Interview with Alex Mantzaris about BTS

[scooter]

Hmm, okay, interesting thoughts here. I agree and disagree with some of the things said, but I'll put it this way, what would you want to see in an expansion? If you had absolute control of Beyond the Sword from way back when they were whiteboarding the thing, what would you do with it? Reason I ask is most of you seem to think more is a bad thing, and I would agree if it's not balanced, but if the new stuff is balanced I'm always welcome to adding more stuff.

[sooooo]

Thanks for the link, enjoyed the article. Looking forward to playing Boudicea on a highlands map . Hope the AI is good. And by good I mean "fun to play against".

[sunrise089]

@Scooter: I would like an expansion that costs about $5-10, and acts like a patch - clean up the bugs and unbalanced issues, well, and improve the AI, well. Any other new features need to be as playtested as was the original game, and that simply appears impossible.

A graphical upgrade might be nice as an added $5 for those of us with higher-end systems.

[scooter]

@Scooter: I would like an expansion that costs about $5-10, and acts like a patch - clean up the bugs and unbalanced issues, well, and improve the AI, well. Any other new features need to be as playtested as was the original game, and that simply appears impossible.

A graphical upgrade might be nice as an added $5 for those of us with higher-end systems.

Paying for a patch though? IMO there aren't that many problems with the core game (an impressive feat for such a massive game). There still aren't many "guaranteed right way to go" strategies, which is what I love about the game. With Warlords, now that I just got the game and have started playing it I'm actually enjoying it immensely (granted I'm playing with Vassal states off so I don't get a bad first impression).

Edit: what I'm trying to say is that the only "broken" feature added in Warlords is Vassal states, but even that depends on your point of view, meaning what you think vassal states should be, personally it's too much of a mess to me...

[sunrise089]

@Scooter - Yes, the only broken feature is Vassles. In other news, the only trully new feature was Vassles. Not a good success percentage if you ask me. Also not Vassles aren't just mildly broken at that.

The other new "features" are traits that aren't very interesting, leaders the the mod community had already added (or was able to add), Scenarios which noone plays, wonders that aren't that necessary (all the good and well thought out ones were already there), and an inferior Main Menu song. Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.

I've said it before, and will keep saying it - if a game is very well designed from the get-go, then expansions are a poor idea - they will either do too little to justify the $$$ (Warlords since Vassles are useless) or they will do too much an effect the core gameplay (BTS seems likely to go that path). So yes, I would prefer to pay (a small ammount) for a glorified patch - if that allowed RB events and MP to agree on a common game, rather than having to run 5 different versions.

PS - For an example of the flawed expansion system - check out BetterAI in warlords. Blake and Co have done a great job at significantly altering the game basically for free. Firaxis recognized this impressive achievement. They still had a launch window to work with however, so they grabbed an early, incomplete version of BetterAI. In other words, they were willing to include it to add to the feature-set, but not willing to make sure it actually offered the player an ideal experience. Tell me that says something good about the expansion process.

[scooter]

@Scooter - Yes, the only broken feature is Vassles. In other news, the only trully new feature was Vassles. Not a good success percentage if you ask me. Also not Vassles aren't just mildly broken at that.

Agreed, and that's the reason I wasn't even going to buy Warlords until I saw it on sale for like 15 bucks and I had a weekend to blow, so I figured I'd give it a shot. My opinion of it was that it wasn't strong enough to be worth $30 (and after playing that I stand by that too, I tell people that all the time).

The other new "features" are traits that aren't very interesting, leaders the the mod community had already added (or was able to add), Scenarios which noone plays, wonders that aren't that necessary (all the good and well thought out ones were already there), and an inferior Main Menu song. Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.

Hmm, I can tell you haven't played with charismatic much... let me tell you that it is a ton of fun... Protective is a weak trait (in the MP world it's actually pretty good though), Imperialistic is kinda fun, but once again more of a trait geared for MP. As for the scenarios, yeah that's kind of hit or miss I'll agree, some people love scenarios, some get bored of them quickly (I do usually), but the point is they were fairly well-constructed. I actually quite like the Main Menu song, but that's not worth arguing over.

I've said it before, and will keep saying it - if a game is very well designed from the get-go, then expansions are a poor idea - they will either do too little to justify the $$$ (Warlords since Vassles are useless) or they will do too much an effect the core gameplay (BTS seems likely to go that path). So yes, I would prefer to pay (a small ammount) for a glorified patch - if that allowed RB events and MP to agree on a common game, rather than having to run 5 different versions.

