Sid’s Revolution

Civilization Revolution is out! Sort of. Europeans have it, but – strangely enough – Americans still have to wait until July. CivRev is often incorrectly described as the first console version of Civ. However, a more important (and actually true) first is less often mentioned – CivRev is the first Civ since the original to be designed and programmed directly by Sid. Every line of game and AI code (and probably quite a bit more) inside the game was written by Sid himself, for all three versions: 360, PS3, and DS. CivRev is a rare chance nowadays to see one of our industry’s first great designers still making games the old-fashioned way.

Congratulations to the team at Firaxis; they did a great job of bringing the franchise to new platforms and, hopefully, to new audiences as well.

Subversion

The Spore Creature Creator was released two days ago, and already the online Sporepedia has over 500,000 creatures! I can’t even imagine how large the content pool is going to grow to by early September when the full game comes out. Everyone on the team has their favorite creations, and – for me – the most interesting ones are the creatures made by people who can’t wait for vehicle editor:

Now, here’s a real modern-day magic trick. Download a copy of the Creature Creator, open the app, select “Create a Creature,” and then drag these png’s below into the window and watch what happens.

A Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name

When I was growing up, access to games was limited. My family had the standard assortment of board games, your Monopoly, your Risk, your Life. However, I remember walking through our local Yard Birds one day, and sitting at the bottom of a bookshelf, hidden in a corner, was a copy of Eric Lee Smith’s Civil War. To a nine-year-old, it was like an artifact from another planet. Two huge hex-covered maps covering the southern US? Hundreds and hundreds of counters, representing everything from Supply Depots to Grant and Lee (not to mention turkeys like Halleck and Burnsides)? An immense, detailed 60-page rulebook?

Of course, I never was able to finish a game of it, but I enjoyed working my way through the game mechanics. Throughout my childhood, wargames held a place of fascination for me – a very important, if largely theoretical, hobby. Wargames shops were hard to come by, so my collection ended up fairly random. My favorites tended to be simpler games that I can barely even recall how I first found them, ones like Raphia, Blackbeard, and Belter. The latter even inspired my gaming friends to develop our own spreadsheets and macros to help us manage the economic data – it was a tycoon game before its time.

It’s hard to say what effect wargames had on me. The ratio of time spent reading rules/collecting games compared with time spent actually playing them was pretty lopsided in favor of the former. No matter how many times my friend Eric and I failed to make it through a game of Third Reich, I always considered myself a wargamer. All the time spent learning rule sets left its mark on me. Wargames were an attempt to simulate combat before computers were capable of managing these mechanics for us, so I believe that my first “gameplay programming” experience came from trying to fit all these rules into my head as a cohesive whole.

Today, of course, things are much different. Computerized strategy games have grown increasingly popular over the years, taking a huge bite out of the old bookcase wargaming industry. Nonetheless, the old games soldier on in relative obscurity. Eric discovered an interesting site called HexWar, which enables online play of a good chunk of the classic SPI wargame catalog. Their system for managing games between players is pretty slick for such a small outfit, obviously a labor of love.

Fortunately, most of these games on HexWar are fairly reasonable in scope (we’re not talking about SPI’s notorious monster games here), usually focusing on single battles and sharing a common rules base. More importantly, I am surprised at how fun these games still are! Playing against a real human with the computer handling the details is a real blast. I can’t believe how long I have spent fixating on exactly how I should arrange my front lines or how best to apply overwhelming force to an enemy position.

What impresses me the most about these old games is that they are actually quite simple; I am shocked to realize that “simpler” modern strategy games like Advance Wars are actually significantly more complex than the old hex-and-counters games featured on HexWar. Because the mechanics were built for humans to process, they have a clarity missing from today’s strategy games. Napoleon at Waterloo (the free game) has very little special casing, for example. Cavalry and infantry don’t even have special rules separating them; they are differentiated simply via higher or lower combat/movement values! I can also do the “chunky” math easily in my head – “okay, so I need to get the combat ratio to 12-4 to cross the 3-to-1 threshold.”

With the introduction of computing power, designers are often tempted to obscure game rules under the hood, so keeping wargames this simple is a bit of a lost art. In fact, their minimalism almost reminds me of Go. I’m not sure if these games could ever mean something to gamers who didn’t grow up in that by-gone era, but there are some remarkably elegant and beautiful designs here which have been left behind, hidden away over the years.

