Sid Meier Responds 365
What is your opinion on open source clones such as FreeCiv? FreeLoaders, or flatterers? :)
Response:
It's tough to make a blanket statement about all open source clones, but since developers and publishers rely very heavily on
intellectual property rights, any infringement or dilution of those rights can be detrimental to companies, games, and consumers. In
the case of Civilization, Take Two Interactive now owns all rights to the game series and fortunately, the franchise is still a mainstay
at Firaxis...so we feel pretty protective of the IP.
2. By Surt (22457):
Keeping PC gaming alive:
What factors do you think help keep PC gaming alive when competing with consoles, and do you foresee that PC gaming will continue to
survive when confronted with the next generation of consoles? From the reverse perspective, what prevents consoles from finally killing
off PC gaming?
Response:
Believe it or not, I think the biggest thing PCs have going for them in the console war is the mouse/keyboard interface. So many game
types are nearly unplayable without this simple mechanism. Real-time strategies, first-person shooters, point and click adventures, are
all best suited to a mouse and keyboard. Another important factor is the innate upgradeability of PCs vs. consoles. The fact that you
can still have a viable machine two years after it has been on the market, by simply adding RAM or a new video card is priceless. PCs
also benefit from fairly cost effective high-resolution monitors. Finally, you can't ignore how easy it is to connect PCs to the
internet (another mouse/keyboard must by the way). Being able to quickly, easily, and cheaply connect is a major plus, as it allows all
sorts of flexibility - from finding opponents to downloading patches and content to browsing forums and FAQs.
On the reverse side, consoles offer many positives as well. They represent a known quantity so it is easy to take advantage of everything they have to offer without worrying about the least common denominator. They are inexpensive to buy and easy to operate. They work well with your home theater and your living room without requiring a lot of technical know-how. Even with all of that, they will never "kill-off" computers because they aren't competing for the same market in the same fashion. There will always be room for both and that's good for me.
3. By codergeek42 (792304):
I think the big question on a lot of our minds is: Why did you start doing game design and programming in the first place?
Response:
I caught the computer bug in college, but never imagined that one day I would have a career making games for the computer. As a kid I
really enjoyed playing board games and card games, and was interested in reading books about history, pirates, airplanes...all of which
have been the topics in the games I've created. Bill Stealey and I started Microprose on a dare really...we were at a business conference
together and were playing a flight-sim arcade game. Bill was really impressed that I kept winning and I told him that I could tell what
the AI was going to do each time, so it was easy to win...and I said that I could make a better game in two weeks. Bill challenged me to
do just that and so began our game development company.
4. By Avacar (911548):
Balance:
When building any strategy game, where do you start when you attempt to balance the game? Do you find that you personally need to
playtest and try new concepts to balance games, or do the inherent mechanisms of your games lead towards making balance easier for you
to achieve?
Response:
My whole approach to making games revolves around first creating a solid prototype and then playing and improving the game over the
course of the 2-3 year development cycle...until we think it's ready for prime time. My experience in this area helps me to know what to
do and where to start. I definitely spend a lot of time playing the game before I let anyone else look at it. I also have quite a code
base that I've been using for a long time, so I know how certain systems will work before I even throw them in. Once the basics are in
and I'm comfortable letting other people see it, I like to watch brand new players play it first. It's much harder to make a game
balanced for newbies than for hard core gamers. I like to see where they have trouble and I try to eliminate things that are too
troublesome or difficult to grasp... it's really important that players feel rewarded at all times, so this step is critical for that
reason. Of course, once I have a good grasp on the new player experience, it's time to throw the game to the seasoned testers. For
them, I just keep ramping up difficulty by factors of 2 until they beg for mercy - it seems to take longer than it used to for that to
happen. :)
5. By WhiteBandit (185659):
Future Directions in Gaming:
I admire many of the great game designers who have pushed the boundaries in gaming (yourself, Will Wright and Peter Molyneux to name a
few). However, I can't help but feel that many of today's genres are stale and a lot of new games are mostly repeating past formulas as
we see many sequels or derivatives of previous games being released. This appears to be a trend that will continue. Where do you think
the future of gaming is headed, and how hard is it to introduce radical new ideas into the industry?
