Matrix Games Forums

Some interesting points...

http://www.wonderlandblog.com/wonderlan ... .html#more

Very interesting, thanks.  The discussion on odds made me cringe though.  Do people really think like that?  Must not be wargamers. 

I think Sid is basically correct; however, I perceive that the population(s) are changing. Positive reward and happy stuff is certainly good, but I think that complex and potentially so confusing and difficult that it can be very frustating is becoming more and more appealing to a growing segment. Witness most of Paradox' (or Ageod), or Matrix' strategy titles. Much more complex than Civ, much easier to screw up, much less forgiving. Now granted, much lower sales volume too! [:)]

Is Meier currently working on anything aside from yet another version of Civ?

He is the godfather of computer gaming, yet I haven't seen anything new from him; perhaps he prefers tried and true?

It almost seems like certain aspects of making a game true to real life must be compromised to make a "good" game. The psychology is interesting and may help some serious gamers understand why their friends don't want to play a particular game after a couple turns, or 15 minutes.

The discussion on odds made me cringe though. Do people really think like that?

That had me wondering too. From my first days playing Avalon Hill's Tactics II way back when, it never occurred to me when I got a bad die roll on the 2-1 or 3-1 column on the CRT that I had somehow been cheated by the game and psychologically deprived of something. I guess I appreciate the historical accuracy and realism that wargames have to offer rather than the self-esteem building of "mainstream" entertainment games.

you know, and not to knock these guys, as with out them, where would we gamers be to start with, but most times, after reading what they think, or do, I get the feeling, that they never really have even played there own games, and all of there thinking on how players react, is based on what they think the player is doing and not on what the player really is doing

Sid's talk about odds, I disagree with what he says/thinks, and don't believe what he says, reflects on what he programs

the player expects to win on a 3-1 odds, the player is unhappy if he losses ?

really, in Sids games, I think it is the player expects to win when his Advanced Tank, runs into a the enemy Bowman, and the bowman wins, when his Advanced Battleship runs into the enemy Sailing ship, and the Sailing ship wins, that is what makes the player unhappy (or more likely frustated)

really, in the long run, I think a lot of the programmers need to take a break every once in a while and play there games, and stop thinking about what the code should do, but get in there and see what the code really does

Agree Hard Sarge. That did Civ 4 for me. The weirdly floating map and the battleship sunk by a junk.
Now, a little bit of auto upgrade with the timescale the junk would have been an MTB and I could maybe have swallowed it. The bowman a bank of AK47 toting revolutionaries and so on.
Ok Adowa. Islandwhana Big Horn. I take it all back..

One day Paradox or maybe Matrix or Ageod will string together different engines that properly deal with different eras like the Alexander + EU Rome + EU Heir to Throne + Crown of Glory + Victoria Revolutions/Forge of Freedom + Time of Wrath / War in the Pacific (except for the whole planet), and then figure out the entire data base to have every single leader, great person, general, and revolutionary/person of note (as well as all culture- and era-specific unit types, building types, styles of prose, medical advances, jurisprudential traditions, etc., etc.) all into one massive game so huge that contemporary computers simple could not even contain it, much less run it, and then we will have what the Civ series (seems) to intend to be: a true simulator of human cultural evolution in all its diversity since the Neolithic.

Until then, we have Sid and crews' Disneyfied simplifications, which are FAR better than no "Grand Human Civilization" stimulation/strategy game at all [:D]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
... Until then, we have Sid and crews' Disneyfied simplifications, which are FAR better than no "Grand Human Civilization" stimulation/strategy game at all [:D]

Disneyfied or simplified, Meier's games are still superior to the latest incarnations of the EU engine; it seems the more data bases Paradox puts into a title, the less playable it becomes.

Of course, skipping the beta testing phase doesn't help, either.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
... Until then, we have Sid and crews' Disneyfied simplifications, which are FAR better than no "Grand Human Civilization" stimulation/strategy game at all [:D]

Disneyfied or simplified, Meier's games are still superior to the latest incarnations of the EU engine; it seems the more data bases Paradox puts into a title, the less playable it becomes.

Of course, skipping the beta testing phase doesn't help, either.

Which one are you disliking Joe?

I just bought AOD recently, but have not played it yet. I'm pretty happy with all the others I've got (EU Rome; CKDV; EU HTT; Victoria Rev). Sure they have some flaws (naval shortcomings e.g.) but I find them to be imminently playable. Don't necessarily want to get into a EU-engine fanboy-anti fight here, but I'm curious which specific games you are finding dissatisfying?

There are various things i disagree with SID:

1. random tech tree...as long as it makes sense (no bazooka in the Antics), i am all for a random tech tree...increases replayability
2. random events: this is one of the reasons i still enjoy Master of Orion 1 and Birth of the Federation. I wished it was in other games too.
3. if my civilizations crumbles for reasons i can understand it's fine with me.
4. i want to know why i get a reward so it can happen again.
5. i hate the odds in combat. As someone said, a tank is supposed to get rid of an archer 9 out 10 times. If i have the archer, i expect to be screwed and there's nothing wrong with that.
6. i don't mind losing against a clever AI but i hate to win against a weak AI (bad excuse to say that it acts "human") and lose against a cheating AI.
7. in MOO, i constantely support weak allies (money, tech etc) because ALLIANCES mean something and can lead you to win the game.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Which one are you disliking Joe?

I just bought AOD recently, but have not played it yet. I'm pretty happy with all the others I've got ...

Isn't AoD what HoI3 was supposed to be?

I'm dislikng all the Para titles after EU2; Rome was unplayable until the VV version, and I still don't think HoI3 is working after a flury of patches that followed its release.

I still have HoI2 installed, as well as the original Viki -- IMO it has the smartest opening intro of any Para release -- as well as a disc of EU2 for sentimental reasons as it was my first computer sim, but all the other Para titles are off my HD.

