Quick survey on what makes for good 4x/civ design

[Dp101]

My current CS class is currently requiring students to do some research on our ideas for projects that we have come up with, and that includes talking to potential users of the projects we wish to make. Currently, I'm planning on adding an AI and procedural generation to a kinda-crappy civ clone I made last year, and I feel that RB would be a good place to get feedback on what kinds of ideas/design philosophies people want to see in 4x/civ style gameplay. Posting this here rather than in the gaming table because most of the questions are designed from a perspective of trying to make a game similar to civ, I hope that's ok. Survey is here. If you have any questions about any of the questions, let me know.

[haphazard1]

On the question about presenting volume of information vs. critical information, I lean towards critical information being emphasized. But I think it is important to have more information available if the user chooses to drill down for it. Sometimes I want to just focus on the immediate decisions to be made, and only the most vital info is needed. But other times (especially when I am thinking about longer-term decisions and possible changes/major moves in my strategy) I want to be able to get more info so I can make informed decisions about the overall state of my empire.

Some interesting stuff in the survey, Dp101. Good luck with the project!

[DaveV]

I looked at the survey, and request some clarification. To wit: is this survey about a theoretical game that's magically created by a rich guy who doesn't care about how many copies he sells, or is it about an actual game that's built by entrepreneurs who expect to profit by selling it? I ask this because it makes a big difference in e.g. the first two questions. I'm willing to devote a lot of time to understand a game, but a lot of people will give up in disgust if they can't understand the basics in a half hour. Graphics aren't terribly important to me, but clunky graphics are going to turn off a lot of people.

What I'm trying to say is, I'd like the design team to concentrate on playability and depth at the expense of sparkliness and ease of use, but those biases are exactly the opposite of what would make for a well-selling game. I'm willing to make some sacrifices in my priorities so the game actually gets made.

[Dp101]

I looked at the survey, and request some clarification. To wit: is this survey about a theoretical game that's magically created by a rich guy who doesn't care about how many copies he sells, or is it about an actual game that's built by entrepreneurs who expect to profit by selling it? I ask this because it makes a big difference in e.g. the first two questions. I'm willing to devote a lot of time to understand a game, but a lot of people will give up in disgust if they can't understand the basics in a half hour. Graphics aren't terribly important to me, but clunky graphics are going to turn off a lot of people.

What I'm trying to say is, I'd like the design team to concentrate on playability and depth at the expense of sparkliness and ease of use, but those biases are exactly the opposite of what would make for a well-selling game. I'm willing to make some sacrifices in my priorities so the game actually gets made.

Answer the survey according to what you, personally, want the games you play to look like. You are the market, so I want your opinion, rather than what a hypothetical mass of other people might want to play. I understand your point with regards to you/RB being an outlier in opinions on things like graphics, but I specifically wanted these outlying opinions because I feel that people on RB understand very well what makes a good game, above all other factors. Does that make sense?

[Dp101]

On the question about presenting volume of information vs. critical information, I lean towards critical information being emphasized. But I think it is important to have more information available if the user chooses to drill down for it. Sometimes I want to just focus on the immediate decisions to be made, and only the most vital info is needed. But other times (especially when I am thinking about longer-term decisions and possible changes/major moves in my strategy) I want to be able to get more info so I can make informed decisions about the overall state of my empire.

Some interesting stuff in the survey, Dp101. Good luck with the project!

Thanks! Yeah, the intent of that question is basically, do you think it is better for every screen to show as much information about things as possible, or is it better for the most important information to be easily found, with the cost of more obscure, smaller details being hidden behind multiple submenus.

[Krill]

Completed.

Do you want additional comments here?

[Dp101]

Completed.

Do you want additional comments here?

Sure! You don't have to if you don't want to, but more info is always appreciated.

[haphazard1]

DaveV makes a good point on graphics. I tend to favor clarity and presentation in 4X games more than eye candy (photo realistic graphics or 3D zoom-in/out capability, etc.). But there certainly seems to be a large segment of the market that feels the exact opposite, from looking at what actually sells. And it is not like I actively object to nifty graphics. Even if I do sometimes question why it takes a powerful gaming rig to run some turn-based 4X games....

[TheHumanHydra]

Completed.

Do you want additional comments here?

Sure! You don't have to if you don't want to, but more info is always appreciated.