Response:
The cost of making games has gone through the roof, so understandably, publishers want to invest in games that are sure to sell...and
sequels for successful franchises are safe bets. It's very difficult to convince publishers to invest millions of dollars in a new game
idea...it's too risky. And, fans certainly seem to want more of what they love...Civilization, AoE, Sims...we keep making those games because
people keep asking for more.
The game industry will continue to grow and become a bigger part of main stream entertainment...and eventually take over the world J The constant advances in gaming systems will drive new ideas. I think we're just at the tip of the iceberg in gaming...there's so much more to come.
6. By Amoeba (55277):
Playability vs Graphics:
In any Slashdot gaming discussion, invariably the debate between playability vs. graphics comes up. "This game is pretty but the game
sucks!" vs. "Nethack is all I need man." The games you've had a hand in seem to emphasize intricate strategy, with graphics taking a
backseat for the most part. Some of the most successful games in the past have been very simple on the surface but can have amazing
depth, all without gee-whiz factor of purty lights and bleeding-edge graphics engines. How much focus do you place on the graphical
aspects of gaming, and do you think there is a way to achieve a balance without sacrifices on either end? How do you tackle that
problem? When I got started, there was only so much you could do with graphics so we had to leave a lot up to the player's imagination.
That was the beauty of those old games; the player filled in the gaps for you. If you put a green blob on the screen and called it a
dragon, it had the tendency of becoming a dragon so long as you were engaging the player's mind. Times change, though, and technology
marches on. People expect a lot more out of a computer or video game these days and we have to adjust. I still like to engage the
player's imagination, but they don't have to fill in so many gaps themselves.
Response:
This is very cool because I don't have to use so many info screens to show players what they need to know - which is a dream come true
for me. When we were remaking Pirates, it was very important to us that players be able to see the towns, discern their nationality,
and see how large and wealthy they were all by looking at the screen. In Civ IV, the guys have taken that concept even farther and you
can see at a glance everything you really need to know about a city.
On the other hand, it seems there are many times when graphics get the better of good judgment. I must say that I am a big fan of racing games like Gran Turismo, but sometimes it seems they are more focused on the replay than the race, which feels a little backwards to me. In fact, lately I've been let down by a bunch of racing games that looked amazing but were tragically flawed in some way. So, I'll stick with Gran Turismo 3.
One final note on this... Recently, I've been working on several prototypes and was surprised to find that I reached a point fairly early on when I just couldn't find any more fun in the concept - until I had some professionally created art. In the past, I was content to create my own art and never had any trouble envisioning gameplay, so this represents a fundamental change for me.
7. By truthsearch (249536):
AI:
I've been a huge fan of Civilization since it first came out. I've always thought the AI of the computer player is relatively good,
especially how each has certain characteristics which differentiate them. But AI in strategy games doesn't seemed to have advanced
drastically in the last 15 years. What do you imagine the next big advance in game AI will be? When will games really learn how you
play? Will we not be able to tell the difference between a human and computer competitor? I probably shouldn't be telling you this, but
in my opinion, the goal of AI is not necessarily to simulate a human response. The goal is to generate interest for the player by
providing the illusion of a human-like response - or not at all human-like, if that's what it takes to engage the player. I'm not
entirely sure that complex games like Civ could ever have true human responses because there is so much complexity that the AI would
bring almost any machine to its knees.
Response:
Consider this: we have only recently been able to truly simulate intelligence that can compete with a human in chess. Chess is
obviously a complex intellectual game, but it is ultimately fairly easy to define because there are only 64 squares and 6 types of
movement. Plus, the rules of engagement are simple - attack and win. Add to that the huge amount of known strategy that has been
collected and studied throughout the years and it is even more definable. In a game like Civ, we have over 80 units, all with
different movement rates, strengths, special abilities, experience levels, etc. We also have to decide where to place cities, what to
build, who to be nice to and who to make war with. We also have to decide what to research, what religion to spread, what Civics to
adopt, etc. All in all, I don't expect to see anything close to true human intelligence any time soon, as long as games continue to get
more complex.
9. By Chickenofbristol55 (884806):
Question:
Since the first Civilization game in 1991, how do you think the gaming industry has changed? And, is the change for the better or for
the worse?
