Civilization 5 Announced

[sunrise089]

That's not the problem. The problem is that the developers didn't listen to all the suggestions made.

I've said this before, but it's been a while - the testers get no pass from me unless they're writing articles like Imhotep or Sullla have been. I view it like members of a murderous cult. If you want me to not blame you as a former cult member, because you're claiming you were there against your will or that you didn't understand the immortal nature of your actions, you need to have some remorse now. Too many of the testers I've seen have either been defensive or silent.

@Sullla - I don't know how I missed the "5 open questions," "what went wrong?," and "NewCiv" articles, but those were outstanding reads!

[Sullla]

Not just defensive, the Apolyton people who were in the test group were outright apologetic about Civ5. I have been a convenient target of attack for many; this thread is a good example of that (rah, jobe, notyoueither, Ming, all in the test group). Or how about this full-on defense of Civ5, prominently featured on Apolyton's front page at the time, with more of the test group members lining up in the comments to sing the game's praises. Or Sirian's comments in this own thread, telling us not to judge Civ5 until it went through the patching process. (Apologies Sirian, but it's been 5 months now, and the game's not really any better!)

I didn't see a single person on that list of names who criticized Civ5 at release. They all told us it was great (many have since changed their opinion!) I'm in total agreement with sunrise: they are also complicit in the game's faults. "They didn't listen to us" is a weak excuse, even if true.

There sure is a lot of passing the buck with Civ5, eh? Testers blame the devs. Devs blame the publisher. Publisher probably blames financials. Jon Shafer leaves town as soon as the first patch comes out. Doesn't inspire too much confidence...

[TheArchduke]

I disagree about testers being complicit. There is only so much you can do. There is a difference between testers going apologetic about a game upon release or saying: "They did not listen to us."

The second thing happens and happened to me during the beta testing of a Paradox Game. You are an unpaid beta tester after all and can only create a "This game is not finished or ready" thread in a beta forum.

Trying to defend a bad game that came out, sucks though. And being silent is not being complicit. I am not sure how Firaxis handles it, but you sign a NDA for a reason.

[Imhotep]

Don't forget one thing about the testers: they have signed a contract with Firaxis that forbids them to talk about the development process. There is a fine line between saying that something went wrong in the development and actually disclosing material protected by the contact.

I'm a lawyer, and if I were a tester I'd rather remain silent now too. I wouldn't be surprised if Firaxis sued one of them if he explicitly talked about the development process. The testers I know at least never said Civ V was a great game.

I have pity for the testers. So much pain for so little gain. Not even a game you could be proud of having taken part in the making.

[luddite]

Sorry, I don't buy that. Yes, it's true that Take-Two is one of the worst publishers out there in gaming. At the same time, the developer is ultimately responsible for the games that they produce. If Sid or whoever is in charge knows that Take-Two is going to milk the name value of their product and turn it into a cash cow, then it's his obligation to move to another publisher before the franchise is destroyed.

On top of that, it's not like this is a new revelation: Firaxis has been with Take-Two for many years now. And it begs the question: when was the last good game that Firaxis actually produced? Civ4, I guess (?) It seems to me like they've been churning out a series of mediocre to bad games for years now, relying on name value and nostalgia for sales:

Railroads!
Civ City: Rome
Civ Colonization
Civ Revolution
Civilization 5

That's pretty much all of the classical Sid Meier strategy series there, between Civilization and Colonization and Railroad Tycoon. (And they already remade Pirates! too a little earlier.) One bad game, OK, maybe the publisher forced it out the door early or something. But when you have a consistent track record of subpar games over the past five years, I think it's time to look at the developer instead.

Firaxis games have moved from my "must buy" list onto my "approach with heavy skepticism" list. They sure don't get the benefit of the doubt from me anymore...

Looking at their wikipedia page now, it looks like Take-Two games bought Firaxis just two weeks after the release of Civ 4. That was really the last great game that Firaxis has made, because I don't consider the Civ 4 expansions nearly as good as the base game. And since Take-Two bought the company, they don't have a choice- they HAVE to continue with Take-Two, even if Sid and the other founders hate it.

Not to let Firaxis off the hook- after all, it's hardly the same company that it was when they made civ 4. Most notably Soren Johnson is gone, but it seems like almost everyone that worked on civ 4 is gone now. It's a totally different group of people, the only thing in common is the company logo.

For the testers, I'm reminded of the quote "it is difficult for a man to understand that which his paycheck depends upon him not understanding". These people were paid by Firaxis/Take-Two, and probably would like to get jobs with them again in the future. So they have a very clear financial interest in praising the game, especially after putting so much effort into working on it. And I think history shows what a powerful brainwashing effect that can have on someone.

This might sound crazy but... what if RB developed its own strategy game? There's certainly enough experienced gamers here to know what works, and it seems there's plenty of talented programmers here as well. People here are doing their own mods of Civ 4, Master of Orion, and Master of Magic. Why not an original game? The graphics might be a problem, but if it's just a 2D TBS strategy game then the graphics work would be minimal.

[MJW (ya that one)]

I wonder if Sulla really read that Apolyton thread. The only player that really questioned ICS was Ming (and he implied it was one of the many strats that can crush the AI). NotYouEither made a post about saving social polices might be the problem but that really is nothing. No one said anything bad about you.

