Discussion: Social Upgrades

[Shrugging Khan]

Hi all.

Been thinking about the social upgrades. It's a very Civ5 thing, as it is. Gather points, spend them in mini-trees for straight upgrades, never look at them again. Different races get one or two different options all those tree-stumps. Very much not like Civ4, Alpha Centauri; Those being my measure for halfway decent 4X games.

To explain the difference: In Alpha Centauri and Civ4, you pick things like form of government, economic model, labour policy, religious policy and so on. You can switch from and to any of them as often as you like, with some moderate ramifications. All of them have advantages as well as drawbacks. Differences between yours and an AI civilisations policies are cause for conflict.

When I first played Civ5, my reaction to the cultural upgrades was pretty much "What the f?ck is this sh!t!?", and it never got better. Hello streamlining for a broader audience, and off and away with something that I always thought was at the core of 4X games and deserved some more complexity and details.

Having to actually think about trade-offs, about political differences, and about the possibility of changing your policies at a price was pretty much what little there was to interior policy in 4Xs so far. That, and taxes. With those gone, there was just nothing left.

And I find myself noticing the same lack of anything in SBR. It's a game about micro-managing a bunch of numbers; and at no point do I feel the immersion of actually having to manage a society. Being limited to picking straight, mostly no-downside upgrades from tiny little trees with minimal room for choice doesn't improve that at all.

Blah. As always, I'm bad at explaining myself. Discuss this matter with me; tell me I'm wrong or something.

[Mick]

I don't have an issue with the Civ 5 social tree system like you do. What I do think is missing from the SBR version of it is that same 'opportunity cost' that goes with it, because it feels kinda like you are working down different versions of a tech tree instead of that feeling of "if you take this thing you are basically giving up this other thing FOREVER (or making it take a long long long long time to get if you are really dedicated)."

[Shrugging Khan]

But it's retarded!...is what I want to say. I'm sure people smarter than me have thought this ought well enough, but I don't get it.

How is it better game design to give the player minimal choice and minimal need for choice, rather than something more involving and meaningful?

[crazyroosterman]

personally I cant really comment on weather alpha centuries/civ 4s culture system is better than this games system since I've never played those games what your talking about sounds incredibly interesting though I will say though that I've never really liked the government branch of the perk line at the top there's interesting stuff and the bottom but everything in between is just what ever for me I tend to just take what ever pops up on that branch after the top is finished. ps the description of the evuks disease resistance still needs to be changed.

[Mick]

But it's retarded!...is what I want to say. I'm sure people smarter than me have thought this ought well enough, but I don't get it.

How is it better game design to give the player minimal choice and minimal need for choice, rather than something more involving and meaningful?

I'm not sure where you are getting minimal choice from. In the civ 4 version of policy, the ones you pick are temporary and can be changed at a whim to suit your short-term needs. In the Civ 5 system your choices all have an opportunity cost because going down one line means removing the ability to get advantages down the others  (or severely delaying them). In Civ 5, you also have a meta option of how much you are able to even go down the policy trees at all based on how much you focus on culture at the expense of other things. You are certainly not just pressing random buttons, and if you are, you're not playing the game well.

SBR's policy system I feel tries to be more like Civ 5's, but isn't as interesting. I don't feel like the choices I make matter. The bonuses I can pick from don't line up with the timeframe of the game I pick them in (like the early Government branch options). I'm not really 'choosing' between the trees, because I'm spending three different types of policy mana.

[Shrugging Khan]

Minimal choice because to get at the strategically significant stuff, I have to pick certain prerequisites. Also because I get so many progress points I can easily unlock 3/4 of the whole tree; and because the lower portions of the tree aren't freed up until that much is spent on the upper ones. It's just a matter of picking a bunch of boring upgrades until you've picked almost all of them, then getting to pick from another tiny selection.

And I'm not saying that Civ4 was perfect. But everything had drawbacks, switching was possible but dangerous (because it semi-incapacitated you for several turns, and you ended up being behind on research), and the selection of policies actually felt like trying to shape your rule to your civilisations needs; and re-shaping it when the situation changes and you're prepared to pay the price.

In Civ5 it was just so awfully straightforward in terms of no-drawback bonuses granted and the absolute permanence of those choices. It felt more like putting together a D&D character than governing a civilisation.

In SBR it's just...not even that. Half of each tree does the exact same thing six times over, almost everything is just percentage upgrades, next to nothing has a drawback, and it just feels so absolutely game-y and unimmersive. "You have points. Spend them to immediately and permanently make your aerial interceptors 40% better." just doesn't feel as actually having to choose forms of government or economic models that offer different mechanics, vulnerabilities and options.

[Elijah]

Yeah I agree.

[Cinth]

Just doesn't feel as actually having to choose forms of government or economic models that offer different mechanics, vulnerabilities and options.

You're looking for something that doesn't exist in the game.  Social progress doesn't even set out to be that.  Think of it this way, the US has made strides in social progress, but the government style and economic model haven't really changed.

