Slashdot Mirror
Sid Meier On Industry State
Gamespy had a talk with Sid Meier and Soren Johnson at the DICE event last month, and they've got some interesting commentary on the current state of the gaming industry. From the article: "I think the thing is, if you're going to make a multiplayer game, the days of trying to 'shoehorn' in multiplayer are over. As an aside, I think we're almost reaching a point where single-player games are getting under-served. One reason I really enjoy World of Warcraft is that there's so few good single-player RPGs for the PC right now. I mean, I play with my friends, but I also like to solo -- I have separate characters for each -- because there aren't really any good single-player RPGs out there to play! But anyways, if you're going to make a good multiplayer game, you need to make that a priority from the beginning."
I think the game industry is pretty healthy. I think it's changing rapidly, but there are a lot of good examples as to what's good about gaming. Zonk's comment about ww2 games in the "department" shows one problem, however... a lack of creative ideas. World War 2 games are great, I'm a big-time Call of Duty player. But we do need some inventive ideas. However, if ww2 games were all made like CoD and CoD2, I'll play 'em just the same. Those are awesome.
Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!
Make the games so that you can fight with some comrades online (like good ol' dungeoncrawlers), but there's no interaction with other players / guilds / etc. That'd really simplify things. Or make it in a way that the only interaction with "outsiders" is when you're not in a quest, and players cannot harm each other.
Surely it makes sense to develop the multiplayer portion of a game first, and then get a bunch of people playing it to see what kind of strategies work well and should be implemented in the AI for the single player. I'm sure I rememeber Peter Molyneux saying that's how Populous was developed all those years ago, and that was about as good a 2-player game as there has ever been.
I would much rather have a game with great game play that does not require FPS graphics. Which one use to be able to rely on the Civ series for, not anymore apparently. I guess he should know if there are not any really good single player games, since the most recent version of Civ sucks due to the graphics engine they decided upon using.
Make the games so that you can fight with some comrades online (like good ol' dungeoncrawlers), but there's no interaction with other players / guilds / etc.
You mean like Diablo 2 or Neverwinter Nights or a hypothetical DS port of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles?
I haven't yet played a MMORPG for a very simple reason: I have neither the time nor the money to dedicate to an ongoing game. I do still buy new games from time to time, particularly fantasy RPG or simulation (e.g. Civ IV). I am glad to hear someone mention that the single-player game market is being under-served. I for one find myself browsing through all the games and wishing that the MMORPGs had single-player versions that didn't require any sort of subscription. There may be some out there, but it certainly isn't obvious from the packaging!
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
He echoed exactly what I've been completely frustrated with for YEARS. He is absolutely right that there are few, quality single-player games out there of recent release. Yes, I can always go "back" to games like NeverWinter Nights, the Splinter Cell or Thief series for first-player immersion, but there have not been a lot of games as of late that are single-player and provide the depth of games like the single-player games of the past.
If I may somewhat add to his statements, however, I am particularly frustrated by the notion that somehow it has become impossible to allow human team vs. bots in multiplayer. I really was frustrated by this with Return to Castle Wolfenstein and more recently Battlefield 2. The notion that multiplayer in a LAN environment where it's just you and friends on a team versus a number of bots seems to be an anathema in gaming circles any more. Apparently, the rest of the gaming community wants deathmatch or team deathmatch against other humans, and that's all - or so the developers seem to think.
It's ridiculous to me that a game like Battlefield 2 will allow me to go single player, which is made of me and my team bots vs. enemy bots; but God forbid that anyone would have thought to allow me and my human team against enemy bots in a BF2 LAN session*. No, no! No one ever does that any more! And don't tell me that programming the AI is an issue. Games have been allowing team LAN for over a decade. If the enemy AI can go after one person (me) and my team bots, I can't believe that it's so difficult to add another human target for the enemy to go after.
* Actually, you can get limited LAN play in BF2 by starting a single-player game and having other LAN members connect directly to the "server" via the Connect to IP function. Works fairly well. That doesn't explain why such a feature was never officially supported by EA.
