Slashdot Mirror
Ask Sid Meier
Sid Meier is a household name in gaming. Titles he's designed, such as Railroad Tycoon, Pirates!, and Civilization, are pillars in the history of PC gaming. This year the fourth chapter in the Civilization series of games is being released, and we have a great opportunity. Today we're asking for questions about design and philosophy to pass on to Mr. Meier. On Wednesday, we'll be asking for questions to give to the Civilization IV development team. That day you'll have the chance to ask technical questions about the moddability and design concepts that went into the game. For today, here's your opportunity to put questions to one of the most respected game designers in the industry. Keep them topical, and one question per post please. We'll pass on the ten best questions, his responses will go up as soon as we get them back.
...on open source clones such as FreeCiv? FreeLoaders, or flatterers? :)
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? Or from the reverse perspective, what prevents consoles from finally killing off PC gaming?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
How do you balance great game play with actually creating a product and shipping it within a reasonable time frame? More to the point, how do you create an entertaining game without falling into the 'duke nukem forever' release schedule?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
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?
When building any strategy game, where do you start when you attempt to balance the game? Do you find that you personally need to play test and try new concepts to balance games, or do the inherent mechanisms of your games lead towards making balance easier for you to to achieve?
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?
public class null extends java applet { System.out.print ("Tabula Rasa"); }
Can I please have my softmore year back?
I've been a huge fan of Civilization since it first came out. I've always thought the AI of the computer players is relatively good, especially how each has certain characteristics which differentiate them and give them strengths and weaknesses. But AI in strategy games doesn't seemed to have advanced drastically in the last 15 years. What do you imagine the next big advances in game AI will be? When will games really learn how you play? When will we not be able to tell the difference between a human and computer competitor?
Developers: We can use your help.
You've got a consistent track record of making some of the most interesting single-player turn-based strategy games ever to grace our screens. Civ and its descendants also make great turn-based multiplayer strategy games.
On the other end of the scale, we have MMORPGs - which to date, have been the direct opposite of single-player turn-based strategy games: repetitive skill grinds, no story arc, etc. The problem tends to run down to the fact that not everyone wants to run an empire - but by the same token, not everyone is content to PVP or grind all day.
It seems that many of the concepts that make a TBS great (IMHO the list includes, but is not limited to, a largish number of factions, shifting alliances between those factions, territorial control, resource management games requiring player allocation of resources between the generation of infrastructure and expendable units, a God's-eye view of history, and a story arc that emerges out of the economic, social, and political interactions between the factions) could be translated to the MMORPG genre - at least, given a suitably inspired design team and suitably-large time/dollar budget.
To what extent (if any) can TBS aspects be translated to a genre as radically different as a MMORPG, and to that extent, what advice would you have for a MMORPG designer?
Have you ever played FreeCiv? If yes, how did you like it? Do you believe in Free Software, and, more specifically, have you considered releasing (older) game engine sourcecode under the terms of the GPL, or "vintage" game content under a Creative Commons-like license?
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
Some game producers, mainly id software usually release the source code for older versions of their games, have you ever thought of doing the same?
What are your reasons for/against? How do you feel about current free software Civ "clones" like FreeCiv?
It seems as if the mass market has become rather stagnant for several years. The last 'big new thing' was MMORPGs, and they've become fairly mature and standardized. Civ (although not the first 4X game) certainly sparked an entire class of games, Doom kickstarted first-person shooters and multiplayer. RTS games are still doing well, but classic adventure and turn-based have been somewhat in decline, as have RPGs. What do you see becoming the next genre in computer games?
With the unveiling of the Nintendo Revolution and its point-and-click interface, do you think Civilization-esque strategy games will finally come to home consoles? And with this new, entertainment-center, living room environment will there be new ways for you to expand on the genre? Perhaps, for example, with regard to teamplay and multiplayer, as these are big in the home console setting?
I understand that life's not fair, just why is it never unfair in my favor?
Sid -- I've always been curious: In Alpha Centauri, how did your team come up with as many snazzy future quotes as they did? Several of them seemed downright smart enough that I was suprised to see them credited to in-game characters rather than historical writers. Thanks for all the great games; I just dusted off Civ 3 for my yearly week of nonstop obsession.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I found great joy in being able to play Marla's Earth map against 15 CPU players in Civ III. The game took at least a month to complete... partly because of the size of the map, but a great part of it was the game took up to 10 minutes to process the CPU Player moves. What changes, if any, have been made to speed up game play without sacrificing the CPU's ability to formulate a realistic strategy?
A two-parter. I had read before you were making Civ III that you were planning on merging the two worlds of Civilization and Alpha Centauri, giving the player the ability to play through a big "sweep of time". Was this idea just too ambitious, and had to be shelved for the design process, and will it be revisited? If so, what about the design specifically was it that put this idea on the back-burner?
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
Sid,
In any Slashdot gaming discussion invariably the debate between playability vs. graphics comes up. "This game is pretty but the game sucks!" "Nethack is all I need man."