Further, Hexwar proves once again the appeal of asynchronous, turn-based play (which is supposed to be all the rage nowadays). Play-by-Email games never really took off, not because of the asychronous nature, but because transferring the save file by hand was such a pain. Hexwar’s system manages everything for you nicely with a downloadable client, but I would love to see a web-native version built using responsive AJAX techniques.

Unfortunately, their business model leaves something to be desired. Subscriptions cost a steep $14/month, and both players need to subscribe to be able to play the games. Only one free game is available. The system is just not built to spread virally as convincing one’s friends to jump in for a subscription is no easy task. If they dropped their price to $5/month and adopted a pay-to-host model, I wouldn’t be surprised if their business went up significantly.

Nonetheless, I am very happy to see the torch being carried for these old, classic SPI games. Aspiring designers could learn a great deal poking around in this hidden corner of the gaming world.

M.U.L.E. Turns 25

Happy Birthday to M.U.L.E., which turns 25 today! Interestingly enough, M.U.L.E. was actually SKU #1 for EA, marking quite an impressive debut. Although the game was essentially a flop – selling around 30,000 copies for the Atari 400/800 and Commodore 64 – it is remembered today as one of the most innovative, compelling, and fun social games ever made. I have made the comparison before, but M.U.L.E. and its designer (Dan/Dani Bunten) are our industry’s Velvet Underground. The old joke about the Velvets was that only a few thousand people ever bought their albums, but all of them went out to start their own bands. So it is with Bunten. Will Wright dedicated The Sims to her. Sid Meier inducted her (posthumously) into the AIAS Hall of Fame. Warren Spector revised his top 10 to include M.U.L.E. Raph Koster routinely references it as the perfect multiplayer game. The list goes on and on.

Tragically, there is no way to play M.U.L.E. on modern systems. Emulators (or old computers) are the only options. Personally, I’ve been able to get it working on the CCS64 Commodore 64 Emulator. Here are some links for further M.U.L.E. reading:

M.U.L.E. Strategy Wiki

The Gamer’s Quarter interviews M.U.L.E. developers

Salon article on Bunten’s career

Dani’s game design homepage

GWJ Podcast

The Gamers with Jobs crew invited me to do a Podcast with them a couple months ago, and I finally had a chance to join them last weekend. We spent about half the episode discussing the state of strategy gaming today, with some detours into the related-but-often-forgotten field of board gaming. Here’s the link.

If my audio sounds a little odd, it’s because my laptop power supply gave my microphone a weird buzzing noise. Rob was able to remove it in post-production, but that process also took out the low-range of my voice, which gives me that great “tin-can” sound.

Risk: Black Ops

Risk is a funny game. Almost everyone who is a gamer of some sort has played it, but almost no one continues to play it. A classic “gateway” game, Risk can give players enough of a taste of real strategy to lead them to better world conquest games (Diplomacy, History of the World, Axis & Allies) and then inevitably to the wonderful world of German gaming (Settlers of Catan, Power Grid, Carcassonne). Or, Risk can leave players shell-shocked from an eight-hour, late-night, caffeine-fueled marathon won by the guy who hunkered down in Australia, and they run right back to Monopoly and Scrabble. Risk either pushes players forward or scares them off, but who actually keeps it in their active rotation?

I definitely fall into the former category, and I am sure that I have not played Risk with my board gaming friends since the late ’80s, which was before I could even drive. Nonetheless, the Risk franchise has been undergoing a bit of a renaissance lately, based on some spin-offs with suprisingly high BoardGameGeek ratings. Now, Hasbro is going all the way with a full update of the standard version, to be released later this year. Until that time, a “stealth” version entitled Risk: Black Ops has been floating around the gaming world – only 1000 copies were printed – and I had a chance to playtest the game last week with some gamers on the Spore team.

The most important change is that victory is no longer based on world domination. Instead, eight randomly selected Objectives are the key; the first player to achieve three wins the game. The specific goals can vary from controlling Asia (always a classic!) to capturing a Continent in one turn to conquering a certain number of Cities. (Territories with Cities – randomly assigned at game start – are worth double for recruitment.) Further, each Objective is randomly assigned a Reward for the victor, such as an extra defense die or bonus recruits.

Note how many times I used the word “randomly” in the preceding paragraph. Black Ops first clear success is that, even when using the classic, fixed Earth map, the game’s “terrain” is always different depending on how everything shakes out during the set-up phase. Players are well advised to take a moment before claiming Territories to predict where conquest will be focused, depending on the game’s unique environment. The most important change, however, is the Objectives as they fundamentally shift the Risk‘s balance from a defensive game to an offensive one. In general, offensive games tend to be more fun as players get to actually do something instead of waiting for others to make the mistake of overextending their forces.

