Summary: -The first 15 minutes and beginning of the game should be about showing the player what to expect and foreshadowing the potential of the game. You hardly can over-reward them, and you want to ensure they care and invest in the game. Also, they begin very vulnerable and don't know what to expect and what to do. You want to encourage them and show them how their investment is going in the right path instead of being vague and making them sceptic of their acts are in the wrong path and a waste of time. -Be it with the winning percentage (how players win more than we averagely win in real life), being rewarded more than punished, and surpassing greater and greater difficulties, the conclusion is that in your game you want to make the player to feel above the average. -Ensure players continue to suspend their disbelief throughout the game and to keep their identification. They want to see themselves as good people, fighting evil, winning, and progressing. To experience rare odds against them such as losing a 2v1 twice or to see their work and progress majorly lost and go downhill (even if temporarily) all can lead them to disbelieve and disconnect. Failure teaches you and so you progress or frustrates you so it motivates you to progress. Bad experiences can give you catharsis which is good and good experiences give you determination. But, to completely lose your work feels like a hurtful waste which will lead players to suspend their belief because games should provide sense of progress and self-determination. -Randomness and feeling completely out of control paranoids the players. Mystery should have patterns to master. -The player can always see more than you present, and you should use that. They can imagine what a character is doing outside of the screen without the need for you to show them. They will also believe what they have an inclination for even if it is not fully logical. A diplomat wants their help with dancing bears? Sure, sounds good, even if there are not dancing bears in the game; go with the flow and save your resources. -Tap into what the players already know. You don't need to explain to them that a black-hatted one-eyes pirate is bad, they already know that. Focus your resources on what is new and hard to sell. -The AI should be part of the overall experience and a measurement of your improvement giving you feedback and validation, variety, and competition. They should be characters you project onto them and not be like humans because they will start to feel either dumb or cheating. -The essence of a good game is providing and Epic Journey. This is done through making interesting decisions (ones they discover their repercussions and interconnections, ones they can project to the future, ones with fun alternatives they can later choose instead), learning and progress (they are aware of how better and smarter they are), one more turn (players are always leaning and anticipating the next turn, looking forward for their plans to come to fruition, to see what's going to happen next), replayability (to see the Epic Journey that they just played as just one part of the greater Epic Journey).
the extra rule as clearly demonstrated by this comment section, is that if you're going to manipulate your players psychologically ~be sure they never find out about it~
Listening to Sid's talks has made me try out Civ V on the 3rd hardest difficulty with a culture run, only saving when I have to get off to do something. I'm getting wrecked and it's amazing.
The "Rise and Fall" idea eventually found its way into Civ6 with "dark ages" and "golden ages" mechanic. And he was right about it being cool. I loved discovering that if you go from dark age to golden age it becomes a "Heroic age" with even more bonuses.
There is also a gamemode for new frontier for dramatic ages, which makes dark and heroic ages even more extreme. You instantly lose cities when you enter dark age. To me this is a good example of having a sweet point. I personally dont like that gamemode at all, because im pretty much forced to play the whole era score metagame all the time. But normal dark ages and golden ages are nice, because if you play the whole meta game with era score you can get pretty powerful bonuses. But youre not forced to do it. At worst you expand more slowly because of the loyalty penalty for dark age
He started as programmer in a company he founded with a friend. The company was called Microprose Software. His buddy was "Wild" Bill Stealey who was originally from the US Airforce and when he and Sid Meier watched a primitive arcade 'flight combat' game in the early 1980s, Sid mentioned that he "could design a better game than that." Bill Stealey then responded, "if you can design it, I can sell it!" And Microprose was born. Some hit game titles produced by Microprose were "F-15 Strike Eagle," "Silent Service," "Gunship," "Project Stealthfighter" and of course: "Sid Meier's Pirates!" And he did all that before he created "Railroad Tycoon" and "Civilization."
22:55 About the different player experience between a 20:10 vs a 2:1 advantage. And it is about the law of big numbers. let's say you are fighting alone against two person. You have a lot more chance of winning the fight than if your army of 10k is fighting against an army of 20k, because each confrontation could be understood as a dice roll. But the designer might have seen it differently and say that they are they are just 2:1 ratios. They have different models in their heads. Likewise, if are playing rock paper scissors 3 times, it is much more likely that you win flawlessly than if you play 30 times.
It becomes more obvious when you simulate it in an RTS. You win with a much bigger gap in a 20:10 battle rather than a 2:1 battle because as units finish their battles they help other units still fighting and there is a significant snowball effect where you can win a larger battle with much less damage to your units than a smaller battle even though the ratio of units is the same.
@@Ansalion Exactly. I understand his point about we not always having the better statistical intuition. But some times it is the game that is not modeling the real phenomenon close enough so that our intuitions about the world don't connect with the model used in the game.
The "let them be artists" comment is really good. Way too many designers treat artists like machines and then are surprised that the resulting work isn't as good as that artist's personal work.
This is true in every place artists are hired. Games, film, advertising, everywhere. Good film directors hire great people and then just stand aside and let them be amazing. Lousy leaders hire great people then act like they know better how to do their job than they do.
11:33 - One thing I learned is that consistent game world rules are more important than realistic ones since one can suspend their disbelief. It makes the world believable if its rules are predictable, although unrealistic. IE: flying like Superman. It promotes experimentation with the logic established by the consistent predictability of the game's rules.
23:38 The interface of these games doesn't make it seem like 3 to 1 odds, it makes it seem like a strength/power of 1.5 vs a armor/defense of 0.5. "A rifle would beat cardboard every time", that seems to be what players are thinking.
Exactly what i was thinking. If the army on one side is 3 times stronger, of course it should win every time. And it's also true that just because 2 can lose to 1, doesn't mean that 20 can lose to 10. It means that that 1 got lucky, but everyone on the side of 10 getting lucky? Far less likely.
Funny that neither Sid nor the comments go back to the fact that, on the Civ:Revolutions example, they actually DO have dancing bears. Every sultan gift has models and animations and sound in the Throne Room. I kept expecting a callback to say something like "sometimes it's worth it to invest in details that can surprise the player positively"
To all idiots who think Sid Meier is not as smart he is said to be, I have this to say. The man created the following hit titles for the 8-bit Commodore 64 in the 1980s: "F-15 Strike Eagle," "Silent Service," "Gunship," "Project Stealthfighter" and of course: "Sid Meier's Pirates!" All are military simulators and I played them all with the exception of the first one. The last one was an incredible privateer/wargame freeform game. It's like "Elite" but you don't just fight and capture other ships, you could look for treasure after buying a map from some retired pirate in the local tavern. Or you could build up a name of renown at the start of your expedition, then use your name and fame to hire really large crews (after capturing a few frigates and/or galleons). Then you could assault the strongest cities like Panama in a pitched land battle. And of course you could choose to accept surrender after the enemy started panicking or keep the slaughter dragging on untill no enemy soldiers were left alive. I often chose the latter option because it would take a long time before the garrisson would have been brought up to strength again. Sid Meier was already a famous games designer during the 8-bit homecomputer boom during the 1980s. Remember, this was way before "Railroad Tycoon" and even "Civilization." Perhaps he doesn't make a big impression to some of you in person but I say judge the man on his games record.
I liked Pirates on Nintendo better than the PC port. I even took meticulous notes to make a spreadsheet of how often I encountered each pirate, the outcome of the fight and the ransom amount.
As with any GDC talks, take it all with a grain of salt. Not every advice works for every studio, and not every advice works for every game. Yes, even if those advice came out from the great Sid Meier himself. Sid Meier is a game designer who designs a game that came out 30 years ago. Yeah, his game succeeded, and he is a great game designer, but don’t expect everything he (or any other personalities you see in any GDC talks) says as preach. Take the advice that works for you, and dump the rest.
it's interesting to note how they managed to also implement the disaster system he talked about at 30:00 in Gathering Tide. I guess the trick is to combine bad events with potential rewards of better yields with different disaster types. Just goes to show you that player psychology can be molded based on good/bad outcomes.
