to get AI that a human can't beat, but you can create one that presents a challenge to the typical player (especially to one who refrains from using exploits - which I define as a strategy that would not have worked in real life but works in the game because of a "loophole" in the "rules", the AI or both). In particular, I think AI could be created that would be "by the book", but have a pretty good book.

As to complexity, the enemy here is actually MP, which the game was intended for even though it was cut from the initial release (probably for schedule reasons). For MP, people want a game which can be completed in a few hours at most. I think most SP fans would be fine with a game that took a month to finish, as long as the reason it took so long was lots of turns with exiting things to do every turn rather than fewer turns with lots of tedious micromanagement in every turn.

I would like to see a lot of things "fleshed out". I think what people need to keep in mind is that Civ was originally (even if not officially acknowledged as such) based on Empire. Empire was not much above Risk. The biggest leap in features was actually from Empire to Civ1. In Civ3 we finally see the demise of Empire's bizarre air combat system (airplanes can't fly over enemy units, bombers stay in the air two turns so enemy fighters can get a shot at them in between, planes can attack beyond the range to get home and fall out of the sky, and you can exploit that last by using ground/sea units to block bombers from getting back to base). So, progress is made, but slowly and kind of "two steps forward, one step back" (assuming they patch the game decently).

I suspect that MOO3 will be the wave of the future - competent AI that runs the details on autopilot according to broad direction you provide, with a tightly budgeted ability to micromanage the things you consider most critical. Best I can tell, MOO3 is not evolutionary in any way from MOO1 & MOO2. So, we'll see if that flies with Mooniacs. If it does, I'd expect to see a reapplication of the same ideas to a Civ-like game.

Another possible wave of the future is the EU series. Although realtime, they are not clickfest realtime. They offer a lot of richness on a different level than Civ (more about diplomacy and grand strategy than micromanaging what goes on inside cities), but details could be added and the game scope extended to cover "all of history". Or, a more Civ-like TBS game could borrow a bunch of ideas from EU2 to create a richer game.

There are numerous shareware-type projects in the TBS genre which deliver all sorts of detail, if not much animated 3D graphics pizazz (which us hard-core types tend not to care much about anyway). If there is not enough money in it for the big guys, little guys will make the games we want to play.

So, I'm not ready to give up on it yet.

[Steve Clark]

One of the biggest gripes about Civ3 is how long it take to play (and the onsetting tedium factor). Generally, by adding more complexity, whether to combat or other areas, the game and its turns will take even longer. I don't think that's the direction that even hardcore gamers would like to see, let alone the 90% of those playing Civ3 that are not hardcore civers.

Going towards the EU model would make the game even less playable, imo. In EU, they purposely made the game where information is hard to see and actions are hard to gauge, esp. in its cause and effects. This is the trade-off of being more of a historical simulator instead of a global-scale TBS game like Civ. Hardcore civers want more definite answers (like in combat and culture) not less defined, therefore EU is not a good comparison either.

I think hardcore civers want a game that makes sense more than anything else. They want to see if a wide-range of strategies or tactics can be the right or wrong choice. This assumes that all information is clearly presented so that choices can be made and that the combination of results make sense, as oppose to random luck. But they also want a game that can take as long or as short as needed and not being forced into having to make decisions too quickly or having to wait a long time before you see the effects of the decision. It requires a design that is tight, focusing on those things that directly helps the gamer to make decisions and reducing impediments (i.e., game mechanics, presented results, etc.) that would hamper them.

I believe Civ2 MGE achieved that balance but Civ3 suffers from trying to do too many things, esp. in combining disparate elements from SMAC and CtP with Civ1 and Civ2. They forgot the adage of keeping it simple, which even hardcore civers would like just as much as the casual gamer. By keeping it simple (thus, not complex), it provides much more depth to the variety of ways to play (not only in regular games, but for scenarios as well). In other words, I believe that a more complex game would force you into more finite strategies and tactics. Civ3 is a good example with the addition of a more complex resource and cultural model, not to mention the more complex tech research model, all which limits what a civer wants to do.

In summary, I believe Civ3 needs to be made more simpiler and not more complex, but all information and game decisions need to be presented and affected ina clear and precise manner, unlike EU.

[Warhammer]

Interesting point....

A move to something more along the lines of EU, an interesting concept, but let's face it the AI in EU is a complete joke, much worse than even the AI in Civ I or II. However, I would not be adverse to seeing some of the elements of EU incorporated into Civ.

[GePap]

What is complexity?

