Civ3 Interview: JEFF MORRIS

[Colon™]

Look, I believe all sides have points that are very valid, it’s true that several signs are ominous, it’s also true too little is known about the game and I don’t the different visions will be reconciled but I do would like you people to quit name calling.
You can have constructive, positive discussions, and differences in opinions don't need to ruin the atmosphere but this name calling will.

So to repeat, quit it, ok?

[Locutus]

Cybershy,
Okay... People accuse critics like yin and me of abusing Firaxis, but look who's abusing now (I can hardly believe I'm even replying to this)...

Let me set this straight. I'm not saying Civ3 is or isn't gonna be the best civ game ever. I'm saying that you can't claim this without question. In order to be able to make a claim like this, you'd have to have played all civ games extensively (no, just 1 or 2 games doesn't count). Noone outside Firaxis has done this obviously and I highly doubt Firaxians ever tried CtP2 plus MedMod or Cradle (those aren't mods ala Civ2 but revolutionary enough to be games in themselves) or some the Alt. Civ games (if they did, I'd love to hear their opinion on them). Also, some note on how this is just a personal opinion would be in order; all too often people present it as an absolute truth (which is where it becomes so arrogant).

Yes, many other games don't have 'proper' sequels either, but that doesn't make it okay for Civ to be just as bad. BTW, I can assure you that I probably have more experience in the gaming industry than you do.

FYI: I'm living in debt, I have trouble paying my bills each month and my parents weren't much better off when they raised me, so I for one far from grew up in too much wealth (I already started to set aside some money for Civ3 so I will actually have the money to buy it when I think the time is right). And no, I'm not looking for pity (far from it, I don't see see why not having any money is a bad thing), but since you brought it up...

[MarkG]

locutus, just a sidenote

jeff answered a question about the ctp series. that shows that they probably have tried the games. i cant imagine them not checking up on the competition....

[Locutus]

Markos,
You of all people here should know the enormous differences between regular CtP(2) and CtP plus MedMod or Cradle. Some have agrued (and I tend to agree) that CtP2 + MedMod could well be sold as a commercial product (in fact, currently it's donationware and some people are actually paying for it) and be renamed CtP3 (or to rename CtP2 to what it really was, CtP1.3, and rename the MedMod CtP2). Anyone who is familiar with the mod will surely have to agree that it's too different from regular CtP2 to be seen as too similar to disregard.
I know for a fact that Firaxis has tried the CtP series (they mentioned this at several occasions) but I doubt they played it with the MedMod or Cradle, while both do have some new ideas and features that wouldn't be out-of-place in Civ3. If they *have* tried these mods/games, I'd love to be corrected by them and hear their opinion on these mods.

[Solver]

I completely agree with Locutus here. CtP 2 AI, as is, presents something very easy, even on the Impossible level. However, after adding the MedPack, it no longer is a pushover, and the game is fun to play, as it had great potential since the very beggining, and here it is realised. Wish though those mods would also return space.

[Solver]

Also, there can be a good zide on the fact that it will support 8 civs by default. Those of us with lower-end PCs will be able to play Civ 3, and not buy a new PC. I like the fact that Firaxis are trying to make it so that everyone who has 64 MB RAM and an average CPU will be able to play the game. If you have a big whomping 1.4 GHz and 512 MB RAM, make the 16 or 32 civs, but if you can't play with the default choices, what still will be fun.

[Sabre2th]

I agree with solver here. I recently got a new computer (P4 1.3 GHz ), but was stuck with a P200 for quite a while. CTP/CTP2 games with more than 5 or 6 civs were extremely slow later in the game and it depressed me to know that it was possible to play with 32 or more. I understand Firaxis's choices with this and support them fully. As long as I can play 16 with my new comp

[Rhuarc]

The main problem I see here is that Firaxis apparently did not make the screens ble to display more than 8 civs. I mean if they are going to allow someone to up the number above 8, why not have it default to 8 civs (for people like you Sabre2th, who's computer runs that fine but no more) and then for other people who have fast computers all they have to do is select a different number. Firaxis could even put a warning on the screen saying they don't reccomend more than 8 civs for anything below a P3 500, or 600, or whatever they feel is a good threshold. This way if someone below that threshold selects a larger number, they know that it may crash their computer or run very slowly. This way it solves the problem both ways. The slower computers will still run it, but the faster computers have the option (without going into configuration files and changing things, or not having enough screen space)to select a larger number. What would have been so hard about that?

