07-05-2002 21:13									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

EFS? I don't think I've played it!? Que es?

And regarding Civ3 - I very much like the culture idea too....I just wish they had implemented it in a better way. There was a HUGE window there for enhancing the game's depth, and they just....didn't go thru it.

-=Vel=-

	07-05-2002 21:15									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Empire of the Fading Suns, perhaps? If so, I'm downloading it now....ummm...in the name of research! Yes...that's it...*G*

-=Vel=-

	07-05-2002 22:05									#33
	Put an end to popups!

Yup. The game if you're talking coolness of concept and richness of worldbuilding, s'far as I'm concerned. Playing all those rivalling churches out agaist each other while going for the forbidden tech was a blast.

Lousy implementation and largly non-existent AI made it pretty unspectacular as a game - but it was, and is - something of an experience nevertheless.

All this talk about cultures and religions brought that back in a huge way. Think the Inquisition meets Warhammer 40k, with more than a pinch of Civ and Panzer General thrown in for a good measure.

As concepts go, this is probably in my number one spot for failed promise.

	08-05-2002 00:55									#34
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

what kinda work are you doing nowadays, Mooming?

	08-05-2002 01:30									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GP what kinda work are you doing nowadays, Mooming?

Hey, I can live with "moomie", but "mooming " is right out, ya hear?

As for your question I'll have to confess that I've devolved from that pinnacle of human perfection, a programmer, to a herder of same, that is to say, a manager. But someone has to do that too, no? The shop I work for is a wholly-owned daughter company to Pharmacia and we do MRI scan and DNA sequencing software. I'm also a technology analyst for a pension fund. Keeps me busy, when I'm not nurturing my obsessions here at Poly... You're a management consultant, right?

	08-05-2002 07:01									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

yeah...looking for a job now

	08-05-2002 10:15									#37
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx If we're talking about the eventual commercial release (which is where most of the ideas we've been kicking around here will reside, including the societal model), it'd be something along the lines of: A 4x, turn-based empire building game set in a fantasy world built from the ground up that expands on two areas largely ignored by other titles in the genre (religion and society). I would regard both technology and deities as essential to the mix, and to the direction we hope to eventually expand the core game.

See, that's why the game design is so confusing because I can't make heads and tails out of your statement.

Not to be nitpicking, but what is a "4X" game to you? That's a fuzzy concept that emcompasses a lot of territory, which means that everybody has a different emphasis if not definition. Why are religion and society important? Why do you want a fantasy world? Will the removal of magic (or religion, or society) make the game deeper or shallower? In what way(s)?

	08-05-2002 18:49									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

'k....I'll try again, or at least try to clarify those points....

4x - Almost always TBS, strategy/empire building games with at least some emphasis on war (tho they are not, and have never been war games). And all have the aforementioned 4x's in common.

In every good empire building game I've ever played, religion and society are at least nominally represented (even if it's just "temples" and "generic citizens") however, just as our own "society model" is pretty important to us, and religion has played a large role in our own history, there's an awful lot of room for expansion and improvement in those areas in the gaming genre. There's a whole WORLD of possibilities there that have, quite simply, not been explored to their fullest potential...and that's too bad.

Why a fantasy world? More options....more chances to let my imagination just go where it will. Besides, for me, it's just plain fun to make up a whole new world....

And to the question "will the removal of magic, religion, society make the game deeper or shallower, and in what ways?" My answer would be that the game would suffer a fairly significant loss of overall depth.

In what ways? In the same ways that SMAC would suffer if you took out terraforming, or Civ without Goverments, or either without tech research. At that point, it would just be about shuffling some guys around the map and fighting till someone won.

It's things like the society model, magic, religion....those types of detailed systems IN the game that provide deep and challenging choices in the game by posing questions and dilemmas to the player. By requiring a choice....a tradeoff. Do I take the time and effort to go this direction, or do I head off down this other path?

Action and reaction...consequences...that creates in-game tension, which is a very, very good thing....

-=Vel=-

	09-05-2002 08:19									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Have you played the game Romance of the Three Kingdoms (by Koei)? There are like 10 versions out now but I recommend you to take a look at the first, DOS-based, version if you have never played it. You should be able to find it at one of the abandonware sites.

It is a strategy game with a pseudo tactical segment for combat. It has a very simple social model, no research (not in the usual empire building game sense anyway), and definitely no fantastic elements.

Now what makes a game deep? I don't think it is the thought provoking questions with regards to the human condition. I think it is the subtle details that's hidden from the surface.

To have a deep game I believe you can only concentrate in one area. Having too many features can only be a distraction.

Just my $0.02

	09-05-2002 08:42									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Played it yes, and while I enjoyed the concept very much, I found the execution to be somewhat tedious. IIRC, that was the one where you were essentially hamstrung by only being able to execute three or so orders per turn, and the AI governors were...umm..less than sterling (a problem that's been common throughout the genre for as long as there's been a 4x genre). From what I remember of the game, it was fun for as long as you were little, and the moment you started seeing some success, it was a lesson in frustration and humility (not that a lesson in humility is a bad thing, necessarily, but when I play a game, it's just that....play. I wanna have to think, but I don't want to be frustrated at every turn. That just...doesn't strike me as particularly fun or appealing.

I agree with you that by focusing on just one area/aspect and going all out on it, you'll create, more often than not, a very engaging, subtle game that can have tremendous depth. It will not, however, capture the essence and feel of a whole world.

Worlds are not narrow in their scope. The world of Candle'Bre is not just it's units and combat engine....it's not just the church(es)....and it's not just the people....it's all those elements, and a few more besides, rolled into a cohesive whole. In order to capture the total vision of Candle'Bre, we've got to pay attention to all of those, and we've got to do it in a way that is: a) entertaining, b) balanced (so that no one path to victory is inherently superior over any other(s)), and c) leaves players with lots of choices...some surface choices, and many deeper, really engaging choices.

Perfect example, using our eventual aims for Candle'Bre: It would be concievable to win the game by focusing on the needs of the people almost exclusively...building up enough of an army for an early game land grab to maintain pairity with your near rivals, and then using diplomacy to keep everybody on or near the same power level, goading others into doing the heavy lifting for you, spending their resources on troop replacement, while you focused on perfecting each of your provinces....gently guiding the formation of cities in some places, maxing out your food production in others, becoming a trading behemoth and eventually building a road out of the mountains (which will be another way of winning in the commercial release....to be the first player to break free of the mountains of Candle'Bre and emerge on the other side to see what the rest of the world has been doing for the past two hundred years).

OTOH, you can persue a religious focus, and here, you've got two choices....you can cater to all the gods equally, which will give you a broad base of divinely inspired powers, but nothing earth shakingly powerful, and augment those powers with military might to secure the win. Or, you can become a zealotous supporter of just one god, have enormous, back-breaking power at your disposal and hold your enemies at bay with the use (or threat of) your divine powers.

Or, you could simply go for a classic beatdown....Hordes of Mercs in the early game, hordes of everything else in the mid to late game.

Or, you could go for the honor win, which ties in with the first condition....or, the Infamy win which....well, is just plain ruthless and fun, combining any of the others with an insane amount of espionage and assassination.

Lots of different ways to play the game out....lots of subtle variations on the theme....that's good stuff....

-=Vel=-