| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (23)

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 10:24PM UNCSamurai said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Your nation is called to come and witness the wonder of Sid Meier! Absolutely no scribes allowed!
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 10:26PM WiredKnight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thank you Mr. Meier.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 10:35PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
" Meier says his players always believe that if they don't win for whatever reason, fate or the random number generator or the crappy AI must be out to get them. As a result, his policy has become to let the player win -- t"

SAY IT AINT SO SID!

I've always found that civilization was the one game that I played and didn't care about weather I won or lost. I always just liked seeing how far I would get this time. Civ 4 was MUCH easier than the previous versions though, I wonder if he had already implemented that philosophy at that point.

At least put in a mode where we can lose Sid. I don't need hand holding like the generation thats being raised today to never lose".
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 10:41PM WiredKnight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Civ offer several difficulty levels? It's not about hand-holding, it's about having fun building an empire.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:47AM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
He doesn't seem to be talking about difficulty levels though. It seems to me this policy would be in place regardless of the difficulty level.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 12:46AM WiredKnight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My point was that if you don't like winning the majority of the time, you have the option of making the game harder.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 10:48PM Kif said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You can get that sort of challenge from the higher settings and from select campaigns, so it's there if you want it. Personally, I understand what he means about the egomania and needing to win. The biggest thrill of Civ for me is rolling in the tanks on some pre-medieval shithole and pulling open the stats to look at your comparative GNP and imagine just how awesome your civ is.

AZTECS FTW
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 11:10PM edit said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've heard about Civ games for years and always assumed I would love them. I recently bought Civ 4 on steam to finally try it out and I was disappointed. I felt the interaction between nations was really simplistic, as was the structure of the game itself relative to its subject matter. Evolving your country feels more like card collecting than overcoming human challenges. The game is also surprizingly linear and 'winning' felt rushed and unearned on my first playthrough. It seemed easy to stay out of conflict while being well ahead of the pack technologically. I think I had quite a romanticized idea of what a Civ game really is. It's more board game than world sim. In my view it could afford to be a lot LESS forgiving, potentiate deeper interactions and take a more open-ended approach (rather than resorting to a win state) so that the player feels like the effort they invest in their world is worth something. Just a first impression.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 11:19PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
First of all, I hope you weren't playing on "Chieftain" difficulty. There are NINE difficulty levels, if you weren't at the highest one, please don't complain it was too easy. As for the rest of Civ, I will grant you that--as someone who owns the major Civ games (not quite every single expansion)--I was not sucked into Civ4 as I was with Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3.

That said, they are all pretty darned similar, and are the template for practically any world building game. You build your cities, you make decisions at the city-level that affects your income and production.. And you use that income and production to upgrade your cities or build military units. The rest is pretty fluid, but tends to involve researching stuff and fighting.

The praise for the series is generally a result of the game's solid controls, logical tech tree, and general freedom to do whatever you want with a solid "you reap what you sow" mechanic. Compare and contrast with the Dune: Battle for Arrakis game...where you spent the whole game making what you felt were important choices about how to proceed--only to have the second to last mission destroy all your stuff (sorry, it's part of the linear storyline) and so it wouldn't matter what choices you made earlier, you're now woefully outgunned (but with an advantage in "spunk") by the bad guys whose butts you probably had been seriously kicking.

Civ is good at challenging you, but also by being predictable...and I don't mean predictable as in you know what your enemies are going to do, I just mean that in terms of actions->consequences, it's predictable. Like life. Sure, you can't have a conversation using your headset with the AI players that would pass the Turing test, but it has fairly robust diplomacy options.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 2:21PM calgaryaltahotmailcom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you won on your first play through and you thought the game simplistic and easy to avoid conflict, don't play the easiest setting.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 11:10PM sigma8 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Why restrict people from saving games? I realize some people have a zero deviation toleration policy in terms of battle victories, but if you don't let people save whenever they want, that's just annoying. It's not like people are forced to save. If you want to discourage people, just make it some kind of achievement to finish the game with only X saves or give them an unwanted achievement for being a pansy.

BTW, all you commenters saying you don't need/want to win all the time. You're all lying. What you mean to say is that the person next to you doesn't need to win all the time. But YOU do. Want to see how you'll respond to a game you can't win? Look at the people who hated Mirror's Edge because it was "too hard". Or (assuming you don't happen to know this one by heart) try to beat a Maniac Mansion game without any hints. Have fun with that.

There's a difference between "challenging" and "losing". People often enjoy the former, but generally don't like paying for the latter. Would WoW have all the subscribers it has if you really did need to be awesome in order to get loot? Do you think millions of people would pay $15 a month in order to display their ineptitude?
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 11:58PM Acosta02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm a liar? Never! I honestly do prefer to lose games that I'm not up to par in; If I always win, that means I'm cheating. And what's the point of playing a game if you're just going to cheat? In a well-designed game, losing should come about by a failure on the player's part, and in a way that they can learn from.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 12:14AM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
To get one thing out of the way, I don't think Sid was talking about multiplayer games. When you join a multiplayer game, you implicitly accept the contract that not everyone will win. However, MP games are also very iterative, i.e. you may not win today, but you may win next time. And if you can never beat real people, you can always play the computer and win.

Which brings us to the part that I think Sid was referring to: single player.
Making a game you can't win is like designing a race that not everyone can finish. Typically, anyone can finish a race...whether you're a triathlete, some white-collar tool walking for charity, wheelchair bound, or six years old. But if someone designs a particularly arduous race (maybe with lava pits, tigers, and sand people?), guess what: not many people are going to enter that one. Likewise, when you make games many people can't win, many people won't consider buying it.

But hey, maybe they will worship those who can complete it. Kind of like how professional gamers and their impossible skillz are worshipped today...oh wait.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 12:20AM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One quick additional point: winning doesn't have to be "all for one and one for all".. You can have people win the game at different speeds and with different endings or rewards... but they have to win. I mean, winning is tantamount in a single player game to finishing, no?

But, look at WoW.. All the hardcore raiders get their loot less than a month after it's patched into the game. All the casual players get that loot months and years later. It takes them a lot longer, but they still "win". Actually, WoW is a nice example of a game that maybe fits your bill: WoW has a lot of content that some people never see, because they suck too bad. This means Blizz is designing content for uber-players only. Apparently, they don't like doing that, since all their uber-leet content eventually trickles down. So everyone eventually "wins" the game.

Winning = victory = achivement. People don't stick with a game long if they don't experience those things. You can have minor setbacks, and those can be fun and make the game interesting, but I don't think that's Sid was talking about when he said "win", since he does clarify "in the end, the player should win".
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 6:09AM Acosta02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"One quick additional point: winning doesn't have to be "all for one and one for all".. You can have people win the game at different speeds and with different endings or rewards... but they have to win. I mean, winning is tantamount in a single player game to finishing, no? "

You're right here. I was taking "winning" in a single player game to mean "win every encounter," when you're clearly right; winning refers to beating the whole game, one way or another.

HOWEVER (and of course there's a however, it's the internet!) I disagree where you say "And if you can never beat real people, you can always play the computer and win."

I don't think that this is necessarily how a game like Civ should be designed. Ideally, (and here we get in to major opinion territory, rather than objective "good design") there would be multiple levels of difficulty in a game (like Civ) where single-player means "multiplayer with AI." If you always win, there's no way you can really go back to Multiplayer and start winning. So, sure, at some difficulty level you should always win, but higher ones should prepare you for how actual players would play.

I'm probably incoherent (just woke up), so I'll try to sve you a headache by summarizing here:
Yes, the player HAS to win a single player game, but in Civilization doesn't that just mean an AI-filled multiplayer game?
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 11:41PM SmilinGoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well talk the year of the Pirates! for me.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 8:42AM Dextro said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We'll talk in the Alpha Centaury year imho :P
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 4:33PM fortunzfavor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No Sid post would be complete without requests for AC2. =)
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 7:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We need Sid Meier to talk Peter Molyneux into bringing back B.C
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 8:43AM Ritchie Blackmore said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Wort an intellignt talk. . .
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:42AM skyblaze said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
beat me to it XD
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 10:59AM Ghen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Don't worry, the fan made AI's will be out within weeks to challenge you if the built in ones don't work. Just look at what they're doing in Starcraft 2 right now, and that's not even out of beta!
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 12:25PM Daverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the idea is the player can "finish" every time. Not necessarily win.

Who knows tho.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW