Those of you who know me and the GalCiv team (who are now all on Elemental) know we’re huuuuge Civilization IV fans. If you don’t have Civilization IV, I’m not saying you’re a bad person for not having it. But I’m not saying you’re not a bad person either. Though, wait until it shows up on Impulse next month before buying it if you haven’t already.
Anyway, at GDC, Soren Johnson (designer of Civ IV), myself, and Paul “Mormegil” Boyer) had a long lunch together and talked about the challenges we’ve been having in Elemental random map generation.
One of the big challenges we’ve been having has to do with rivers and roads – how do you make them look good in a randomly generated map? Soren was nice enough to walk us through some of the algorithms they used in Civ IV since they ran into the exact same problem. It’s a real pain in the butt.
We also talked about the challenges of doing big maps. This is where Civ and Elemental are fairly different largely because of the differences in the engine being used.
In Elemental, the strategic zoom feature lets us have much bigger maps since it’s very easy for people to manage much larger areas because the Elemental map turns into a cloth map where players can instruct units and cities and the like from afar.
Another advantage Elemental’s engine has is technology. That is, the hardware is just a lot faster which means we can easily create a lot more “stuff” that players can automate without it slowing performance.
One result of that is world size. In Civilization 4, the largest default map size “Huge” is 104x64 tiles. There are custom maps bigger (138x96 for instance). But in Elemental, the map size is 224x160. To give you an idea of that:
And that’s on the 32-bit version of the game. Assuming Intel gets us a 64-bit Havoc, the 64-bit version of Elemental could be even bigger.
Of course, we also have map sizes that are ridiculously small too (one called “wee” even).
Having a big map, of course, is pointless if you don’t have the UI and automation in to keep micromanagement from being a pain and of course, like I mentioned, you have to have hardware fast enough to be able to navigate quickly and seamlessly through such a map (A Civilization V would no doubt have maps on the same scale as Elemental for instance).
Well, i don't think quick games are the only option for TBS. But from my experience only two MP TBS formats may be even remotely popular - either quick games that can be finished in one session (Civ 4, Battle for Wesnoth, you may include games like Magic: The Gathering even if they're not exactly TBS) or PBEM-style games with a limited number of turns (Massive Assault Network 2 - 15 turns for a full game on a medium map, it may be played online but noone plays serious matches like that because you need time to think and make plans, that may take an hour or more ).
Obviously, you'll not be able to finish Elemental game in 15-30 turns so 2nd approach is not an option for Elemental. Maybe a 30+ hour game is ok if you do plan to play only with your close friends, but it's unacceptable for a mass market. So, IMHO Elemental game should have some quick mode.
And again we see the danger of the MP focus on games. I would rather they don't worry about developing modes for MP, but spend the time fleshing out an engrossing, and long SP experience.
Is it any wonder that SP players are worried about this game taking too much of an MP focus?
Nope. I'm pretty serious about giving MP a try at least during the betas, but I'm more serious about hoping the devs stick to their guns on the 'singleplayer is the core of the game' front.
Master of Magic had no multiplayer, but it was built like a multiplayer game (only skirmish, no story of any kind really). So I'm not worried in the least because if it has any kind of story mode it has more single-player than the single-player only game, Master of Magic.
While Elemental will have multiplayer, the focus of the game is overwhelmingly single player.
Given all the...fun we've been having dealing with Demigod's MP, I think it's safe to say that I would rather not have Elemental's fate determined by factors that are very difficult to predict pre-release.
Hey, I've been having lots of fun playing Demigod MP But yeah, TBS is better single player I think, I've never even had the desire to bring my CIV games online. I'll write an AAR about them to share, but I don't want to have to have wait for someone else to play out their turn, that game takes long enough as it is
Civ 4 had about the same problems with GameSpy and P2P. The difference is that Civ 4 is singleplayer game, not an MP-only like Demigod.
Nah, i think game becomes better when it's designed with multiplayer in mind. It forces developers to focus on the core features, reduce the micromanagement and make all the fluff optional. I think Civ 4 become a much better game because of it, even if developers disregarded MP community needs in favor of SP. I'm not playing Civ 4 MP any longer but when i want to play SP TBS game match i frequently pick Civ 4.
Because it has the best balance. If you don't understand why balance is important for strategy games then sucks to be you.
Looks like you missed the smiley. I know it got botched, but your argument is the game is balanced, not that the game is a balanced strategy game. Balanced games aren't necessarily strategic. Dominions is very unbalanced, and still the best MP strategy game I know despite that. Balance is really important only for duels or when there are a few opponents. When there are 10 players struggling, unbalances don't matter much because looking weaker can make your diplomacy easier at times, and it's all about diplomacy in the long run.
I think we talked about 4X strategy games like Civ 4, MoM etc. Go is a tabletop game, Wesnoth is a wargame.
You were talking about TBS.
Peons. Well, you see, Starcraft or Warcraft III MP match lasts 16-25 minutes most of the time. Average Civ 4 MP match on ladder settings (with city elimination on quick, not a generic Civ 4 game) lasts 2-3 hours. From my experience, you're making about the same number or more game-changing decisions in one Starcraft MP game compared to a Civ 4 MP game. Sure, you do more actions per minute in Starcraft, but you also do more strategic decisions per minute.
Also, Civ 4 has a streamlined gameplay. Game designers tried to eliminate a lot of micro by removing rounding, carry-overs, relatively good-quality AI automation etc. Most other 4X TBS games have significantly more micro than Civ4.
I do not deny that Starcraft requires a lot of thinking. I just say it requires tactical thinking, not strategic thinking.
As for MP TBS, Dominions III has a format where games will often last 60, 100 turns, played at a rhythm of one turn per 24/48/72h (gets slower as game progresses). It doesn't have a large player base, but they are very loyal. I believe such a format could work and be successful, but Dom3 has some things to go against it (fantasy but unfamiliar no elves/orcs/dwarves, steeeep learning curve, poor user interface and poor graphics - and still my favorite MP game ever).
My argument is that Real-Time STRATEGY (RTS) is balanced. And without balance, there can be no strategy, game degrades to a "build order".
Besides, you prove that i'm right by saying that Dominions sucks by itself because it's imbalanced but it's deficiencies may be compensated by metagame influence like diplomacy. Well, any game may be compensated by it. You can play Risk instead, why bother with Dominions?
*I think we talked about 4X strategy games like Civ 4, MoM etc. Go is a tabletop game, Wesnoth is a wargame.You were talking about TBS.
Let's see. When i talked about micromanagement, i mentioned Col2, Civ 4, MoO3, GalCiv, and i compared them to games like Starcraft and fighting games. I'm sure all these are 4X TBS, not just TBS.
Ok, i already agreed that there is no micro in Go. So, what's your point?
Start is the most fun because you're making a lot of decisions how to scout, how to grow your empire, when and where to build cities, improve land and how to defend. Later, it becomes boring as you're just playing with the cards you got at the start. I don't see how possibly you can't like the most important part of the game.
Why so? You still need to decide your tech path, your expansion, a number of units you should have, when and how do you plan to attack/pressure your opponent etc. It's a strategy, not a tactics.
And you call THAT a strategy game? It looks more like Sims to me. When a game takes a year to finish, how do you learn from your mistakes? How do you invent new strategies against human players? How do you become more skilled? That's just an illusion of a strategy. You do your thing, enemy does his thing, and then you see the results. Where is the fight of minds? You may as well play singleplayer.
You might want to read again what I wrote. I never said Dom "sucked by itself". I said it's not balanced. YOU translate it as "not balanced = sucks". Diplomacy is not metagame when playing MP. IT's one of the funniest things in MP. And ins trategy, diplomacy is key too. YMMV. Why Dominions? Because it's got more features inside than any other game and is way more fun than Risk.