So, he really hit two critical points with me: the lack of immersive, single-player games and half-thought-out multiplayer games that do not provide the full options that multipler games should have. It's so nice to hear a heavy-hitter in the industry say what I've been saying for years. Maybe that will give the issues some credibility with game designers.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
As an aside, I think we're almost reaching a point where single-player games are getting under-served.
Amen! What the world today really needs is more Guybrush Threepwood! Which is to say, more adventure games chock full of puzzles, humor, and living environments to explore. The recent fan game Stargate Adventure really reminded me of how much fun those old games were. Sure, they didn't have "Three-Dee", but that was okay. They had distinctively attractive artwork that gave a much more organic feel to the game than today's 3D-based games. They also provided the perfect viewpoint for playing out a television or movie in a game.
In fact, many of the more serious adventure games were spinoffs of movies or television. Star Trek 25th anniversay is an example that comes to mind, as is Star Trek: A Final Unity. Another good example is Indiana Jones. The Dig even had a book version of the story!
Today, all that creativity has been shunned in favor of more action and 3D graphics. (Not to mention "adult" themes.) Can we have back a few games that are actually games rather than "entertainment products?" Please?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I got quite a few hours of fun out of Guild Wars though. No subscription fees. You can basically play it single player using henchmen for much of the game, and even when you end up having to team with humans because the henchies aren't smart enough you're only with them for an hour or so since few missions last longer. You can ignore the PvP side entirely if you want, although it's a lot of fun. Play a healer and you'll never lack for a group, although it gets boring long term.
Still waiting on Oblivion though. My wife commented last night that she doesn't expect to interact with me for the next month or so :^)
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
... but there is some light in the otherwise dark single player rpg experience. Morrowind and Fallout were the first and only RPGs I really played. I had never touched them before because of the complexity and incredibly boring combat modes. Fallout had an incredibly engaging story and Morrowind provided a huge and beautiful world to explore. Combat was also done in a way that was comfortable to a FPS person like myself.
The new Elder Scrolls promises to be even better after watching the demo videos. So it's not all dark out there, just mostly.
because there aren't really any good single-player RPGs out there to play!
Apparently he hasn't heard of Morrowind or Oblivion... At least I thought the elder scrolls series were pretty good RPGs.
Buy a PS2?
Shadow Hearts Series
The Nippon Ichi Games (Disgaea, Eternal Mana, Phantom Brave, etc etc)
Dragon Quest Series
Grandia Series
Wild Arms Series
Tales of Games
Shining Tears/Force Neo
Sukisomething or another
The Shin Megumi Tensen games
Elder Scrolls, Baldur's Gate Games...
Final Fantasy 12 is coming out pretty soon...
There are hundreds hundreds of hours of single, mind numbing, no girlfriend having gameplay out there to be had. Costs about 150 bucks + games to get started. To say there is a darth of single player gaming is to ignore the easiest way to play said games.
The new Ghost Recon has on-line co-op modes where it's the human players versus bots. That's one of the reasons I bought it. I'm tired of running around shooting my friends (we've been doing it since doom). I'd like to play with my friends instead of against them.
Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.
That's what we need some more of.
Well, most of the article ended up talking about it, so I might as well go along (I still think he has better ideas, but hey).
1. Graphics. Overdone, didn't work on three seperate systems I tried.
2. AI. I still think Civ 2 was their best in AI; Civ 3 was too big and slow, Civ 4 was (to me) the exact same AI.
3. The mod system. Definately the biggest failure. XML and Python is great, but my big reason for staying with Java and PHP is simple, documentation. Javadocs for java.* and javax.*, and the PHP amnual are huge documents that cover every nitty-gritty of the the functions, the unexpectued results, and the plain hacks. While I don't expect the guys at Firaxis to write a full-fledged tutorial on Python, but I at least expect documentation of their functions/classes IN THE BOX. They might be online somewhere, but if it doesn't come with the package, it doesn't exist.
I don't care if they open up the AI, Graphics, whatever code they have; they already blew it. I've already uninstalled Civ4 to make a bit more room for the mods I'm planning on making for Oblivion, and I won't be pre-ordering, or ordering, or late-ordering Civ 5.
People don't like to play against bots because they suck.