Of all the games you've had a hand in, the intricate strategies and complex ways one can enjoy the game have always seemed paramount, with graphics playing 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 pictures of bleeding edge graphics engines (Tetris, Nethack, Civ series, etc). 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 and how do you tackle that problem? Nintendo's approach of focusing on "fun" and innovation in their games seems to be one example of how it can be done but sadly they are an exception to the rule it seems.
Amoeba
Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball
The first version of Civilization was released 14 years ago. With the original copyright terms, it would now be entering public domain. But copyright terms have been extended many times, so Civilization will not enter the public domain for many decades, perhaps not at all.
As one of the more innovative game designers, I think your opinion on this is quite relevant. Is it necessary for copyrights on these games to last for longer than 14 years? Do you depend on revenue from the first Civilisation game? Do you even get any anymore? Would you still have created Civilization had the 14 year copyright term still been in effect? What is the rationale for longer copyright terms?
What I'm getting at, is that Civilization is a landmark in gaming; it's part of our culture and I feel that you have already been duly rewarded by society for creating it, so the reason for you having copyright - so that you can create games as a profession - is no longer valid. Do you agree, and if not, why? If you do agree, do you think there are any situations in which a game company should have longer copyrights?
Please bear in mind the distinction between trademarks and copyright - Civilization entering the public domain would not mean that people would be free to create their own games called Civilization.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Why do you keep using a square grid (however distorted by perspective) when a hexagon grid is known to be more accurate for movement across a landscape? I do understand that this would influence a number of other things, such as the Local City Area would be 18 surrounding hexagons instead of 20 nearby squares, and that when surrounding an enemy you only have 6 ways to attack instead of 8, but those are not insurmountable issues. For example, if the SCALE of the grid compared to the map was shrunk a bit, you could "enlarge" the Local City Area by another ring of hexagons, for 36 total surrounding cells. Productivity in every cell is merely set a little lower than before. In combat distance weapons having a range of 2 cells could allow an enemy to be surrounded by up to 18 of your units (probably only after Cannons are invented). Alternately, simple construction of roads and railroads already allow distant units to engage an enemy; why can't building roads and railroads near a city extend the Local Area of that city? And other ways of accommodating a hexagon grid are possible, I'm sure. So, why not?
Thanks for your contributions to computer gaming. Out of all the tremendous games that you have developed, which one do you feel is the most underrated? That is, the one game that you found very rewarding to develop, but didn't garnish the attention that it should have.
How exactly DO spearmen beat tanks?
In the book "Hackers" by Steven Levy, there is an implication that Sierra, with Ken Thompson, implicitly tolerated drug and alcohol abuse in the early games development studios he commanded. There were huge parties, huge hangovers, and general debauchery on a regular basis. Obviously this kind of atmosphere wouldn't be tolerated today--if only for the potential liability, but I wanted to ask you whether or not you found, in your experience, addictive personalities being attracted to the game programming and design profession? Did you ever have any negative (or positive) experiences related to drug use in and around your offices, especially in the early days? Do you condone (or not) the use of mind-altering substances as a creative aid during the design phase?
Putting aside their (potential lack of) work ethic for the time being and concentrating solely on the economic value of the artistry of game design, of those users you knew for a fact were using drugs, did you find them to be more or less creative than normal people?
Sid,
Many of your early games for Microprose were built around the concept of taking several robust mini-game concepts and weaving them together into a coherent whole (I'm thinking in particular of Pirates! and Covert Action, although there are others that fit this description). Was this a conscious design decision? Were you looking for interesting play mechanics to build games around, or did you start with the concept (Pirates! Spies!) and then work from a list of pirate-like and spy-like activities?
Conversely, when one of these mini-games doesn't work out like you'd hoped, do you cut them? A lot of people reacted negatively to the dancing game in the new Pirates! re-make, for instance, and I hear a general consensus among gamers that the mini-game build around sacking a city lacks depth. How hard is it to cut one of these games? What do you do when the mechanic just doesn't feel right?
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
How did you get your name on all of this software? We don't see "John Carmack's Quake", or "Rand Miller's Myst", but we see Sid Meier everywhere, making you one of the only household names in game design. When the first "Sid Meier's ...." title came out, did people know who you were, or just assume that you were an expert on pirates and the war between the states?
By the way, F-15 and F-19 were two of the greatest games of my teen years.
I do not know, but the invasion of Iraq could have been planned using Civ II. It looked like my favorite strategy. 2 Runs of 10 stealth bombers each on the cities with city walls, then three division of tanks, and some riflemen behind them to keep the cities guarded. My problem was that I always push on with the tanks to the bigger cities, meanwhile my riflemen are being overwhelmed by the partisans that appear all over the map, and I can not get the production going because of the riots in the cities I capture. Meanwhile, in my home cities I have riots because I have too many troops too far away from my cities. Makes me want to switch the government to something a bit more palatable, like despotism, and shut them up by creating a bunch of conscripts, and then using those to make everyone calm.