[Shrugging Khan]

Well, depending on who you ask it's actually made no progress at all, or extensive regress, or just changed without any net benefit.

And alright, so it's meant to just be a grab bag of plain bonuses. But then it's boring in idea and execution - there's still not much choice to be made.

[Cinth]

Well, depending on who you ask it's actually made no progress at all, or extensive regress, or just changed without any net benefit.

And alright, so it's meant to just be a grab bag of plain bonuses. But then it's boring in idea and execution - there's still not much choice to be made.

I've complained about it too.  Well, there is a victory condition tied to the culture part of the tree.

[kasnavada]

But it's retarded!...is what I want to say. I'm sure people smarter than me have thought this ought well enough, but I don't get it.

How is it better game design to give the player minimal choice and minimal need for choice, rather than something more involving and meaningful?

How to explain that... What Civ4 does I don't really know because that game bored me really, really fast. Too much useless stuff to know. Too much micro-management. But Civ 5 is a design wonder of what a game should be. The flow of the game is really, really way improved compared to previous opus despite its flaws (AI mostly). Same when comparing the "old" X-Coms to the new one.

But back to the subject. Basically, you seem to be of the opinion that "more choice" is a good thing, that "more choice" equals or implies "more involving", "more meaning". And you also seem under the impression that since ultimately everything will be unlocked, the choices are pointless.

Let's start with "more choice = more meaning + involving + whetever". X-Com EU compared to the old one actually explains that REALLY well.
What did the players equip their soldier with when they had complete control over their soldiers ?
(...)

Yes, basically there was maybe 3-4 archetypes (depending on tech level) and weapons which were more powerful than others. So basically they made 3-4 classes, sometimes up to 8. More choices does not mean more meaningful. It just means that there are much more than a newbie can get wrong. That there is many useless positions and still a few good ones. What did firaxis do with X-Com EU ? They recognized this. And they made 4 classes. Basically it's the SAME amount of choice because a lot of the bad options that no one did anyway have been removed.

You can probably apply that mindset to Civ4 and alpha centauri social progress and government. After analysis, they found out that most people took 1 or 2 options and that the others were basically pointless. So they removed the pointless choices.

Next argument against this "more choice..." basically more choices means that you need to think more, click more. Taking again X-Com into consideration. But... what is the game about. Moving grenades into inventories ? Or tactical combat ? Moving a dozen soldiers which ultimately will never shoot anything (as your elite 6 kill all, in your 18 large squad ?) or just playing the sinister 6 ? If the player's brain is occupied with considerations other than the tactical combat, the tactical combat must be dumbed down. Else there is no brain left to master tactical combat in the first place. Let's take GO as another example. Very simple rules, you can think 12-15 moves ahead. Chess ? 6-8 maybe ? Civ4 ? With the amount of micro there ? You're lucky if at end game, if you can plan the end of your turn in other terms than "20 minutes of micro" for "2 minutes of core play", and planning ahead is limited to that... you'll never be able to remember the build queues for every city and end up "re-analysing" them for each city with an empty production queue. Over and over game for hundreds of turns.

More choices is not systematically useful. What it often does is prevent players from enjoying the "core" of the game, slows the game flow, and between "sometimes to often" does not offer any more "meaningful choices" in the first place - there are most often a better option and lousy ones no one chooses, ever.


About the "next" argument, you seem to be of the opinion that since everything is unlocked, it's pointless. But it's not really the case. It's just that the choices about those aspects is outside that screen. What matters in Civ5 about social progress isn't that you're mostly end up with the same unlocks, it's choosing to produce culture rather than science / food or production. Again the choice is taken to move the player back to what the core of the game is. How you're managing your cities give you "more or less" choices between population, science, production and culture. In Civ4 (done some research) it's still the same deal as was present in civ 1 with technologies. Basically focussing on social progress is not a choice, it's a consequence of boosting your technology.



I found one interesting article about game design here, I think "instinctly" Chris mostly respect what's written there, more or less, even if he DOES love spreadsheets and lowering indicators. 6 pages long though, but an interesting read.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130256/too_many_clicks_unitbased_.php

[Shrugging Khan]

If it's about trimming the game to its essentials, then why does a feature like the social progress screen even exist? The essentials of the game, I'd guess, are placing buildings to maximise their bonuses. Everything else is simplistic, and either supposed to get extensively reworked (diplomacy), or rather simplistic (tech tree, social progress). The latter seem to me to be a distraction rather than an integral part of the game, so why are they in at all?

Ultimately my point boils down to this: Oversimplifying things in the name of streamlining takes away the immersive aspect of  the experience. In a good 4x, to me, change is gradual, granular, sometimes reversible and often dangerous, and not a sweeping "click to triple this aspect of your civilisation".

The way buildings, population, injuries, energy and so on work in SBR is engaging and feels relatively life-like, because it is a complex system with many interdependencies that, in many instances, just plain make sense. It feels good. Things happen because of actual reasons. I tinker around with pollution and trash, with crime and health, building positions and adjacency bonuses, overlapping fields of fire and interception, energy efficiency and energy reliability, trying to get all those systems to interact in the best way I can come up with.