That's your opinion - not undisputed fact. If you don't like it, then don't use it! Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it sucks nor does it mean that others who DO like it should be deprived of the ability to play it that way.
The fun and challenge of Battlefield 2 is the coordination and teamplay required to be sucessful.
R-i-i-i-i-ight. Because there is absolutely no need for coordination or team play in the single-player mode or any potential LAN team mode against bots. Nuh uh. Nope. None at all.
{ roll eyes }
At least computer opponents don't bunny hop*, dolphin dive*, base camp, intentionally team kill, punish for completely accidental team kills, or hover over the enemy helicopter pad for the sole purpose of blowing up the enemy helicopter the instant that it appears. Yessir-ee! Lots of successful, team coordination there, boy.
And you wonder why some people actually prefer bots from time to time?
* Removed or severely hampered in recent patches -- thankfully.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Your second suggestion is exactly what Guild Wars does. The whole game is instanced, except for towns and such.
When you're in town between quests, you can interact with all other players, trading goods and joining guilds and all that stuff. As soon as you leave town, you enter your own instance of the outside world, and the only people in it are you and your party members. It's impossible for other players to steal your kills or otherwise screw up your adventuring, because they're not in the same instance.
1. Sega's PSO Blue-Burst:
A pretty nice Diablo with lightsabers and blasters, only in an over-the-shoulder view. In fact, I dare say that if you want to wear a stormtrooper outfit (without the helmet) and wield a lightsaber, or play a nasty droid with a blaster carbine/sniper-rifle/dual-pistols, PSO might even be as close to Star Wars as you can probably get without an official license from Lucas. (And a better game than the officially licensed SWG. Not that that says much, SWG being crap at the moment.) Or play a Force character with a lightsaber, shooting lightning from your fingertips. Gotta wonder how Lucas didn't pick on them yet.
You do get to meet other people in the lobby, but once you've created a multi-player game, the planet section is instanced just for you and your team. Up to 4 people may be in a team, yourself included.
A nice touch is that they have a second set of single-player missions, instanced only for 1 character: you. It's not just the same as the multi-player ones, but really a completely different set of optional missions.
Only the multi-player missions advance the "story" and unlock further sections of the planet, but if you truly feel anti-social you can start a multiplayer game and password-protect it.
A nice touch ever since the original Dreamcast version is the strictly-coop PvE theme in missions and in the lobby, though I think in the meantime they did add special PvP missions. But if you're not in one, really, another player can't harm you in any way. They can't lead monsters to you (monsters never follow through doors and gates), they can't block your retreat, they can't kill-steal (as long as you got one hit in, no matter when, you'll get your share of xp), etc. The nice side-effect is that incidentally this also tends to weed the griefers, gankers and other smacktards out, since they get bored and leave
A plus for me, though your preferences may vary, is that it basically _is_ a console game, even if it runs on a PC. So basically you can plug your gamepad in and play it like a console game. But as I've said, preferences may vary. Playing it keyboard-only does feel more unwieldy than a proper PC MMORPG, maybe with the exception of SWG's crap new FPS-like interface brought by the NGE.
Another downside is that the graphics still are, well, the Dreamcast graphics. A few more costume textures have been added, but it still is, well, the kind of game that would run perfectly well on a Pentium II and a Kyro graphics card. That actually doesn't do it justice, since the graphics are nicer and more colourful than the PC games from that era, but the polygon counts _are_ low. Whether that's a big problem for you, only you can choose.
2. City Of Heroes
This one is actually a proper MMORPG, but the vast majority of missions are instanced. You can still run around the streets beating up villains ad interact with other players, but you can also take your group into a building that's been instanced for your team only.
On the plus side, instanced missions automatically adjust to being either soloable or apropriate for a team of 8. So it's nice for both soloers and for those who'll argue that WoW's 40-man endgame raids are the alpha and omega. Well, here you don't get 40, but 8 is still a decent team.
More importantly is that everyone who took part in an instanced mission from the start, _will_ get the full reward for it. In effect, in WoW terms, it's like joining a team makes you automatically have that quest too. Regardless of whether you qualify or have done it before or whatever. So you _will_ get people to group with for missions at any level. You can do only 8-player missions from level 1, if that's your cup of tea.