1:00:40 What you wanna do is make the protagonist have a goal. The protagonist wants money to live day by day or something and the car they got on loan. So you don't have to make it first place to get income and you can have the first match clearly demonstrate the protagonist only cares that they got money out of it and not playing into the whole 'Im the best' thing that the other ones are playing into. A more chill character. Then this way we understand the goal isn't whats normally implied. Or they have a dream to be the best, but oh look at that I don't got shit for money and I'm up against some famous names out there, how do I make do? They wanna start small and get bigger if you do it that way, so it wouldn't work because if you lose you'll soon think its insurmountable odds. The former example could work though because, lets say its a chill guy all he cares about is spending is extra money on hookers or something he doesn't like the attention from being a big name too much, like he doesnt want the heat on him or something from the competition. He wants to just enjoy life, congratulates the winner too. Or make it clear he doesn't care about leading or winning, like if Midnight club has gangs. His goal could be to earn trust, so he participates. You always get some trust for participating, but you earn more for doing better. But what this usually does is make people save scum because they want to maximize the earnings. So what would need to be done then, is have the goal not be to win. Have it be, focus on this other guy, your boss wants him to lose. He can lose by you blocking him you getting ahead of that 1 guy, or you winning the whole thing, he pays you the same amount no matter what if you win. Just don't let that other guy win! Then theres no incentive to save scum because the reward is the same, the goal needs to visibly shift so people know when to feel accomplished. Taking that other guy out makes you feel important to the group or whatever loyalty you are trying to have. So in that case you can be somebody who is doing it just for the money, rigging against people. Or someone with loyalty and ties, someone who wants to do jobs to work his way up. But if you do that you need variety, you need hazards, you need new challenges like there could be word going around at some point, idk. Grains of salt on what I say, take what makes sense, think of consequences to implementations and think of how the protagonist shifts the expectations, I guess.
I think the "CivRev" battle part has also a lot to do with that the game mechanic doesn't really match completely with reality. In reality when i.e. you have 20 tanks vs 10 tanks (or 10 soccer players vs 5 soccer players) there is an exponential gain for the larger team. This is also reinforced with RTS games. In any RTS a battle between 20 vs 10 will be easily won, because you have 10 extra tanks that can just single out one enemy. Making it quickly 20 vs 9, etc. Also in a lot of other sports and competitions you have this effect, even if it's not team-based. Someone "twice as good" in running or table tennis will win probably 100% of the time.
TFW the writer of that thing that changed your life reminisces about how she was inspired by how ad executives had marketed a plastic container of banana yoghurt
Great talk. some stuff are slightly outdated now but it's still pretty good advice if you take it with a grain of salt. Besides that, the talk was also really freaking entertaining, heh.
Some of his stuff is outdated, some of his DONTs have been proven wrong, proven that those rules can be broken if handled well. Gaming has advanced in the last 8 years, and pushing past our old preconceived notions of game design is only a good thing. He's still a legend for what he's accomplished, for what he contributed to gaming, but that doesn't mean his words of wisdom are always the best advice for designers today. As with most things, take it with a grain of salt.
24:00 So can I just throw a weak unity to lose first, then take advantage of the compensation and go with the main unity for the real attack? Wonder if they compensated for exploiting the compensation.
I guess you shouldn't think about it too much. Once you start mentally reverse-engineer the game mechanics rather than just play, you ruin your own experience.
In Civ 2, I made a terminator unit. You needed AI technology and a cyberdyne factory, and you could build terminator units which were way OP, but so much fun.
Funny how he says that when the AI do something really cleaver the player thinks the AI peaked behind the scenes and watched his numbers, when Sid himself erlier explain how the battle outcomes are one sided toward the player in all kinds of way, like keeping track of previous battles outcomes. So he is basically reinforcing the (founded and maybe subconscious) belief the player has that something "is off" by cheating on numbers outcomes and at the same time blaming the player for suspecting the AI he programmed to be cheating instead of being smart. Brilliant :| * slow clap *
That is IMHO because a human makes a lot of strategic mistakes. If there was no bias towards the player, the game would get as hard as chess. And chess players aren't target audience.
I would rather have an AI seargent giving you helpful advices and telling you that your action is too risky and maybe a % of success, rather than cheating behind the scenes to make the player feel good about himself. Clearly I am not part of this target audience.
Marcus - the part about battle AI was showing how he adapted it based on feedback from players, which is why it's player weighted. Keeping track of previous battles was a direct response to testers moaning about losing against the odds twice in a row, even though it can happen perfectly naturally. Opponent AI is really tricky to get right because it inevitably involves looking at player data and reacting. Players want a challenge but generally don't like losing, especially if they feel gamed.
@@person8203 Not sure if you're gonna respond to my comment but here goes... I believe game devs can make honest and brutally competent enemy AI, it's just that they fear this would inevitably scare away a broader audience. Look at BioWare's Dragon Age and Mass Effect games. In each game the AI acts dumb on purpose, occasionally doing something smart or, in other words, acting equal or slightly superior compared to the player. For example, in Dragon Age and in Mass Effect games you rarely see enemies using special abilities against your team, even when you play on the highest level of difficulty. And when players do see that, they start panicking, because they get used to AI dummies spamming basic attack and maybe an occasional stun lock that doesn't hurt all that much. What BioWare and many other developers resort to is they increase the number of dummies on the battlefield and slightly differentiate them by artificially diversifying their stats (base attack damage, armor rating, hp, stuff like that). In other words, they force players to prioritize enemy hierarchy but they don't teach them to play intelligently. Thus, players experience power fantasy without making sacrificial decisions. They don't implement tactical maneuvers to get the upper hand on their enemies and that's bad, coz they'll just keep spamming the same tactic that they had been using from the start of the game (let's say it's DA: Origins).
As with any GDC talks, take it all with a grain of salt. Take the advice that works for you, and dump the rest. Not every advice works for every studio, and not every advice works for every game.
Dificulty levels implementation in CIV 5 and CIV 6 is worst You cant have a good balance game For a moderate challange game you need to go to higher dificulty levels where game its unbalanced from start No fun to play with a DUMB AI who has massive advantages
(Spoiler-Alert for Undertale, don't continue reading if you haven't played it) LOL, what he describes at ~16:30-18:00 is exactly how Undertale works. And everyone loves that concept in Undertale. It kinda is bound to the guilt of the player, but the concept is similar nevertheless. I kinda really don't like how he thinks about gamers and ridicules them. Maybe those are valid points if you develop games for children, or shooters, but not adult games. Same thing with what he says afterwards. A game that starts happy and with cartoony graphic but then bad things happen. Sorry, but imho that is definitely not a bad concept.
I agree. But his games are really tailored towards the masses. Niche/Indie games that break up these expectations are there for a hardcore audience of well versed gamers, those are completely different ballparks. Interact with a community of a big game that is focussed on a broad audience and you'll see how exactly right he is about these things. Don't forget that people like you and me have aquired deeper knowledge of design principles in all dimensions of video games, so we kind of crave for unique and challenging experiences, but we are in a very small minority. This can be said about any type of media, music or art.
As with any GDC talks, take it all with a grain of salt. Take the advice that works for you, and dump the rest. Not every advice works for every studio, and not every advice works for every game. Sid Meier is a game designer who designs a game that came out 30 years ago. Yeah, his game succeeded, and he is a great game designer, but don’t expect everything he (or any other personalities you see in any GDC talks) says as preach.
The gamers are sort of right. 20-10 in battle terms is fundamentally different then a simple 2-1 scenario. Because a real battle isn't over until one side has 0 or surrenders. For simplicity lets say just say the battle is over when one side has 0. To calculate the result more accurately, you have to treat it as several instance of 2:1 encounters. So starting with 20 and 10. For every 2-1 encounter there can be one of these three outcomes (2:0, 1:0, 0:1) - Ok I know technically there could be a 0:0 outcome but lets keep it simple for this example. Now honestly in real life those first two outcomes are much more likely then the last. So lets say that for the first round the first two outcomes happened twice as much as the last one. Round one sees 4X (2:0), 4X (1:0) and 2X (01) That means we now have 12 and 2 going into round 2. That 6-1 odds now in round 2! Now the possible outcomes for round 2 are (0:1, 6:0, 5:0, 4:0, 3:0, 2:0, 1:0) Let's pretend that 1 of those two was freakin' Legolas and he picked off 6 from a distance. And the other guy was super skilled and managed to take 2 down in close combat before falling to his 6 attackers. Round two's results would be 1X (0:1) and 1X (4:0) Sow now we have 4 and 1 in the final round. You decide if Legolas wins or not. The point is, In this hypothetical battle calculation the odds went from 2-1, to 6-1, to 4-1. So yeah 20 to 10 in simple math might be the same as 2 to 1. But the gamer's intuition was telling him that in real life 20-10 are actually better odds than 2:1. TL;DR A real life 20-10 battle should be treated as several small 2:1 encounters. Each encounter _won_ (so not a neutral result 0:0), leaves at least 1 man standing to tip the odds in his teams favor for the next round of calculations. Therefore, 20-10 is not equal to 2-1.