While I don't really agree completely, I totally understand where you're coming from on that, it is pretty painful switching between versions, especially when there's little differences that I wish were in the other one...

PS - For an example of the flawed expansion system - check out BetterAI in warlords. Blake and Co have done a great job at significantly altering the game basically for free. Firaxis recognized this impressive achievement. They still had a launch window to work with however, so they grabbed an early, incomplete version of BetterAI. In other words, they were willing to include it to add to the feature-set, but not willing to make sure it actually offered the player an ideal experience. Tell me that says something good about the expansion process.

So far having played Warlords, it seems to me that the AI plays tougher than it did on Vanilla, I dropped down a difficulty level and I'm having to work just as hard. Yeah BetterAI was incomplete (and still is), but the version in Warlords still seems to be slightly better than Vanilla, if not, then definitely not worse, so I don't see any loss there. I don't know of any AI problems currently in Warlords so I must admit I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

Please don't misunderstand me, I was pretty underwhelmed with Warlords myself, but it seems like more time has gone into BTS, and it's only my hope that the time paid off. Just looks at the timeframe, it was a bigger gap by several months that they've been working on BTS, and looking at Warlords I think to myself many times that, if it was given just a few more months it could've gone from "average" to "very solid."

[Kodii]

Just looks at the timeframe, it was a bigger gap by several months that they've been working on BTS, and looking at Warlords I think to myself many times that, if it was given just a few more months it could've gone from "average" to "very solid."

In my opinion, both expansions have come out too quickly.

I'm not looking for a new expansion, I'm still waiting for the Vanilla patch.

[sunrise089]

...especially when there's little differences that I wish were in the other one...

I agree with this, but it actually makes me a bit mad. If Firaxis wants to save content additions for the expansions in order to sell more copies, thats 100% fine. But they sure could make a lot of people happy by adding things like unit selection icons on multiple lines to make managing a large SOD a whole lot easier.

So far having played Warlords, it seems to me that the AI plays tougher than it did on Vanilla

I agree, but to me, that helps make my point. I want the AI to act smarter, but Blake's AI has the side effect of making the difficulties play differently, and that isn't a good thing. The AI should make fewer stupid or odd decisions, but the overall difficulty should remain the same between versions. If we want it to get even tought, just play a level up, and add a "Sid" difficulty level for the top players.

...but it seems like more time has gone into BTS, and it's only my hope that the time paid off.

Good point, but that's also a source of worry for me. Imagine how many "vassal states" Firaxis could have made if they had another 3 months.

I actually quite like the Main Menu song, but that's not worth arguing over.

Oh, I beg to differ! The original song is the best song ever! The new song sucks. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a n00b! I will flame all posts from anyone who professes a positive opinion of the new song!

[Swiss Pauli]

There's a pretty wide consensus that Civ4 drags badly in the later stages of the game, one reason why a lot of players often stop playing once the outcome becomes clear.

I think this is a key area for BTS to address: can they make the outcome of a regular game uncertain for longer, thus making the endgame less of a coast and more of a challenge.

[sunrise089]

I think this is a key area for BTS to address: can they make the outcome of a regular game uncertain for longer, thus making the endgame less of a coast and more of a challenge.

How? Civ is a game of production - both of units/buildings, and wealth. It's also tile based. Therefore more expansion early will always give you an advanage later - which is why Conquest and Domination wins tend to steamroll in the late game. Space on the other hand - the closest thing we have to a "default" victory may not play well if the end game is more in doubt - in order to go for space, you have to decide many many turns before you will launch your ship. If the endgame can not change substantailly, will it be safe to devote so many techs to spaceship research, and so many key cities to part production?

As for the other two victories, as long as Diplo is tied to population, any changes they make to that type won't counterbalance the fact that often the easiest diplo win is backdoor domination. Cultural victory could actually be harmed by additions to the late game - you need to shut off research for cultural, so if the late-game is prolonged, thats simply more oppurtunity for you to fall behind and get attacked.

I simply don't see how they can strike a ballance here - if the goal is to add to the late game and make it fun to play, they have to make the outcome more in doubt. But to do that they have to head dangerously close to making the rest of the game irrelevent.