posted 08-31-99 06:18 AM ET        

"The Method

Because depth of play and re-playability are the hallmarks of FIRAXIS products, a special method is used in development. We make the games fun first! Then and only then do we add the rest. Therefore, playable prototypes are the focus of our development work for months and months, before the final polish is ever considered. This way, we can make games that have a sense of having been played before you buy them -- games that have a sense of familiarity out of the box because the interface has been actually used by real human beings for years before."

I remember reading about the evolution of SMG! in the manual and thought: That's an interesting approach--laying yourself to a finished product with gameplay the focus from day one. It's clear that this method has its strengths, but I wonder what its potential pitfalls are?

Here's one: Old Eyes.

What are "old eyes"? It's a term I just made up as a kind of opposite to "fresh eyes." Having just read how C&C was developed, I found it interesting that a key member of their staff purposely kept himself away from the game until its beta stage. He wanted to look at the game with "fresh eyes" and hopefully catch things the old eyes were missing in their comfort with the system they had spent hundreds of hours staring at.

I'm putting a little article together for Apolyton, and I'd like to get your feedback here. Do you think that Firaxis' method sets up a kind of closed-circuit where old eyes develop and other areas suffer? After all, if you are 'playing' a game that has basically zero graphics and no sound, you are perhaps readily disposed to look at a game with at least some good graphics and sounds as 'polished.' (One could argue that their surprise at people's generally negative reaction to SMAC's graphics and sounds are a symptom of this) Or do you think their method is rock solid, lending itself to products where superior gameplay is clearly the result?

posted 08-31-99 06:57 AM ET            

It also explains why so little new is incorporated into a game like SMAC. If you have a rock solid prototype playing for you, will you incorporate that daring great idea you had a couple of months ago if you realize that some major changes have to be made in the prototype?

But the whole description is a little vague: how much is really brought into that prototype? Maybe they mean that almost all game features you want are right there in the start, and then you start polishing diplomacy queries, faction characters, 3D graphics and so on. If so, there is even less to complain about.

Your "fresh eyes" point is a good one, however. My problem with companies is that they don't get enough sensible input in an early stage.

posted 08-31-99 09:49 AM ET            

I think the concept works - to a point.

In my opinion, it succeeds in bringing "immersive" play, but unfortunately the end-user's experience will be great only if his/her playstyle (especially in the case of SMAC) more or less matches the developers'

This has been proven numerous times by many posters here and on other forums: the game is great until mid-game, but then bogs down. Obviously, Firaxis never played much of the game past shard weapons.

On the "fresh eyes" theory, I couldn't agree more, that's why companies enroll beta testers (or why they ought to do so). The problem is, that testers also get used to the product and its interface, and thus stay "fresh" only for one, maybe two iterations.

I really believe in giving more power to the users, and letting them voice their opinions as far as the interface is concerned. After all, they are the ones who will have to suffer through it.

I see this everyday in my job, being a programmer myself, I sometimes fail to get user input on a screen's or a report's design, and as a consequence I quite often get a request for change because what I did does not fully satisfy the user's needs.

posted 08-31-99 12:27 PM ET            

You HAVE to play it. It's the only way to test it. The problem, according to Firaxis in what they have TOLD us, is that they spend a few months getting the game to the Maximum fun point, toss in the graphics, read the Industry BUZZ, and then shove in what's hot or required, and send the game to manufactoring. You see, that maximum fun balance get's tossed out the window just before they send the product out the door. Beta Testing, which is something new for them but being incorporated into their model, is put in parallel to shoving in the 'hot' or 'required' (production queue) stuff. So they invalidate even the first feedback from their new eyes...

And Old Eyes is a term in many companies QA. Including Firaxis. JM has refered to it at least twice in here at Alpha and QA.

The Firaxis Method? They have no method. And that is why the product they ship isn't the product the developers play. It was true of Civ2, and true of SMAC. What amazes me is, if BR doesn't play the final product, why would he expect us to?

posted 09-01-99 01:47 AM ET            

There are two issues: Does the philosophy work at all, and are firaxis working to it properly? Based on CivII, you'd have to say yes, definitely, to the first issue - you can get this philosophy to produce a great game. Based on SMAC, with it's graphical problems and the above mentioed flaws, you have to wonder if the philosophy of fun was being adhered to - the notion of old eyes is relevant here, although old code is also an issue.

posted 09-01-99 05:34 AM ET            

Whereas in SMAC, those techs are prevalent before midgame - with nothing significantly better to follow. Instead you just get more powerful bland weapons, stronger bland armor, and a one-sided race to build the best SPs.

In Civ2 at Emperor level I've overrun most of the map, taken half of my surviving rival's continent, yet I still face uncounted swarms of naval, land and air forces. Nukes and paratroops galore. Despite my overwehlming superiority in resources, and constantly bringing fresh troops, aircraft and nukes to bear, the last foe put up a tremendously spirited and formidable resistance: we swapped cities constantly.