Are you stupid or something? In which battle exactly do you actually fight with 1 soldier vs. 3 enemy soldiers? Meier talks about odds. And I thought I was bad at mathematics. 20-10 odds are the same as 2-1 odds. And try to remember that Civilization is a strategy game. Meaning the counters are just symbolic for your army units. It's not as if you have 3 spearmen and 2 chariots to defend Athens against the Mongol hordes. In reality you would have three *armies* of spearmen and 2 *armies* of mainly chariots. I really think that the average American cannot understand the simple fact that in combat, there never are actual 2:1 or 3:1 battles in regards to the actual number of participants. Americans always like to fantasize about how a German Tiger II would destroy entire battalions of Allied Sherman tanks. Because they imagine the Shermans have to queue up and get destroyed one after the other by the Tiger II. In essence, Americans are the reason why in all fantasy and "historic" fighting, 10 guards don't simply kill the lone (hero) intruder. No, they have to stand around him, do nothing while one of their comrades is getting slaughtered by the intruder. Then the next one will start fighting the intruder, while the others stand around, trying to look busy.
St. John Peaster Aside from what the other poster wrote, those odds do not indicate the number of troops. Rather, they represent the strength of the units. How could you not understand this? In his first example, he pointed out that the barbarians are usually 1, but these barbarians were "uncivilized" and therefore got -50%. Both sides clearly have 3 units. A much better argument would be to ask at what point does the power gap between units become too much to realistically ever overcome. For example, should a Spearman ever be able to beat a Musketman? Probably not. But what about an Archer versus a tank? Of course not. I don't know about the new Civilization, but in the old games, there was still a chance that very low level troops could at least damage far superior units, and even defeat one, especially if there was a small group of elite units going up against a large group of weak units. Now that is something you should try and calculate.
This dissection of players due to 2 different modes could be easily fixed by competent SLs. The ability to relieve SLs and even commander position and replace them by people able or at least willing to take over would fix sooo many problems. It's very frustrating to have one or even several squads full of and being lead by people not interested in proper Squad 44 team play whatsoever. I often find myself jumping into such squads, trying to first talk to SL and that doesn't help, then telling the rest of the squad to join my own I can create for them. However, sometimes even those players are such veggies that they don't respond to this anyway and just blindly (if even) follow their SL that does whatever anyway. Would be still better, if I would lead those lemmings to the frontline myself, instead of having some noob leading them away.
@@SilverionX Fair! I just find it fascinating when I disagree with industry icons. It's like, we all contribute to the great knowledge pool in this industry, and it's nice to remember that no matter who you are, you can be wrong. That goes not just for gods like Sid Meier, but for bottom-rung hobbyists like me. It's humbling, it's humanizing, it's healthy.
28:11 How can make the player feel that he/she is progressing/winning by loosing everything he/she achieved? They kinda did this in Spec Ops but in narrative context. Taking away his/her weapons doesn't count.
what if you actually say " being the strongest lead to a higher chance of suffering random disasters" them players would take that for granted instead of the computer cheating and would be a catchup mechaninc
@@melanoc3tusii205 I understood, I played Civilization 5 a lot, I know that the barbarians are mere concept of Civilization series, forget my original comment
"If your game starts all cartoony and then terrible things start happening, the player turns off their game." Excuse me, but people like happy tree friends. It's called juxtaposition.
The difference is, people know what they should expect from happy tree friends. It's more about the tone switch of, say, Earthbound - whole game being rather lighthearted and goofy up until Giygas, which is a profoundly unsettling Eldritch Abomination. If the tone switch came after one third of the game instead of in the final dungeon, the reception would probably go far worse.
As with any GDC talks, take it all with a grain of salt. Take the advice that works for you, and dump the rest. Not every advice works for every studio, and not every advice works for every game. Sid Meier is a game designer who designs a game that came out 30 years ago. Yeah, his game succeeded, and he is a great game designer, but don’t expect everything he (or any other personalities you see in any GDC talks) says as preach.
As brilliant as Sid Meier is on many areas, it's really confusing to show "75% win chance" as 3:1. I've never seen anyone use "2:1" or "3:1" when talking about odds. 3:1 means ratio. 3 parts water, 1 part juice concentrate. 1 cm on the miniature means of 3 cm of the real object. There's 1 dog for every 3 people. By Sid Meier's logic that would mean there's 25% chance of dogs outnumbering humans, dogs just magically appearing. A vast majority of people is going to think that 3:1 means that my "army is 3 times stronger than the enemy army", which would mean roughly 99% chance of winning.
Pretty much every single point has been disproved by another game, but where he really lost me was at "we change the odds based on previous outcomes". Maybe we should just expect more from players, instead of giving them games that re-enforce their ignorance.
The thing is he is viewing the maths in like a "roll dice" kind of way. thats totally different to how fighting works. even 2:1 is a massive advantage in a fight, 2 people fighting 1 person at the same time, 1 guy could go behind while the other distracts. the odds of winning a 2:1 fight is not 33% like a dice roll, that itself is ridiculously low if everyone was the same strength, unless your 1 person was legolas or leonidas then its a different story.
That is not what these examples were about at all. The 2:1 or w/e odds they calculate from an engagement is not purely based on army size, but also on flavourful bonuses as explained in the video. It is really just "odds". The army sizes in these engagements are very similar and the odds are just there to abstract technological and cultural differences. If you engage with an actual 2:1 army size advantage against a similarly advanced opponent then you will win almost certainly.
the cynicism is quite funny, but also bums me out a little. feels like civilization is a game with no hardships in this way now that i think about it. junk food.
I miss the way you could brake a big computer nation into two, iff you took their capital. Never thought of gunpowder as the thing to rush to. was the classic. -> the republic, via philosophy taht grats 1 free sci if you do it first. ( or great library, when on level emperor, then 100% tax ) maps have ALWAYS been to small. "enemy" nations, way to few. and teck tree to simple. thx for the game started with a copied version off civ1 in 93.
Sid Meyer: _designs a historical game so an army can regularly defeat an army of twice its size_ Sid Meyer: _publicly mocks players for questioning this and blames their math skills_
I have to interject at 6:40, When I walk around the map and randomly get a 100 gold from a ruin, I don't feel smart or that I earned it, it makes me question whay that 100 gold laid there for so long with nobody taking it. In other words I do question positive thingas that happen to me as I play
Too many games these days rely on pure RNG. Mathematically, if you have a 50% chance to hit an enemy, that means out of a hundred attacks, you're going to get wrecked 50 times. Count up to fifty, and imagine for each count, you get punished. It may be mathematically accurate, but it's just not fun. You lose units. You lose gear. You waste time trying to rebuild. You feel like you're not progressing. Worst of all, you feel like your choices and skill is irrelevant because the dice kick your ass as often as not no matter what you do. Sometimes you gotta massage the numbers a bit to improve the player experience.
40:50 The AI bit is bullshit. To cope to the fact that AI technology is still subpar, they say that the players don't really want good ai because they will think that the AI is cheatting. NO. The player thinks that the AI is cheating when he gets the AI cheating unquestionably. Once it is stabilished that the AI cheats, than yeah, maybe the player don't believe when the AI legitimately does something good on it's own merit. The proof of that is that new AI'S like OpenAI or even chess or GO AI are not suspect of cheating. No one thinks that alpha go was actually consulting a team of go experts, or that OpenAI didn't have war fog on, etc. when they didn't. But if the civ AI has 3k cities and no happiness problem, than there is no question it is cheating.
Cheat codes "damage" people's experience of the game. In my opinion, people having fun is more important the dev's original vision or design. And fun is the imperative thing to seek out of the experience, and having freedom to allow people to choose their own experience is a good thing towards maximizing their enjoyment of the title.
In order to save the game, we had to destroy it. I could go on like this all day. Assuming you know what is best for players can never be better than expedient. In this 42:25 instance, where it is not a feature that is offered to the player, but taking away an option of how to play the game from the player, it is unequivocally arrogant.