But social progress? Click to get a bonus, forever and with no further thought about it. For a game about managing a complex, life-like system, it just feels completely out of place.

Which is also why Civ5 is, to me, just feels bad - after so many iterations of the game that all made efforts to make it feel more like a natural progression of world history, more like a coherent experience, Civ5 just made it feel like a game - nothing more. And maybe if all you're looking for is a game, any game as long as it plays well, then Civ5 may well be the top 4X.
But for something that actually offers a meaningful experience revolving about many of the things that actually made the world's civilisations, Civ5 is next to worthless because it streamlined away so many important details, only to replace them with oversimplified slickness.

But I'm also the guy who actually liked MoO3 because it felt more like ruling a space empire, and who preferred SR1 over SR2 because while the latter may be a better, slicker game the first one actually offered something unique...so what do I know.
I never warmed up to The Last Federation because even though it was based on a simulation, so much of it was just too arbitrary and unrealistic to offer a coherent experience. It just felt like trying to bludgeon some numbers go up, others to go down, and that was that...except for the ship combat, which felt like a thoroughly out-of-place mini game.

AI War, on the other hand, actually felt like trying to fight two god-like AIs. I guess I needn't explain why; not here at least.

Ultimately, I would like to see SBR become an interesting, immersive experience rather than just another game. If that's not what it's meant to be, then fine.

[Cinth]

Please, for the love of all that is good int he gaming world, don't every say Civ 5 is a good game.  It's the Diablo III of the Civ series.  You want a good place to compare points, Civ 3/4.  Those were a blast to play, 5 not so much.

And good to see another MoO3 player about.

[crazyroosterman]

Please, for the love of all that is good int he gaming world, don't every say Civ 5 is a good game.  It's the Diablo III of the Civ series.  You want a good place to compare points, Civ 3/4.  Those were a blast to play, 5 not so much.

And good to see another MoO3 player about.

personally I like civ 5 I put lots of hours into that game and enjoyed it a lot granted though I'm not to experienced with 4xs outside that game so my opinion on that may change speaking of which are there any 4xs you chaps would recommend to me that won't incinerate my laptop and then point a finger at me and laugh?(outside age of wonder 3 that games been on my wish list for a while

[Shrugging Khan]

I just opened up XCOM EU/EW/LW to have another look at it. I never played any of the old XCOM games, but thinking about it...if I had, I would probably lament the loss of choice. I've had enough putting-grenades-into-inventories for my lifetime, being an old Jagged Alliance player; but when I've had the freedom to root around in the details, and then it's lost...I don't like that. Which is why the modern Jagged Alliance games hold no appeal to me - the real-time-with-pause setup actually would be an improvement, IMO. But so many features (line-of-sight, for example) and content have been lost; I just don't want to play with all that missing.

Please, for the love of all that is good int he gaming world, don't every say Civ 5 is a good game.  It's the Diablo III of the Civ series.  You want a good place to compare points, Civ 3/4.  Those were a blast to play, 5 not so much.

And good to see another MoO3 player about.

I agree with you, as far as my taste goes. But Civ5 may very well be more marketable, more accessible, more streamlined and easier to play than its predecessors; whether we like the game or not.

I'm guessing it's just a new generation of games. Star Ruler 2, Civ5, Endless Whatever...their selling points are:

• Can draw in beginners with simple gameplay
• Appeals to a mass market with snazzy visuals
• Few clicks, shallow interface - can be used on an iPad
• HOLY SH!T WE HAVE HEXES!
• We have left behind the false idol of realism and embraced the arbitrary ruleset

After long decades of increasing complexity, the tables have simply turned. The market is way bigger now, and nobody wants to limit their offerings to a niche audience when there's such lot of potential customers out there.

Please, for the love of all that is good int he gaming world, don't every say Civ 5 is a good game.  It's the Diablo III of the Civ series.  You want a good place to compare points, Civ 3/4.  Those were a blast to play, 5 not so much.

And good to see another MoO3 player about.

personally I like civ 5 I put lots of hours into that game and enjoyed it a lot granted though I'm not to experienced with 4xs outside that game so my opinion on that may change speaking of which are there any 4xs you chaps would recommend to me that won't incinerate my laptop and then point a finger at me and laugh?(outside age of wonder 3 that games been on my wish list for a while

• Well, Civilisation 3 is a very nice, solid game, if you just want to take a look at how things used to be.
• Civilisation 4 with the Add-Ons and a good mod is probably the best there is (Something like 'Rise of Mankind' or 'Realism Invictus', those mods bring a lot of good features that really close some holes).

But really, Civ3 is the only one I can safely recommend.

I don't know how complicated you like your games; most of what I play is rather arcane. Modding Civ4 is really the simpler end of things...if you're up for some knots in your brain, then take a look at Europa Universalis III (EUIV is supposed to be good, too) or Dominions 4.