I think it would be very frustrating to spend lots of hours building up your civilization and then loose because of an error you made in the beginning. But I supose that if the game is fun to play and not impossible to win (even for newbes to that game) it could be a great challenge for everybody.
A huge part of the succes of Commandos for example relies on the difficulty of some levels, so if you''re able to write a game that''s challenging but not frustrating... why not?

What would be the purpose of such rigorous emphasis on continuous action?

I don''t think you can compare turn-based strategy to real-time game systems. Your actions in Civ need not be instantenous in terms of the time you spend on the game - you may want to survey the map before sending the settler unit in some direction, you may want to check help on some aspect of the game... If you were to make Civilization a RT game, it would be very difficult to implement all the options you have in such a way that they are readily accessible... And so on, so on...

An example of a game that utilized the exactly opposite idea (you could ignore the main task for how long you wished) was Daggerfall. Despite of its numerous bugs, I have the impression that it is generally regarded as one of the best CRPGs ever made. The reason for it is the very freedom offered to the player. (actually, before Daggerfall there was this little game called "Darklands" that did the same, but I am not sure how many people have played it - you can find it among other sites at http://www.theunderdogs.org/game.php?id=278)

Not to digress to much, I guess the most important question is what purpose would such requirement make (you certainly could restrict plot branching with it, but I don''t think it would have been appreciated)...

Lukasz

Heh. I guess it would all come down to how well you implement that concept. I believe there''s some PSX2 or DC game that''s already done similar thing (sorry, not big on titles) and got it working well - saw it in a History Channel documentary on computer games. Apparently the world was sufficiently well simulated that the player''s previous actions and independent variables (such as time of the day) determined acessability to certain characters or possibility of plot advancement...

I guess I''m just biased - I prefer games where you have a number of options through which complete a particular task. Needless to say, there are not a lot of adventure games that I like *grin*
As far as FPSs go... eew! Unless we are talking about a frag fest with no plot whatsoever

Still, if I were to play a game where time makes the difference, I would expect there to be ways of winning the game even if I failed to complete certain tasks... Of course now the question is how branched you can allow the plot to become...

Lukasz



I knows der earth is flat. Dere's basically books about dat!


So's I heard.

I think, therefore I think that I am? I think...

Hey Civguy. I know just what you''re talking about. My early Civ games usually ended up with American or Chinese or Zulu ironclads taking out my triremes!!!!

One issue to think about: positional awareness. In Civ, because of the gameplay and user interface, you can gain a lot of info on what''s happening in the world. Take the most simple indicator of most 4X: The power graph. In a game like Civ it''s important to be powerful, and even though you may not have met another Civ you can generally get an indicator of how puny or awesome you are in comparison.

What''s the FPS equivalent of this you might use? If you''re failing, you should __AT ALL TIMES__ be able to tell that you''re failing. Otherwise, there''s no way to know you need to do better. Now, __HOW__ you do better is a matter of practice and strategy, and is something you can learn over time (just like in Civ).

I''m not sure what you''d use, though, but since it''s an FPS I''d recommend something that''s always on the screen and easy to see (like a healthbar, or something).

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...