Yea I don't like that either. There are different types of gamers, and when you're flexible, you can appeal to more people. It doesn't break the game to allow gameplay options. I think Paradox did this very well with CK2. There are dozens of game rules that you can change before the game starts - some of them relate to features that a number of people think break the game. So it gives those players the option to have it off. Otherwise, they'd just install a mod anyway. So you're not preserving anything by limiting their choice.
What makes you say that? I've been having a couple of moments where he's reasoned that some mechanic, say, didn't work because of player psychology, and I'm here thinking that he probably just didn't integrate the mechanic well enough. Like his trading money with other players example. I also don't think that I agree with his philosophy on game design in general. I also think that design has come along way in the six years since this talk.
well, I've been playing since the first one, so his continued viability says something in his favor. but I would tend to agree that they have fallen into certain go-to design decision traps over the decades
I know it's been 13 years but some of that advice seems extremely wrong now, and I'm not a designer and not even that much of a player... Also, Sid comes out kinda patronizing at times. I have huge respect for this guy and his legacy, but, as it often happens with icons, I don't think I would like to work or spend significant time with him. Or even play new games designed by him anymore.
@Tight n Nerdy Jonathan Blow hates the lie-about-probability rule and has some good arguments for it. On the other hand, his two games are entirely deterministic
@Tight n Nerdy I hate it. But maybe you are right. I don't know. I just feel bad about it. As if I was lied to. Also, maybe you need to design your game so that you don't have to lie. Again, deterministic games seen an easy way out. And while I agree with Blow, I do find both Meier's and Blow's authoritative delivery on the subject obnoxious.
I don't really like the way he thinks about the whole stuff. Fortunately not everyone is like him, so we have games like This War of Mine and also games like Dark Souls. Now that I heard his talk I kinda feel that he is a bit overrated. Literature can be used to explore more serious topics. Films also. Games also.
"Sid is talking about games in general. And in that he's totally right." I don't think so. It is just his point of view. It fits only a small subset of games. A huge amount of them was designed with different mentality. It is subjective. I think he kills almost everything from a game I find interesting to make it more entertaining. It does not work for me, and I can't be the only one - the two games I mentioned earlier are just two examples, and you can call them niche but they are popular. I could have written Firewatch or The Witcher as well.
"I don't think so." Well, that's your personal subjective opinion. If you take a look at the most popular games in the world which are played by hundreds of millions of people, you'll see that they reward players for most of the actions they make. "It does not work for me, and I can't be the only one - the two games I mentioned earlier are just two examples, and you can call them niche but they are popular. " Dark Souls sold about 10 million copies across all platforms, This War of Mine - 1.5 millions. Considering that there are hundreds of millions potential users out there - yes, both of them are niche games. Just because you like them doesn't make them mainstream. "I could have written Firewatch or The Witcher as well." Well, good for you. I can only encourage you to do so.
"Well, that's your personal subjective opinion." - yes, that's why I did not write "that's not true", I wrote "I don't think so" ;) 10 million copies are more than most game project can ever hope for. "they reward players for most of the actions they make" Every game rewards player action. I don't really get the point of this sentence there. ""I could have written Firewatch or The Witcher as well." Well, good for you. I can only encourage you to do so." Interesting request, but so be it: I don't really like the way he thinks about the whole stuff. Fortunately not everyone is like him, so we have games like The Witcher and also games like Firewatch.
"not the game that I designed." Here's a thought: maybe it is the game that the player Bought. Your consensual involvement with this game's players will end as soon as you spend the money you were paid to make it.The fewer automated tentacles you put in it to exert your control for the Ages, the better.
this guy should not be allowed to even mention "mathematics" ... what a non sensical piece of sh... 1.5 damage vs 0.5 damage = NOT "3 to 1". 1.5 damage when ppl has life = "2" means that 1 and a half attacks will certainly kill someone. .5 damage in the same scenario, means that 4 attacks will kill someone. this means that barbarians have ZERO chances of winning a battle where each person hits in turns. because when they manage to lower the hp of one roman to a HALF, they are DEAD AND CANNOT KEEP FIGHTING ANYMORE. that means that 1.5 to 0.5 is not a 3 to 1. is a infinit to zero. you can then add a "critical lucky strike" where you multiply the damage of any unit by a margin. if both troops have the same modifier (*1.5). one "lucky" hit of a roman = 2.25 damage. means that in one hit he insta kills a barbarian. but for a barbarian, a 0.75 damage will mean pretty much the same as his normal hit value. also 20 ppl hitting 10 ppl means that when one of the ten fall, there are 4 ppl hitting one. that one will fall fast. then you will have 6 ppl hitting on 1. that one will hit faster. that same situation is happening to all ten of those ppl, so actually you never even reach the 6v1 situation, because your 20 have already killed all 10, probably with a single casualty, maybe 2. 20 to 10 is definetely NOT the same as 2 vs 1. this guy is not very smart really. and certainly math is not something he understands. nor actual ppl fighting.
"No one ever gives gold to another player" That is definitely true in real life too. No one ever gives you money for nothing because we are greedy humans who do not care about others, unless it is a sob story on gofundme.
Summary:
-The first 15 minutes and beginning of the game should be about showing the player what to expect and foreshadowing the potential of the game. You hardly can over-reward them, and you want to ensure they care and invest in the game. Also, they begin very vulnerable and don't know what to expect and what to do. You want to encourage them and show them how their investment is going in the right path instead of being vague and making them sceptic of their acts are in the wrong path and a waste of time.
-Be it with the winning percentage (how players win more than we averagely win in real life), being rewarded more than punished, and surpassing greater and greater difficulties, the conclusion is that in your game you want to make the player to feel above the average.
-Ensure players continue to suspend their disbelief throughout the game and to keep their identification. They want to see themselves as good people, fighting evil, winning, and progressing. To experience rare odds against them such as losing a 2v1 twice or to see their work and progress majorly lost and go downhill (even if temporarily) all can lead them to disbelieve and disconnect. Failure teaches you and so you progress or frustrates you so it motivates you to progress. Bad experiences can give you catharsis which is good and good experiences give you determination. But, to completely lose your work feels like a hurtful waste which will lead players to suspend their belief because games should provide sense of progress and self-determination.
-Randomness and feeling completely out of control paranoids the players. Mystery should have patterns to master.
-The player can always see more than you present, and you should use that. They can imagine what a character is doing outside of the screen without the need for you to show them. They will also believe what they have an inclination for even if it is not fully logical. A diplomat wants their help with dancing bears? Sure, sounds good, even if there are not dancing bears in the game; go with the flow and save your resources.
-Tap into what the players already know. You don't need to explain to them that a black-hatted one-eyes pirate is bad, they already know that. Focus your resources on what is new and hard to sell.
-The AI should be part of the overall experience and a measurement of your improvement giving you feedback and validation, variety, and competition. They should be characters you project onto them and not be like humans because they will start to feel either dumb or cheating.
-The essence of a good game is providing and Epic Journey. This is done through making interesting decisions (ones they discover their repercussions and interconnections, ones they can project to the future, ones with fun alternatives they can later choose instead), learning and progress (they are aware of how better and smarter they are), one more turn (players are always leaning and anticipating the next turn, looking forward for their plans to come to fruition, to see what's going to happen next), replayability (to see the Epic Journey that they just played as just one part of the greater Epic Journey).
THANKS
Thanks!
@@gfujigo Sure thing!
great work, i love it
sound creepy
10 years later. Different times,. yet still a really excellent talk.
Listen at 1.5 speed
you know this is old because they're trying so hard to look like TV
Yeah, what's the deal? Today's much more intimate.
the extra rule as clearly demonstrated by this comment section, is that if you're going to manipulate your players psychologically ~be sure they never find out about it~
Or just educate you players and design your games ethically in the first place?
It's nice to hear him still using his favorite phrase, "Wouldn't it be neat if..." A phrase he's been using since at least the late 80's.
FIIIIINE, I'll go play Civilization again.
Listening to Sid's talks has made me try out Civ V on the 3rd hardest difficulty with a culture run, only saving when I have to get off to do something.
I'm getting wrecked and it's amazing.