badness 10000
I noticed in the original Civilization that the computer player would sometimes be able to 'cheat' or do certain things that humans could not. Presumably these worked around limitations in the AI, but they seemed to spoil the game a little once they became obvious. Was this part of the original game design, and do you think it's unavoidable, or do better AI engines mean that computer players can be subject to the same rules as humans?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
One of the few elements of the Civ games that I always disliked was the manner in which the game is made more difficult on higher difficulty settings. It seems like the game is made harder at first with smarter AI, but after a certain point, the game mechanics change and the AI just cheats. AI Civs are permitted to acquire techs they haven't researched or traded for, AI Civs cut ludicrous deals with other while gouging the player, they produce units units faster than is possible, field armies of economically ruinous size, overcome preposterous odds in battle, all while researching at a breakneck pace and beating the player to wonders with no civil unrest. Finally, when the player comes out on top despite all this, the AI civs simply all gang up on him and arbitrarily start wars when the player is close to victory regardless of how benevolent, honorable, and generous of a diplomat he has been. The difficulties in developing a good AI justify some such measures, but rivals such as Galactic Civilizations appear to have successfully created "smarter" AIs rather than just stacking the deck against the player. What kind of unique challenges do Civ and its cousins in developing "smart" AIs that can challenge the best of players? Is it clear when you've hit an AI wall and the only way to toughen up the difficulty is with rule-bending? Does the pressure to publish and realize revenue result in shortcuts in AI development? I've always been curious about how much development efforts goes into AI, it strikes me as one of those areas where it'd be easy to cut corners and still produce a game looks, sounds, and plays great.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
There are a lot of issues in society today which have become extremely taboo. We can't avoid them, but to talk about them, or include them as game content runs a serious risk of being ripped apart by various extremist groups (who sit on the both extremes). Some of these things could apply to the macro-managed world of Civ, including terrorism, global warming, and bio technology. Also there are a number of older frowned upon topics, that are part of our history whether we like it or not, racism, genocide, and slavery.
These are just to name a few issues that might make the game to hot to publish, but may be relevant content in the context of empire building/managing. Will CIV 4 have some of these aspects included insofar as they are relevant, or will the game pussy foot around the most controversial?
Geoffrey Peart McMaster University Sfwr Eng Coast of Araska
Well, you could always go to "hybrids" of genres. I can picture it now!
* Katamari vs. Doom - "We Love Demons!": Roll demons up into a ball, starting with the tiniest of demons, up to monstrous demons the size of hell, all of which struggle to kill you. Use powerful ball-rolling weapons such as the chain-firing gun and the BFG (big freaking gumball) to assist you in your task.
* Nintendogs vs. Command and Conquer vs. Full Throttle - "Full Adorable Command": Send wave after wave of adorable little hand-raised puppies after a single oversized tank and its support infrastructure, to the tune of "Flight of the Valkyries".
* Civilization vs. Tie Fighter - "Imperial Civilization": Carefully establish imperial control across the galaxy from aboard your starship, as you subvert rebel partisan factions, dominate technology, and crush any newly developed forms of government
* Monkey Island vs. World of Warcraft - "Monkey World": Everyone wants to be a mighty pirate! But do you have the pure unbridled insult skills? The power over puns? The utterly whimiscal mind? Prove your mettle online with many thousands of rival pirate-wannabees!
* Tetris vs. Diablo - "Puzzle Demons": How many demons can *you* fit in a phone booth? Well, it depends on how you stack them, and how hard they fight back!
* Zork vs. Nethack - "Zorkhack": "You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a mailbox here." Open mailbox "You have unleashed a mail demon, a swarm of killer bees, five balrogs, Newt Gingrich, and a swarm of trolls chanting in unison 'WHAT did you say about my mother??'! You die."
* Zero-Wing vs. Earthbound - "Ground Towards": You won't understand a bit of what's going on, but you'll have a great time nonetheless!
... in Siberia, where Putin killed a fish with a speargun. He later claimed it was killed by Ukrainian separatists.
Recently, your colleague David Evans gave a talk at our university. He said something that resonated strongly with me: "Don't be a slave to technology; make the technology a slave to you." I am sure you agree, as this has represented the basic design principles of your games from the start. They were never about getting the oh so perfect specular highlight with the shadowing just so -- they were about making a game that was damned fun to play, first and foremost. Now, my question is this: Do you feel that in the game industry as a whole, the goal of making a game fun first and flashy second is being threatened? Especially in the next generation, where the emphasis is by and large on graphical quality rather than the gameplay?
This may get lost in the noise (5 pages long now and still growing) but I would like to know what to tell my son.
He plays games. He's never been interested in hardware. He doesn't know what an OS is, nor a programming language - yet.
However, becoming a game designer may not depend on these things...in the not-too-distant future.
Hearing about the feast-or-famine industry, where human resources are used up and discarded (to be replaced by the next eager candidate), I don't want my son to walk into this without a clue.
I'm a J2EE guy, I don't write or design games. There's too little room here to really put my question(s) into context, but I feel you'll understand where I'm coming from.
What would you tell my son?
Thanks.
Redundancy is good; triple redundancy is twice as good! - Me.