[Sabre2th]

I believe (for no good reason) that in-game screens will support 16 civs fine.

I disagree with you, Rhuarc, about the choices. It would be stupid IMO to have 16 civs easily available in the main screen if only a few people could use that many. Firaxis's minimum (or at least recommended) requirements would have to go up, realistically.

Also - Getting 16 civs won't take much work. Firaxis has said that it will be easily customizable with the editor. (No changing config files manually this time)

[Rhuarc]

The reason I say what I did is because of how many computers I see everyday. I repair computers for people, and see a lot of them everyday. Most people have at least a 500Mhz computer now. The way I see it the majority of people are going to have computers that would be able to handle over 8 civs. And didn't Jeff Morris already say that the ingame screens will only be able to display 8? (Or something ot that effect? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said something to that effect!) Don't worry, I will be happy either way, I just think games are best designed with as many possible options readily available. * would of course be the default number, and they should make setup screens so you don't have to change everything, but most things will default to a certain value, then if you want to change that you just go into that particualr screen and change it.

[Sabre2th]

Yes, it's true that a lot of people are over 500MHz now, but Firaxis can't leave out the rest, even if it is a small number.

I don't remember that part of the interview and I'm too lazy to go back and look

[Rhuarc]

Firaxis would not be letting the lower speed people out in the cold. By making it an option they would allow even the people with slow computers to run it, they would just be making things easier for the majority of people by making the larger number of civs available in the setup screen.

Quote from Interview: "Apolyton: Will there be 7 civs in a game like civ2 and smac or more? We have
heard almost any possible choice on this
Jeff Morris: Supported, there will be 7 civilizations in a game, 8 including the player. The editor allows you to adjust this, though many screens are setup only for this 8 civ limit.
(sidenote: when asked what the limit of the editor will be, Jeff responded that the tools are still in development and that the current limit is 16)"

This tells me that, as in CTP2, the game engine will support more than 8, but the screens inside the game (at least some of them) are only set up for 8 civs.

[Sabre2th]

Who says that everyone will be playing with more than 8 civs? Personally, I like having a smaller number of more developed civs.

And I still disagree about the options screen.

[Sabre2th]

Also - your quote from the interview tells me that they haven't decided yet on the in-game screens. He also definately said that they could change. It almost sounds like he's leaving himself a way out (Like he thinks it will actually happen.)

[Ralf]

I have read the interview and Im a little surprised why this short and general interview alone can generate so much pessimism.

Why?

The official max-limit of 8 civs (including the player) was pretty much 98% obvious, considering the AI-demands, the quality-before-quantity priorities and end-game playability/ turn waiting time limits. Anyone who understands the unproportionaly rising demands for each added AI-civ above 7-8 in a game like Civ, instantly realize this.

By the way; a sobering reminder about future civ-customers expected computer-power around christmas-01: check out THIS POLL.

The map-graphics could be better, yes - but this can very easily be changed and replaced by anyone who think he can do better. The (mostly static) map-graphics is comparably much easier to modify, then for example animated unit-modpacks.

And why suddenly the the "conservative sequel" discussion? We already know pretty much about how Civ-3 is shaping up, dont we? The released info so far tells us that the update-jump will be much bigger from Civ-2 to Civ-3, then it ever was from from Civ-1 to Civ-2. Not to mention comparing with the weak & shallow TOT-update. You guys react like this last interview was the very first official game-information ever released, so far.

Apolyton: Has the whole CTP1/2 story taught you anything? Do you think these games helped the genre or not?

Jeff Morris: They helped us understand the impact of major changes to this system. New features must seamlessly integrate with the existing system, and that's tough the more radical the change. At first I wasn't a fan of a conservative sequel, though I'm a complete convert now.

What is it in above answer that doesnt make perfect sense? I sure as hell dont get it. Firaxis cant make Civ-3 look & play like a supposed CTP-3, or EU-2. Civ is Civ. They must stay true to the basic magic formula, and develop/rehash the game further with that in mind. And by the looks of it, they have done pretty well so far. Stop whining!

[Sabre2th]

Finally, someone that agrees with me.