Response:
Obviously the gaming industry has grown exponentially since 1991. The cost of entry is much higher than it was when I started. The days
of guys building a game in their garage and then selling it to a publisher are behind us, I'm afraid. To make a game today it takes more
money, time, people, technology...which is why there are fewer independent developers and the big publishing houses run the show. Frankly,
I liked it better in the old days, when things were less complicated (I'm showing my age here). We were breaking new ground, and it was
really fun. Not to say that it's not fun now...I still love making games and have a bunch of new ideas for games I'd like to create.
The stakes are much higher now, but the quality of many of the games produced today is pretty impressive. The changes in the industry have definitely benefited the consumers - they have an array of game systems and games to choose from...and the competitive environment drives developers to strive to out-do each other...which pushes game design forward.
All things considered...there's nothing else I'd rather do for a living than make games. It's the best job in the world.
10. By TuringTest (533084):
What kind of game do you enjoy?:
Good games (and specially videogames) entail a great deal of simulation of reality; They are bits of everyday life simplified for casual
enjoyment. What do you feel is more important for a game to be great and/or successful: that the mechanics create an environment with
interesting and complex possibilities, or that they are fun and easy to grasp? Is balance required between these two design forces? And
which of the two do you enjoy most in your own experiences as game player?
Response:
I like to play all kinds of games...on a variety of systems. My son and I play games on the PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube...and they range from
Warcraft, to Halo to Grand Turismo...to Civilization. :)
I definitely try to create, and most enjoy playing, games that strike a balance between depth/complexity and ease of use. My goal when making a game is to find the right mix of story and mechanics that will deliver many hours of fun to players. We try to put the player in a situation where they can be something great - King, Pirate Captain, Tycoon, Entrepreneur - and create an interesting world where they can have an adventure, build an empire, conquer the world etc. The game can be as deep as a player wants it to be. In Civ for example, a game can last from 1 hour to 40 hours, depending on what the player wants. I've watched kids play Civ on a very surface level and have a great time with it...and I've seen hard core gamers go as deeply into the game as possible...where things become pretty complex...and those folks have a fun experience too. We've tried to make Civ IV easy for anyone to pick up and play...and then created layers and layers of depth and complexity just waiting to be explored by those who dare to venture there. But...the interface remains familiar and easy-to-use throughout....and the visuals add a whole new dimension to the experience. Sorry for the shameless plug...but it's our baby. :)
Re:Nice dodge (Score:5, Insightful)
What a dick! (Score:2, Insightful)
PC Upgradability (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, but the thing is that these days you can buy a new console for LESS than a decent video card...
Reusing Code == Unoriginal Game Play (Score:3, Insightful)
My first thought on this was, Wow, wouldn't it be great to Open Source this code base. My second thought was, isn't this a symptom of a larger problem? We want code to be modular and reusable so complex games can be developed quickly, yet we complain that games aren't original enough because people are reusing code. Seems like a fundamental problem to me.
What I really want to know... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice dodge (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation from Slashbot into English:
I like Sid and his games and I'm pissed off that he cares about making money off his innovation instead of blindly embracing open source like I do. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. One more person I can't respect.
Dude, seriously. If I was in his shoes and had my career aspirations, bankroll, retirement, and basically every financial aspect of my life hinging upon the legal protection of what amount to ideas, I'd wouldn't even be THIS evasion about it. I'd be saying something like, "Are you seriously asking me what I think of people who take my ideas and produce half-assed clones of them that they distribute for free while I'm trying to run a company that feeds six dozen developer's families?"
Insert cliched rebuttal about how ideas don't have owners here.
Re:What's the point of these Q&A sessions? (Score:3, Insightful)
The questions are supposed to be the ones that slashdot users and mods find interesting. The fact that a slasdhot editor disagrees shouldn't factor in.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go ahead and try it, Sid (Score:4, Insightful)
And Take2, like any big publisher, will move to quash clone developers when they become a threat.
It's a business. It's not there to promote independent developers, it's there to make money.
We should be happy that Sid & Take2 are continuing to develop games, to improve the Civ franchise, instead of sitting back and slapping lawsuits on anyone who tries to copy older games.
Disclaimer: I do not work for Take2, but I'm in the same building as them.
Re:Reusing Code == Unoriginal Game Play (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the point of these Q&A sessions? (Score:2, Insightful)
* Let us rate the questions, like we do.