Nothing like that happens in SMAC at its second highest level, Thinker.

The only serious numbers of enemy units you see are: eco-enraged wild mindworms, Miriam's entire fleet of bombers, and Yang's countless but scattered artillery.

But no concentrated attack, so no serious threat of being conquered - unless you leave a frontline base undefended for several turns.

The most annoying things that computer factions do are: Planet Busting (if we're remiss enough not to monitor their construction and take preventive measures), and Morgan's Probe Teams buying bases back. But both of those are symptoms of poor human planning.

The SMAC factions just don't have bite, and the game design's lack of "movement stacks" impedes the obvious way of concentrating forces and of forming strong convoys.

Manually moving each unit in a "stack" one square at a time is such a time-consuming, mind-numbing, finger-wearying and error-prone (whoops! outran my convoy again! and there's an isle of the deep! time to say my prayers!) exercise that if the AI also does it this way, then no wonder that some turns of SMAC involve execrably long waits.

posted 09-01-99 09:32 AM ET         

I agree mainly with Vorlin "that Firaxis post was pure public relations, a 'feel good' post".
They are working on public relation to enrich the soil for the incoming SMAX. You can bet for a lot of similar post till the SMAX release in october.

On the other hand, may be they work as (not very deeply) explained. In fact they probably work more or less around the old Civ kernel of code, messing it here and there with new feature. It's difficult to properly correct this kind of "growed up in every direction" code during beta test or (even worse) after user's complain about bugs.
The infamous know Infinite Range Missile bug is really enlightening about this state-of- the-Firaxis-art .
I'm not sure about the real usefulness of user's feedback during beta test, because of the game is mainly already written, so you don't have too many room for great change. I think that a list of wishes as Yin26 assemble at Apolyton (http://apolyton.net/civ3/suggestions/thelist/) about Civ 3 would be a better idea, because of the game is now at an early stage, so Firaxis should look at the list in time.

I think that a poll from Firaxis around what you like or not is unlikely, because too many company would be ready to steal every accepted idea, rushing out a game (I wonder if they will pay double resource, eh eh ) that can easily gain some market before the original will be ready (or put half finished out to the market).

"The cloning vats of games are always full", to paraphrase a bit. I've found that SMAC was funny for me at the start, when I played straight from the box, don't checking any SP effects and formulas. Then I learned more, payed more attention, red at this forum and I've lost a lot of excitement. What a pity!

posted 09-01-99 04:00 PM ET            

ROTFLMAO! That is so funny, and so true!

posted 09-01-99 04:08 PM ET         

I can't argue with the game itself though. Despite all the bugs it is still wonderful to play. The depth and richness of the characters and the detail of the game separates it from the pack. The number of fan sites, chat lines and the interest in SMAC fiction is evidence of this.

Late game drag? Sure, but I have dealt with that by coming up with challanges to transcend more quickly, to drive the score up higher and to play under the least favourable conditions. Civ was the same - less exciting once you were ahead. You could win it at the highest level without firing a shot. Civ II fixed the late game drag problem. I hope SMAC II makes the same quantum leap.

Perhaps all of the bugs are partly a result of the Firaxis method. If they assigned "fun" to be the highest priority, then bug resolution must have come lower down on the priority list and I speculate that much of it was attempted at the very end of the project when the pressure was on to release the final game.

The reason I whine about the bugs is because I love the game. Think how great this game could be if it did all that it promised. To play live against another human would have been cool, for example. Base governers for the advanced player? More Morgan-style propaganda.

After SMAC and much worse yet CTP, I wonder where the industry is headed. The public - an inexhaustable supply of beta-testers for free? Or is it the perception that we will snap up any Civ-related games without looking first? Seems they are out to kill the golden-egg laying goose. Expect an explosion of Civ type games of indifferent quality if that is the case.

Firaxis's suggestion that all games have bugs misses the point entirely. This one has many more of them. I just wish they had put as much pride and professionalism into polishing off bugs as they did in making SMAC fun.

posted 09-01-99 04:08 PM ET            

I think the main reason the AI is so pathetic in long games is that it doesn't build up city infrastructure. I'm a builder by nature, so most of my games last a long time, and I've done some checking near the end of them (i.e. around 2490 or so) using my infiltrators and the AI infrastructure was just pathetic. Almost no research buildings, no mineral enhancing buildings, almost no economy boosting buildings (thus creating drone problems that can't be solved easily by psych, leading to -way- too many morale buildings), etc., etc. There is simply no way the AI can compete in a long game when its cities are effectively stuck in the year 2200, developement-wise.

The AI in SMAC seems to be optimized for games that last about 150 turns: it makes the minimum number of base structures and then proceeds to endlessly crank out military units. So, for the first 1/3 of the game the AI is a fairly good competitor, but after that it falls behind at an exponential rate, till at the end it's almost completely helpless even if it has a huge number of cities.

posted 09-02-99 05:43 AM ET            

Make sure to inform us when your article is out !