The "Rise and Fall" idea eventually found its way into Civ6 with "dark ages" and "golden ages" mechanic. And he was right about it being cool. I loved discovering that if you go from dark age to golden age it becomes a "Heroic age" with even more bonuses.
There is also a gamemode for new frontier for dramatic ages, which makes dark and heroic ages even more extreme. You instantly lose cities when you enter dark age. To me this is a good example of having a sweet point. I personally dont like that gamemode at all, because im pretty much forced to play the whole era score metagame all the time. But normal dark ages and golden ages are nice, because if you play the whole meta game with era score you can get pretty powerful bonuses. But youre not forced to do it. At worst you expand more slowly because of the loyalty penalty for dark age
I'm surprised to find that Sid Meier is a real person. I thought it was some kind of persona, like Tyler Perry.
like Wendy lol
He started as programmer in a company he founded with a friend. The company was called Microprose Software. His buddy was "Wild" Bill Stealey who was originally from the US Airforce and when he and Sid Meier watched a primitive arcade 'flight combat' game in the early 1980s, Sid mentioned that he "could design a better game than that." Bill Stealey then responded, "if you can design it, I can sell it!" And Microprose was born. Some hit game titles produced by Microprose were "F-15 Strike Eagle," "Silent Service," "Gunship," "Project Stealthfighter" and of course: "Sid Meier's Pirates!" And he did all that before he created "Railroad Tycoon" and "Civilization."
Tyler Perry isn't a person?
:D :D :D
Hahah, it does feel like seeing superman
22:55 About the different player experience between a 20:10 vs a 2:1 advantage. And it is about the law of big numbers. let's say you are fighting alone against two person. You have a lot more chance of winning the fight than if your army of 10k is fighting against an army of 20k, because each confrontation could be understood as a dice roll. But the designer might have seen it differently and say that they are they are just 2:1 ratios. They have different models in their heads.
Likewise, if are playing rock paper scissors 3 times, it is much more likely that you win flawlessly than if you play 30 times.
It becomes more obvious when you simulate it in an RTS. You win with a much bigger gap in a 20:10 battle rather than a 2:1 battle because as units finish their battles they help other units still fighting and there is a significant snowball effect where you can win a larger battle with much less damage to your units than a smaller battle even though the ratio of units is the same.
@@Ansalion Exactly. I understand his point about we not always having the better statistical intuition. But some times it is the game that is not modeling the real phenomenon close enough so that our intuitions about the world don't connect with the model used in the game.
The "let them be artists" comment is really good. Way too many designers treat artists like machines and then are surprised that the resulting work isn't as good as that artist's personal work.
This is true in every place artists are hired. Games, film, advertising, everywhere. Good film directors hire great people and then just stand aside and let them be amazing. Lousy leaders hire great people then act like they know better how to do their job than they do.
11:33 - One thing I learned is that consistent game world rules are more important than realistic ones since one can suspend their disbelief. It makes the world believable if its rules are predictable, although unrealistic. IE: flying like Superman. It promotes experimentation with the logic established by the consistent predictability of the game's rules.
23:38 The interface of these games doesn't make it seem like 3 to 1 odds, it makes it seem like a strength/power of 1.5 vs a armor/defense of 0.5. "A rifle would beat cardboard every time", that seems to be what players are thinking.
Exactly what i was thinking. If the army on one side is 3 times stronger, of course it should win every time. And it's also true that just because 2 can lose to 1, doesn't mean that 20 can lose to 10. It means that that 1 got lucky, but everyone on the side of 10 getting lucky? Far less likely.
Funny that neither Sid nor the comments go back to the fact that, on the Civ:Revolutions example, they actually DO have dancing bears. Every sultan gift has models and animations and sound in the Throne Room. I kept expecting a callback to say something like "sometimes it's worth it to invest in details that can surprise the player positively"
To all idiots who think Sid Meier is not as smart he is said to be, I have this to say. The man created the following hit titles for the 8-bit Commodore 64 in the 1980s: "F-15 Strike Eagle," "Silent Service," "Gunship," "Project Stealthfighter" and of course: "Sid Meier's Pirates!" All are military simulators and I played them all with the exception of the first one. The last one was an incredible privateer/wargame freeform game. It's like "Elite" but you don't just fight and capture other ships, you could look for treasure after buying a map from some retired pirate in the local tavern. Or you could build up a name of renown at the start of your expedition, then use your name and fame to hire really large crews (after capturing a few frigates and/or galleons). Then you could assault the strongest cities like Panama in a pitched land battle. And of course you could choose to accept surrender after the enemy started panicking or keep the slaughter dragging on untill no enemy soldiers were left alive. I often chose the latter option because it would take a long time before the garrisson would have been brought up to strength again. Sid Meier was already a famous games designer during the 8-bit homecomputer boom during the 1980s. Remember, this was way before "Railroad Tycoon" and even "Civilization." Perhaps he doesn't make a big impression to some of you in person but I say judge the man on his games record.
I liked Pirates on Nintendo better than the PC port. I even took meticulous notes to make a spreadsheet of how often I encountered each pirate, the outcome of the fight and the ransom amount.
As with any GDC talks, take it all with a grain of salt. Not every advice works for every studio, and not every advice works for every game. Yes, even if those advice came out from the great Sid Meier himself.
Sid Meier is a game designer who designs a game that came out 30 years ago. Yeah, his game succeeded, and he is a great game designer, but don’t expect everything he (or any other personalities you see in any GDC talks) says as preach. Take the advice that works for you, and dump the rest.
"My Bad:Rise and Fall" - Fast forward 8 years from this talk and you have Civ 6 Rise and Fall :D
He finally got to do what he wanted.
it's interesting to note how they managed to also implement the disaster system he talked about at 30:00 in Gathering Tide. I guess the trick is to combine bad events with potential rewards of better yields with different disaster types. Just goes to show you that player psychology can be molded based on good/bad outcomes.
1:00:30 "You have to make it fun, not to win."
1:09:10 Sid's answer to this part of the question...that's why the man's a genius
Amazing speech Sid, been inspired by your games since a young age and no 4x/sim games have even come close to pirates, trains and civ.
Why does “14 years ago” feel like 30 years ago? Wtf man?
"Everyone is above average"
My math teacher just puked
1:00:40 What you wanna do is make the protagonist have a goal. The protagonist wants money to live day by day or something and the car they got on loan. So you don't have to make it first place to get income and you can have the first match clearly demonstrate the protagonist only cares that they got money out of it and not playing into the whole 'Im the best' thing that the other ones are playing into. A more chill character. Then this way we understand the goal isn't whats normally implied. Or they have a dream to be the best, but oh look at that I don't got shit for money and I'm up against some famous names out there, how do I make do? They wanna start small and get bigger if you do it that way, so it wouldn't work because if you lose you'll soon think its insurmountable odds. The former example could work though because, lets say its a chill guy all he cares about is spending is extra money on hookers or something he doesn't like the attention from being a big name too much, like he doesnt want the heat on him or something from the competition. He wants to just enjoy life, congratulates the winner too.
Or make it clear he doesn't care about leading or winning, like if Midnight club has gangs. His goal could be to earn trust, so he participates. You always get some trust for participating, but you earn more for doing better. But what this usually does is make people save scum because they want to maximize the earnings.
So what would need to be done then, is have the goal not be to win. Have it be, focus on this other guy, your boss wants him to lose. He can lose by you blocking him you getting ahead of that 1 guy, or you winning the whole thing, he pays you the same amount no matter what if you win. Just don't let that other guy win! Then theres no incentive to save scum because the reward is the same, the goal needs to visibly shift so people know when to feel accomplished. Taking that other guy out makes you feel important to the group or whatever loyalty you are trying to have. So in that case you can be somebody who is doing it just for the money, rigging against people. Or someone with loyalty and ties, someone who wants to do jobs to work his way up. But if you do that you need variety, you need hazards, you need new challenges like there could be word going around at some point, idk. Grains of salt on what I say, take what makes sense, think of consequences to implementations and think of how the protagonist shifts the expectations, I guess.
Saw the video, intelligence went up.
Read the comments, intelligence went down.
Cest la UA-cam.
balance is important
CIvilization Revolution totally invested time animating actual Dancing Bears. I've seen them a thousand times.
people actually clapped for the cold war
"Oh, 'Cold War' ... never heard of it, must be a cool game ... *Clap* *Clap* *Clap*"
Horible
I think the "CivRev" battle part has also a lot to do with that the game mechanic doesn't really match completely with reality.