You quote Wesnoth farther. But then it's worth talking about a game only when it suits you I suppose.
You fail to see that not everyone likes the same thing in a game. Start in civ has you have zero neighbours and is not much strategic, but just build-up. You think the warmongering part is not interesting, and seem to think what you've got at the start is all that matters. Not so. You make choices and adapt based on your neighbours, which is not just what you have, but others have. Yet again, you are making bold assumptions about me not liking a part of a game when I jsut say the game is too long. You might want to explain how you came to such a weird conclusion?
Duh. You know what PBEM is? You know chess is played in PBEM? Sims is Real Time to begin with, Starcraft is more like The Sims than Dom could ever be. How do you learn? Well, you do! When you're attacked using certain tactics, when you have to develop a new strategy to just survive, you learn fast or the game doesn't last a year, you're toast very fast. How you invent strategies? You can test them in SP, and then try them IRL against humans. For instance, when I was attacked by giants, I decided to try to teleport my pretender (=avatar), use some spells to take out string enemy commanders, and teleport back. I tested in against an ai, saw that it worked and then used it extensively against my real opponent. Lengthy games give you time to test strategies and change your plans. You become more skilled because humans are thousands of times more dangerous than AIs and no matter how well you micromanage, you'll lose without a good strategy. That's not an illusion of a strategy. I suppose you never played the game. You don't play and then the opponent plays for isntance. Turns are simultaneous (kind of like Civ4 but more like Diplomacy board game: everyone gives orders, then they are solved). The fight of minds is there: You don't know what your opponent will do. You plan, and try to guess where he will move his troops, which army you are going to face, how many of them, how he will position his troops, whether he'll use the same battle tactics as previous turn, whether he'll resist the spells you cast or cast some spells of his own.
Yes, I translate it as "not balanced = sucks".
Diplomacy is obviously a metagame in most MP games. wiki: Metagame
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.
In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.
Exactly. I quoted Wesnoth farther. Unless you claim to have a precognitive abilities to know that i'll quote Wesnoth later in my posts, you can't use it to validate your first objection to my post about micro where i talked about 4X TBS.
I think the start of the game continues until starting borders are finalized. That may include some fighting as well. It takes significantly more resources to change borders after that stage of the game so that part of the game is the most important one, at least in non-FFA games. Warmongering part is fine too, but it's not well-developed in Civ4.
Weird conclusion? It's called a "straw man argument". Since i saw stupid claims like "starcraft is not a strategy game", "you only need to babysit everything if you don't know what you're doing in Col2." or "Civ4 sucks as a MP game because it is too slow to be played in a single session", i switched to a semi-flaming posting mode (that is, a mix of an arguments and flaming).
ROFLMAO. So you test strategies on AI and then apply them to a human game. And after that you claim that "you become more skilled because humans are thousands of times more dangerous than AIs". Well, it's true, but that's why people play a REAL MP games where you're testing strategies against players, not against AI. You know, like Starcraft or Civ 4
Anyway, what i really wanted to say is that in such game a game community skill progression is non-existant because games finish too slow. It will take months until you'll be able to use the knowledge from one game in the next game. While Dominions community is crawling up the skill ladder, every competitive MP community is "teleporting" further ahead compared to it. That's why i said Dominions is like Sims, it's more like a simulator - you do something and then observe the results. In competitive MP games, you're on a continuous path of a self-improvement and competition with other players.
And returning to the first part of your responce, yes, Dominions has a lot of features but how many valid MP strategies does it have? Noone really knows as it's not a competitive MP game. But given that game balance sucks, probably not many. MP survives only because of it's tiny community, a long learning / information spreading time and i suppose because of FFA only games (in a duel all imbalances become obvious much-much faster). It's all kid's play, not a real strategy game like Starcraft where hundreds of progamers play a game 8+ hours a day for 10 years and it still doesn't degrade to "who uses the best race/build order".
