GAME JOBS
Contents
How Sid Meier Civilized Social Gaming
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Sr Game Designer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Gameplay Producer
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Senior Staff Programmer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Technical Producer
 
Telltale Games
Lead Environment Artist
 
Sledgehammer Games / Activision
Level Designer (Temporary)
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [2]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [4]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  How Sid Meier Civilized Social Gaming
by Christian Nutt, Kris Graft [Design, Interview]
20 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
July 7, 2011 Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4
 

CN: Is that going to continue as the game is live? Or do you think that you're going to move to a point where you start harnessing more data?

SM: I think as we get a larger sample of players, the data becomes more meaningful. I think we will start to generate some useful information and figure out what parts of the game people are spending more time in and things like that.



If we're only finding out at this stage, then there's something wrong with our development process. We think we have a game that's pretty close to where it needs to be. I think the analytics are maybe about financing or figuring out kind of additional directions to go.

CN: How much did you study how Facebook games are built before you launched this project? Or did you in fact study sort of the way the big players or even games you particularly liked were built?

SM: It was really not our goal to re-create or copy other Facebook games around there. I think we're very early in the whole cycle of social gaming, and there's a lot of space to be explored, not just the games that are already out there.

So, we really wanted to explore some new space with CivWorld and not make a game based on other games that are out there. We're certainly aware of the other games that are out there, but they're not something we've studied. I think we're coming from a pretty different place.

KG: You said before at GDC again that gameplay is a psychological experience. That was really interesting. I was wondering if you think the monetization of gameplay is a psychological experience, and how much have you thought about that with a Facebook game.

SM: I think our approach to that is really... Again, if we can make a fun game, there will probably be some way for us to monetize that. Some people will find that experience hopefully compelling enough, fun enough to want to invest in it. That's the way we look at it. It's not about having a monetizing engine and trying to attach a game to it. It's about making a game that people want to play, and then thinking about the monetization issues.

One of our real concerns and goals is that monetizing not destroy the game experience. There can be many players who want to play for free, and that's fine. They're helping the game by playing and creating this world for people to play in. So, they want the experience to be a fun experience for those players whether you monetize or don't monetize, you're still contributing to the overall experience for everybody. So, we want the game to be fun for everyone.

Really thinking about how monetization can be done without destroying the experience for other players is really important. It was a new thing for us, and we wanted to be really careful about how it was done. So, a fair amount of thought did go into that.

CN: It sounds like you put most of your faith in the design and audience. A lot of times when I talk to people in the social space, they tend to come from different angles probably, but you know, it's more about the audience is viewed as an entity to really sort of butt up against, and the design of the game is viewed as maybe a tool to smooth that over. [laughs]

SM: [laughs]

CN: It sounds like you more have faith in your audience and more faith in your design.

SM: Well, yes. I mean, we might be wrong [laughs], but I think that's what we do. We make games, and we hopefully make games that people enjoy playing and want to play again and want to play in a new way and are replayable. They just want to play another turn and enjoy the experience. We are hopefully leveraging our strength in this new area. It's certainly an experiment. It's certainly something new. We'll see how things turn out.

CN: Something with microtransaction-based games is there comes a fair point where people who work on them say, "pay attention to what your audience actually does, not what they say they want." I don't know if you've run into this so far, but I'm interested in if you have any perspective on that.

SM: Well, in a lot of ways, that's the next phase of our project. As I said, as your userbase grows, then metrics start to maybe generate some useful information. You're kind of almost getting back into my psychology talk. There's definitely a difference between what people say they want or say they do, and with what they actually do.

But part of the fun of gaming in general is to take on a new persona, to be the king of a civilization. Games give players an opportunity to kind of slip out of their normal persona and explore, experiment with cool new worlds. So, we're really encouraging that. We're really encouraging players to kind of think creatively about who they are, and maybe they're cooler and better than maybe they are in real life.

I might have gotten off topic of your question, but especially in these social multiplayer games, the players themselves provide a lot of the content, a lot of the interest in the chatting, the communication, and the working together. The more we can encourage them and empower them to do things within the game and make the game experience fun for themselves and also other players, that's a win for everybody. That's a big part of our design, to try and provide those opportunities.