In reality when i.e. you have 20 tanks vs 10 tanks (or 10 soccer players vs 5 soccer players) there is an exponential gain for the larger team.
This is also reinforced with RTS games.
In any RTS a battle between 20 vs 10 will be easily won, because you have 10 extra tanks that can just single out one enemy. Making it quickly 20 vs 9, etc.
Also in a lot of other sports and competitions you have this effect, even if it's not team-based.
Someone "twice as good" in running or table tennis will win probably 100% of the time.
Early shoutout to ppl watching this in 2122 playing Civilization 69
TFW the writer of that thing that changed your life reminisces about how she was inspired by how ad executives had marketed a plastic container of banana yoghurt
Great talk. some stuff are slightly outdated now but it's still pretty good advice if you take it with a grain of salt. Besides that, the talk was also really freaking entertaining, heh.
was i being played when i played civ?
Some of his stuff is outdated, some of his DONTs have been proven wrong, proven that those rules can be broken if handled well. Gaming has advanced in the last 8 years, and pushing past our old preconceived notions of game design is only a good thing. He's still a legend for what he's accomplished, for what he contributed to gaming, but that doesn't mean his words of wisdom are always the best advice for designers today. As with most things, take it with a grain of salt.
railroads is my favorite wish they would have made it just a little bigger
I don't think he predicted the irony of modern video game graphics.
24:00 So can I just throw a weak unity to lose first, then take advantage of the compensation and go with the main unity for the real attack?
Wonder if they compensated for exploiting the compensation.
I guess you shouldn't think about it too much. Once you start mentally reverse-engineer the game mechanics rather than just play, you ruin your own experience.
@@АлексейГриднев-и7р there’s a saying: “Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game.”
1:31 That title reminds a bit too much of a weird al song and now it's stuck in my head.
awesome. Thanks!
In Civ 2, I made a terminator unit. You needed AI technology and a cyberdyne factory, and you could build terminator units which were way OP, but so much fun.
Funny how he says that when the AI do something really cleaver the player thinks the AI peaked behind the scenes and watched his numbers, when Sid himself erlier explain how the battle outcomes are one sided toward the player in all kinds of way, like keeping track of previous battles outcomes.
So he is basically reinforcing the (founded and maybe subconscious) belief the player has that something "is off" by cheating on numbers outcomes and at the same time blaming the player for suspecting the AI he programmed to be cheating instead of being smart. Brilliant :| * slow clap *
That is IMHO because a human makes a lot of strategic mistakes. If there was no bias towards the player, the game would get as hard as chess. And chess players aren't target audience.
I would rather have an AI seargent giving you helpful advices and telling you that your action is too risky and maybe a % of success, rather than cheating behind the scenes to make the player feel good about himself.
Clearly I am not part of this target audience.
Marcus - the part about battle AI was showing how he adapted it based on feedback from players, which is why it's player weighted. Keeping track of previous battles was a direct response to testers moaning about losing against the odds twice in a row, even though it can happen perfectly naturally. Opponent AI is really tricky to get right because it inevitably involves looking at player data and reacting. Players want a challenge but generally don't like losing, especially if they feel gamed.
@@person8203 Not sure if you're gonna respond to my comment but here goes...
I believe game devs can make honest and brutally competent enemy AI, it's just that they fear this would inevitably scare away a broader audience.
Look at BioWare's Dragon Age and Mass Effect games. In each game the AI acts dumb on purpose, occasionally doing something smart or, in other words, acting equal or slightly superior compared to the player.
For example, in Dragon Age and in Mass Effect games you rarely see enemies using special abilities against your team, even when you play on the highest level of difficulty.
And when players do see that, they start panicking, because they get used to AI dummies spamming basic attack and maybe an occasional stun lock that doesn't hurt all that much.
What BioWare and many other developers resort to is they increase the number of dummies on the battlefield and slightly differentiate them by artificially diversifying their stats (base attack damage, armor rating, hp, stuff like that).
In other words, they force players to prioritize enemy hierarchy but they don't teach them to play intelligently. Thus, players experience power fantasy without making sacrificial decisions.
They don't implement tactical maneuvers to get the upper hand on their enemies and that's bad, coz they'll just keep spamming the same tactic that they had been using from the start of the game (let's say it's DA: Origins).
As with any GDC talks, take it all with a grain of salt. Take the advice that works for you, and dump the rest. Not every advice works for every studio, and not every advice works for every game.
16:37 It's amazing how much of professional game design is just nerds discovering common sense.
Dificulty levels implementation in CIV 5 and CIV 6 is worst
You cant have a good balance game
For a moderate challange game you need to go to higher dificulty levels where game its unbalanced from start
No fun to play with a DUMB AI who has massive advantages
Yep civ AI is broken and lazy.
I hope they fix the air someday
(Spoiler-Alert for Undertale, don't continue reading if you haven't played it) LOL, what he describes at ~16:30-18:00 is exactly how Undertale works. And everyone loves that concept in Undertale. It kinda is bound to the guilt of the player, but the concept is similar nevertheless. I kinda really don't like how he thinks about gamers and ridicules them. Maybe those are valid points if you develop games for children, or shooters, but not adult games. Same thing with what he says afterwards. A game that starts happy and with cartoony graphic but then bad things happen. Sorry, but imho that is definitely not a bad concept.
I agree. But his games are really tailored towards the masses. Niche/Indie games that break up these expectations are there for a hardcore audience of well versed gamers, those are completely different ballparks. Interact with a community of a big game that is focussed on a broad audience and you'll see how exactly right he is about these things. Don't forget that people like you and me have aquired deeper knowledge of design principles in all dimensions of video games, so we kind of crave for unique and challenging experiences, but we are in a very small minority. This can be said about any type of media, music or art.
As with any GDC talks, take it all with a grain of salt. Take the advice that works for you, and dump the rest. Not every advice works for every studio, and not every advice works for every game.
Sid Meier is a game designer who designs a game that came out 30 years ago. Yeah, his game succeeded, and he is a great game designer, but don’t expect everything he (or any other personalities you see in any GDC talks) says as preach.
The gamers are sort of right. 20-10 in battle terms is fundamentally different then a simple 2-1 scenario. Because a real battle isn't over until one side has 0 or surrenders. For simplicity lets say just say the battle is over when one side has 0. To calculate the result more accurately, you have to treat it as several instance of 2:1 encounters.
So starting with 20 and 10.
For every 2-1 encounter there can be one of these three outcomes (2:0, 1:0, 0:1)
- Ok I know technically there could be a 0:0 outcome but lets keep it simple for this example.
Now honestly in real life those first two outcomes are much more likely then the last. So lets say that for the first round the first two outcomes happened twice as much as the last one.
Round one sees 4X (2:0), 4X (1:0) and 2X (01)
That means we now have 12 and 2 going into round 2. That 6-1 odds now in round 2!
Now the possible outcomes for round 2 are (0:1, 6:0, 5:0, 4:0, 3:0, 2:0, 1:0)
Let's pretend that 1 of those two was freakin' Legolas and he picked off 6 from a distance. And the other guy was super skilled and managed to take 2 down in close combat before falling to his 6 attackers.
Round two's results would be 1X (0:1) and 1X (4:0)
Sow now we have 4 and 1 in the final round.
You decide if Legolas wins or not.
The point is, In this hypothetical battle calculation the odds went from 2-1, to 6-1, to 4-1. So yeah 20 to 10 in simple math might be the same as 2 to 1. But the gamer's intuition was telling him that in real life 20-10 are actually better odds than 2:1.
TL;DR
A real life 20-10 battle should be treated as several small 2:1 encounters. Each encounter _won_ (so not a neutral result 0:0), leaves at least 1 man standing to tip the odds in his teams favor for the next round of calculations. Therefore, 20-10 is not equal to 2-1.
