Pokemon Legends Arceus Announced For Nintendo Switch
Pokemon Diamond And Pearl Remakes Announced For Switch
Destiny 2: Where Is Xur This Week? Exotic Items / Location Guide (Feb. 26-March 2)
Want us to remember this setting for all your devices?
Sign up or Sign in now!
By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
on November 13, 2019 at 7:36PM PST
Please Log In to post.
User Lists: 0
His right about the cheating part it spoils the sense of accomplishment witch is essential for a good game experience. I always to play a game without cheats then experiment with cheats. Its lots of fun using no reload cheat in Battlefield Bad Company 2 to blow up buildings, i could do it all day and it never gets boring(well not yet).
Well said Sid.
Sid is the master of replayablity. His games have loads of combination, paths, strategies wich make up for (almost?) endless gameplay.
the whole core of the odds was miss you can keep 3/1 4/1 and so on but you can't have the 1 win back to back to back which has occur to myself a million times playing civ games.
The random factor was his best point. It is easy to see paranoia and saying the game cheats, and it's always no fun when you know the game actually has stacked itself against you. Play Mario Kart Wii or Double Dash on 150cc and you'll see the computer actually time spiny shells and lightning bolts to hit you as you jump a gap. It's just plain frustrating.
he makes some good points
And he gets the thing with the odds totaly wrong! Because it is a misunderstanding. Gamers do not read these values as odds, at least I never did in the last 15 years or something I have played CIV. I always thought about these values as strength! Thus a unit with the strength of 20 is indeed much stronger than 10, and not only has a double chance of winning! But as it seams I always misunderstood the rules of Civ, which are in the background. Thus it is very important to tell the gamer why something is happening, so that the gamer can master it! But to be fair, he seems to talk about the values shown in CIV Revolution, there they are marked as odds, I think, and I never had a problem with these values. AND!!! Games are not about WINNING, it is all about MASTERING, and CIV should be the best example for that! So he should maybe use his gamer-listening strategies on himself, and do not take everything as totaly 1:1. He should maybe just play Civ, because with that he does a great job (but in my point of view fails since Civ 2 and Alpha Centaury to take it into the next levels, even though he made some interesting steps in CIV 4 and Revolution, but he still plays it save). So do not listen. But instead PLAY. And listen to your playing-habits/love. Because the playing is ultimately free, and the game is its border, its habitat, dream and world, not any desing rules are the limits for gaming! A game is a composition, one of the most individual ones, and still interacting with a epic shared surrounding called game/program/play! (The most individual one and most interactive and epically shareable thing/play, is still life itself. That I have learned most defenitly from games!)
Civilization is the most addictive game, and ignites very much your fantasy, I love it for that! BUT it is definetly NOT the only one which is memorable, there are so many games out there which are memorable and do not fulfill Sids statements. AND there is a lot in Civ I hate since the first game, and these are things he mentions as positive. So Sids is no question a genius, and I have not played any game more, and more dedicated then CIV (except Master of Orion), but his game is getting a lot wrong, and and his statement does NOT set laws-of-game-nature! Yours Nsae, Thanx Sid for the most precious game hours/days/weeks....!!!
The thing about losing in games goes something like this.....when I lose to the AI I ask what did I do? sometimes I'm just low on health or I wasn't equipped properly for the fight, whatever it was I'm okay with it so long as I can learn from it or take something away from it to use later.... When it's against human players sometimes I get pissed but it's more at myself than others, I'm not the type to want to win 100% of the time but if I can get a win or a few frags in here and there I'm okay..... The thing about game design I hate is when I do everything that I can to make my character stronger and the games enemies come in dropping nukes and stuff I'm like "F" this man.....It's one thing to lose a battle due to bad planning or tactics or not being strong enough to handle it but to be slapped in the face, I take offense at that, Not that I'm blaming Sid Meier or his games for anything, he's a genius....I'm just making a general comment on games as a whole.....
Sid Meire you are very smart man. There is always some good to be found from any disaster. If you put them in the game then I need to see the good that came from it. If a plague hits then the Doc's. are working double time to learn what is going on, and money donations from the people is pouring in with my money making my Doc's the best in the world. And the doc's will give me a unit back after 3 were killed off from now on. A disaster hit's a Neighboring Country I help them and they give me a tech. 300 men put a hurt to my army only happens once every 7000 years. Not 1 time every 100 battles. If I see that the land is set up just right for 300 to do some damage to an army and I do it perfectly then yes I want to call my mom and tell her how smart her kid is.
@ metalkid9 There are natural disasters! Random events like tornadoes, global warming, volcano erruptions, floods, etc... Play the game first and then say what Civ hasn't :D
Who the hell are all these dumb gamers that get their wishes fulfilled? They're making the games worse by letting you dumbing it down for them... all they care about is winning and all it comes down to is who's yelling the loudest... For instance when he talkes about that they take into account previous battles when calculating the next battle to please the player, that's just bad math and doesn't make any sense. @ iron_zealot7531 & SSG_Troyer I totally agree with you.
I still think they should add natural disasters in Civ. I don't see how it would worsen the experience. Sometimes a game gets predictable, not that it is, but that's just my opinion.
@ SSG_Troyer No kidding. I really have to wonder about the people Sid apparently got to play test his games. I'm sure that he was just exaggerating to make a point, but he really made them sound stupid and childish. Randomized research is fine if it's implemented well, and moral dilemmas or morally challenging decisions are much more interesting then an obvious good vs evil dichotomy.