P.S. I played Dominions 3 in singleplayer a little. A seemly complex game but underlying base mechanics is lacking complexity IMHO. And AI is awful. Since i'll not play a year-long game for sure (heck, i played Civ 4 MP for that long, about 700 games i think), MP was not an option and it's boring to play against non-existant AI.
So when the game has options like declaring peace, rights of passage, mutual protection pacts like Civ4, or giving gold/gems/magic items and sending text messages like Dom3, it's no longer metagame. At least, it doesn't fit with the 'simple terms' definition.
I test tactics against the ai and decide whether that tactics works or not, and then add it to your strategic panel in the real game. That's the example I gave. Testing in SP is always worthwhile, particularly if you want to try a trick that's supposed to surprise the opponent... See if tactics (effect of spells, check cost in gems etc.) is viable, then try it irl.
You don't just send an in-game offer about mutual protection or something, right? If you make an out-of-game agreement, it's metagame. And that agreement doesn't even require an in-game mechanics most of the time. Even if you have no such thing as a "mutual protection", "peace" or "rights of passage", you're very likely to be able to make an out-of-game agreement about it anyway.
Players are playing competitively when there are ladders and tournaments, fanbase is big enough and game supports competitive gameplay. Dominions doesn't qualify.
And my point was that you don't really know how many valid _MP_ strategies are there because strategies aren't extensively tested in MP. You test a new strategy against AI, you use it, enemy may or may not find a counter, that's ok. But that's just one cycle, that's not enough to find if it's a valid strategy by itself, even if it suceeded (or it didn't) in one game against one opponent. A strategy ceases to become valid when there is a certain strategy or a sequence of actions that is always better or always counters that strategy, no matter what. But how can you be sure about it if a game takes a year to play or you play with, say, 50 other players (most of them probably aren't that skilled). You don't know if it's such case when you're still exploring strategies or if you're playing against a weak opponents. You need an equally skilled opponet so he'll not lose because he plays much worse overall and so he'll be able to execute the counter good enough so to make a counter effective. And you need a lot of equally skilled opponents so someone will actually find the counters. In a small community with 1-year games it's impossible.
By the way, i used the wrong word, i should have said "viable" instead of "valid". That rules out all strategies that are too weak against predominant strategies and counters that are not practical (say, counter may be countered with the lower resource cost than the cost of the counter itself, that leaves you in a worse state than you was before the strategy - counter - counter-counter sequence so it's not viable).
Edit: ops, i messed with quotes, fixed
To continue the discussion, on a Sirlin's site i found an interesting link to an article that explains why some games just fail (*cough*Dominions 3) and how to make a better and more popular game.
It's an article by another professional game designer "link: All genres are Doomed" that perfectly explains why Dominions 3 is the epitome of a niche game with all it's complexity and the lack of fun core mechanics (that's why i played it only a little, and i'm playing TBS for 17 years or so). These features absolutely kill the game for new players. That article also explains why Civ 4 was popular (it was in top 5 in sales charts in USA for a long time IIRC, and it was on 14th place several weeks ago - not bad for a TBS that is several years old).
However, what i see here is that just about everyone advocates Dominions 3 way with excess complexity at the expense of the fun core gameplay. That article explains why it happens - because hardcore fans are the most vocal and they do want even more hardcore stuff for themselves. But that doesn't make a good game. Besides, Elemental developers are also hardcore fans and they're falling for the same trap. Too many developers forget that they're making a game for others, not for themselves.
I think Civ 4 way is much better. And i think a good fast "multiplayer mode" is important as it requires a fun core gameplay - you just don't have time for the fluff in a fast match. Maybe it's not that important for sales in itself, but it's the best test if a game is fun to play for players who don't enjoy exploring 50 races and 300 pages of manual just so to start playing the game. It also is a good way to achieve such results. When you make an SP game, you think "what else can i add so to make it more fun"? That bloats the resulting game. When you need to condense the fun for a short match, you ask yourself - "what is not so important so i can remove it and make the game more fun"? That balances the design and makes the game better overall.