Are you stupid or something? In which battle exactly do you actually fight with 1 soldier vs. 3 enemy soldiers? Meier talks about odds. And I thought I was bad at mathematics. 20-10 odds are the same as 2-1 odds. And try to remember that Civilization is a strategy game. Meaning the counters are just symbolic for your army units. It's not as if you have 3 spearmen and 2 chariots to defend Athens against the Mongol hordes. In reality you would have three *armies* of spearmen and 2 *armies* of mainly chariots. I really think that the average American cannot understand the simple fact that in combat, there never are actual 2:1 or 3:1 battles in regards to the actual number of participants. Americans always like to fantasize about how a German Tiger II would destroy entire battalions of Allied Sherman tanks. Because they imagine the Shermans have to queue up and get destroyed one after the other by the Tiger II. In essence, Americans are the reason why in all fantasy and "historic" fighting, 10 guards don't simply kill the lone (hero) intruder. No, they have to stand around him, do nothing while one of their comrades is getting slaughtered by the intruder. Then the next one will start fighting the intruder, while the others stand around, trying to look busy.
St. John Peaster Aside from what the other poster wrote, those odds do not indicate the number of troops. Rather, they represent the strength of the units. How could you not understand this? In his first example, he pointed out that the barbarians are usually 1, but these barbarians were "uncivilized" and therefore got -50%. Both sides clearly have 3 units.
A much better argument would be to ask at what point does the power gap between units become too much to realistically ever overcome. For example, should a Spearman ever be able to beat a Musketman? Probably not. But what about an Archer versus a tank? Of course not. I don't know about the new Civilization, but in the old games, there was still a chance that very low level troops could at least damage far superior units, and even defeat one, especially if there was a small group of elite units going up against a large group of weak units. Now that is something you should try and calculate.
720p... sure....
5:20 I get what he means but not sure Rambo was the best reference, after the first movie he's arguably not that alright
"Ehhm..."
1:06:00 is that Randy?
Is this the same as his other talk under a new name?
an we It was on another channel, not here
This dissection of players due to 2 different modes could be easily fixed by competent SLs.
The ability to relieve SLs and even commander position and replace them by people able or at least willing to take over would fix sooo many problems.
It's very frustrating to have one or even several squads full of and being lead by people not interested in proper Squad 44 team play whatsoever.
I often find myself jumping into such squads, trying to first talk to SL and that doesn't help, then telling the rest of the squad to join my own I can create for them.
However, sometimes even those players are such veggies that they don't respond to this anyway and just blindly (if even) follow their SL that does whatever anyway. Would be still better, if I would lead those lemmings to the frontline myself, instead of having some noob leading them away.
1:06:00 Randy!?
Interesting, I suppose one man defeating two opponents does feel more likely than 10 defeating 20
Old school thinking where the player has to win and should be encouraged to make the easy and moral decisions.
I want to play a Civ game now but I have a PS4.
ripped from a VHS tape years later
I am astounded to find that I don't wholly agree with Sid on this talk. But I do wonder if current day Sid agrees with Sid from 10 years ago?
Congratulations, you've got a mind of your own and your heroes aren't going to match your mindset 100% of the time!
@@swishfish8858 I'm quite proud of it, but I tend to overthink things too :P
@@SilverionX Fair! I just find it fascinating when I disagree with industry icons. It's like, we all contribute to the great knowledge pool in this industry, and it's nice to remember that no matter who you are, you can be wrong. That goes not just for gods like Sid Meier, but for bottom-rung hobbyists like me. It's humbling, it's humanizing, it's healthy.
28:11 How can make the player feel that he/she is progressing/winning by loosing everything he/she achieved? They kinda did this in Spec Ops but in narrative context. Taking away his/her weapons doesn't count.
what if you actually say " being the strongest lead to a higher chance of suffering random disasters" them players would take that for granted instead of the computer cheating and would be a catchup mechaninc
It’s interesting many of the things he said turned out to be a mistake, ended up being reintroduced into civ 6
What's going on with the quality in this video?
Its soooooooo bad. Treat it like an audio lecture.
I felt the audio was bad too, but I surrived. Good talk, to be honest.
2010.
This feels like I'm watching a VCR tape from the 90's haha. It kind of fits with watching Sid Meier.
There is a bias, barbarians were sometimes even more powerful than the romans even though they were not "civilized"
Then don't refer to the complex and detailed cultures that the romans lumped together under the inability to speak latin as barbarians.
@@melanoc3tusii205 I understood, I played Civilization 5 a lot, I know that the barbarians are mere concept of Civilization series, forget my original comment
@@DaviSilva-oc7iv I shall never forget.
Nah, just kidding. Honestly, this is such a small matter that my comment did not merit a reply.
"If your game starts all cartoony and then terrible things start happening, the player turns off their game."
Excuse me, but people like happy tree friends. It's called juxtaposition.
The difference is, people know what they should expect from happy tree friends. It's more about the tone switch of, say, Earthbound - whole game being rather lighthearted and goofy up until Giygas, which is a profoundly unsettling Eldritch Abomination. If the tone switch came after one third of the game instead of in the final dungeon, the reception would probably go far worse.
As with any GDC talks, take it all with a grain of salt. Take the advice that works for you, and dump the rest. Not every advice works for every studio, and not every advice works for every game.
Sid Meier is a game designer who designs a game that came out 30 years ago. Yeah, his game succeeded, and he is a great game designer, but don’t expect everything he (or any other personalities you see in any GDC talks) says as preach.
As brilliant as Sid Meier is on many areas, it's really confusing to show "75% win chance" as 3:1.
I've never seen anyone use "2:1" or "3:1" when talking about odds. 3:1 means ratio.
3 parts water, 1 part juice concentrate. 1 cm on the miniature means of 3 cm of the real object. There's 1 dog for every 3 people. By Sid Meier's logic that would mean there's 25% chance of dogs outnumbering humans, dogs just magically appearing.
A vast majority of people is going to think that 3:1 means that my "army is 3 times stronger than the enemy army", which would mean roughly 99% chance of winning.
"3:1" is saying "three-to-one odds". It's an odd way of stating probability, but it's one that exists and has precedence.
It's a very common way of denoting odds.
Google 'odds'. Look at Oddschecker. Look at Wikipedia.
Odds _is_ a ratio.
It would seem you are not a betting man.
We actually need 9 levels of difficulty.
DarkSouls wants to know your location
How old is this talk?
6 years old
Has Sid Meirer and Tom Clancy ever collaborated?
They tried, but couldn't figure out who gets to be first on the title ^^
@@autolykos9822 Sid Clancy or Tom Meier, Realistic Galactic War Operation
self destructive behaviour: me playing civ. life ceases to exist for around 40h
Pretty much every single point has been disproved by another game, but where he really lost me was at "we change the odds based on previous outcomes". Maybe we should just expect more from players, instead of giving them games that re-enforce their ignorance.
Militia killing a Battleship won't work today…
Rise and fall mechanics were a mistake... yeah civ 6.... yeah.
The thing is he is viewing the maths in like a "roll dice" kind of way. thats totally different to how fighting works. even 2:1 is a massive advantage in a fight, 2 people fighting 1 person at the same time, 1 guy could go behind while the other distracts. the odds of winning a 2:1 fight is not 33% like a dice roll, that itself is ridiculously low if everyone was the same strength, unless your 1 person was legolas or leonidas then its a different story.
That is not what these examples were about at all.
The 2:1 or w/e odds they calculate from an engagement is not purely based on army size, but also on flavourful bonuses as explained in the video. It is really just "odds". The army sizes in these engagements are very similar and the odds are just there to abstract technological and cultural differences. If you engage with an actual 2:1 army size advantage against a similarly advanced opponent then you will win almost certainly.
the cynicism is quite funny, but also bums me out a little. feels like civilization is a game with no hardships in this way now that i think about it. junk food.
I miss the way you could brake a big computer nation into two, iff you took their capital. Never thought of gunpowder as the thing to rush to. was the classic. -> the republic, via philosophy taht grats 1 free sci if you do it first. ( or great library, when on level emperor, then 100% tax ) maps have ALWAYS been to small. "enemy" nations, way to few. and teck tree to simple. thx for the game started with a copied version off civ1 in 93.
Sid Meyer: _designs a historical game so an army can regularly defeat an army of twice its size_
Sid Meyer: _publicly mocks players for questioning this and blames their math skills_
As if there wasn't ever a battle in history that was lost by the bigger army... smarty pants
Pretty boring with just the sound, maybe add the camera in the editing ?
Maybe in Civ VII you should double the spyware.
Sid Meier is very good at killing aliens
Umm.