 
Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4
 
Top Stories

image
How Kinect's brute force strategy could make Xbox One a success
image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Keeping the simulation dream alive
image
Gearbox's Randy Pitchford on games and gun violence
Comments

Ian Bogost
profile image
Here's a question that seems to sit hidden underneath this interview: is Facebook just a distribution platform atop which games sit, or is it an ecosystem in which games evolve (or devolve)? It seems like Meier thinks the former is the case.



On the one hand it's encouraging to hear Meier say "if we can make a fun game, there will probably be some way for us to monetize that." But on the other hand, it seems like a terribly naive thing to believe, doesn't it? Isn't the very idea of the Facebook platform, to some extent at least, that a particular kind of monetization method is driving considerable aspects of the design process, for better or worse.



It will be interesting to see if a game as well-known and well-regarded as Civ will be able to "break" Facebook, as one breaks a wild horse, turning it into a distribution platform more than a perverted symbiant. But even if it does, is that a replicable act for new work? And do others have the will and desire to make it so?

Justin Nearing
profile image
Facebook as a gaming platform is predominantly the latter, where ecosystems change or evolve. Some of this is forced, such as Facebook changing policies or functionality, while some due to changing trends of the FB population. Either way, successful apps have to keep iterating in order to keep growing.



Monetization has to be baked into gameplay from the very beginning, and Sid is a bit misleading here, because there's been monetization hooks in the game since early beta. I think Firaxis is going to see massive revenue if they can monetize the social ranking of civilizations- if you can pay to be top dog of a civilization, people will do it. 15 minutes of fame, even if its to be king of a facebook game for a day, is very compelling.



Existing/Non-FB-native IP has been proven to be successful on the platform. People see an IP they love/trust, they are more compelled to try the app. Basically, branded IP has an easier time acquiring new users. Will CivWorld "break" facebook? No, Zynga has already done as much trailblazing on the platform as Firaxis could ever hope to achieve, dedicating 110% effort in social networking games.

Dan Robinson
profile image
@Justin You can't pay your way to the top of the leaderboard. For better or worse there are limits to the Civ bucks you can spend to gain an advantage. I agree that Zynga is very successful, but they are not known for making great games.

Adam Bishop
profile image
I've loved the Civ games (except 5) and I was eager to try this out, but when I went to add the app I discovered that I couldn't do so unless I gave it permission to post to my wall. That made me decide against it. Maybe I'm just not the market for this kind of game, but I'm not interested in having a game spam my friends with automated messages. If I think it's good, I can tell them myself.

Dan Robinson
profile image
@Adam You should be able to hide posts from apps in Facebook, even if they have permission to post.



@Ian I don't see how this game lends itself to the kind of monetization we see in most Facebook games. It appears that this game was designed to be the best experience possible for those who visit Facebook. I am very happy that the designer has taken that approach and not tried to shoehorn mechanics designed to separate people from their money. If I were a betting man, I would say that this is the first game that will "break" Facebook.

Carlo Delallana
profile image
Dan, have you played the game? I'm curious to see what folks here think about the initial experience.

Ian Bogost
profile image
I tried but couldn't get it to connect to the server :|

Dan Robinson
profile image
I am having trouble getting in also. I will try again later tonight.

Paul Tozour
profile image
It has potential, but it's kind of an overdesigned mess so far. The UI is very messy, clunky, and generally horrible. There are far, far too many misappropriated / maladapted features from Civ to wrap your head around while you try to learn how to play the game.



And the gameplay so far seems to be mostly waiting for your city to build itself (very slowly) ... so they added bizarre minigames that have nothing to do with the actual game to distract you while you're waiting for your city to get big enough.



It's really strange. Rather than focusing on giving the player something to do while his city is growing (other than mousing over resources), they added an art puzzle minigame ... a choo-choo train minigame ... and an odd little maze.



Having said that, I'm still enjoying it, and it's still head-and-shoulders above a gameplay-free clickfest like Empires & Allies.