* You tell the interviewee "we'd like you to answer at least 'x' of them" and then hand over the top-rated ones, all of them.
And here's the important part:
* Let the interviewee pick the questions. Maybe he or she will even choose to answer more then 'x' of them. Maybe they'll pick ones you wouldn't have.
Re:Waste of a question (Score:3, Insightful)
Many modern console games run 20-30 FPS, with 30 FPS being a 'goal'. They also generally do not necessarily attempt to run at a fixed frame rate, unlike consoles of previous generations. Unless, that fixed frame rate is capping off the frame rate at the lower end of a fluctuating spectrum so as to prevent uneven performance.
Re:What's the point of these Q&A sessions? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason this question is never asked is because the answer is always the same.
Re:PC Upgradability (Score:3, Insightful)
Consoles are going up in price as they try to match PCs in terms of graphics power. Since xbox and ps2 run at resolutions way lower than PC resolutions, they don't need the processing power PCs do. This is changing as TVs become HDTVs, and get the same resolution as computer monitors. I just built a
~D
Re: Disappointing... (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason that computer Go is much harder to implement that computer chess is because the problem space is much larger. Chess is played on an 8x8 grid, with only a few dozen possible moves on each turn. Go is typically played on a 19x19 grid, so at least at the beginning of the game, there are many times more possible moves. When you start calculating a few moves ahead, then things get *really* complicated. Also, despite the simple rules, distinguishing a good move from a bad move in Go is quite hard.
The complexity of the rules is not that important -- it's the number of possible moves and figuring out the effect of each move that makes programming the AI hard. I think Sid's right on this one.
Re:Disappointing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Go, on the other hand, has over one hundred thousand possible board positions after each player has one move. After the second turn, there are over sixteen billion. This branching factor is what causes complexity for a computer. The actual mechanics of the rules have very little to do with it.
Re:What's the point of these Q&A sessions? (Score:4, Insightful)
This doesn't mean you have to pass on the highest-rated questions, but it's been a long time since the +5 meant much on these stories.
Re:Civ Dissapoints Met (Score:3, Insightful)
CIV III could have stood to have been a bit more humerous.
I found the following amusing [lyricsfreak.com] when trying to change governments:
You say you want a revolution?
Re:Go ahead and try it, Sid (Score:4, Insightful)
When people dictate to others how generous they should be, it always reminds me of socialists who would compel Meier to fork over his fortune through taxation.
OK, so maybe calling him a socialist was a stretch, but I have a huge problem with people who want to dictate the generosity of others.
What does the law say? (Score:1, Insightful)
Wouldn't that suggest that it's legally not a problem to make a clone of a game (until, of course, software patents enter the picture)? Or, unless the "civ" part of "freeciv" is considered as trademark infringement?
Re:Go ahead and try it, Sid (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see where he asked for the government to enforce it. Many people disagree about choices to do with money. That doesn't mean they want to use force. For example - does disapproving that someone spends all their money on hookers and cocaine mean that one necessarily wants the government to outlaw hookers and cocaine? Of course not. it's just a personal judgement.
Meier has enough money to be comfortable, so suing people or being overly protective of his profits would seem greedy to many people. And greed is not usually considered a positive thing. Of course, he is free to be as greedy as he wants, but we don't have to respect him if he chooses to do so.
*Note: I am not trying to suggest Meier is greedy here. Just deconstructing the logic of your post.
Re:Nice dodge (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless Meiers has patents relating to Civ gameplay, he has no legal protection. Copyright only applies to 'expressions', not 'ideas'. Unless someone has copied his code or images, they have not infringed his 'IP'.
If you don't want to share your ideas, then STFU. Then no one can 'steal' your ideas.
Re:Go ahead and try it, Sid (Score:5, Insightful)
The current boogeyman is "terrorist". Totalitarian socialistic regiments have either fallen (Soviet Union) or are converting themselves to totalitarian market economies (China), while the non-totalitarian mixed-economy commonwealths (most European countries, especially Nordic countries) have become corrupted by globalism for the benefit of large international corporations and to the detriment of their people.
Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, has kept frustrating all US efforts to find him, and is still a viable boogeyman. Please use current boogeyman termonology; otherwise, the younger people here won't get your attempt to make the parent look bad.