I have to interject at 6:40, When I walk around the map and randomly get a 100 gold from a ruin, I don't feel smart or that I earned it, it makes me question whay that 100 gold laid there for so long with nobody taking it. In other words I do question positive thingas that happen to me as I play
X doesn't need an introduction, here is the introduction must be up there with Webster's defines x as... as awful talk starters
Some people should try to learn something, before trying to prove him wrong...
Too many games these days rely on pure RNG. Mathematically, if you have a 50% chance to hit an enemy, that means out of a hundred attacks, you're going to get wrecked 50 times. Count up to fifty, and imagine for each count, you get punished. It may be mathematically accurate, but it's just not fun. You lose units. You lose gear. You waste time trying to rebuild. You feel like you're not progressing. Worst of all, you feel like your choices and skill is irrelevant because the dice kick your ass as often as not no matter what you do.
Sometimes you gotta massage the numbers a bit to improve the player experience.
why have so much ramdomness in battles in the first place?
because it adds drama to battles without extra user input
Ab
Bunch of angry zoomies around here.
40:50 The AI bit is bullshit. To cope to the fact that AI technology is still subpar, they say that the players don't really want good ai because they will think that the AI is cheatting.
NO. The player thinks that the AI is cheating when he gets the AI cheating unquestionably. Once it is stabilished that the AI cheats, than yeah, maybe the player don't believe when the AI legitimately does something good on it's own merit.
The proof of that is that new AI'S like OpenAI or even chess or GO AI are not suspect of cheating. No one thinks that alpha go was actually consulting a team of go experts, or that OpenAI didn't have war fog on, etc. when they didn't.
But if the civ AI has 3k cities and no happiness problem, than there is no question it is cheating.
Cheat codes "damage" people's experience of the game.
In my opinion, people having fun is more important the dev's original vision or design. And fun is the imperative thing to seek out of the experience, and having freedom to allow people to choose their own experience is a good thing towards maximizing their enjoyment of the title.
In order to save the game, we had to destroy it. I could go on like this all day. Assuming you know what is best for players can never be better than expedient. In this 42:25 instance, where it is not a feature that is offered to the player, but taking away an option of how to play the game from the player, it is unequivocally arrogant.
Yea I don't like that either. There are different types of gamers, and when you're flexible, you can appeal to more people. It doesn't break the game to allow gameplay options. I think Paradox did this very well with CK2. There are dozens of game rules that you can change before the game starts - some of them relate to features that a number of people think break the game. So it gives those players the option to have it off. Otherwise, they'd just install a mod anyway. So you're not preserving anything by limiting their choice.
Hm... Im not sure that Mr Sid Meier is as good designer as everyone think he is
What makes you say that? I've been having a couple of moments where he's reasoned that some mechanic, say, didn't work because of player psychology, and I'm here thinking that he probably just didn't integrate the mechanic well enough. Like his trading money with other players example.
I also don't think that I agree with his philosophy on game design in general. I also think that design has come along way in the six years since this talk.
well, I've been playing since the first one, so his continued viability says something in his favor. but I would tend to agree that they have fallen into certain go-to design decision traps over the decades
“The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried.”
― Stephen McCranie
I have to say I've been listening for a few min and this all seems quite generic
Sid Meier discovered the ways of making games compelling to bronze tier players xDD
well, they probably make up 80% of the paying customer base. soo....
MonkeyspankO. exactly
:)
I know it's been 13 years but some of that advice seems extremely wrong now, and I'm not a designer and not even that much of a player... Also, Sid comes out kinda patronizing at times. I have huge respect for this guy and his legacy, but, as it often happens with icons, I don't think I would like to work or spend significant time with him. Or even play new games designed by him anymore.
@Tight n Nerdy Jonathan Blow hates the lie-about-probability rule and has some good arguments for it. On the other hand, his two games are entirely deterministic
@Tight n Nerdy I hate it. But maybe you are right. I don't know. I just feel bad about it. As if I was lied to. Also, maybe you need to design your game so that you don't have to lie. Again, deterministic games seen an easy way out.
And while I agree with Blow, I do find both Meier's and Blow's authoritative delivery on the subject obnoxious.
I don't really like the way he thinks about the whole stuff. Fortunately not everyone is like him, so we have games like This War of Mine and also games like Dark Souls.
Now that I heard his talk I kinda feel that he is a bit overrated.
Literature can be used to explore more serious topics. Films also. Games also.
Dark Souls and This War of Mine are quite niche games, while Sid is talking about games in general. And in that he's totally right.
"Sid is talking about games in general. And in that he's totally right."
I don't think so. It is just his point of view. It fits only a small subset of games. A huge amount of them was designed with different mentality.
It is subjective. I think he kills almost everything from a game I find interesting to make it more entertaining.
It does not work for me, and I can't be the only one - the two games I mentioned earlier are just two examples, and you can call them niche but they are popular. I could have written Firewatch or The Witcher as well.
"I don't think so."
Well, that's your personal subjective opinion. If you take a look at the most popular games in the world which are played by hundreds of millions of people, you'll see that they reward players for most of the actions they make.
"It does not work for me, and I can't be the only one - the two games I mentioned earlier are just two examples, and you can call them niche but they are popular. "
Dark Souls sold about 10 million copies across all platforms, This War of Mine - 1.5 millions. Considering that there are hundreds of millions potential users out there - yes, both of them are niche games. Just because you like them doesn't make them mainstream.
"I could have written Firewatch or The Witcher as well."
Well, good for you. I can only encourage you to do so.
"Well, that's your personal subjective opinion." - yes, that's why I did not write "that's not true", I wrote "I don't think so" ;)
10 million copies are more than most game project can ever hope for.
"they reward players for most of the actions they make"
Every game rewards player action. I don't really get the point of this sentence there.
""I could have written Firewatch or The Witcher as well."
Well, good for you. I can only encourage you to do so."
Interesting request, but so be it:
I don't really like the way he thinks about the whole stuff. Fortunately
not everyone is like him, so we have games like The Witcher and
also games like Firewatch.
His method is not a be-all for game design, but it's all incredibly useful information, even when building a game like This War of Mine or Dark Souls.
Uhm, this, uh, talk was, ah, quite interesting. Um, but, ah, I thought the, um, delivery was, uhm, ah, uhm, frustrating.
Legendary designer with some horrible takes
"not the game that I designed." Here's a thought: maybe it is the game that the player Bought. Your consensual involvement with this game's players will end as soon as you spend the money you were paid to make it.The fewer automated tentacles you put in it to exert your control for the Ages, the better.
this guy should not be allowed to even mention "mathematics" ... what a non sensical piece of sh...
1.5 damage vs 0.5 damage = NOT "3 to 1".
1.5 damage when ppl has life = "2" means that 1 and a half attacks will certainly kill someone.
.5 damage in the same scenario, means that 4 attacks will kill someone.
this means that barbarians have ZERO chances of winning a battle where each person hits in turns. because when they manage to lower the hp of one roman to a HALF, they are DEAD AND CANNOT KEEP FIGHTING ANYMORE.
that means that 1.5 to 0.5 is not a 3 to 1. is a infinit to zero.
you can then add a "critical lucky strike" where you multiply the damage of any unit by a margin.
if both troops have the same modifier (*1.5). one "lucky" hit of a roman = 2.25 damage. means that in one hit he insta kills a barbarian.
but for a barbarian, a 0.75 damage will mean pretty much the same as his normal hit value.
also 20 ppl hitting 10 ppl means that when one of the ten fall, there are 4 ppl hitting one. that one will fall fast. then you will have 6 ppl hitting on 1. that one will hit faster.
that same situation is happening to all ten of those ppl, so actually you never even reach the 6v1 situation, because your 20 have already killed all 10, probably with a single casualty, maybe 2.
20 to 10 is definetely NOT the same as 2 vs 1. this guy is not very smart really. and certainly math is not something he understands. nor actual ppl fighting.
The attack values in Civ aren't damage values.
hahahaha credit urself more
"No one ever gives gold to another player" That is definitely true in real life too. No one ever gives you money for nothing because we are greedy humans who do not care about others, unless it is a sob story on gofundme.
why does this talk feels like it is an infomercial from 80s?
Civ 6 is absolute trash so
It's funny that so much of what he believes has been disproved by Dark Souls.
Not really. If you think that, you didn't really get anything from the talk, or the design of Dark souls...
It's funny how how little you understand the core gameplay loops of Dark Souls and their psychologies.