 |
| |
|
|
RonHiler
|
|
California, USA
May 2000
time: 21:12
|
|
Without a unit workshop, I won't buy the game.
They just made it CivII+, in my opinion. Bad decision. Very questionable. You now have a static, repetitive game. There will be no replayablility, with the same units every time.
Mods are all fine and well, but they'd suffer from the same problem. They'd be fine for one or two plays, until you learned the unit strenghts/weaknessess, then you'd be done.
Ron
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Yes, maybe. But, that could be achieved by adding an parallell extension of Civ-2 style governments-types. The player choose an government-type, but added to this he can now also choose a specific Religion- (or philosophy) type. That would lead to a more basic version of SE "mix and matching", then in SMAC - but anyway.
|
Ralf, you have it all wrong about Social Engineering,
SE is more flexable, more emersive, and more FUN than choosing a single form of government as in civ2, i think if they changed the name from Social Engineering to something else that sounded less futuristic that you would be happy with the more robust civ 2.33 (SMAC) game mechanics
out of the four SE choices you already endorse two of them, politics and values, aka government and philosophy and i think that you could go for economics with just a little push...however future society is just too far out for a historical game so lets call it something else like perhaps utopian vision (only available late game) and i am sure that it will be a better system than the OBSOLETE civ2 system
__________________________________________________
_____
the civ 2.33 unit workshop system was flawed in execution, the gui was much too user unfriendly, the units were too hard to distinguish between on the map, and the whole execution could have used some serious upgrades, but i think that the idea of the unit workshop was unsurpassed and that civ3 (2.51) will miss its flexability
rest in peace unit workshop
the good ones always go too soon
korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 03, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469 on 02-03-2001 12:37 PM
SE is more flexable, more emersive, and more FUN than choosing a single form of government as in civ2,
|
Well, thats your viewpoint, and some civers will certainly agree with you, and maybe Firaxis as well, although I dont believe so.
I base above believe on below Firaxis Civ-III website quote:
"The short answer is simply the best strategy game experience you've ever had! We will accomplish this by keeping the components that made Civilization I and II incredibly addictive and fun games and adding NEW elements and features that complement and enhance the existing system. In addition, we've built a completely new graphic engine that will provide the most stunning maps, animations and graphics you've ever seen in this genre of game. Here are some of our key objectives in developing the best Civilization game you've ever played:"
My underlining/capitol letters. You see: there is NO talk whatsoever about keeping any old components (like the SE-system, or the concept of futuristic SciFi-tecs) from SMAC. Only from Civ-I and II - and (of course) adding totally new and fresh components as well.
Maybe im over-interpret, and maybe my prediction is totally wrong. But, it seems to me that SMAC-features, to a large degree, is going to be side-stepped in Civ-3, and if im right I think thats a good thing.
The problem with SMAC-style Social Engineering (SE, for short) in Civ-3, is mainly two-folded (well, three-folded counting Raingoons excellent post):
1: I have already toched this one in above post. Anyway; its obviously MUCH easier to combine imagined & made up futuristic value-systems and political ideas in a SciFi-game like SMAC, then it is to combine real-life value-systems and political/religious ideas in a game that suppose to cover real-life historic & present day realities - as in Civ-III. It just a game, yes - but it can nevertheless easily be a hot potato - producing endless discussions about "wrongly" applied, or "obviously" unbalanced and historically "incorrect" Social Engineering results.
These pitfalls can be avoided more effectively by keeping Civ-2 style "stand-alone" governments-types. Just DONT fractionize the game by "mixing and matching" buckloads of SE half-components with each other.
2: One persistant critisism of both SMAC, and (to a larger degree) CTP/CTP-2 is the "detached feel" that many players have complained about. This problem sticks its ugly head up, each time the player cannot relate to, and/or easily see through the correlations between his own inputs on one side, and the games outputs one the other side.