As the author of many thread calling for what many would call 'complex' ideas, i have to challenge the notion.
Even if one is given more factors to consider and use, if they all fit tightly into one tighly wound web that creates a good narrative or gaming experience then they will not slow down the game or lessen enjoyment. How much more complex are TBS than lets say sports games like a football simulator? In football simulators you have as many factors as in TBS, and they are not even as clear cut and absolute. What about a games like the Grand theft auto series, where you can do anything you want, period? That's pretty complex in my book. And yet no one complains, why? Because even with all their complaxity one is immersed into a gaming experience. Folks, the human mind is a powerfull things, and it can handle huge complex things without that much trouble.
The issue is one of tastes and marketing. Sports games and strategy games can both be very complex but there is still a different field. Everyday players who sample from a wide field and are not particularly interested may not like being immersed in a strategy gaming world whereas they might like another set of games. Thats personal choice. Unfortunitelly for those who are hardcore strategy gamers, the companies are rightfully out to make a profit, and the bigger they are, the bigger thier sales must be, so the larger (and more diffuse) audience they must reach. Civ and Civ2 were very rare in that they struct a cord among most sectors of gaming, from the tepid to the hardcore. I think though, that as gaming becomes more diverse and more and more choices become available, a choice must be made about where civ is going. As in TV, the networks are dying slowly, particularistic cable channels doing better. Will Civ saty network or be made the flagship of some cable line?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
In EU, they purposely made the game where information is hard to see and actions are hard to gauge, esp. in its cause and effects.
...
In summary, I believe Civ3 needs to be made more simpiler and not more complex, but all information and game decisions need to be presented and affected ina clear and precise manner, unlike EU.

I am totally at a loss what you mean here.

I can not think of a single cause-and-effect relation in EU that is not explained in the manual. As to information you usually either get a precise description of what will happen with each decision (example: events), or you get the probabilities of each outcome listed down to one percent. And as to precision, if you hover over a slider, it will tell you things such as 'one notch to the right and land combat morale of your units will increase by 0.5%'. Can it get any more precise?

Could it be you didn´t read the manual?

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
One of the biggest gripes about Civ3 is how long it take to play (and the onsetting tedium factor). Generally, by adding more complexity, whether to combat or other areas, the game and its turns will take even longer. I don't think that's the direction that even hardcore gamers would like to see, let alone the 90% of those playing Civ3 that are not hardcore civers.

Hi Steve. I've got to disagree. More complexity if done the Civ way would make the game mostly unplayable. By "the Civ way" I mean through the use of fairly simple mechanistic rules that require large levels of hand-holding to have a chance of achieving a desired result. These simple models have as a direct consequence Very different results given relatively minor changes in player action. This, combined with the abyssmal quality of the AI required Huge amounts of micromanagement. I certainly do support your implied point that making Civ more complex as it is, would largely be a big mistake.

But if you make an economic system that doesn't require continuous hand-holding to function you can have More complexity with Better gameplay. At least I firmly believe it's so. Enough to stake several hundred hours of work a year on it! If individual military units don't need to be moved by hand there's a lot more time for the creative stuff, like having a more realistic government model. It can be done!

The tricky point with 'smart' people in your civ game, is still keeping the vital connection between the player and the civ that all that micromanagement ensures. You feel the civ is yours in the Civilization games because you raised it by hand, and without you, it would have died. If you're interested you can see my thoughts about this in an Apolyton column called CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS I wrote a couple years ago.

I think that with a richer world (and some better AI) there will be a much richer array of chalenges to meet and overcome in a complex civ game.

[Trifna]

Not so sure about what the casual gamer wants...

You can have more depth by adding some simple things sometimes. Making a MACRO model of history with more depth doesn't necessarily mean more complicated, BUT

- it means you have to add the right things
- it means you may add some things that casual gmers may just let it go while maniacs may be alot more subtle!

[The Rusty Gamer]

Optional depth?

Surely the answer to this game and others as regards to casual vs in-depth is simply to have a number of options on the new game screen, each option giving more complexity in a certain area. With all the options switched off, it's a relatively easy game for the casual gamer, switch them all on for maximum complexity.

[Steve Clark]

Mark, thank you for your thoughtful response. I am thinking about this some more and have two quick replies. First, I think alot of it has to do with how a particular strategy gamer approaches a game. Their experiences, biases and personality I think do color whether a game is too complex or not. Secondly, I'm really becoming a believer in the game concept of giving the players constant feedback in successes while playing. This can really overcome any shortfalls in micromanagement (or complexity, if you will) and keep the player playing. I do think it is a fine line between work that is fun and work that is tedious.

I'll use my second favorite strategy game (after Civ2) as an example, Imperialism II. I think most would agree that Imp2 is a much more simpler game than Civ3 and EU. Yet that, imo, is a good thing because it works beautifully and is a lot of fun to play. In my mind, Civ2 and Imp2 are quite simple games and do not need more complexity to make it more fun. Civ2 is the ultimate, imo, because of the ability to create wonderful scenarios that keep that title fresh, even after 5 years. Give the hardcore gamer a simple game and watch what can be done with it. Give any gamer an over-complex game and watch the frustration grows.

Comrade: I and several here wrote at length about the nebulous feedback EU gives the player over in the EU forum. If they have kept threads from about a year ago, I'll see if I can dig some of those up. I have respect for EU but it is not a game for me. I prefer a strategy game that is more definitive in its functions like the cause and effects of researching a tech, combat parameters and adding an improvement. EU was purposely vague about those things and for many, that was great but with my love for Civ2, I cannot play that way. Hopefully I can find those thoughts...