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. :)
First-person shooters (Score:1, Interesting)
What's the point of these Q&A sessions? (Score:4, Interesting)
For the second game developer interview in a row +5 modded questions about linux ports of the games have been posted and ignored.
Come one, slashdot. Just ask the questions we've modded up.
Re:First-person shooters (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:First-person shooters (Score:5, Interesting)
Waste of a question (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
I missed this question when the original article asking for questions was posted. But this is a silly waste. Sid's answer is spot on, and I wish I knocked this down a knotch with a mod point.
Lumping an entire market together and insisting they are direct competitors for the exact same dollar is stupid. Civ4 cannot be played well with a PS2 controller, and Grand Turismo plays crappy on a keyboard. You can find a way to make it work, but no one is going to spend the time to try to code it. It's a waste. The market will show you that there is room for both, and while there are lots of crossovers, you will also see that there are lots of areas where there is absolutely no crossover, simply because of interface issues.
Sid makes some other great points about graphics and upgrades you can do to a PC. This goes into the fact that a $100-$300 console can run a fast paced racing game with better performance than a $1500 computer. PC games are notorious for being slow and skipping frames. Some console games do this, but that's considered a bug in the console game and it doesn't do so well if it performs badly. However, in the PC world if a game has godly system requirements for any reason, the blame is more often put on the PC and not the person who coded it to require too much power. Sometimes that's deserving but having to spend hours just to fine tune your system to play Quake or Doom is nuts.
They are all gaming companies, but different games for different platforms will always be here, and I hope it gets even more diverse, because we need the diversity.
Re:First-person shooters (Score:5, Interesting)
With consoles, you need a small controller you can hold in mid-air, so for example aiming and button use has to be done with your thumbs, rather than most of your fingers. I've played Halo on the PC and XBox, and the PC version is unquestionably better in my mind.
That said, the next generation nintendo with it's gyro controllers will actually use the mid-air movement of the controller(s), so FPS games on it may well end up equal or superior to the PC experience. We'll see.
Is this all you post anymore? (Score:3, Interesting)
A Firefox article is posted, and within 15 minutes there's you with a "Thanks, Firefox developers!" comment.
Google announces a new feature of their Print service and immediately it's "Thanks Google!!" in a comment of yours that shoots straight up to 4 or 5.
I guess what I'm saying is... shut up.
Re:Go ahead and try it, Sid (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahh, spoken like a true Socialist!
'I say he's made enough money, and I think he should be compel^H^H^H^H^H^H happy to give back to the people who played his games!'
Input devices (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Waste of a question (Score:2, Interesting)
Disappointing... (Score:2, Interesting)
The silliest one is the answer to Question 7.
Sid makes the following argument : Chess, which has simple rules, is the current limit of what computer AI can do as well as a human. So Civilization 4, which has much more complex rules, is too difficult to allow computer AI to compete with humans.
This argument is false : for instance, look at the traditional Asian "Go" game. It has very simple rules, much simpler than Chess. If Sid's argument made sense, computer should be able to play Go very well. But the reality is that as of today, Computers cannot compete with a skilled human. Thus : there is no direct relationship between the complexity of the rules, and the difficulty to design a strong AI.
Not to mention Sid's answer to the question on Free clones... he has no interest in software freedom.
Re:Nice dodge (Score:5, Interesting)
There are few things that the half-assed clones and Sid Meier's Civilization have in common that is not already in this:
Civilization [boardgamegeek.com]
And that one was designed by Francis Tresham, so yes, I it makes me sore, if Sid bitches about "his" IP.
Also the half-assed clones have features that are missing in the Civ games, or have been implemented there much later (useable networked gaming, hex tilesets, etc.)
Re:Civ Dissapoints Met (Score:3, Interesting)
CIV II had really humerous videos of the advisory council, user customizable maps, continent sizes, climate choices, the ability to modify the landscape within the games via engineers, and if you chose to, beat the pants of the game by cheating inside of the game - not having to resort to hacking the game saves (making every hut a new city, unit, or most powerfully IMO a new discovery was amusing). Furthermore, the CIV II engine was a growth upon, not a near complete rebuilding of the original CIV I engine, like Civ II was to me. This obviously makes some people love or hate Civ III for that very reason (the power of culture in Civ III was a major change).
Civ III, while cute, was too different in terms of added complexity to interest me for long. For me, any good simulation game is one where after you understand the core concept well enough, you can, with a little luck and good planning, have a decent chance of winning most scenarios hands down vs the computer AI; PvP is another matter, but the core knowledge of the games dynamics still allows for you to be a very challenging opponent to other players most of the time... I also wish they had brought back the real actors doing Advisory Counil Videos; CIV III could have stood to have been a bit more humerous.