[Steve Clark]

Ralf has been a long time, level-headed, intelligent participant in this forum, unlike some others who have been here just a long time.

Good to hear from you again, my friend.

[Rhuarc]

I guess u guys are right, my only concern is that you don't have to tweak the game too much to get mroe than 8 civs. I'm ok with the way they have it as long as it isn't too difficult, and as long as the ingame screens support it. If they do that then I agree with their approach

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, that's really all I need in this case. I mean, Civ3 will still have that f*cked up settler-system to take care of tile improvements, still no decent military system, still that boring old government system, really poorly implemented unique units, no minor civs (it's been too silent to still be really alive) and no city-expansion or other revolutionary ideas. Okay, the resources system sounds nice and culture could be promising but other than that, not much special so far. The details of the few things that *are* in may be worked out very well, but that just makes it a very good Civ2.5 rather than Civ3.

Once again someone underestimates the resource model. I've been saying this over and over, but resources will CHANGE EVERYTHING! Civ will be different because of the resource model. Because of this, there is more emphasis on trade to build new, improved units.

Furthermore, I actually liked that f'ed up settler-system (actually, a worker system), I like the military system that Firaxis has talked about, I like the government system (after all, in history, there have usually only been a few governmental systems that were in major use). I also wonder at the term "poorly implimented unique units". What do you mean? I'd prefer for the only unique units to be spy and diplomat. CtP showed that unique units are crap. And no city-expansion ideas? What about the anti-ICS plan of Firaxis? Have you even followed the making of the game?

[Sabre2th]

Unique units in CTP?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Good to hear from you again, my friend.

Likewise!

Also to Techwins and Korn469.

[Locutus]

Ralf (et al),
This interview itself is not the cause of all this 'pessimism' (I still see myself a realist), many people had doubts long before it was posted (or at least I had). For many people this is just more or less an official confirmation that this 'pessimism' is justified.

Yes, the graphics can easily be changed but why accept poor graphics in the first place? CtP(1&2) had a lot of problems. People's (almost) unanimous reaction to this was 'sure, we can fix it ourselves, but Activision shouldn't have screwed up in the first place'. Why accept it from Firaxis but not from Activision?

Sure, this is a much bigger step than Civ1->Civ2 but who ever said Civ2 was a 'proper' sequel? I'm not looking for CtP3 but I'm not looking for Civ2.5 either, the fact that making radical changes is tough doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. (Aux contraire, challenges are what make designing fun!) And it can quite well be done without hurting the basic formula, CtP - though not nearly as good as it could have been - is a fine example of how you can radically change things without losing the basic Civ formula. Should you give the same time and resources as Firaxis had to the CtP development team (complemented with a couple of smart Apolytoners like Harlan and WesW), they would come up with a game that's just as balanced and well-integrated as Civ3 appears to be, so it is IMHO quite possible to do so.

Imran,
Like I said, some people will think Civ3 will be have changed enough and will be happy with keeping it much of the old systems but other people, like me, would like to see some actual changes. Yes, the resource system could make a difference but for me it probably won't be radical enough on itself. You have every right to disagree but I don't think it will change *everything*; there will be a shift of focus and old Civ2 strategies will certainly have to be updated to account for it, but I'm not convinced that the game will change fundamentally because of this feature alone. (Let me stress that, like probably everyone here, I do think that the resource system is by far the best new feature of Civ3 and I like it very much.) And since there aren't any real other radical changes - I think the effects of culture are being overrated by some people, they refine existing systems rather than introduce real changes - I don't think Civ3 will be a real sequel.
Before people start whining about it, yes, this is all very theoretical, I haven't played the game yet so I might be wrong (but the same goes for you).

Uhmm, CtP didn't have Unique Units, you seem to be messing up Unconventional Warfare Units and Unique Units. Unconventional Warfare involves slavery, espionage, religious and economical attacks and uses Slavers, Laywers, Clerics, Eco Terrorists, etc. Now you mention it, the idea behind them is a very essential part of history and shouldn't be left out Civ3 IMHO (though it doesn't necessarily have to be implemented with units) but that's something to discuss elsewhere. Unique Units OTHO are the Impi for the Zulus, the Legion for the Romans, etc. In Civ3 this is done really poorly because some civs will now be better than others, simply due to their Unique Unit (it's impossible to balance everything out so perfectly it makes no difference whatsoever which unit you get). This is not good, it will screw up multi-player games and take a lot of suspense and fun away from the single player game as well (again, theoretically).

