Re: [Freeciv-Dev] No palace !

[Pedro Timoteo <deh@xxxxx>]

Alexandre BERAUD wrote:
> 
> >> No ! No ! And no again ! :o)
> >> Freeciv is not a game !
> >
> >Yes, it IS. It was always supposed to be.
> >It's not a "software toy" like Maxis' Sim* series, which pretended to be
> >"simulations" and thus had no clear aim.
> 
> No it isn't ! Reducing Freeciv to a simple game with scores and
> bonuses and so on would make Freeciv simply a good game, but no legend !

You and I seem to have different concepts of "game". 
A game is supposed to be "fun", entertaining, and have an aim. Having
scores or not is irrelevant.

Civ 1, Civ 2, Railroad Tycoon, Alpha Centauri and such are games.

SimCity is "kind of" a game.

SimEarth, SimLife, etc. are not games, they're "software toys". They're
like "here's your world, now experiment".
I'm not saying they're not interesting, they certainly are, but in a
different way.

I'm not explaining the difference very well, perhaps someone will do it
better. :) 
But the point is that the Microprose Civs are *games*. And not because they
give you a score at the end. You may want Freeciv to be something
different, and that's OK with me, but to do that you have to deviate from
the Civs, and I think you people wanted to "emulate" them perfectly before
moving on to improve on them, right?

> Alexandre BERAUD :o)
> (I think we'll have to ask Sid Meyer)

I remember him saying once that the most important thing for him in a game
was that it should be fun, that it was more important than being, for
example, realistic, or having good graphics.

Bye!