Because claiming Objectives is so important, players will focus all their attention and troops on achieving one during their individual turns. Maybe I can actually grab Asia this turn? Should I make a push to grab my neighbor’s Capital? Can I really pick up 18 Territories? These grand risks lead to an interesting gameplay rhythm; because the player before you may have stretched themselves thin to control North and South America for the Two Continents Objective, you now have a path from North Africa to their Capital in Argentina to grab the Enemy Capital Objective. In turn, the following player can now take advantage of your weakness in Africa to grab enough cities to achieve the 11 Cities Objective.

In the old version, players would have spent their time turtling, attacking just enough to earn a card in hopes of eventually booming. Risk: Black Ops, on the other hand, is all raid, all of the time, and for a game attempting to fit neatly within two hours, this change is a welcome one. The Rewards system can even allow for some interesting reversals of fortune; in one game, I was puttering along poorly until I opportunistically grabbed an enemy Capital to take the extra attack die Reward, enabling me to make a run and wipe out a neighbor, suddenly grabbing his two Objectives for the victory. Quite a few players are going to be shocked at just how quickly this game can end.

Black Ops is not without its flaws. The City concept sounds good in print but doesn’t work so well in action. Territories with Cities are worth double when recruiting new troops, making them valuable locations. However, two Objectives are specifically tied to capturing or controlling Cities, making them something of a hot potato. In our second playthrough, we actually avoided picking Cities during the initial set-up because these locations are marked for death, so to speak. While this tension is interesting, I felt like the game would be stronger if locations of value existed without regard to the all-important Objectives. Also, perhaps out of pure nostalgia, I prefer the old build-a-set card mechanic over the newer and much simpler one based on only two types of cards. Further, the card balance feels off as the game is over so quickly that one has a hard time imagining the advantages of holding out for more cards over the long-term instead of making a short-term push for another precious Objective.

Nonetheless, Black Ops is a genuinely good game, one that I anticipate coming back to many times in the future. The best thing about the design – and this is a tricky problem for designers working within an established franchise – is that the game still feels like Risk. The new rules are all simple extensions of the old core mechanics, almost like variations on a theme. No rule will feel alien to players comfortable with the old series. Thus, Black Ops (or whatever they are eventually going to call it) will be a perfect game for introducing casual players to real strategy games; I can easily imagine convincing my non-gaming friends to give it a try. They may not be ready for Agricola yet, but Risk‘s conversion rate is about to go up considerably.

By the way, here is a link to a nice interview with Rob Daviau, designer of the new version.

Ancient Strategy Games

Games journalist Troy S. Goodfellow just completed a very comprehensive retrospective on strategy games based in the ancient era. The scope is great as it extends all the way from Chris Crawford’s Legionnaire (1982) to Creative Assembly’s Rome: Total War (2004). (It’s telling, of course, that the first title belongs to a person and the last title to a company.) These are extensive pieces from a consistent point-of-view, including interviews with some of the older developers – exactly the type of series which would have been impossible to write before the Internet.

Here’s a good sample from the entry on Slitherine’s Legion (2002):

Most gamers are familiar with the uncanny valley – the idea that as photorealism and CGI get more convincing the more the human mind focuses on what is “off” about the animation. Strategy gaming has an uncanny valley, too. If one part of a system is persuasive, then it gets more difficult to accept generalizations in the other parts. Games can cross this valley, but they need to distract the user either with visuals or descriptive text – just enough to cover up the sleight of hand. By making the battle engine so compelling and period appropriate, Slitherine couldn’t help but draw attention to the cookie cutter cities, the weird unit recruitment system and how uninspired the strategic map looked most of the time. Then, given a chance to cut loose with a 3D battle engine in Legion: Arena, they stick on a really lame role playing segment where you level up troops and spend “fame points”.

If I had to choose the hardest thing in game design, it would probably be the decision about what and when to abstract. There is always a temptation for historical themed games to push hard on the realism on the stuff that designers are interested in and to punt the rest. Too much abstraction, of course, gets in the way of what Bruce Geryk has dubbed “touching history” – the reason why so many people are drawn to these games in the first place. Being more of a strategic than tactical mind, I think I’d prefer it if the battles were more general than the big picture stuff, but the trick is finding a nice balance somewhere in there.