In SMAC the problem was partly those hard-to-relate futuristic techs, and partly those "half-component combination" systems (like SE and the unit-workshop). The the latter produces endless variations and combinations - yes, but at a cost. The snag is also that any "transparent" and "easy to overview" game-mechanical correlations between inputs and outputs, very easily gets "flushed down the toilet" in the process.
The problem got even worse in CTP/CTP-2: Both the old CTP "public works" idea and the "expanding city-areas" idea, just added salt to injury. Firaxis should really keep those CTP-ideas away from Civ-3, at all cost.
I have played many earth- and space-based strategy-building games where i had rather foggy idea how this or that gradual improvement actually added to the overal output. And IF i could see an exact output-change, i still often couldnt understant why the output changed the way it did. I simply lost the connection - it all ended up with that i just added "yet another fractionally incremental improvement", because - in one way or the other, that i didnt clearly understood - it supposed to be beneficial. It all felt - well, if one was "detached" from the game after a while.
PS: Im all positive about adding things like health and life-view parameters to Civ-3. I just dont like the idea of them appearing as half-components in some multi-fractional SE-system - thats all.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited February 03, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roman
|
 |
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Ralf, I agree that it would be nice for say religions/philosophies to appear in similar form to governments in Civ 2. SE style implementation, though, wouldn't be bad either. I don't actually see any major difference between these two ways of implementing those concepts.
As to your Firaxis quote, I dug up this on the Civ 3 website:
"In 1998, Firaxis Games released Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, a turn-based science fiction strategy game. Alpha Centauri was extremely successful and had many game play innovations that advanced the turn-based genre. Firaxis Games will utilize many of the cool innovations made in Alpha Centauri in CivIII. In Civilization III you'll find borders (but even more realistic than in SMAC), unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose, enhanced and more realistic diplomacy AI, build- queues and more ways to delegate commands for those who want to minimize micromanagement at later stages in the game. These are just some of the innovations that will be found in Civilization III and that made Alpha Centauri the highest rated PC game ever!"
Another quote from the site:
"This game isn't simply about a face-lift or adding more "stuff" to the existing design. It's not even just about keeping and refining the good, addictive aspects of Sid Meier's Civilization I and Civilization II and combining those with what was new and innovative in Alpha Centauri - though this is a major thrust of our efforts. It's also about amplifying some previously unexplored areas of gameplay and enhancing some others in ways that give players more options and fun choices to build their empires the way they want to."
It appears Firaxis does plan to use many SMAC concepts, but whether a form of SE will be among them remains to be seen.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
"Without a unit workshop, I won't buy the game."
 Reminds me of certain celebrity leftists who whine at every election that they would "move to Canada" (or wherever) if so-and-so isn't elected. Cry me a river.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Anyway; its obviously MUCH easier to combine imagined & made up futuristic value-systems and political ideas in a SciFi-game like SMAC, then it is to combine real-life value-systems and political/religious ideas in a game that suppose to cover real-life historic & present day realities - as in Civ-III.
|
Ralf
Ok before before i go on, are you being serious? I mean i find this hilarious, but you don't seem to be joking.
Ok here is what you are saying
1. That using a single government system WILL be more balanced than using the slightly more complex SE system.
False! Civ3 has yet to be balanced (it's not even in beta) so it is impossible to say for sure which system will have better balance. The government systems in civ2 were even more unblanced than the SE system in civ2.33. Your argument automatically assumes that a complex system will be inferior to a simple system. This is wrong, many complex systems work better than simple systems, conpare dos to windows 2000. W2k dwarfs dos in size and it dwarfs it in features, stability, and possibilities. It is possible for a SE system to have great balance (and SE in civ2.33 is remarkably well balanced) and i'm sure that firaxis can do it.