In that case ...

Re: volume vs. clarity of info -- I erred toward volume, but I want to clarify what exactly I meant: I don't necessarily want all mechanical info displayed in a tooltip, unless it can be done concisely. What I do want is a) specifics, so not 'improves growth' (too vague to make a decision from) but 'improves growth by 10%', and b) for all mechanical information to be documented somewhere (Civilopedia, official online guide, manual ...) so users don't have to try and figure it out from experience. E.g. if I look up 'cottage' it should say both how many worker-turns it takes to build one on all game speeds and how many turns one has to be worked for it to reach each new growth stage. But I don't necessarily want all that in a tooltip (probably just the number of turns to build it on the current game speed and a note that it will grow).

Re: mechanical depth --> skillcap -- I wasn't sure what to put; I think it's axiomatic that greater complexity does not inherently deepen gameplay (Chess and Go have pretty simple rules), but I think that it can if executed skillfully (Twilight Imperium > Axis & Allies > Risk).

Re: historical accuracy -- ultimately I think the more accurate a game is the more interesting it will be, because history is interesting.

Very interesting survey; hope you get good results!

[RFS-81]

I looked at the survey, and request some clarification. To wit: is this survey about a theoretical game that's magically created by a rich guy who doesn't care about how many copies he sells, or is it about an actual game that's built by entrepreneurs who expect to profit by selling it? I ask this because it makes a big difference in e.g. the first two questions. I'm willing to devote a lot of time to understand a game, but a lot of people will give up in disgust if they can't understand the basics in a half hour. Graphics aren't terribly important to me, but clunky graphics are going to turn off a lot of people.

What I'm trying to say is, I'd like the design team to concentrate on playability and depth at the expense of sparkliness and ease of use, but those biases are exactly the opposite of what would make for a well-selling game. I'm willing to make some sacrifices in my priorities so the game actually gets made.

Answer the survey according to what you, personally, want the games you play to look like. You are the market, so I want your opinion, rather than what a hypothetical mass of other people might want to play. I understand your point with regards to you/RB being an outlier in opinions on things like graphics, but I specifically wanted these outlying opinions because I feel that people on RB understand very well what makes a good game, above all other factors. Does that make sense?

But you are also posting this survey elsewhere, right? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of the exercise, but if this is a survey of potential buyers for some hypothetical game that actually hypothetically sells, then I would try to also get more mainstream opinions. Or is it your project to make the perfect game for hardcore civ fans? (That would be cool!)

In any case, I filled out your survey! Best of luck! I have some comments on the questions:

Regarding information volume: I'm leaning towards "critical information", but you don't need to hide all the detail in submenus. You can also have an optional "expert mode" to reveal it, maybe accessible by a keyboard shortcut.

AI believability/playing to win: I think there's room for both kinds of games, and AIs that actually play to win are pretty rare. But I think an AI that "plays to win" incompetently is worse than an incompetent believable AI. It also depends on the flavor: For example, an AI that plays to win in civ would attack you when you're getting ready to launch the space ship, no matter what. That looks like all your allies betraying you all at once out of jealousy. On the other hand, the "tech victory" in Master of Magic is casting the "Spell of Mastery" that banishes all other wizards - of course they're going to declare war if you try that!

Number of decisions: Keep in mind that this also scales with the map size, so you can accommodate many different kinds of players here. I don't like having many small decisions, so I always play civ on tiny or small maps. Other people like playing on huge maps, for some reason I can't even begin to understand.

EDIT:

Re: volume vs. clarity of info -- I erred toward volume, but I want to clarify what exactly I meant: I don't necessarily want all mechanical info displayed in a tooltip, unless it can be done concisely. What I do want is a) specifics, so not 'improves growth' (too vague to make a decision from) but 'improves growth by 10%', and b) for all mechanical information to be documented somewhere (Civilopedia, official online guide, manual ...) so users don't have to try and figure it out from experience. E.g. if I look up 'cottage' it should say both how many worker-turns it takes to build one on all game speeds and how many turns one has to be worked for it to reach each new growth stage. But I don't necessarily want all that in a tooltip (probably just the number of turns to build it on the current game speed and a note that it will grow).

Something I forgot to mention, but I completely agree! No matter if you choose critical information or volume, you should be specific.