Interview with Sid Meier: Ace Patrol, Civ Evolution and the Future of Strategy Games
Sid Meier is a game design legend. He was one of the founders of MicroProse in 1982 and created Civilization , one of the most long-lived and favorite game series. As the creative director of Firaxis and the curator of the Civ and XCOM series, Meyer can be choosy in choosing a job. His choice: Ace Patrol, a turn-based strategy game inspired by board games on the subject of the First World War, with a low price and deep strategic possibilities. PC Gamer discussed with Meyer about his interest in small games and how they gave his team a chance to take a chance. He also shared his opinion on the changing market of strategic games, because in his opinion all the players in their hearts are lovers of strategies.
PC Gamer: how did you come to Ace Patrol?
Sid Meier: It was an opportunity to make a game in a shorter period of time and with a smaller team. It seems to me that the last game I really finished was Civ Revolutions . We made some big games, Civ and XCOM, they are great, but when working on them I really wanted to work in a small team and create a game in a shorter period of time. With a low budget, you have more opportunities to do something more risky. Development for the iPad was also an interesting, new challenge - a new type of device, a new interface. I had the idea of a turn-based aviation game about World War I. Initially, I imagined her card. At the beginning of work on the version for the iPad, we had virtual cards and stuff like that. I have been thinking about this game for quite a while.
')
It has a very strong influence of board games. What games did you keep in mind when thinking about this mechanic?
Some time ago there was a game called Wings of War . Each player had a book and you were on a certain page. Depending on the chosen maneuver, both of you moved to another page. This mechanic was very nice. Not that we copied it, but I was very interested in the step-by-step approach to air combat. In board games, very clear images and mechanics. That is what we wanted, so that you could take a look and immediately say: here are the players, they fly in this direction and are at such a distance from the ground. We wanted to recreate this clarity and accessibility of the board game in Ace Patrol.
This is always our goal - to give you a game that can be quickly and easily started, but with depth and replayability. We have always strived for this, if we return to the topic of Civilization. A game that is easy to start, but with depth and replayability. It seems to me, deep down, we all love strategic games. Just not everyone knows about it. But if we convince people to try and they suddenly realize that it is very interesting to learn new maneuvers and skills.
Hexagonal mesh is also important for accessibility. As soon as you see the hexagons, everything becomes very clear ... so we adjust the game and make its features extremely clear and understandable: the orientation of the planes, their relative directions and the distance you can move. The hexagonal grid, which we also introduced into the Civ V, has a lot of advantages in terms of accessibility and we fully use them.
You mentioned that Ace Patrol was developed by a smaller team in less time. How big was the original team?
We had seven or eight people working on it for less than a year. As far as I remember, she came out in May, work on the addition of Pacific Skies took about five or six months. Compared to Civ or XCOM, this is a very small team.
It seems that you have experimented with different pricing models for the same game. In the iOS version, you donated a small portion of the content for free and sold additional campaigns. How well did this strategy work?
For us, the most convenient is the classic PC model: a free demo version and a paid game. When we did Ace Patrol, in the iOS market, it was the most similar to the shareware game in which you can buy the remaining pieces. For us, it looked like you get a free demo, if you like it - buy the full game, if you don't like it - don't buy it.
But we found that the shareware model pulls a lot of not very pleasant memories for the players. Almost no one perceives it as a free demo version, with the subsequent purchase of the full game. It is perceived as a game within the game. How much can I play without paying anything? What tricks will they use to make me pay? It comes to the point that it starts to distract from the game itself. So in the Steam-version of Ace Patrol, we returned to the paid scheme: the game is worth a certain amount, if you want to play - buy.
Enthusiastic players had some shareware with shareware. Now we see it as a paid game that you just buy. If you want to get an idea of the game mechanics, you can play the free version of Ace Patrol for iOS. If you like, you can buy Pacific Skies. It seems to us that the paid model - the simple purchase of the game - most of all corresponds to the wishes of our players. They just want to buy the game and not think about whether they bought everything or we are going to ask them for more money.
What moments in the latest versions of Civilization were successful in your opinion and which are not?
It was very interesting that each Civ had its own leading designer: Soren Johnson in Civ IV and Jon Shafer in Civ V. Each of them brought his vision into the game, but all versions are built on the same basic mechanics and gameplay (gameplay flow). Additions for Civ V turned out particularly well. Although the new Civ is released every few years, there is still energy in the franchise and something new is constantly happening. If you think about what didn't work ... I can't remember anything like that (laughs).
Perhaps not the best moment in Civ V was that it was developed only for PC. It seems normal to me, most of our players are on PCs, but the world is changing. We dream of it being on other platforms. There are no obstacles to its appearance on iOS and other systems. By and large, this is a matter of strategy and proper allocation of resources. We would like to see it on more platforms. But on the PC, our approach is supported most strongly, so that it comes first for us.
Now strategic games are experiencing an era of rebirth, many people buy complex games like Crusader Kings II . Do you still consider strategic games of a narrow hardcore niche or do they grow into a more important part of the market?