2. That using a government system is more historically correct than using SE.
FALSE! The government system in civ2 does not have any more basis in reality than SE. According to the civ2 model, All democracies operate like an idealized United States in 1968-1970. All religious governments operate like an overstated Iran circa the 1980s. All forms of government in which the state has a massive say in the economy operates like most likely East Germany in the early 1980s. Every one of these examples fail under a close analysis. One of the longest, most heated, well documented debates is the debate over can democracies goto war without unhappiness penalties. Many historical examples exist that show democracies CAN goto war with mass support of the people. The Spanish-American war, WW2, the gulf war, all of these are examples of where the people overwhelmingly support the war effort. These historical counter examples prove that all democries are NOT like the United States in 1986-1970. That alone shoots down your Basis in History argument against SE.
SE provies much greater nuance and lets social institutions be much more intricate than the inferior civ2 government system. SE provies for more replayability, more player emersion, and more historical relavance. It is far superior to the civ2 system.
Your argument also forgets the most important aspect of civ3...that gameplay comes before any other aspect. Civ3 coul be the most historically accurate game ever and it could suck too. So civ3 needs to be fun first, and i am talking WAY more fun than civ2. Civ3 has alot of pressure to perform way better than anything that has come before it. If it doesn't then it is destined to go down as a critical flop (worse yet it could go down as a critcal success, and a commercial flop).
quote:
I have played many earth- and space-based strategy-building games where i had rather foggy idea how this or that gradual improvement actually added to the overal output. And IF i could see an exact output-change, i still often couldnt understant why the output changed the way it did. I simply lost the connection
|
How does a government system insulate a player from feeling detached in a game while using SE just drives a wedge between the player and the game?
It does not. Simple as that.
Hippee! i just switched to Monarchy baby! Where is my burger king kid's meal crown at? I FEEL so much like a real king i can barely stand it.
Compare that to
Right now i am an absolute monarchy of a feudalistic state, where i have begun reforms of our agrarian based economy to change it into a mercantilist one. I am pondering approving a magna charta to quell unhappiness amongst the nobles, eventhough that might weaken my long term power base. Though we still have a stong belief in God and Country and i will not allow any hersey in my realm.
which one seemed more realistic? a cookie cutter, unrealistic, unbalanced, system with no historical basis or the more versitile, more fluid, SE system? Which one would the normal player get more satisfaction from? We need to tap into the Sims market with Civ3, not the Overly Grand, Long, and Boring History of the World Volume 87 4th extra long edition gaming set.
What i want are a wide array of fun (though vexing) choices to make during a game. The civ2 system doesn't even give a glimpse of that. Civ2.33 system is a step in the right direction, but Civ3 must go beyond what has been done before and develop a fun and elegent way of making a large amount of choices available to the player.
korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 04, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrFell
|
|
Thank god... no unit workshop...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
The reason why SE is inappropriate for Civ3 is that for many of the choices (especially values) we should not have that power over the populous. That should still be there making Civ3 more multifaceted thatn Civ2, but it should rather be something that we interact with our civilization to create. That was one of the two big things missing from Civ2 (the other being AI), and it can be summed up as interaction with ones own populous. I want a democracy with militaristic values (speaking in SMAC terms) to force you into war, sometimes with people you don't want to be at war with. And you unable to change the militaristic values unless you start directing you civilization on a more peaceful course.
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
raingoon
|
 |
Los Angeles
Aug 1999
time: 21:12
|
|
Korn -- you begin to sway me to your point of view when you give me an example of SE in Civ 3 as, for instance if you're playing...
quote:
...an absolute monarchy of a feudalistic state, where i have begun reforms of our agrarian based economy to change it into a mercantilist one. I am pondering approving a magna charta to quell unhappiness amongst the nobles, eventhough that might weaken my long term power base. Though we still have a stong belief in God and Country and i will not allow any hersey in my realm.
|
I can see where you must get frustrated with us non-SE people. I think most of us are speaking with a memory of SMAC, where you seem to be speaking with a vision of something we haven't seen before. I'll grant you that. But Ralf made a great point that I think you glossed. Quoth Ralf:
quote:
...many earth and space-based strategy-building games (gave me a) rather foggy idea how this or that gradual improvement actually added to the overal output. And IF i could see an exact output-change, i still often couldnt understant why the output changed the way it did. I simply lost the connection.
|
This is an excellent description of the sense one gets from playing SMAC with its Social Engineering. It may be a more sophisticated connection and lost on Ralf, but I agree with him about this. Civ 2 with its more rigid system was almost groundbreaking in the way players were able to see the cause and effect links of their actions to the output in the game. SMAC's SE system simply obfuscated those relationships for the sake of more sophisticated choices.
