VERSION 2: Thread Managers Needed...

[Theben]

I'll do the COMBAT thread. I'll also suggest that UNITS be split up somehow...it's pretty long.

[Shining1]

Jeje2: Thanks for the support.

As for the direction of the 2nd list, here are my thoughts so far. Brian has suggested two things: That the original list be maintained and added too, and that suggestions be phrased along the lines of ingame effects. While the second of these is obviously dependent upon the suggestion itself, the first is where I plan to go from. As such, the second part of the list should also include some more feedback on current ideas, so that BR can get a more general idea for how the civ community feels about them.

A little thread restructuring is also in order, and I'll be suggesting that TM's take control of a general area, such as the aforementioned terrain and terraforming, or else (if possible, to avoid being overworked) split into small groups with a common subject - for instance Cities and Regions, City Improvements, Resources, and T&Tera all need to work closely, because these elements interact closely, and a good suggestion in one thread might be a great idea for another.

Lohrax: I'll pencil you in tentatively for this one. Welcome aboard!

Theben: Right. Combat. And I'll check out the units thread, although, like the Technology thread, I suspect much of this stuff belongs together.

[Iceman88888888]

I would like to do a Thread but not one there how about a EXPLORATION etc Thread. I would Host That. Thnxs

[don Don]

I thought we were trying to conform, more or less, to the topics as chosen by Firaxis? We have a couple threads they haven't incorporated into theirs, but we don't need to multiply that number.

Harel and I are going to expand Econ/Trade to include Resources (i.e., unit support integrated with econ/trade). Next iteration thread will have new title.

[Lohrax]

Cool. This will be fun!

I agree that several threads (T/T, City, TI, etc.) will probably have overlapping ideas. Perhaps a forum feature where we can forward a posting to a different thread?

[Shining1]

Lo: Probably not, but certainly it would pay to mention any related threads in the intro to a thread, and to suggest that ideas be sent to every thread that shares the topic.

[Brian Reynolds FIRAXIS]

Hi All,

Your list is looking great, as I said before. I wanted to reply to a couple of comments above...

To Havel... suggestions are assumed to be in the context of the original game system (the only common context we all have right now) unless of course the suggestion is to change the game system in some way, in which case other parts of the game system are assumed to remain the same unless the suggestion also affects them. What I'm saying is that nothing in my reply should be taken to indicate a lack of ambition on my part. ;-) But I find your suggestions more useful the more you take the time to put them in context of a specific implementation you envision.

To NotLikeTea... believe me, it won't "just be an expansion". Our plan is to be even more of an advancement over Civ2 than Civ2 was over Civ1, and that is certainly the thrust of our design efforts.

Looking forward to version 2...

BR

[Maniac]

BR, who is Havel?

[smilo]

I'm still available for the space exploitation thread. It has become a pretty busy thread lately, so I propose it can stay a thread on its own. If it is removed, well then I'll do the Misc one.

[Jon Miller]

I think that maybe we should not stop after v 2, perhaps we should find somebody else to take over Yins place (he did do a good job, but if hes tired?)

Jon Miller

[Harel]

Maniac, I am HAVEL.
A small type-O. Guess that BR is human too.

But, gosh, BR talked to me. I think I am going to put the monitor on a shelf and just worship it from a far.

No, seriously now.
I am glad that Brain takes the time and interst to post here. But, I refuse to just accept what he said.
BR said that CIV III would be more different then CIV II was to CIV I. Well... what did they really have apart? A few more techs? Spiffy wonder videos? Nicer graphics?
The advisors were a nice touch. The fundemnatalist and the new units were also a good attachment. But were they really that different? NO.
Well, blimey, even if CIV III would be as far from SMAC as SMAC was to CIV II, i won't be satesfied. I repeat, I want a FUNDEMNTAL change. We can't, and shouldn't, use CIV II as refernce since what we want is miles away.
People suggest change to every section of the game: economy, technology, graphics, cities... even if BR would take just a few ideas from every thread, the game would be SO different from civ II that we will have no relevnce to measure it upon.

However, I AM very glad that Firaxis is full with so much zill. BTW, BR: when can we expect a formal site?

And, can we get some replies on the list? What you liked, why you didn't approve off... what do you know for sure that you are going to add... things like that. It would really push things a lot here.

[raingoon]

I have to say, in reply to Harel...

Not to diminish in any way your impassioned plea for real change and something NEW and exciting -- isn't that out purpose, after all? -- but I read BR's post slightly differently.