Dominions3 is a niche game, but in no way a failure.
There's no mystery why Dominions3 isn't so popular. Sprite-based graphics, price and clunky interface, in this order. That's it. 90% people can't get past the idea of sprite-based graphics, they automatically dismiss everything that's not 3D. The game would sell much better if it didn't cost so much - I don't remember how much exactly when I bought it, but it still costs $55 in the official store. It's because they wanted a 300 page spiral-bound manual, and the game was manufactured in multiples of 1000. Economics of scale at play - big studio games can be cheaper because they sell a lot of them. As for the interface/engine, it's pretty clear Dominions3 was just a modification of Dominions2. No new engine. Actually before the first patch Dominions3 had 'Dominions 2' printed on credits screen (!), before someone pointed out.
There's no big conspiracy.
Dominions 3 is a very good game for its intended audience.. The developers are fans of Ars Magica - a pen&paper RPG game set in medieval Europe. It's obscure for an RPG game, even - it's like hardcore squared.
Here it goes. You started off a flawed premise. Dominions3 indeed was developed to make a game that's fun for their developers. Kristoffer Ostermann said as much, perhaps indirectly, but in the context of balancing units and stuff. He said he really enjoys the flavour part of the game, rarely plays big games etc. For him, it's a fantasy world in the strictest sense. It's labour of love for this guy. Dominions2 sucked me in because it was like a book. I would read the unit/spell descriptions in demo version for hours.
Dominions game originated from usenet (newsgroups), from Play By EMail hardcore multiplayer community. It's enjoyed a lot by these people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Magica
edit:
Starcraft is not a strategy game.
***
Dominions 3 is a very good game for its intended audience.
I think it fails. Customers think it fails. Hardcore fans think it isn't, so what? From what i saw, Stardock actually cares about sales. Well, they're making games for their own money instead of someone else's money, so there is no surprise here.
Sorry, i'm out of patience so to explain obvious things to n00bs. You lose, try again.
I don't think Civ IV offers a fast multiplayer mode. It's just slow. First rounds include lots of hitting next turn or moving a single warrior. I never managed to end a 4 or 5 player MP Civ IV game in one evening (which I did in Dom3). I agree that having fast mode is cool, but that should last about 2-3 hours, 4 at most.
As for favouring depth over complexity, I agree, and the streamlining in Civ IV was neat. I still avoid all those mods where someone added a gazillion units and buildings and the missing techs. However, variety can provide depth. Think Magic: The Gathering (at least the first versions, I haven't followed this for years). It's quite simple because there aren't tons of concepts, and if you find a new card, it's written on it so easy to learn. It's possible to make some combos. Something like that is present in Dominions but not in Civ. Using air magic to get "Aim" and fire magic to get "Flaming arrows" looks like something I'd like in Elemental, something which rewards having two different paths of magic.
Ellestar:
For your information - IMHO stands for In My Humble Opinion. Using this in your post doesn't make it so. In fact, your opinions are often anything but humble:
P.S. I played Dominions 3 in singleplayer a little. A seemly complex game but underlying base mechanics is lacking complexity IMHO.
Strong opinions without any support, use of derogatory terms, a lot of assumptions(probably, I suppose...), belittle.
You have some very twisted logic in there, and you resort to personal attacks when someone points out, not to mention other fallacies like appeal to popularity. You can call any game a failure if you compare it to The Sims or Counterstrike. Dominions3 MP survives because it's tiny ? So a game's survival is inversely proportional to its popularity, at least in MP circles ?