The Frankies are defensive about the game but they never attacked you in that thread. It is possible they attacked you in a different thread.

Sullla Mod edit: You're correct. I was probably thinking of this thread instead.

Edit: You are only talked about once in that thread (search for sulla and sullla) and that was when Krill forcibly dragged you in and NotYouEther got defense for one post. I do think Dale attacked you very hard (on CFC where you post. he likes directly confronting people). Ming and Notyouether might have attacked you in a different thread in passing when someone dragged you in.

[Gaspar]

I don't read the Civ forums nearly as much as I used to, but I distinctly recall Dale (who was a tester) popping up and jumping all over Sullla every opportunity he got on CFC. That got me curious enough that I checked out his site and noticed snide comment after snide comment about anyone who dared criticize the game.

I've been under NDA before, never for Firaxis, but for other products. There's certainly no clause in it that says you must defend/never criticize the product once it comes out. Sure, it may reduce your chances of getting picked again, but if they're putting out garbage, do you really want serve as a tester for them again? So maybe they can't talk in public about what they said in the testing process, but 1 or 2 testers admitting the game was weak upon release would have made me a whole lot more confident that they did the job necessary. As far as Sirian, I'd be a lot less ready to blame him for his stance, that's his livelihood right now. I have mountains of negative things to say about the company I work for, but there's absolutely nothing you're going to do to get me to say anything about that publicly, because there are bills to pay.

Bottom line, when a company puts out a game that spits in the face of its long-term fans to the degree that this one does, there's blame to go all around: Take-Two, Firaxis, Shafer, the design team, the testers. I sort of concur with Sullla though - if we want to place the blame at any one person over the others, then whoever's running the show for Firaxis these days gets the top of the chart. Take-Two is wretched, but Firaxis can always move to a new publisher, they certainly had enough name cache before they pissed all over it the last 3-4 years.

[joncnunn]

Ok: then my critiscm is against management then for the items on the list that the testers had caught but management had not fixed. (From the outside it's not clear which items testers caught but management vetoed and which weren't caught at all) But I'm mostly referring to issues that would also have shown up in single player games.

On happiness: I think the math part was dealt with. But in actual practice the AI doesn't seem to go after the Piety branch. (If I had the happiness bonuses the AI gets I wouldn't open that branch either unless I'd already decided to win via culture.)

That's not the problem. The problem is that the developers didn't listen to all the suggestions made. The most sad part is that the people involved in development - apart from the testers and Jon Shafer - still think they did a good job and made a great game.

@happiness limits:

Does this mean that the AI - if it manages to build the Forbidden Palace and adopts Theocracy - doesn't have to deal with happiness issues at all? That at least would explain why Darius seems to perform better than others most times...

[sunrise089]

I disagree about testers being complicit. There is only so much you can do.

One thing they can do is quit testing when they realize the devs are too stupid to realize the game has major issues. Another thing, less severe, is to call the game as they see it upon release. A third thing, less severe still, is to at least not post flattering or complimentary about the game or the developers.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I remain convinced someone saying "just wait for the patch, things will be great!" is pretty darn complicit.

Don't forget one thing about the testers: they have signed a contract with Firaxis that forbids them to talk about the development process....I wouldn't be surprised if Firaxis sued one of them if he explicitly talked about the development process.

Sued for what damages? They're going to send a legal team to sue a college student who owns a used Toyota Corolla and an iPod?

Plus, as you say, NDAs prohibit people from talking about development. Fine, don't talk a bit about develop. Only talk about the quality of the retail product upon release. Do these NDAs prohibit people from sharing an opinion of the finished product? If so they what about the people who has positive things to say?

EDIT: Thanks Gaspar for confirming my suspicions.

Look, I'd guess 90% of the tester defense of Civ V can be attributed to two things: a financial interest in Firaxis, or a desire to brag about how you're a tester and have this leet insider access. Yes, there's a basic human tendency to circle the wagons and defend the folks you've worked closely with, but that doesn't explain the split between people who made it clear they have no interest in working with Firaxis under the current management regime and those who are happy to keep humming along.

Most of the RB crowd is pretty old in video games terms. Most of us have real jobs or are enrolled in higher education with good prospects. But I bet most of us would be flattered to be invited to an exclusive testing club. We'd (or at least I) would feel important and recognized, and would feel a little bit more special than those not in the club. But if testing sucked, if no one listened to us, if the finished product wasn't going to be something we'd be proud of, some or most of us would leave or at least not agree to test further games under the same set of circumstances. Those who stayed, in order to remain part of the club and feel special, would be entitled to do so. But I'd be entitled to notice that they sold out their integrity in the process.

[ThERat]

Nice, interesting discussion here

I think at this stage, even the hardcore defenders of this game have to admit that it is as dead as it can be.

There is hardly any activity in forums. Only the german forum civforum.de seems to have supporters of the game. The rest has simply given up, thrown the game into a corner, never touched it since months.
Even Civ 3 is far more active. A game that's 10 years old.

The game only deserves indifference, but it is really hard to swallow for us fanatics. We all wish it would be a better game or someone would actually work on it to improve it.

I got really frustrated with the 'defender' crowd, that tried to defend every stupid design decision. If only they had at least kept their mouth shut.