Another plus: the damn best character creation ever. You can choose the exact look and colour for each body part, so you can make anything from spandex, to an axe-wielding dwarf in plate mail, to a biker in jeans and leather jacket, to a samurai or martial artist, to a droid, to whatever else. Seriously.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I have set up cooperative play against bots using the Battlefield 2 server. Not as convenient as doing it in-game, but it can be done.
Just to repeat: I'll post the details here when I try it later today.
Does Civ IV include tech trees that the player can know before hand?
That, for me, is one of the big flaws of Civ, AoE, and all that ilk.
Much of the fun of research is that it's hard to predict what you're going to get. Knowing in advance that investing X resources will result in Y improvement turns too much of such games into bookkeeping exercises.
At the least, it would be more fun to make tech advancement based on probability, so that investing X resources gives you a Y% chance of discovering gunpowder. Better would to make research into a topic have a % chance of leading to a variety of technologies, e.g. chem research could lead to the discovery of nylon, or it could lead to the discovery of LSD. It'd raise the amount of thinking and gaming to a new level.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
From TFA "You shouldn't think in terms of competition; the only bad thing for the industry is a bad game."
I totally agree, if there are two great games released in a month I will buy two games that month, if all the games look rubbish I won't bother getting my money out. If only more of the entertainment industry would think like this everyone would be happier!
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
Someone complaining about the lack of single-player RPGs on the PC when he's contributing directly to the type of game that's responsible for that lack? Who'da thunk?
Rob
Really? I'd played Civ4 one an Athlon T-Bird 1.33 Ghz with a GF2. Worked fine, so long as you played smaller maps.
The key with both of these is to upgrade one's NVidia's drivers. The performance difference is absolutely amazing, by a factor of 10 for me. Unfortunately, most people just try to play the game, see it not work, and then decide "Well, must be the developer's fault". Unlike a platform game, it's necessary on a PC to do things like disable AntiVirus and upgrade one's drivers. PC gaming is simply a different animal.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
At the least, it would be more fun to make tech advancement based on probability, so that investing X resources gives you a Y% chance of discovering gunpowder.
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- the game with the most appropriate abbreviation ever -- has basically this. You can prioritize the four major research categories however you want, but while you'll only get technologies you qualify for which one you'll actually get once you aquire enough research points is unknown. So you have to think in broader terms, which of the four areas (Exploration, Discovery, Building, or Conquest) do you want to focus on, realizing that skimping on one area may deny you prerequisites for advances in another but without any guaranteed payoffs.
The expansion Alien Crossfire added two alien factions to the mix who could "direct" their research, under the assumption that they were re-discovering already known advances. In my opinion this was their strongest ability and made the game much easier. I prefer playing the other factions.
The enemies of Democracy are
no text
Sid Meier and Johnson may have been mainly discussing PC games (though they do mention the console release of Pirates). To change the discussion flow a bit towards consoles, I would like to disagree with them. I want an offline multiplayer aspect on EVERY game I purchase (for the consoles) and I don't care if it is tacked on (as long as it is fun).
Why are there only 5 million PS2/Xbox owners that play games online when the install base is some 100 million (numbers may not be entirely accurate)? The first reason is because not everyone has the opportunity hook their PS2/Xbox up to DSL or cable internet. Secondly, people are averse to technical hurdles (physically setting it up, lag, user interfaces). Lastly, people dislike the social hurdles (griefers, not being able to find friends, not being able to see their faces, etc.).
As for myself, I actively look to purchase games with split screen multiplayer (preferable a customizable split screen). For the average user playing with or against a bunch of friends or relatives while sitting on the couch is much more enjoyable than playing online friends (and idiots) over the internet.
I spend a very limited time playing on my PS2. When I do play the PS2 it is usually with relatives or friends, either taking turns, watching each other, or simultaneously playing.
I give two examples: Super Monkey Ball Deluxe and Dog's Life. I bought both of these for the same reason so I could have something to play with my young nephews. I grant you that Dog's Life received mediocre to good reviews. I played only the beginning of the single player and despite the game world being well-crafted and fleshed out, I soon gave up due to the story-mode's annoyingly cutesy cutscenes and too many tedious gameplay aspects. I later eBayed it for $20 (USD).
