What would you do? I mean if it were for real, what decisions would you like to make? If you were the ruler of an intergalactic species where would you head and what areas would you focus on? I've been playing a few of these turn based civ building games whilst they are good, after a while they tend to annoy me. You always end up making arbitrary decisions, which if you get wrong are punished, but then its hard to get them right in the first place. Like oh dear you forget to build that aqueduct now everyones gone ape and you've lost the city. Or you have to make decisions where the effect is a point of difference, unless you recorded them before and after on a piece of paper you would never know. So I have basically two questions if anyone is willing to answer. What decisions would you like to make in a Civilization/4X game? What are the arbitrary decisions that you could do without? What we want to see?
Quote:
Make real decisions a real king/ruler might make. Make decisions with complex consequences. Make decisions which may not be hardcoded. Finite amount of resources. A population that behaves relatively like one would. Not all information should be available to the player at all times. Civilizations should be able to collapse. People that are nearly annoying but not too annoying. You can pick and choose your people. You can pick your own name to which you will be referred to. Advisors/AI's that can do the leg work, they implement the actions of your directions.
What should be improved or removed?
Quote:
Unnecessary repetative building. The obsession with numbers. More significance to development. More intuitive logical interface which remains manageable throughout(no descent into uglyness). AI which can manage and automate those tasks the player does not want. No differing government types, that have little effects.
Feel free to argue with some of the points I've added. [Edited by - Calabi on October 7, 2008 1:45:16 PM]
Most of this is impossible to answer, because only an idiot would go into a civilization with a plan for it before knowing what that civilization is/has/needs =) So I can't answer the first three questions.
4x games are usually very poor simulations of actual governance and don't have a lot of options for the player. Subsequently, there are only a handful of viable strategies, namely the ones the designers picked out. There is very little room for emergent play.
I have actually been hunting for a game that has such capacity, but I have yet to find one. Rise of Nations, Age of Empires (all), Empire Earth, Civ 3&4, Masters of Orion (3? can't recall), Galactic Civilizations, Hegemonia and a few others just to name a few have all failed miserably in that regard. Don't get me wrong, they are quite excellent (well, most) games that I would suggest to any fan of 4x gaming, but the level of simulation leaves a lot to be desired.
I listen to history and the exploits of a lot of the more famous rulers. I look at what they did, the situations they overcame, and then load up any one of the aforementioned games. I never come across any of those situations or have the solutions to those situations available to me. I've never heard of a game where you can redirect the local river to create a corridor of commerce throughout the heartland of your empire (as the Chineese and many others did), for instance. A lot of the things you can do are "one shot" or "prescripted" in a sense. Either they do one thing with little to no change to the over all game flow (and building a canal is a HUGE change to local geography, the effects of which last for centuries. Where do you think all the trees for that came from? The -now- desert to the west of China) or the result is prescripted and therefore novel once, but exactly the same in all senses. But a lot of this is difficult to program, so I'll move towards the realm of the feasible.
I have yet to come across a game that actually lets you create your own empire to any sufficient degree. Typically, you are given an empire, given it's strengths and weaknesses, given it's unique units and cultural aspects, and get the honor of giving it a fancy name. Sometimes. A ruling body often times controls it's culture, especially given the time scales 4x games run on (culture also controls the ruling body, but I digress) - I have yet to see any game that gives sufficient control of one's culture. Civilization IV tried admirably, but it wasn't at all that in depth in this regard. A few clicks and one more or less sad face here or there isn't really a massive change in culture. Revolts like that don't just last a few years and then have work as normal... but I don't want to rant.
So basically, I'd say I'd want to be able to choose options that allow more in depth gameplay without requiring those options be taken for playability (this works for you too, because if you MUST pay attention to all that, you will scare away quite a large audience). I could do without being forced to choose EVERYTHING (Spore comes to mind, you can't build anything without designing it first. Novel once, but after a while...)
I'm tired of wargames. After playing ages and ages of empire games, I realize that that's ultimately all they are. If I want a wargame, I'll play Risk or something like it that eliminates all the tedious foreplay of micromanaging sullen citizenry, racing to find the enemy (because that's all they really are), paying exorbitant prices for hugely unfair trades, and then ultimately genociding them.
If you present something with such an awesome scope as being the ruler of an intergalactic species, how about bringing in the kind of sense of wonder you tend to get from great science fiction books?