Sure, complex games will always have glitches, but lately we have been doing Para's beta testing for them w/o any compensation.

I don't appreciate Sids ramble about odd's and player psychology. He's drifting into a condescending attitude there.

I agree with the above person who also disagrees with Sids comments regarding randomness.

I feel Sids attitude towards AI is a little too 'touchy-feely' a good AI makes you work and often beats you in ways you hadn't though of, it keeps you on guard and always looking for opportunity. A good AI beats you and teaches you. A good AI is NOT your friend.

Load/Save behaviour; for me this is often about time management as much as it is about achieving victory. These days I can't afford to waste time and having to play for hours repeatedly to get to some pinch point in gameplay isn't going to work for me. This will enfuriate me.

Anyway, he's accomplished so much e must be right in his thinking, at least to a degree, so his attitudes deserve consideration.

I hear ya Joe. It is easy for me to come along and buy Rome Gold (after the years of hard work by unpaid beta testers, multiple patches and expansions, etc.), and the other Para products long after they've been well-fixed and have a positive attitude about Paradox. I can see how I'd agree with you if I had been along for the whole ride like you.

However, the problems you point out with games being relatively shoddy when they are first released matches my limited experience with Ageod, to a lesser degree with Firaxis (lets face it Beyond the Sword was what Civ 4 should have been, and even then it had to be patched multiple times before it really was fully functioning), and even to some extent Matrix.

I fear that companies releasing strategy game products before they are actually finished is becoming the norm. In part I think this is because of who strategy gamers are as populations: tinkerers, problem-solvers, and forum flies who love to talk about game mechanics.

Course, the non-strategy game populations have their own foibles. Those are the actual populations to whom I think Sid refers with his more condescending comments. The ones about: Pavlovian happy-face response to pretty bells and whistles, disinterest in anything that is actually difficult, quantitatively complex, or challenging, relative disinterest in ctual history compared Disney-face historical caricatures and dramatized historical watersheds.

I don't think he really understands strategy gamers, though the general market he may well be describing quite well, and that right there would account for the huge success of his series . . . waitaminute, I shouldn't be saying this, I might get Erik Rutins et al. to thinking in the 'wrong' direction . . . [:D]

I'm tired of all the CIV linear tech trees. First you get pottery, build a granary, somewhere you Iron, build a legion Blah blah blah. Everybody is in the same race inventing the same damn things. Without being completely fictional, Medeval chinese were firing rockets, but didn't think of using them for weapons or flight. What if somebody did tho? The aztecs made hot air balloons but treated them as kids toys. But what if somebody used it as a scout unit. So cum'on Sid, how about a non linear but equally realistic tech tree with a little what if....

After Civ 2 Sid abolished a random civ being deployed on an isolated island away from the other Civ's. What? That was pay dirt when you found a stranded city state ripe for the pickins. But hey that never happened in history right? cough cough Easter island, montazuma, hawaii,

Sid's Motto: A good AI is a cheatin' AI. Look for the Human player. Take a sneak peak in all his cities. And spawn some units outside of the empty one.[:D]
I hate this, the AI should not be sneak peaking, lots of games do this, there must be a better way. Takes away all daring moves.

Hoping for an improved Sid meirs civilization experience is like hoping for a great Operating system. For every Win 98 and XP, we got a Vista and a Windows millenium (Civ 3)

I liked a lot of Sid's games... Crusade in Europe, Silent Service, F-15 Strike Eagle, etc.. Heck, I even liked Solo Flight. But nothing he's done since 1986 has appealed to me.*shrug*

And many of his comments regarding odds were very often true 25 years ago.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

However, the problems you point out with games being relatively shoddy when they are first released matches my limited experience with Ageod ...

I still have the original BoA; at first, AGEOD listened to its customers and worked-out every kink to make its games work well, but now that Paradox has purchased it, that may all change for the worse.

IMO, AGEOD's Athena AI was as challenging as Panther's AA AI, assuming one put the R&D into it, but today, R&D is time-consuming, and now, more than ever, time is $.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
I fear that companies releasing strategy game products before they are actually finished is becoming the norm. In part I think this is because of who strategy gamers are as populations: tinkerers, problem-solvers, and forum flies who love to talk about game mechanics ...

Modders! In fact, Civ Colonization held a contest to find the modder who would "fix" the game (!); it was certainly a clever way to have someone else do your beta work for you.

His comments on psychology are all focussed on giving reward and denying punishment. There's a bit of positive reinforcement and punishment but nothing about negative reinforcement and overall I think he really fails to address the psychology of addiction which is eminently related to creating "addictive games".

Psychology in gaming is pretty simple... If you want an addictive gaming experience then you need to ensure it has a variable ratio reward system... That is the most addictive reward schedule possible, far more addicting than fixed interval or fixed ratio or even variable interval... It basically describes the "you could win any time you play" type of game such as horse racing, poker, lotteries etc and explains why they are so addictive.

Create the opportunity for gamers to get variable ratio reward systems (or, you could win any time, even though most of the time you lose ) at the various levels and areas of the game ( research, development, exploration, combat etc ) and you'll get mild levels of addiction to the game...

His first 15 minutes really equates with the heroin user who always chases the ultimate high they got "the first time". They sometimes spend the rest of their foreshortened lives chasing that high --- and usually failing although succeeding often enough ( see variable ratio reward system ) to keep them hooked and chasing it.


His discussion of odds is based on reward and pleasing players, not rooted in the slightly more complex but addictive psychology of addiction which is what i think he'd really need to understand to create far more compelling experiences.

Well, while I may not agree with everything he said you forget he has created one of the most successful franchises in gaming history.  He must know something about the psychology of the gamer.