NOW, I say hold on a second. Maybe the problem is using the term "SE" and all its attendant definitions and associations to SMAC (which Firaxis claims is still the best game ever invented, but okay).
Maybe there is a synthesis of these two ideas that would actually be better than either. Simply, if the ruler of a civ has as much flexibility to design his government as his technology allows, than he can set parameters as he sees fit. I wouldn't call it "social engineering" because that, well, "smacs" of Alpha Centauri.
But if you could shape your nation's policies toward its people and resources, perhaps you would have to do so blindly, not knowing exactly what the resultant government was called, just what it DID, per Ralf's comment. Then at appropriate times a "book-style" pop-up window would open and you'd be told that Noam Chomsky has written an account of your nation having the first "Theocracy," or "Communist State," etc. And changing from that system would be, as has been suggested, a painful and difficult process.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:12
|
|
raingoon
our thoughts are on the same track
in my mind what i keep on seeing is a system like social engineering, but a system that has "ordinances" like in simcity 3000 (sc3k).
first for those of you who haven't played sc3k i will briefly explain ordinances...you open up an ordinance screen and there are a series of check boxes. when you check them then that ordinance goes into effect. one of the ordinances is to make your city a "nuclear free zone" so you can't build any nuclear power plants in your city but it increases happiness...another option is to have a pollution tax, which scares away heavy polluting businesses (to the detriment of the economy) but it helps keep pollution out of your city...many of the ordinances cost money, some provide extra income to your city, but they all have an effect on your city
now i think that civ3 should incorporate the idea of ordinances into the game. it is a simple system, you check a box and then a known result happens. it is also easy to evoke an emotional responce in the player to each ordinance, which would ward off detachment.
i think that civ3 could incorporate ordinances in one of three ways.
[*]instead of SE or governments you have a completely ordinance driven system. You select a constitution, give the people the power to vote, and have a bill of rights, then suddenly you have a constitutional democracy. All it takes is three easy clicks. With enough ordinances you could simulate almost any kind of government.
[*]have a government ordinance system where you have a few different rigid government types and you have some ordinaces available to each goverment that could really create some variety and flexability in the old civ2 system.
[*]have a beurocratic control screen (new civ like name for SE) where you could choose your government, economic, ideological, and utopian policies. each policy would have certian ordinances available to it and there would also be certian global ordinances. something like your economic policy could be a regulated free market, and an ordinance could be anti-trust laws. or you could have a socialist economic policies and universal health care could be an ordinace. strict pollution controls could be a global ordinance.
so what do u think about that?
korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 05, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The unit workshop idea didn't sound all that great to me. Sounded overly complex and would either (a) end up with horse mounted cannons and other nonsense or (b) end up with so many restrictions you're just designing standard historical units so why waste your time. As for SE, I think CTP1 and CTP2 pretty much demonstrated that classic-civ government choices are obscelete. What will firaxis do? Add Facism, Theocracy, or maybe something slightly postmodern like the corporate republic? Who cares. Activision already did that and its tired. Maybe I want a militant democracy, or a libertarian dictatorship, or an authoritarian state with free markets or religious mercantilists. Give us some sort of SE! (On the other hand PW was well implememted by activision and should be appropriated- I hate to keep pressing this issue but I really don't want yet another game where I'm hearding settlers, terraformers or the like across the map. That would be a real negative).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-02-2001 10:17
Above is the key-argument (my underlining).
Sad 
|