I want moral dilemmas. I want the sense that the human race or whoever you give me to play are evolving, but that I'm critical to that future-- that if I don't play my cards right, the human race might become a brutal cybernetic theocracy, or a plutocracy ruled by Jovian barons who hold a monopoly on the H3, or a backwater tourist trap for bored extragalactic dilettantes.
What I mean by all of this is that I want far better position identification-- If I'm the president or the god emperor, I don't want to drive battlecruiser after battlecruiser around missiles and into the alien fleet. That's the domain of Homeworld and the job of my admiral, just as adding that aqueduct was the job of my city planner.
What if, instead, you could deal with balancing interests among factions, who in turn abstract and automate all of the micro and memorization that the AI is far superior at? What if, instead, you had royal politics (assassinations?! usurpers?! misbehaving vassals that bring YOU down with them?!) or even (if not too dry) budget/political fights that end up building your society into a specific kind of species-- bloodthirsty arms merchants, galactic superpower or revered moral leaders to all?
I'd like to see a (VASTLY simplified) sort of Democracy in space. You could have several problem areas, like Technology, Economy, Military, Health and Society; a broad variety of factions (Digital Commies? Posthumans? Martian Independence League?); several factors affecting on or more problem areas (like tying tech to military and business); and a slate of game decisions that cost one or more resources. In Democracy, this resource is a kind of political support, but if you wanted you could add a few others.
I think the way Galactic Civilizations and Civ 4 present set pieces situations, like corruption in your empire or discovering a new resource are good because you get a few simple (sometimes even ethical) choices but the semblance of a lot of diversity. I think if there was a combination of this mixed with the Democracy gameplay you could really wow players. For one, the scale could be extravagant, say allowing you to evolve from star locked species to transcendent Ancients. For another, you could retain some level of accessibility (beer & pretzels as they say) if the problems / gameplay choices were layered, with less on easier levels of difficulty.
Anyways, sorry for the long-winded reply, but I think I'm as frustrated as you are, if not more so! With science fiction games, it annoys me to no end to tour the galaxy, meet strange, fascinating species and then kill them. Yes, some games allow alternate goals, but rarely do they put much thought into making them as playable or satisfying as combat. And this isn't to say, btw, that I think combat has no place-- a simple set of international situations and decisions might actually be interesting, but I think games get hung up on tactical details and kill the grand spirit for the sake of being just another wargame.
EDIT: @Zouflain - Haha, I posted this about the same time as you, thinking I'd be the only one with this view. Glad to see I'm not alone.
--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...
Original post by Wavinator a backwater tourist trap for bored extragalactic dilettantes.
The Simple Life...in Space? Dear god no.
Quote:
What if, instead, you could deal with balancing interests among factions, who in turn abstract and automate all of the micro and memorization that the AI is far superior at?
This is sort of what MOO3 tried to do. As I recall, the end result was that you could win the game just by repeatedly clicking Next Turn.
Quote:
What if, instead, you had royal politics (assassinations?! usurpers?! misbehaving vassals that bring YOU down with them?!) or even (if not too dry) budget/political fights that end up building your society into a specific kind of species-- bloodthirsty arms merchants, galactic superpower or revered moral leaders to all?
I sense a great Babylon 5-ish game somewhere in there. It would be really interesting to simulate something close to the daily experience of an actual galactic ruler (whether a president, dictator, or something else), rather than the all-powerful micromanager of most 4X games.
1) complex situations. The best example I can cite of this was the "wait" ability in the original Railroad Tycoon. Really complex situations could be setup, it required a lot of thought and it was rewarding. Maybe it was too complex for most gamers but for me, I would rather think as click.
2) ethical dilemmas. For example, the enslaved ogres in Oblivion. The game should have posed more dire consequences but still it was interesting.
3) graphic rewards. I have always hated how Civ evolves from a nice looking map to something that is just ugly. To my way of thinking it should be the other way around.
I would like to order my admiral around. And traders. And diplomats. And everyone else. Tell them what to do, not how. I want to make these decisions based on the available information I have, as well as on advise from my underlings.
For example, I can tell my admiral to "take the planet at all costs" or "hold your attack until reinforcements arrive". I would get a message from my Admiral: "The enemy planet's high orbital shields are not up yet! Requesting permission to attack immediately!". So you consult with your advisors:
Advisor A is the admiral of the fleet. Hungers for glory and honor. Wants to attack. Advisor B is the ecomonic advisor. Likes the idea. Mainly because a short war is a good war to this guy. Advisor C is the land general. He really wants to recieve the new MK-12 hovertank before he makes planetfall. He warns of heavy casualties otherwise. Advisor D is the leader of the reinforcements. He has a proven record in combat, although his troops are getting a little too loyal to him... He supports the assault. Advisor E is your trusted man. He is utterly loyal to you and knows alot about the scheming of the others. He is however not a military man. He believes that it is better for advisor D to be caught up in some frontier combat to keep him busy.