In CtP2 MedMod however, this system *is* implemented properly IMHO. This is done by making it random which unit is assigned to which civ. You get a different Elite Unit (as they are called) every game, regardless of which civ you play. Better yet, there's no guarantee you'll get any of them while you're opponent might get 3, though never more than 1 per age (not a very likely scenario though). This system can be unbalancing if the units are distributed unfairly but from experience we know this is not very common (note that terrain or distribution of resources can do the exact same thing). This in contrast to the Civ3 system, which makes every single game unbalanced to some extend. The biigest advantage of the MedMod system is that it adds an uncertainty factor to the game which is a lot of fun (people are actually complaining in the forums if they get a unit they don't like or boasting if they get a great unit). I'm currently even working on an improved version of this feature which will add terrain to the equation of determining which civ will get which unit. This means civs with lots of water in their city radii are likelier to get the Longboat while civs with lots of Jungle are likelier to get a Zulu Warrior (MedMod name for Impi). This should be just as much fun, much more useful (it allows all civs to exploit their strengths) and at the same time much more realistic than any other system like this I ever saw before in any other game.
(BTW, no, I don't think I'm not biased because I'm the author of this system; I'm only implementing other people's ideas, the credit for coming up with this system goes to WesW and Harlan.)

You misunderstood me about city-expansion. This is yet another feature soon to be included in the MedMod (though the idea itself predates the MedMod and probably even the CtP-series itself) and means that cities take up more space as they grow larger. One could imagine more 'symptoms' of this feature but in case of the MedMod this means an expanding city radius - like CtP2 already has by default and Civ3 misses altogether (mind you: expanding city radius, not border) - as well as the actual city taking up more than a single tile. This means that some of the squares surrounding the city could automatically turn into what one might call 'suburb tile improvements' as the city gets bigger. This will make less resources available close to the city but make more room for the citizens to live (possibly reducing overcrowding penalties). The details haven't been worked out yet for the MedMod and the CtP2 system doesn't allow very radical things to be done in this area but one could have done some really cool things with this in Civ3. Note that this particular idea served more as an example of new things Firaxis could have implemented rather than a must-have, but the scarsity of such ideas in Civ3 is, to me, disappointing.

[Grumbold]

Well said, Locutus. IMO Medmod is a shining example of what could have been achieved by Activision if they had not been pressured to curtail development and is the true yardstick by which Civ 3 should be measured. Still, if they include the tools perhaps Civ 3 will be able to have a Medmod of its own

[Solver]

An excellent reason for Firaxis not to hurry, if they have learned from the CtP 2 example.

Aren't any of you guys software developers?

1) The primary purpose of "beta testing" is to eliminate bugs. Period. A true beta test does NOT allow for new features or enhancements to existing features. Otherwise, your beta is 'tainted' and you have to 'reboot' the process.

2) The opportunity to add new features and/or enhancements is strictly during an "alpha testing" process. If most of the posters to this thread were using the term "alpha" rather than "beta" I would agree with a great many of the points that are being made. Firaxis DOES have the unique opportunity (through Apolyton and others) to an experienced, highly loyal, often extremely insightful and creative, group of players who are 100% dedicated to seeing a Civ3 that (like the box once said) "will stand the test of time."

3) While it would appear foolish to NOT take advantage of that core group of users, Firaxis is at an extreme disadvantage in NOT being the publisher. Thus, they no longer have total control over the schedule. This is one of the numerous costs in the current configuration of the gaming industry: the developer-publisher relationship has become vital in terms of funding new, highly expensive titles, while getting a mass-market distribution. BUT, unlike the "good old days" the developer does not have the luxury of controlling the timing and getting it right before shipping. That call is now made by marketing types who are more concerned with "turns of sales during the prime holiday season" than they are with more "purist" issues.