Anyway, I'm sure some may say Civ III's increase in complexity and depth are what made it great and that my dissatisfaction just shows I'm stupid/non adaptive or something like that - maybe so, but I have found that if a game is interesting enough for me I'll spend whatever time it takes to master the game. Few games do that for me any more and Civ II, Diablo II, and Alpha Centari were the last simulation games that really grabbed my attention for months on end (now I'm really showing my age).
I hope Civ IV is just as captivating for me as II was...
Re:PC Upgradability (Score:2, Interesting)
When I want to, I can still play my favorite PC games from up to 20 years ago on my current PC (Masters of Magic, Curse of the Azure Bonds, Star Control, Dragon Wars, Nethack, etc). If I wanted to play my favorite non-PC games, I'd have to pick up a working Atari 2600, Sega Master System, Sega Genesis, Playstation, etc.
Keeping all your favorite consoles in working order for the next 20 years would be more expensive than upgrading a PC every few years or so. Emulators on a PC can do the same job, but then once again you're using your PC for games...
nitpick (Score:3, Interesting)
However, in IP cases, it seems like the damages can include loss of potential sales, or reduction of the value of a brand.
As one consequence, I have heard other people argue that the GPL might not withstand a legal challenge, because violating it cannot incur monetary damages. Again, IANAL, but I'm sure some clever lawyer could come up with a counter-argument.
I'd rather have elegance than cuteness (Score:3, Interesting)
To each her own, but the cutesy videos of the council got very old very quickly. "Cute" isn't the goal at all in your typical world domination game, is it? Spaceward Ho, maybe...
For me, any good simulation game is one where after you understand the core concept well enough, you can, with a little luck and good planning, have a decent chance of winning most scenarios hands down vs the computer AI...
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with difficulty settings? The lowest setting in any Civ game would give you what you want.
For my money I could do without essentially all of the graphic engine changes from II to III. The addition of "culture" and the way the previous games' rules (about military units being "away from home," about moving through "enemy" territory) were worked into it made for a huge, huge improvement. That was an elegant way to fold in some previously awkward and conspicuously unrealistic mechanics.
In no game do I care a whit for repetitively "cute" video sequences that give me no useful information. Those things were painful after the first time through, and in a Civ game replay value is every-, every-, everything.
Priceless? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, that has a very definite price. Consoles are still viable machines two years (and longer) after purchase without any upgrades. They generally have much better compatibility with new games than old computers do.
Oh really? (Score:1, Interesting)
Guess somebody forgot to tell Marcos Healy.
http://www.ragdollkungfu.com/ [ragdollkungfu.com]
Re:PC Upgradability (Score:1, Interesting)
Here is something to ruminate on: if the gaming industry waited for technological evolution at the console rate, technology would crawl and the experience between consoles possibly would be small. If it wasn't for the PC game industry, you wouldn't have a quantum leap in performance, quality, and experience that you will have between the XBox and XBox360 or Playstation2 and Playstation3. Who do you think drives the innovation for the latest and greatest video cards from ATI or NVidia? The bleeding edge is developed for the PC and consoles benefit from it.
Re:nitpick (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I'm not a lawyer either, but I consider myself pretty clever, and that will have to do ;). The obvious counter-argument is that you license any code you own the copyrights to under as many different licenses as you want. This means that just because some code is available under GPL (and free to download - you can sell GPL'd product for a profit, you just can't charge extra for the source code later on, and you can't stop the buyer from making and selling and/or giving copies to other people, but lets ignore that for the moment), doesn't meant that you might not license it to, say, Microsoft under a non-GPL license for a shitload of money some day.
However, if Microsoft (or anyone else) is free to break the terms of the GPL and incorporate GPL'd code into closed-sourced products, you lose the potential to sell them licenses to do that. So you have suffered potential losses. You can't show how much, but that doesn't seem to be stopping the RIAA/MPAA/BSAA/whatever from getting ridiciculous amounts of damages.
Re:What's the point of these Q&A sessions? (Score:3, Interesting)
> The reason this question is never asked is because the answer is always the same.
No, it's not. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri from Firaxis Games was ported to Linux (and of course, just yesterday the Quake4 Linux client was released). So, even if the new Civ -isn't- going to be ported to Linux, this answer would be different from 'the usual' in that they actually have experience with having had a porting house convert one of their games. The answer might even be that they're willing to talk to LGP or someone.
Re:Disappointing... (Score:3, Interesting)
With five civilizations, this is already greater than the initial possibilities in chess. It grows far more rapidly from this, as you have choices of what to research, what to build, where to place cities, how much to research, etc. and there are also random events.
What I'd like to see is an AI that can formulate strategies and then use those strategies to prune their search space. Basically, say "I'm going to expand for awhile, how can this piece contribute?".