Carlo Delallana
profile image
I agree on the overdesign and UI/UX issues. I'm having a hard time reconciling what my experiences are with the game and the gameplay discussed in the interview.

Justin Nearing
profile image
I'd have to agree with everything except for the last line. CivWorld is a hard-to-understand city building game peppered with minigames, E&A is an easy-to-understand city building game peppered with minigames.



The difference is execution, and E&A executes with clear direction to the user on what theyre doing and how to do it. Civ just gives you a city and no explanation of what you're doing.



In the end, I think it comes down to what the goals of each game are: Zynga's goals was to make another FarmVille killer, in this they did a pretty good job. Firaxis was to experiment on Facebook, in this they probably succeeded. However, I don't think users who have never been exposed to Civilization series will have a favourable first impression of the IP.

David Hottal
profile image
I enjoy it. The mini games aren't pointless. They are a way for you to earn science, culture, or gold.



It doesn't seem to be a game that you sit down and play hours straight, but check in and play for 15 min or so.



The co-op aspect is pretty interesting.

Paul Tozour
profile image
> I enjoy it. The mini games aren't pointless.



Well, they're completely unrelated to the game itself. It's a shame the developers couldn't find a way to spend those development resources to the actual game. Especially when that game is in desperate need of some actual gameplay.



> It's pretty lame.



Agreed.

Dan Robinson
profile image
@Paul and D PH Why did you think it was lame? I'm just asking. You both felt like the game missed the mark and I'd like to know how. Were you expecting a more robust Civ experience like a Civ IV?

Paul Tozour
profile image
@Dan: Well, because there's simply no gameplay there.



The core gameplay is, at best, a very weak exercise in city-building that never amounts to anything more, and supported by a very kludgey UI.



It also involves no fewer than three separate minigames as distractions, which are not really entertaining and serve only as a reminder of how little gameplay there is in Civ World itself.



It also has a fairly appalling number of game features that really only complicate matters without adding any gameplay at all.



No, I wasn't expecting something like Civ IV, or any Civ, for that matter. I approached it with an open mind, and I wasn't expecting anything in particular, beyond some level of gameplay.



Give me interesting and meaningful decisions to make, all inside of a single unified gameplay experience that's rich enough to stand on its own without extraneous minigames hacked in.

Dan Robinson
profile image
@Paul Fair enough. Maybe we will see some of these things addressed in the next version/release.

Alberto Fonseca
profile image
I just got started playing it and have to say it's looking like a pretty rough beta so far. One surprising aspect for a Facebook game is how hard it is to actually play with your friends. Unlike Zynga games that at the very start pester you to invite your friends and share on your wall, in Civ you have to wait and play more to earn the right to play with your friends... strange... Maybe I'm not into it far enough but it feels like a single player experience so far, and oh yea, there's a bunch of other people playing online too but they're not my friends. ;)

Dan Robinson
profile image
@Alberto I am having trouble understanding how to play with other people as well. However, I am enjoying the game. It seems like a Facebook version of Civilization Revolution. You can buy "Civ bucks" to gain resources faster, but these are not forced upon you. They are introduced in a tutorial that you can skip.



So far it seems like a very Civ-like experience. I am eager to hear what Ian thinks once he gets a chance to log in.

David Hottal
profile image
You join a civilization with your friends, or against them.



You have to play a little at first and then it gives you the option of joining a civilization or starting a new one.

Thanh Nguyen
profile image
@Alberto: You join a certain Zynga game and wanna make more friends because more friends is more action points, more rewards... but, it's not true-friends, there are very few cooperative tasks those we like to join (all we need to do is to gift and gift more items...) . We have about 1k friends, who we never connect, after joining some Zynga games.



But in CivWorld, If you wanna win the game, reach to new contents of game, you should work together, although your cooperators are only in-game-friends.



Please think about, "How do we work together" in CivWorld and Zynga games. It's quite different when taking Civworld beside Zynga games. CivWorld has a clearly goal (I mean a clear end-game) but Zynga games haven't.



Play more and hope you won't think CivWorld is a game for playing individually anymore. CivWorld's experience = More friendship more power, win the game faster.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech