 |
|
Yolky
|
|
Ontario Canada
Oct 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
Brian Renylods(did i spell it correctly?)
anyways what is he working on now? I know he started his own company (cow something?) but havn't herd since. anyone know?
Davor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Brian would get my vote by a large margin. I would rather see him do SMAC2 however.
For Civ4 I would like to see someone start with a blank sheet of paper and build a brand new game system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
I'd say Brian Reynolds, the guy who made Civ 2.
I think he could fix all the little details/issues in Civ3 that Sid and his programmers have overlooked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yook
|
|
*Yook sneaks out from behind the couch to de-lurk and say something*
Neat question. I agree with jimmytrick. I would love to see Brian do SMAC2, I think that would really neat.
Civ4...not Firaxis. I'm enjoying playing Civ3 at the moment, but not anything at all like how it was designed to be played. It's an amusing diversion, but I set it up so that everything goes down in the Ancient Age and I can just have a quick little game. It's not a Civ game for me, not anymore.
So, Civ4...I'd like to see someone else come in and start fresh. Turn-based, still. And with the scope we're used to. But with more modern sensibilities and a different perspective. Not beholden to the past. And aimed not at the hardcore nor the noobs, but at people like me, who just want to play a fun, challenging game.
-Yook
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jamison
|
|
Who should develop Civ4? Brain Reyonlds all the way. I think he did a wonderful job on SMAC. Only thing I don't like about SMAC is, a faction that builds a city a tile away from your city, takes a row of tiles from you. I find this very annoying, I have workers working the tiles and here come the Gaians, and they take away my tile
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Calorman
|
|
I think a monkey in a tuxedo suit should design Civ4.
Personal opinions are great things eh?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mannamagnus
|
 |
Prime Headbonker, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
Brain Reynolds
Last edited by Mannamagnus on 14-01-2002 at 19:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ACooper
|
 |
In a dark and scary hole!
Apr 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN, YIN
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Peter Triggs
|
|
Gone Fishin, Canada
Jan 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
Here's a quote from a guy who used to post in these forums. He seems to have some pretty good ideas on game design:
quote:
"Turn Offs" -- Negative Game Experiences
... we can all remember examples of flaws which ruined an otherwise pleasant game. Turn offs are the pitfalls to be avoided in crafting and polishing a game.
Fallen and I Can't Get Up. It is dull to keep playing after you know you've "lost" and can't possibly win. If you can get "stuck" where there is no hope to complete the game, or fall so far behind in the competition that you have absolutely no chance to catch up, that's a major turn off. In a multiplayer game, it's no fun to have to keep playing "to be a good sport" after you know you can no longer win. Even worse, when two players remain in the competition, but a third player is kept in the game and put in a position of a "spoiler," who cannot win himself but can ruin the position of one or the other player.
The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer. Similarly (though perhaps more surprisingly), it is dull to have to keep playing after you know you've "won." Players lose interest the moment the game ceases to be a competition and merely becomes a mopping up operation. Both of these first two problems are classic symptoms of what I call the "Rich get Richer" syndrome: the farther ahead a player is the easier it becomes to get further ahead, and the farther behind a player falls the harder it is for him to catch up. This is one of the easiest traps for a game system to fall into and one of the hardest to correct for. In "rich get richer" games, players may start on even ground, but once one-layer gains a slight advantage, the game system enters a positive feedback loop which compounds that advantage until the player is unstoppable.
Uninteresting/Linear Decisions. It is dull to be required to make decisions that aren't interesting. For instance if the decision is "fight, bribe, or flee" and "fight" is always the answer which advances you furthest in the game, then it making that decision rapidly loses its interest. If it is always right to give the ring to the princess, but you still get to "decide" whether or not to do so, once you know the right answer the decision becomes uninteresting.
Micromanagement. It is likewise dull to have to make decisions that aren't important. A decision's importance is proportional to the effect that decision can have on the outcome of the game. In a game about the entire Eastern Front of WW2, having to make decisions about individual squads and platoons misses the forest for the trees. Players want to "cut to the chase" and concentrate on the key decisions which directly make the difference between victory and defeat.
Nothing Happening. It's dull to reach a long period of "stagnation" where you aren't really moving forward in the game, or it isn't obvious what you need to do to move forward in the game. Players expect to be entertained by the game, so when the game stagnates they aren't getting the stimulation they expect.
Bang, You're Dead. Sudden and arbitrary setbacks don't go over well. It is simply human nature that people don't like to have things taken away from them, especially when the decision seems arbitrary and capricious. Players don't want to spend hours building a beautiful city to have it suddenly and arbitrarily disappear into a crevasse. This is particularly true of major setbacks, but is true of setbacks in general.
Bang, Your Head. It is frustrating to "bang your head" repeatedly against a problem without making noticeable progress. When I play the same scenario for the twelfth time and once again get pounded into the dirt with no real clue as to what I'm doing wrong, I'm pretty much ready to turn the computer off. Frustration is not entertaining-in fact, the opposite. I am stunned by how often games seem to go well out of their way to annoy and irritate their players!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pg
|
|
i'd like to see civ4 designed by some fans hired by whatever company gets to do civ4(hopefully not firaxis they seemed burned out) along with fresh talent. honestly, i think civ style needs drastic reinnovation, and someone with a strong creative, and fresh vision to rework the game. it needs more added complexity while still being easy and fast to play. the civ1 style(which civ3 is more or less) is too dated, imo, to continue for civ4. btw, by civ style i mean updated gfx, and rehashed gameplay.
i'd like to see more complex systems for everything, while introducing new concepts that make sense. stuff like religion, and being able to emulate all the different ages that took place on earth would be important, if they could actually do such without it just being copies of each other with new gfx. i hope they get their heads out of the sand and realize making a game for the hardcore people is better in the long run because people don't stay newbies forever. remember good gameplay is what it is all about and that same good gameplay also gave civ the famous name.
be interesting if civ4 took some ideas from koei's romance series, which i like a lot. looking over this forum i can find so many good ideas, it is really mind boggling. i honestly don't have any hope for civ4. once a good developper makes a good game it seems their creative vision dies and willingness to take a risk at innovation dies(i play the corporations!). all the classics are just more of the same with rehashed gameplay, and new gfx. i am much more interested in the opensource civ games being developed by fans and newer upstart game companies that have to innovative to make a name for themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skanky Burns
After he messed up Civ III? You MUST be joking.
Seriously, its because of him leaving during development that Civ 3 is the unpolished, unfinished game that it is. Why would you want him to do that again?!? |
Why do you think it's Brian's problem that there are unfinished elements in CivIII? If he was not there, wouldn't the responsibility be on other people? Unless you mean if he had of been there it would have turned out to be a much more polished game. 
BTW, does anyone REALLY know why he left Firaxis?
Last edited by Kevin Ar18 on 15-01-2002 at 05:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
Here's a quote from the Civ2 manual (in the Designer Notes section)
***************
Civilization II began as a day long brainstorming session around Sid Meir's round table with Sid, Biran Reynolds, and Jeff Briggs. Brian then retreated to the dales of Yorkshire for a year to formulate the design and put together a series of prototypes which eventually became the game engine. Meanwhile, Jeff began putting a first-rate team together and Doug Kaufman, one of our most experienced designers as well as one of the world's great emeritus Civ experts, pounded away at the prototype, finding loopholes and making sure it was actually possible to beit Deity level. If you like the fact that you need an Aqueduct to get a city past size 8 now, you can thank Doug!
***************
P.S. Brian Reynolds name and signature are at the end of the designer notes, thus I assume he must have written them.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-01-2002 07:39
|