We definitely believe in their growth. We are seeing similar growth, especially with respect to people for games like Civ and XCOM. Without a doubt, strategic games have a very passionate and active audience. We exist thanks to these fans. They generously give us inspiration, ideas and support. It seems to me that growth is modest, but continuous.
You have to convince people that they like strategies. Civ at first looks scary. 20 hours for one game, after which you want to play again? (laughs) Not everyone decides to admit that he wants this. But one has only to try and you begin to understand how it works and how much pleasure it brings, so that players who love strategy are gradually becoming more and more. But the market as a whole is very different from the fashion of other games depending on the hits or trends of fashion. The market strategies are very solid and unhurried. Games for social networks first grew, then fell. New genres, innovative and unusual, are becoming fashionable, but they lack the depth of strategic games, they quickly lose their attractiveness and fizzle out.
This is both good and bad news for developers. Strategy games are very reliable. Their audience will not disappear anywhere. But they will not have those flashes of popularity that happen to other genres.
What will be the next big breakthrough in strategy games? The ability of many people to play one game at the same time? Greater availability, like mastering new platforms? Or the creation of the most ambitious and epic strategy of all times and peoples?
In fact, our philosophy in terms of Civ is as follows: when introducing new features into the game, we must remove some other features from it. As it seems to us, it has already reached the proper level of epicity and grandeur, further movement in this direction will lead to problems with the complexity or duration of the game.
In the days of my youth, we used to do flight simulators. They became more and more complex. The cockpit took up more and more screen space, the world around it less and less. And so generation after generation. These were great games - take the same Falcon series. But with each generation, some of the players said: “the game has become too difficult for me, I will not buy it anymore.” As a result, they died under the weight of their own complexity (out-complexified itself).
We try to avoid this in Civ. It seems to us that we have found a very good balance of replayability, depth and complexity. At Civ, we consciously keep complexity at a certain level, because people like it most. Therefore, it does not seem to us that the future is for some kind of super-grand incredibly difficult game. It seems to us that our players do not need it.
Your idea of a multiplayer strategy game is really interesting. If something has changed in recent years, it is around the clock availability of the network. Permanent internet access is considered something of course in our time. Translating this into a game idea may well be the next step in games. Five years ago we went somewhere, sat down, turned off ordinary life and started to play. Now we have the opportunity to keep the game nearby at any time of sleep or wakefulness. You always have a phone or tablet with you. It is possible that in the near future all this will be combined in the game idea.
Another possibility that opens in the near future is the transformation of casual players into more enthusiastic and, as a result, into strategy lovers. We see people moving in this direction. We have always seen something similar, but with iOS and similar ones, the number of casual players has greatly increased. It is possible that they are evolving into more enthusiastic players.
PC Gamer: how did you come to Ace Patrol?
Sid Meier: It was an opportunity to make a game in a shorter period of time and with a smaller team. It seems to me that the last game I really finished was Civ Revolutions . We made some big games, Civ and XCOM, they are great, but when working on them I really wanted to work in a small team and create a game in a shorter period of time. With a low budget, you have more opportunities to do something more risky. Development for the iPad was also an interesting, new challenge - a new type of device, a new interface. I had the idea of a turn-based aviation game about World War I. Initially, I imagined her card. At the beginning of work on the version for the iPad, we had virtual cards and stuff like that. I have been thinking about this game for quite a while.
')
It has a very strong influence of board games. What games did you keep in mind when thinking about this mechanic?
Some time ago there was a game called Wings of War . Each player had a book and you were on a certain page. Depending on the chosen maneuver, both of you moved to another page. This mechanic was very nice. Not that we copied it, but I was very interested in the step-by-step approach to air combat. In board games, very clear images and mechanics. That is what we wanted, so that you could take a look and immediately say: here are the players, they fly in this direction and are at such a distance from the ground. We wanted to recreate this clarity and accessibility of the board game in Ace Patrol.
This is always our goal - to give you a game that can be quickly and easily started, but with depth and replayability. We have always strived for this, if we return to the topic of Civilization. A game that is easy to start, but with depth and replayability. It seems to me, deep down, we all love strategic games. Just not everyone knows about it. But if we convince people to try and they suddenly realize that it is very interesting to learn new maneuvers and skills.
Hexagonal mesh is also important for accessibility. As soon as you see the hexagons, everything becomes very clear ... so we adjust the game and make its features extremely clear and understandable: the orientation of the planes, their relative directions and the distance you can move. The hexagonal grid, which we also introduced into the Civ V, has a lot of advantages in terms of accessibility and we fully use them.
You mentioned that Ace Patrol was developed by a smaller team in less time. How big was the original team?
We had seven or eight people working on it for less than a year. As far as I remember, she came out in May, work on the addition of Pacific Skies took about five or six months. Compared to Civ or XCOM, this is a very small team.
It seems that you have experimented with different pricing models for the same game. In the iOS version, you donated a small portion of the content for free and sold additional campaigns. How well did this strategy work?
For us, the most convenient is the classic PC model: a free demo version and a paid game. When we did Ace Patrol, in the iOS market, it was the most similar to the shareware game in which you can buy the remaining pieces. For us, it looked like you get a free demo, if you like it - buy the full game, if you don't like it - don't buy it.
But we found that the shareware model pulls a lot of not very pleasant memories for the players. Almost no one perceives it as a free demo version, with the subsequent purchase of the full game. It is perceived as a game within the game. How much can I play without paying anything? What tricks will they use to make me pay? It comes to the point that it starts to distract from the game itself. So in the Steam-version of Ace Patrol, we returned to the paid scheme: the game is worth a certain amount, if you want to play - buy.
Enthusiastic players had some shareware with shareware. Now we see it as a paid game that you just buy. If you want to get an idea of the game mechanics, you can play the free version of Ace Patrol for iOS. If you like, you can buy Pacific Skies. It seems to us that the paid model - the simple purchase of the game - most of all corresponds to the wishes of our players. They just want to buy the game and not think about whether they bought everything or we are going to ask them for more money.
What moments in the latest versions of Civilization were successful in your opinion and which are not?
It was very interesting that each Civ had its own leading designer: Soren Johnson in Civ IV and Jon Shafer in Civ V. Each of them brought his vision into the game, but all versions are built on the same basic mechanics and gameplay (gameplay flow). Additions for Civ V turned out particularly well. Although the new Civ is released every few years, there is still energy in the franchise and something new is constantly happening. If you think about what didn't work ... I can't remember anything like that (laughs).
Perhaps not the best moment in Civ V was that it was developed only for PC. It seems normal to me, most of our players are on PCs, but the world is changing. We dream of it being on other platforms. There are no obstacles to its appearance on iOS and other systems. By and large, this is a matter of strategy and proper allocation of resources. We would like to see it on more platforms. But on the PC, our approach is supported most strongly, so that it comes first for us.
Now strategic games are experiencing an era of rebirth, many people buy complex games like Crusader Kings II . Do you still consider strategic games of a narrow hardcore niche or do they grow into a more important part of the market?
We definitely believe in their growth. We are seeing similar growth, especially with respect to people for games like Civ and XCOM. Without a doubt, strategic games have a very passionate and active audience. We exist thanks to these fans. They generously give us inspiration, ideas and support. It seems to me that growth is modest, but continuous.
You have to convince people that they like strategies. Civ at first looks scary. 20 hours for one game, after which you want to play again? (laughs) Not everyone decides to admit that he wants this. But one has only to try and you begin to understand how it works and how much pleasure it brings, so that players who love strategy are gradually becoming more and more. But the market as a whole is very different from the fashion of other games depending on the hits or trends of fashion. The market strategies are very solid and unhurried. Games for social networks first grew, then fell. New genres, innovative and unusual, are becoming fashionable, but they lack the depth of strategic games, they quickly lose their attractiveness and fizzle out.
This is both good and bad news for developers. Strategy games are very reliable. Their audience will not disappear anywhere. But they will not have those flashes of popularity that happen to other genres.
What will be the next big breakthrough in strategy games? The ability of many people to play one game at the same time? Greater availability, like mastering new platforms? Or the creation of the most ambitious and epic strategy of all times and peoples?
In fact, our philosophy in terms of Civ is as follows: when introducing new features into the game, we must remove some other features from it. As it seems to us, it has already reached the proper level of epicity and grandeur, further movement in this direction will lead to problems with the complexity or duration of the game.
In the days of my youth, we used to do flight simulators. They became more and more complex. The cockpit took up more and more screen space, the world around it less and less. And so generation after generation. These were great games - take the same Falcon series. But with each generation, some of the players said: “the game has become too difficult for me, I will not buy it anymore.” As a result, they died under the weight of their own complexity (out-complexified itself).
We try to avoid this in Civ. It seems to us that we have found a very good balance of replayability, depth and complexity. At Civ, we consciously keep complexity at a certain level, because people like it most. Therefore, it does not seem to us that the future is for some kind of super-grand incredibly difficult game. It seems to us that our players do not need it.
Your idea of a multiplayer strategy game is really interesting. If something has changed in recent years, it is around the clock availability of the network. Permanent internet access is considered something of course in our time. Translating this into a game idea may well be the next step in games. Five years ago we went somewhere, sat down, turned off ordinary life and started to play. Now we have the opportunity to keep the game nearby at any time of sleep or wakefulness. You always have a phone or tablet with you. It is possible that in the near future all this will be combined in the game idea.
Another possibility that opens in the near future is the transformation of casual players into more enthusiastic and, as a result, into strategy lovers. We see people moving in this direction. We have always seen something similar, but with iOS and similar ones, the number of casual players has greatly increased. It is possible that they are evolving into more enthusiastic players.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/209720/
All Articles