This message has been brought to you by Boomonology Inc - let us deliver your boogeyman !
The grandparent didn't say so. The grandparent said that Sid can afford to be tolerant of people who are making a new game based on Civilization as a non-monetary-profit project. These people don't want Sids money, they want nothing from him except to be left alone. So far they have gotten what they want.
However, I do find the very idea that you can get the government to stop someone from reimplementing your idea in the form of a new product deeply disturbing, and completely contrary to the idea of free market. Perhaps Wine [winehq.org] should also be shut down, since they are reimplementing the Windows API, even if their product shares no code with Windows ?
"fan editions" shouldn't even be an issue (Score:2, Insightful)
back in the Good Old Days, kids used to be able to draw inspiration from comic books, movies, games, art, books, and anything else to make their own. i'd wager that we've all done it at one point or another, because its not only a way of learning, its a way of consuming, interpreting, and reproducing culture. sure a lot of it was straight out copying. but no one mistook the original for the interpretation.
Now, the open-source movement is trying to make its own Civ tribute. There's no mistaking that their efforts are a pale imitation of the original, an interpretation of something that inspired them. Yet here we go with the corporatist bravado -- from an artist like Sid Meyer fer gawd sakes! Does Take Two really feel threatened by the equivalent of a childs interpretation? should they?
obviously, i'm not talking about propogating Madonnas latest MP3 across the net anymore than i'm saying people should indiscriminantly copy the retail version of Civ4. i'm talking about the right to take that MP3, rip sections from it, mix it in your own interpretation, and share it with the world. i'm talking about drawing inspiration from a great game, taking what you like from it, complimenting the author with your own efforts, and sharing that with who ever cares. that should be the right we all enjoy for all time, not the right for some abstract entity to keep making money off us long after death. or is that why you makes games Sid?
i don't think so. artists, programmers, designers, and all the other creative producers of intellectual property should remember what the production and reproduction of culture means: that their work will live beyond them and be enjjoyed by as many people as possible. nuts to Take Two and Sid Meyer for forgetting that people -- not dollars -- is what their efforts are all about.
OSS gaming (Score:2, Insightful)
Sid mentioned in the interview:
It's very difficult to convince publishers to invest millions of dollars in a new game idea...it's too risky.
This is the golden apple here! To all OSS game developers, if you want to contribute to the open source communities AND to the game industry in a meaningful way, develop games based on new game ideas. Be radical. Be innovative. Be crazy. You are in a position to beta test ideas that the game industry can never possibly afford to put themselves in. If you are an OSS game developer, instead of trying to make clones of games and risk legal action, why not take the road less traveled and develop new games based on ideas we have never seen before. Try contacting people like Sid and volunteering to develop these new game ideas. The gaming companies can certainly use an infusion of new genres and ideas and OSS could be the best test-bed for these ideas. For all who take the stance that the whole world should be OSS, this is also the way to do that. Develop your new game ideas as OSS games and be the first, the original. One of the reasons clones like FreeCiv are seen as half-assed (as I saw someone mention earlier) is because it isn't the first. If it were the first, it might be looked at as a better game or at least not half-assed. The original is almost always more likeable than the clones.
I'm normally not the type of guy that tries to find the good in everything, but it seems a lot of the OSS people are always trying to find the bad in everything. Instead of trying to find ways of accusing people of being "the man" and trying to stomp you for participating in OSS, take a look at the whole picture and you just might find some good stuff in there like this.
And, on a subject slightly differnt than the subject of this post indicates: Sid, thank you very much for your responses. I enjoyed reading the interview and am extremely envious of you. Back on my C64, I always dreamed of putting out the next big game but never had the balls to see it through. And you're right. It is very difficult to get into the gaming business today. I wish it weren't so because I would love to join the ranks of game developers from my garage/basement.
Re:Slow games in Civilization (Score:3, Insightful)
Get AMD's CPU drivers if your motherboard supports Cool-N-Quiet (tm). I've tested it out, and my brand new AMD 64 chip underclocks to about 1 Ghz when idle. That translates to less heat, which can in turn lead to a quieter system, as well. (Some mobos can dynamically undervolt the fan to slow it down when the chip is cool.)
What you save in electricity, you can use to heat your house more efficiently.