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."

Maybe My First First Post

[kniLnamiJ-neB]

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.

Re:Maybe My First First Post

[Chosen Reject]

New genres don't necessarily mean anything. Or I should say, a lack of new genres doesn't mean no innovation. Spore looks to be the same as Civilization just starting a little further back in time. I wouldn't really call this a new genre. Take a look at the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. Same old FPS? Not really. That was a simple innovation that really added to the life of the game.

What I'd really like to see is more co-op play. I'm slowly developing a mod for Half-Life 2 like this. I just wish I had more time to develop it.

Stupid school always getting in the way. I don't want to know recurrence relations. I want to know how to make a mod for Half-Life 2./rant

Civ 4 - How in touch really?

[dsraistlin]

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.

Adventure Games

[AKAImBatman]

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 [the-underdogs.org] 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?

Re:Time and Money

[Chimera512]

I find myself with the same predicament.
it might be nice to have something enjoyable to just hop into for a couple hours that doesn't have a steap learning curve or require the massive time commitment of a massive or require 9 years to load on my 1.7 ghz amd that's starting to feel more and more dated. Guess this is why I find myself tending toward playing older games whenever i find a few free hours to play games.

Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really?

[msbmsb]

True. I love the civ series, played civ2 for a very long time until switching to civ3. After looking at civ4 with the horrible graphics bugs and the unnecessary usage of 3D, I'm not in any hurry to pick it up, I'll stick with civ3.

Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really?

[dsraistlin]

Eve-online works great on my computer that still has fog of war black tile problems in CIV4. If they would have went with a regular engine that is well used like Q2, Q3 they would have been able to incorporate all the 3d they wanted with out all of the chipset problems. The chipset I have falls under the initial minimum specs but none of the patches have corrected the problem. Really the basic game play has no need for the 3D enhancements they are just fluff to try and bring in some of the graphics Nazis that are out there in the gaming world rather than keep it simple and play to the loyal fan base that has been with them since the beginning. That is what pisses me off about the whole situation.
I for one will not buy any more games by Sid's group now that they have sold out. A Civ game should not have more graphics requirements than Morrowind!!! WTF!!

Re:No RPGs?

[tengennewseditor]

Console/Japanese RPGs almost all have completely different gameplay and feel from PC RPGs. Soren Johnson must only like the PC kind, and there really aren't many good ones that have come out since Morrowind.

Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really?

[dsraistlin]

Uh, I meant Morrowind, if I was going to reference Oblivion I would have said so. I refer to the first iteration of Morrowind that came out several years ago. On the computer in question I have played Morrowind, NWN, Eve-Online, Guild Wars, Civ 3 and other games of the same and previous eras. Now the graphics and 3Dness in Civ 4 does not seem as it should be much more elobrate than any of the games above yet the are graphics problems even when tuning down the graphics to the bare minimum. Now I can play Civ 4 on another computer that I have however I do not wish to spend 4-8 hours in front of said computer. From playing the game the graphics are just a bunch of fluff that are not really needed for the game play. So I indicate this as another miscalculation of the programming and design staff. Hence Sid's name is on the box so he has some responsiblity in thte matter. The question that game desingers should be asking themselves now is not what can we do with all of these new graphics breakthroughs but do we need them for the game and gameplay we are trying to create? Much like WotC and WW should be asking themselves when it comes to a new fluffy book to print for the sake of printing.

Re:No RPGs?

[Y-Crate]

The console RPGs coming out of Japan at the moment tend to be incredibly linear and overloaded with cutscenes and really don't come close to the depth, freedom or gameplay style offered by domestic PC RPGs.

Re:Guild Wars

[edremy]

I don't mind losing. Losing a good game is fine. Back when I played board games I lost more than I won since I played with a smart group and still had a blast. When I play something like Unreal I crank the bots up to "Inhuman" and lose about 80% of the matches. I play Alpha Centauri at Transcend and win maybe one out of five.

I *do* mind playing when the competition level isn't even remotely even. I can't practice ten hours a day, and someone who does is going to be vastly better than I am, even if I'm smarter. (Hardly a given- hard core players know every advantage, every strategy, etc) When the final score is 150-0 what's the point of even playing, especially when I know that I can't improve enough given my limited play time to eventually even things out? Perhaps if I devote all my spare time I might be able to make it 149-1. What's worse is that the guy on the other end isn't having any fun either- it's damn boring to win 150-0.

So I play different sorts of games, most which rely less on twitch and more on strategy/skill. Back when I played Guild Wars I was a pretty good Monk- not top competition level, but enough to keep a team alive even at the highest PvE levels provided Leeeroy wasn't playing. I like Puzzle Pirates a lot- the games involve enough strategy that I can keep up with most folks. (Even if I can't seem to get a handle on Bilging.)

Games should be fun. If it's not fun, why play?

Re:Civ 4 - How in touch really?

[DonChron]

You have a point. I was using an Athlon 2800+, 512MB, GeForce3 (64 MB) setup and the game was too slow. Added 512 MB, upgraded to a GeForce 6200 with 128 MB (plain-Jane, no memory-sharing nonsense). But I still have to turn down the graphics features in the game and in the nVidia driver controls to make it playable (note: sure, there are faster video cards, but I need AGP and no extra Molex power connector because the SFF PC has a 275 Watt power supply).

Civ3 never had any problems with the previous setup, but 512 MB isn't nearly enough to play Civ4 and it still slows down during some of the zoom-way-in sequences.

This is not a game about pretty, shiny models. Or, at least, it hasn't been for the past 10 years. Don't get me wrong, I love the franchise and will keep playing it, and many game-play features have improvedbut the system requirements for this game are a bit ridiculous.

Imagine that

[Pluvius]

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

Re:How about this - mutliplayer, but not massive.

[SatanicPuppy]

The ideal is not to have a simple or a complex game...The ideal is having a game that is simple to play and enjoy, but with depth and complexity to keep it from getting stale.

Not to jump on the current "World of Warcraft rulez" bandwagon, but WoW did that very well. It's an MMORPG that is very simple, without the kind of ridiculous learning curve associated with EQ or AO, or any number of older MMO's, but has enough depth and complexity to keep people playing. I think a lot of people would prefer more depth and complexity (myself included), but I think that their model is clearly working out great for them, so I understand why they're not rushing to screw things up.

The reason why industry prefers multiplayer

[evilsofa]

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.