We certainly ran into this problem quite a bit in the Civ universe – trying to make sure that the level of detail is consistent across all of the sub-systems (technology, diplomacy, resources, etc). In general, the problematic system is combat as the design challenges tend to suggest greater complexity, especially when compared with other, more tactical turn-based wargames.

For example, in the original Civ, Sid included Zone-of-Control rules lifted directly from hex-based games. They were an strange fit, both with Civ‘s broad audience and an already over-taxed AI. The extra complexity was at odds with the rest of the game, which split an entire nations production into three simple values: food, productions, and trade. Eventually, ZoC’s were dropped from the series.

Nonetheless, the simplified combat system has not been an overall success because – with infinite unit stacking and single city tiles – the game strongly encourages single-minded “island hopping” offensives, where the player concentrates their entire force on taking city A, then city B, then city C, and so on. The abstraction breaks down. Ultimately, Civ has succeeded over the years in spite of its combat system, not because of it. Overrunning knights with tanks is still enjoyable, of course, but the core fun of Civ comes from executing an over-arching strategy, not from the tactical military game.

I believe that we solved some of the franchise’s stickier problems with Civ4, but – I regret to say – not this one…

Design of the Times

So, subscribers of Game Developer magazine may have noticed that I have a new monthly writing gig. The April issue contains my first design column, entitled “Seven Deadly Strategy Sins.” I am actually sharing the column with Damion Schubert, of Bioware Austin, who is a noted MMO designer and fellow design blogger. I am glad to have a partner as I don’t want my admitted prejudices (designers should program; stories damage gameplay) to block out other viewpoints.

Readers of my blog may notice that – due to some tight deadlines – my first piece is essentially a rewrite of my 8 Things Not To Do entry from last year, this time with the focus solely on strategy games. My next column will be on the pluses and minuses of using 3D vs. 2D art and technology. I am just wrapping it up, so it won’t be seen in print for awhile.

At any rate, if readers have any suggestions as to future topics for discussion, I’d be interested in hear them…

Not Getting Burned

Robert Ashley of 1Up recently wrote an excellent article on the relationship between game developers and online forums, focusing on the very popular NeoGAF and the less popular but better connected Quarter to Three. I had a couple quotes:

I definitely can’t keep myself from wading into a thread about Civ, especially when it appears on a non-Civ forum, as the opinions tend to be more varied in the wider world. I will post from time to time to answer questions. However, it’s hard to know what to say, as I don’t believe developers should ever post opinions about their own games. One should never defend a game in public. It’s OK to post facts, but it is too hard to be objective when discussing attitudes, opinions, and feelings about games, especially your own.

Forums are a great way to get unfiltered feedback on your game, and I can think of many interesting ideas and suggestions for Civ that came from the forums. With Civ III, unfortunately, most of that feedback came after release, so the changes were only evident in the patches. To solve this problem with Civ IV, we pulled in around 100 of the best posters from the Civ forums into a private test session over a year before the game’s release.

My first experience with gaming forums came via the Civ-focued Apolyton and CivFanatics sites. In fact, I first heard about Brian Reynolds leaving Civ3 to start a new company on the former. I’ve had great experiences over the years at both places, from either gathering feedback or meeting true Civ fanatics that became either private testers, development consultants, or – in the case of Jon Shafer (Trip) and Alex Mantzaris (Alexman) – full-fledged Firaxians. There were some hairy moments to be sure (the release of Play the World comes to mind) but the franchise would have never grown in the same way without this direct interaction.

Nonetheless, I can’t help feeling a little bit of regret that I can never just post my normal thoughts within these environments. Everything I say publicly is always – whether I like it or not – a reflection on the company I work for, the people I work with, and the products I work on. I wish I could post whatever I want, whenever I would, but human nature dictates otherwise. Some game developers solve this problem by posting anonymously, but I have always been horrified at the prospect of being discovered saying something I would not be comfortable attaching to my own name. A little-known fact of the industry is that a number of private forums and mailing lists exist to let developers vent without fear of public exposure. These groups can suffer from being a little insular – they are essentially cliques, after all – but a little free communication is much better than none at all!

100 Million Sims

Apparently, the Sims franchise just recently sold its 100 millionth unit. This milestone suggests some interesting math. The original Sims was released on Feb 4, 2000 – 2,994 days ago – which means that Sims products have sold an average of 33,400 copies a day for over eight years!

As a matter of perspective, Stardock’s Brad Wardell recently stated that selling 100,000 units was a good threshold for success in the PC market, which means that the Sims franchise sold the equivalent of a hit PC game every 72 hours…

Wow.

Edit: Apparently, I fail at the maths.