Can you support that ? "Build order" is a phrase extremely common in RTS communities, and it's something often hotly debated. Perhaps because a game like starcraft leaves little else to master except build orders and finger dexterity ? It's carefully stripped of anything else that might upset balance. Map is symmetric, resource gain and recruitment capabilities - symmetric.... Build order X means having Y more zerglings in enemy base at minute mark Z - quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.
About balance - riiiight. Hannibal and Scipio dueled on a tennis court, too. Starcraft is so great that future generations will study it instead of Hannibal or Napoleon.
I think it fails. Customers think it fails.
I don't think it fails. I'm a customer. I just disproved your theory.
In some earlier post I can't locate now (possibly on an earlier page) you praise Civilisation4 for making early turns simple and giving player few options early on. You say it's good because it's not ovewhelming. Essentially, you say that it makes it user friendly.
But there's the other side of user friendly approach. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars had two separate keys for interacting with vehicles from outside: Use key and Vehicle key. 'Use' key would do almost everything I wanted (other actions like opening doors, flipping switches etc), but instead of entering a vehicle it would equip the repair tool. I would bind a separate key for it anyway. Many players complained that they needed an extra key for vehicles just because of this stupid design decision (to make things easier for newbie engineer players). It made things simpler for newbies, but in the long run it spoiled it for anyone else. Another example is 3D modelling software. People praise 3D Studio Max and complain about Blender. 3DS is intuitive and all that. But people who spend time to learn both say Blender interface is very well thought out for an advanced player. More generally about user interfaces in programs: what is good in the short run is not necessarily good in long term. If you design your dialogs so that each option is easy to find, chances are it's going to be annoying later because you're going to navigate through extra submenus just to access some commonly used option. Give me an interface that gives easy access to commonly used commands ! Finally, I think mouse-driven interfaces in general are hugely overrated. There are few things which really need mouse. Games are some, graphic design is another, but not much else. Mouse is good for your grandma, but experienced users like me learn to respect commandline. It's not only more flexible and powerful, but just faster.
Back to Civilisation 3 and limited choices in first few turns. What you perceive as good design, others may perceive as waste of time and no-brainer. Civ serries are known for the fact that you have to 'click through' the first X turn to get to the interesting part. In comparison, I think Dominions 3 starts off with a bang and fate of some players may be decided in the first 10 or so turns. You have to play carefully from the start. I'm perfectly fine with that. I _like_ playing as underdog factions in games. Playing with gnolls/death magic in Master of Magic teaches you new things, to squeeze the max out of every opportunity and try new things.
I don't mind heavy random factor in multiplayer games. Luck runs away, skill doesn't. If I'm a truly good player, I'll be winning more on average.
My point: Learning curve is once, having to replay dumbed down design is forever.
Is it possible to give someone negative Karma?
Very well said.
You found the workaround.
Seriously, Ars magica fans? I might have to check it out after all.
I really don't have much interest arguing the other things you brought up except this. Build orders in SC don't work out quite like in other RTS's I have experienced or at least do but in a much lesser degree. Your build is constantly changing based off information you recieve. So Sid Meier's quote should be more Build order X means having Y zerglings in enemy base at minute mark Z but depending on what build my opponent uses should I pursure more drones (economy), catch my opponent off guard with a tech switch, or find myself at an advantage and decide to add more lings. This is just at one stage of a game, so consistently a player is forced to deem what will lead him to victory. If this isn't strategic thinking then could you inform me of why Starcraft isn't a strategy game?
Of course there is different interests for certain people I just don't see why you feel the need to generalize a game to finger dexterity and build orders.
Yes and no. Overall, Civ 4 MP support was lacking. However, there is a turn timer and a city elimination limit. Noone uses them in singleplayer so their only purpose is to make MP games faster. And ladder Civ 4 games do last 2-3-4 hours.
I think in MtG almost all decks in formats that include old cards are either combo decks or control decks. I don't see anything like that in Dominions, they're just a generic magical effects that may be different in different magic schools, nothing new here.