4) Compatibility testing is no longer best addressed via beta testing. While that was once the case, it is no longer. Two things have changed. First, the complexity of compatibility testing has increased by magnitudes through hardware diversification and vendor choices. Second, dedicated compatibility testing labs (such as the one that JM cited in his response, earlier in this thread) have come into existence for the express purpose of satisfying this demand. A dedicated testing lab provides a controlled testing environment wherein the developer can, if necessary, easily access and duplicate the suspect environment when changes are deemed necessary. This has become increasinly difficult via a beta test for the simple reason that, as the market continues to expand, the user community--in general--has a lower and lower technical experience level. And it is extremely difficult to determine that experience level when selecting beta testers, severely hampering the developer's ability to incorporate test results into their process (e.g., "Is this really a 3D video card problem, as is being reported, or did the user forget to mention that he/she also has recently added or removed this other component to their system, or has been experiecing intermittent problems relating to memory, et cetera).

5) I'm tired of hearing about "improved graphics." The fact of the matter is that "improved graphics" have NEVER made a poor game a great game. The joy of Civ and Civ2 has always been its replayability, its scope, its variety, and (IMHO) the sense of 'personal involvement' (which I personally believe was lacking in SMAC). While a strong case can be made that poor graphics can make a great game less so, I would contend that the graphics in either case are merely "icing on the cake": the game is either poor or great in concept, design, and implementation, and the graphics are merely a means by which those elements are presented to us the users. To this day, one of my greatest gaming joys was an enhanced version of "Colossal Cave" for the CP/M operating system. (Oops, my age is showing! Pardon me.) That was a purely text-based game, but it remains one of my enjoyable and immersive gaming experiences. Graphics could have done FAR more damage than good to that game.

Bottom line: I believe that Sid (and company) has (have) consistently displayed a remarkable, and somewhat unique, ability to create games that truly inspire the "just one more turn" style of gameplay and I FULLY expect that Civ3 will reinforce that belief once it comes to market. Sign me up with the optimists.

[down th' pub]

Mr. Tarbell sir, excellent post. Thankyou.

"'Woke up in my clothes again this morning.'"

Sounds like a software developer to me!

[Locutus]

Thanks, Grumbold. Yes, for me Civ3 will indeed have to compete with the MedMod, the best Civ game I've played so far (and AFAIK I played almost all games on the market, including most of the Alt. Civ games). I certainly hope Civ3 will be as advanced when it comes to customizability but I fear it may not be. I'm sure the tools and editors we were told about will be near-to-perfect for making scenarios and Civ2-like mods but to make a Civ3 MedMod much more is required. It requires the AI, UI and all other aspects of the game to be open for modification and it requires a scripting tool at least as advanced as SLIC. Civ2's rules.txt is nice but it can't compete with CtP's SLIC (except maybe in ease-of-use and number of bugs). Firaxis doesn't have a great reputation in this area and I hope Civ3 will change this but I haven't seen any evidence of this so far.

Solver, I couldn't agree more (or CtP1 for that matter).

DATarbell,
I am more or less a software developer myself and I as well as others have pointed out those issues in the past (both for Civ3 and CtP) but people don't seem to read, remember or care about them. IIRC people were still suggesting improvements for CtP2 when it was already gold!

I disagree about the graphics though. It's absolutely true that great graphics can't make a poor game a good game but poor graphics can make a great game a mediocre game (or worse). There are many great games with poor (or no ) graphics and it doesn't always take away from their greatness, but when I look at the screenshots from Civ3 I see some of the worst graphics I've ever seen! (No offense to the Firaxis artists: the individual graphics in themselves are quite nice, it's the combination of them that makes it ugly) They are confusing and distracting, they actually make it difficult to see of what type a certain unit is or who owns it (among other things). Also, the graphics are overall just ugly, which makes it less likely for me to play the game for hours and hours, it might starts hurting my eyes after a while. I never played Civ2 (or SMAC) all night long while I have done this more often that I'd like to admit with Civ1 (and CtP). This regardless of the fact that Civ2 was in all aspects except graphics superior to Civ1! Heck, I still play Civ1 every now and then today while I gave up on Civ2 altogether as soon as I bought CtP1. The graphics won't make me not buy or play Civ3 but they can have a great impact on how addictive and fun the game is.

[Solver]

I've often said Civ 2 improves graphics over Civ 1 and adds new units, but there was nothing fundamentally new. Of course, Civ 2 was great, but not that different from Civ 1, while from what little we know, Civ 3 is a lot different.

[Ming]

The difference between civ civI and Civ II are well noted. I can only hope that civ III lives up to my expectiations.....