I have never played the single-player game of Super Monkey Ball Deluxe, even though reviews say it is quite good (I don't have the time). But I bought the game BECAUSE it had about 10 totally different offline multiplayer modes (that don't require any effort to unlock them). Individually some of these modes can get a little boring after a while, but when taken together they amount to a fairly fun set of party games.
Back to Dog's Life, I would have kept the game if it had ANY fun multiplayer because the animations, controls, and levels were pretty good and most games don't let you control a dog (even Nintendogs only lets you own it not be it). They could have put in a dog barkoff match mode or a dog chases cat mode (they already had models for both), but they didn't so I got rid of it.
Yes, I agree that developer's should focus on either the single-player experience or the multiplayer for the thrust of their efforts, but why not throw in a simple but fun multiplayer mode as long as your creating all of these digital assets. Think about it? What if Pac-Man had a two-player mode where one player is Pac-Man and the other is the only ghost on the board (both retaining same relative speeds etc.)? What if Shadow of the Colossus had a race mode where you can stand up on your running horse and shoot arrows at the player in the lead (but risk falling off/ slowing down)? What if it had a king of the mountain (aka Colossus) mode? Sure you would have to re-optimize the engine to handle split screen and more I/O data, but other than that those modes are practically there, and would have added to the long-term enjoyment of the game.
Oblivion. RPG series that is very in depth, is single player and is primarily a PC game. 'nuf said
Now I have to go downstairs and find my SMAC disc. I never did buy the expansion, but I have fond memories of the game. I loved the different factions, with their personalities and quotes. Oh, to nuke those annoying Believers with a planet buster. Well, there goes the rest of my week. And I was hoping to get some work done.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
... M.A.G.G. is our only hope ... for the children!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
The reason why the game industry is showing such a preference to multiplayer games, and MMOs in particular, is simple: subscription fees. It's the ultimate response to piracy, and bypasses the need for nasty DRM schemes entirely. Sure, you could pirate the EQ or WoW clients - so what? You still need to be able to log in, and to do that, you need to pay your monthly fees with a credit card or buy game cards with cash. To play illegally, you'd have to resort to credit card fraud or cash theft, and that's an entirely different arena that game pirates simply will not attempt. Which would be dumb anyway, since you need to be able to pay the subscription indefinitely - playing a MMORPG for 5 or more years is common.
I used to play "Galaxies" until they took all meaning from the game. As for "City of Heroes", "Guild Wars", "WoW" and the upcoming "Auto Assault" and "Dark and Light", they're all the same game with different shells. Do missions, bash little critters, get exp, rinse and repeat. I have hope for "Burning Seas" just because it is about pirates, but it is a limited hope.
I think there are many more enjoyable single-player games, RPG or not. At this point, I'll only do betas and limited free passes for MMOs. They're simply too boring and redundant and boring and redundant.
The wonderful thing about PC games is the graphics can be adjusted to suit your rig. Civ IV is great, and a much less hardware demanding game than most that have been released in recent months (i.e. F.E.A.R.). I can run Civ IV with everything maxed out and I appreciate all those little 3d touches they put in it. I already know I won't be able to do that with Oblivion, so I'll either need to scale down the graphics or buy new hardware. It comes with the territory.
Civ IV shows how out of touch Sid is. I bought my laptop less than a year ago, and I don't come close to the specs! Meanwhile, the console industry chugs along mostly on specs from 5 years ago.
I don't mind that my computer is slow, and I understand I can't play the last Unreal or Half-Life 2, but turn based strategy games SHOULD be playable by anything running the last Windows OS.
Also, why does Blizzard always provide Macintosh versions, but Sid's games don't? They should have broader appeal, not lesser.
Why isn't the original civilation being sold on every platform like Tetris? This is beyond me - now I'm talking about Gameboy, cell phones, PDAs, PSP, etc. That's all I want. They could have released a joystick game with a number pad controller by now, really. I don't think 2kgames understands the real beauty of Civ.
Check out wccsquad for coop online play or coop maps.