Francis Ford Coppola once said when he writes a script, he changes it, quoting ver batim, "in baby steps -- have to go in baby steps." And he was emphatic about this. He didn't mean he's not interested in ending up at point Z eventually. He meant that there was no value in jumping there from A without going through B,C,D, etc., first.

Note, I don't know BR and what they're doing. I don't know that your alarm isn't 100% justified. I'm just saying when I read BR's post here, I get the same creative attitude as in my little Coppola reference. Point A is the best context for discussing point B, and point B is likewise the best place to talk about point C... If we want to reach the moon, we need to discuss our dream in terms of that old nag, gravity.

But to stress -- I think you're right to demand radical change -- and I'd err on your side rather than mine. I'm definitely trying to think radically with our new model in the religion thread. I just wanted to make that other observation as well.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 07, 1999).]</font>

[Shining1]

Harel: I agree, but remember that CivIII is going to be CivIII, and not a whole new game.
Expect evolution, especially, if what Br posted in the SMAC forums turns out to be turn, in the ICS/city management part of the game.

[Maniac]

Harel : I agree, fundamental changes!

BTW, why do you ask Brian Reynolds if he likes certain things? We are the one that have to like them, he is just the programmer. The game may not be influenced by his personal playing stile.

If he would affect it, you get a disaster. Example : SMAC.
I thought in the SMAC forums was mentioned that BR's favorite faction was the Believers(=conquerors), and yes indeed SMAC is a conqueror's game.

So don't ask BR's opinion. He wants to change as little as possible (less work for him) and if he changes something it will be to make it easier for conquerors.

M@ni@c
Heavily doubting Brian Reynolds ambitions to create a good game.

[Metamorph]

The lack of perception, or perhaps the willingness to perceive, the fundamental flaws in the nature of the current versions of the various civlike games is what drove me to giving up entirely on the project of addressing their problems and potentially fixing them in current and/or subsequent versions.

It chills me to the bone to hear Brian Reynolds talk about how much Civ2 is an improvement over Civ1. It makes me doubt my own sanity. What can he possibly see that I, that all of us, do not?

I think it's something more fundamental than that. I think that developers, or in any event, the specific developers in question, those who are making the civlike games these days, look at their games in lump sum. Well, the gameplay has problems... but the graphics are stunning and the music and this and that and these frills over here... So it all averages out to a pretty good game, in their eyes.

Whereas we judge a game from the bottom. If most of the features of a game are good, but a few important ones suck, how do we rate that game? Do we average it out? Do we shrug and say, oh well, every game has its little quirks? No. A game is only as good as its problems allow it to be -- to me, anyway, and I daresay to many, if not most, of you. We're gamers; this is a game. And it's only fun if it works, all the way through. It is not a sum of its parts; it does not average out.

Has Brian, or any of the developers for that matter, come onto this forum and stated, point-blank, that they screwed up any one particular aspect of any one of their games, that they could have done it better, that they apologize and will do whatever it takes to fix it in the next version? I for one would bend over backwards to admit a mistake I made when designing a game, and all but grovel and beg for players to suggest how I can make the game that much better.

"...the "ICS" commentary points out a very valid criticism of the system..." This is the most I've ever heard Brian yield on this particular subject. And I daresay it's the most we all will ever hear. Considering it's my pet peeve, I find it extremely difficult to generate the motivation to struggle to express my views. Particularly when the designers don't seem all that interested in believing what I have to say.

Maybe they take it personally. I suppose I take it personally when somebody points out a problem in one of my programs, at first. This thing, this creation of mine, is a part of me. How dare you trash it! But then I swallow my pride, and take the objective point of view. Crud, he's right. That _is_ a problem, a mistake, an oversight, a lacking, a flaw. It's my responsibility to fix it. And I should _thank_ that person for pointing it out to me!

At least, that's my opinion. Apparently, many software developers as of late feel otherwise. So as heartening as some find it that Brian and others are supposedly willing to listen to our ideas, I for one remain pessimistic in the belief that they aren't truly objective about seeking improvement on a fundamental game level.

Seeing all this activity has prompted me to perhaps email Brian directly. I'd like him to explain to me, straight-facedly, just exactly what his opinion is on ICS, for example. Does he acknowledge it even exists? Is it a problem? In which games? Is it important? Does it affect game play? Is it a significant factor? Does it concern him? Does he believe it concerns anyone? What is he thinking?

I've always been sharply critical of this particular category of game designers and programmers for the above reasons. Unfortunately, I lack Yin's optimism that something can be done about it. And I will continue to maintain that disposition until a glimmer of hope appears.

- Metamorph