Well, of course, a good game is easy to learn but hard to master.
If Dominions 3 was targeted at a hardcore audience only (did devs said it?), then i wasn't a complete disaster, but it isn't universally popular with a hardcore audience either. However, Civ 4 is ultimately more popular anyway and a bigger share of a hardcore TBS audience played it as well.
And my main point was that Elemental shouldn't follow Dominions 3 way to hell as it's tarteted to a wider audience.
What you call "strong opinions" are not really opinions, that's knowledge. You may ask for specifics if you want.
I'm making assumptions when i don't know for sure. N00bs just say "Starcraft is not a strategy game" without any assumptions because they're not knowledgeable enough so to doubt their premises.
I think the most popular game franchise (defined by a number of copies sold) is Pokemon. Well, at least it's in top 3 for sure. Sims is somewhere in top 8 and CS isn't even in top 20.
Map isn't really symmetric for a high-level play. Even Lost Temple was re-balanced numerous times and in different ways for a different tournaments. Recruitment capabilities aren't symmetric as players prefer not to play mirror matches (with the same races). Build order X means that you'll have Y zerlings in enemy base at minute mark Z, yes. But enemy will scout and will use build order A that will mean that he'll have same Y zerlings on his base but more drones at minute mark Z. And guess what, now he has an advantage! That's because you played a "build order" game and he played a strategy game and thought how to counter you. Besides, your "build order" thing doesn't explain what happens after you have Y zerlings on enemy base at minute mark Z. How your build orders will help you at that point if you don't know anything about the stategic part of the game? Do you quit the game and try your stupid rush again? Sure, you may play the game like that but saying that a game has no strategy because you're ignoring it is like explaining that rainbow is grey because you're color-blind. And that's what you do.
You're not a common customer, you're a hardcore fan.
Actually, it was in an article i linked to. But i agree with that statement.
Obviously, same rules don't apply to the game design and interface design. You _use_ interface, and you _play_ the game. Since it's a different kind of activity, requirments are different as well.
I guess you wanted to say "Civ 4".
I think turns does not really matter in that case. I do care about points in the game where i should make decisions, not about virtual things like turns. You should decide a lot of things in first phase of the game in Civ 4. Like, where to scout, which starting techs to research, where to found cities and in which order, how to improve your land.
You mix two unrelated things - complexity and depth. Dumbed down design is a design that lacks depth. Complex design may lack depth too (and more likely so than a simpler design because it's much harder to balance a complex game). You learn a complex design once and there is no game, the real challenge is in learning, not in the game. A "smart" game is a game that is "easy to learn, hard to master". Like, say, Chess. You don't have 50 races and 200 spells there but that game is hard to master indeed. Like Starcraft where progamers are playing it 8 hours a day and they still say they're far from perfect.
By the way, didn't i already said in that thread that you're wrong when you think it's finger dexterity that matters? APM of 200 is more than enough (unless you're working as a professional Starcraft player in South Korea, and even then it may be enough). I can make 240 clicks/minute in Piegates (search for piegates.exe with any search engine), that's 240 APM on mouse only, even without use of keyboard, right? Wrong. Physically it's easy, it's much harder to think fast enough so to give meaningful orders, not just make random clicks.
P.S. And if you don't agree with something, please say what exactly you don't agree with. I don't really want to repeat the same thing for the 3rd time in the same thread just because you ignore what i say.
I already explained why Starcraft is a strategy game (i said which strategic decisions do you need to make) and he says "it's not a strategic game" once again, without any explanation. I wasn't in a mood to fight against stupidity once again. But you're more lucky this time I mean, come on, he's ignoring my arguments (that's precisely because he's a noob - he doesn't have enough knowledge to notice the arguments about the game, let alone make a judgement about the game) and somehow i'm at fault? Shouldn't he get negative karma? But wait, it requires some thinking, while it's easy to blame me, so guess what stupid people do? They blame me, of course
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