@ jeremiah06 "You just don't know how much it sucks to build up this great thing only to lose it in the end." Wow...are you freaking kidding me? You don't think I've ever lost a game of Civilization? When I first started playing Civ i would reload the game every time I lost a battle, but I eventually learned that this ruined the fun and the strategy of the game, and I stopped doing it. Sid's point was that he was protecting you FROM YOURSELF. Meaning that what you think you want is not what you actually want. Especially in a strategy game of all things. If the possibility of losing makes you dislike a game, then you shouldn't be playing games. Either that, or stick with My Little Pony for the DS.
@iron_zealot7531 As someone who's done that sort of thing I have to disagree. If I'm so inclined to want to "cheat" the system so that I win everytime then that means for that instance I did want to win everytime. It gives me the player more reason to go back and play the game more. You just don't know how much it sucks to build up this great thing only to lose in the end. Some days I might want that possibility but some days I wont. Think about it. Its a lot of hassle to have to stop reload and try again after every failure. Why would I put myself through all that if it wasn't what I wanted? Also "well just make it so you win everytime" Isn't right either because sometimes I expect to lose which is why I'd play the game normally. Taking away my ability to abuse the system isn't going to make me experience because then you'll have me taking myself out of the experience with all the complaining I'd start dong. FFXIII has that problem for me. I spend so much time complaining about being forced to experience the game a certain way that I'm taken out of the experience anyway.
I think It would've been awesome to have some random natural disasters thrown in. When looking at the potential for a city(with a settlers) it could show probability of a natural disaster(tectonic activity, adjacent oceans, active volcanoes etc.). Skill is important but luck should play some type of a factor. Also the ability to change the disaster settings before a match(none at all, more frequent, less possible) would be necessary.
The Winning Paradox: Well, we don't complain that we win a lot but we do sometimes complain when it's too easy (if a multiple difficulty is not present). I'm going to mention ACII because Platinum-izing ACII was way too easy. The quotation I'm gonna take away from this is "3 is big! I should've won" I'm gonna download this. This is a pretty good keynote. This like a seminar for aspiring game-designers? Feels more of his own path and things to think about on his creations to Civilization.
Wow, I'm glad I sat through the entire conference. I think it's a must see for any game developer to finetune his techniques on creating games. In particular, I like the use of using one's imagination to improve gameplay. It's a powerful, near-endless and cheap weapon to use in gaming. I must say, I agree almost completely. I wouldn't be bothered with more random occurrences to challenge gameplay, as long as their scale doesn't disrupt your entire game experience. I enjoy randomised gameplay more than anything in games. It's good to know they really look into the gamer point of view when creating a game. And not only from what they experience, but also their feeling when experiencing it. I think most comments he made about that, like feeling cheated or stamped, are dead on for any player experience.
I think he's a bit wrong with both the moral complexity issue and the blind research. More moral greyness makes the game more compelling and each decision mean more. Bioware and Bethesda have this idea pretty well realized. Blind research is just realistic. I can understand people wanting to "dive" for a tech, but having no time counter and a random available tech just pop up when it's complete would be a better option, IMO.
i wish there were more like this
Sid is dead on when he talks about gamers sabotaging their own experiences through cheating or through abusing the save/load functions.
I didn't intend to watch the entire thing but I wound up doing so. I'm glad I did though. It was very interesting. All that Sid said is pretty much correct. @Granpire - I disagree. I like the idea that developers listen to their players. Also, I hate being confused when playing a game. It's worse then watching a movie and not knowing what's going on for the next hour or so.
I wish there were more videos like this available to us.
I disagree with Sid on the moral clarity issue. I'd love to see more moral complexity and moral dilemmas in game design. Hell, look at Mass Effect.
yay the whole address is online now!
Damn, what he said about paranoia.. I experienced that when playing Sword of the Stars, when only me got the damn planet destroyer "random event" all the time.. I say only me because when I played with friends I got that event many times, while they never got it.
All these things is true, if you rewarded the palyer for winning he will accept it right away without asking, when he lose he will go mad, so the player should think how he can beat it next time, at first time you will say "ok, happens" but when you lose for the second time you will say "what happend? I should be a winner!".
All these things are true, but it's sad that game developers are submitting to what players want and staying with the old formulas. We need change, it's games that do things differently that prevail. We need to fail sometimes, we need to be confused and not feel in control. When a game can do all the things Sid said not to do effectively, I'll be happy.
My brain! My beautiful brain is going to explode! It's to long! Civilization V is going to be one of the geratest strategy game of late 2010!
He's describing everything that's wrong with video games and encouraging more of it? These are the reasons people are going more and more for just the competitive multiplayer games. Some people totally skip the offline single player experience and stick with competitive multiplayer to avoid this linear and scripted experience Sid is encouraging. I used to respect Sid for Civilization, but I think he's got it wrong here.
Very interesting talk, sounds pretty accurate to me.
Good talk Sid. Its weird hearing about gamers from the developers point of view but I think you were right on with most of what you said about us.
to me the Civ series, especially Civ4, is one of the very few games that i kept losing but kept going back to. so all credits to this guy.
Dude. The title is "Keynote Address: Sid Meier." Even if most people who would be interested in a 50 minute video of this type _didn't_ know what he looked like (and we do) then at the very least the title is a kind of unsubtle hint.
Dear lord stop panning the camera back and forth. It's ok if Sid isn't centered every darn second. Sid is not a bouncy ball. We do not need to see both of his elbows to comprehend the words that are coming out of his mouth.
@SWIFFT DO know.
@swifft what? (2cnd post btw)
Who is this person speaking? No introduction? If this is sid meier then he is a little up on himselft thinking we all know wtf he looks like.