Now, who is correct? Is A too reckless? Or B too cheap? Is C just caring of his own troops? Do YOU care about his troops? Or D too unloyal the the empire. Or E too suspicious? That's a real leadership decision!
This brings up some interesting design problems. Should all information be available from other sources than these scheming advisors? In that case they will probably not be needed when the player get's good enough. It would make the game more traditional. If all your information came through these underlings you could get the classical villain situation where they only give you good news so they don't get punished. If you implement a punish/reward system. Throw in a good espionage/intelligence system, both against your own men and those of the enemy and you have a really cool game. Perhaps not a 4x game anymore though.
Last post veered kinda of topic. :) Here's my answers for your questions.
1) I like building stuff and feeling that everything grows. The eXploit in 4x. For this reason I often find early to mid game phase funnier. The endgame usually turns into a loong conquest. When it comes to the aqueduct example I want a big clear warning ahead of time: You need to build an aqueduct soon or everyone's gonna go ape.
2) In most games it isn't the decisions themselves that are annoying. It's that I have to repeat them on and on. In Civ-like games I get sick of building the same buildings in the same order in 50-ish different cities. It turns into a job. Gameplay doesn't scale. The programmer in me would like some kind of scripting language here to solve this problem.
As far as I'm concerned, take your average 4x game, improve the interface and I'll be a happy gamer. Oh, and improve the AI as well.
Thanks for the replies, lots to think about. As people have said it seems like you are a ruler of a civilization and have been given all boring parts, while some other guy gets to do all the fun parts.
You are tasked with the placement of buildings. In what reality would that work? You could not create supply and demand like that. You could create a planet full of factories and there would be no consequences from it, somehow everyone would happily work, reproduce and not choke to death. How much of the building should you get to do? Telling peasants where to build and farmers where to farm seems would not work. You collect taxes and could build government infrastructure from that. Does it matter where the buildings are? What if you had no control over where and what buildings were placed? Would you still feel in control of the city? What could compensate for that?
In general the people just exist as numbers which create other numbers. The are just a commodity which you use to exploit. I cant understand those numbers even when I look in the manual. What does 24 industry mean. A ruler would just ask how many ships can we build. In the game you have to work that out yourself. It seems like I place buildings down, not really knowing what exactly I am getting back from them. The only responses the people have when you make mistakes are binary. Happy or rioting.
Would you really like to change/manipulate a culture? That would generally be beyond a simpler ruler. I think it would be hard to manipulate, in some areas at least. If you were able to manipulate it the people may have less character, appear less autonomous. Should you be able to change your government from a democracy to a feudalism. What would you prefer, a king, with the limits that entails, or a god with no limits? I suppose that would be a silly question, but as a god you might be too free to change anything, you would have little consequences. How much fun would it be to play with ants that always do as their told?
I'll put up a list in the original post, to try to collect some of these ideas.
Original post by Wavinator a backwater tourist trap for bored extragalactic dilettantes.
The Simple Life...in Space? Dear god no.
Hahahaha, sounds like that should be the game over condition. Your people are ignorant and starving and nobody knows or cares about your peoples' plight until there's a revolution.
Quote:
Quote:
What if, instead, you could deal with balancing interests among factions, who in turn abstract and automate all of the micro and memorization that the AI is far superior at?
This is sort of what MOO3 tried to do. As I recall, the end result was that you could win the game just by repeatedly clicking Next Turn.
I never played MOO3 (heard too many bad things about it) but it sounds like if you could just click next turn they didn't balance anything at all. Balancing interests would require some sort of political and resource sacrifice. You make one choice which precludes others down the road. Just as in military strategy, though typically not as transparent as being able to see it spatially.
Quote:
It would be really interesting to simulate something close to the daily experience of an actual galactic ruler (whether a president, dictator, or something else), rather than the all-powerful micromanager of most 4X games.
What would be really challenging to develop would be some system that works for dictator or president that's simple enough to be common but different enough to make it worth playing one or the other. That's one of the things from history that I really miss in games, that sense of precariousness you get from being emperor-- all the double dealing that can end in death-- that you shouldn't (necessarily) have with a president.
--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...
