Civilization 5 Announced

[Txurce]

I'm not a programmer, but I think I see a pattern.

The various Civ5 beta-testers here and on Apolyton seem to like the new game while consistently seeing its faults, and are optimistic about its steady improvement in the future.

The various Civ4 beta-testers on this site have expressed steady derision toward most aspects of the game, and aspersions regarding the integrity of the Civ5 beta-testers (never mind their competence).

Rather than question if the Civ5 testers have been bought off, I wonder if there's any resentment on the part of at least some of the Civ4 testers for possibly not being invited to the party... and jealousy regarding Jon Shafer (a peer, right?) being given the opportunity of a lifetime.

[Speaker]

I'm not a programmer, but I think I see a pattern.

The various Civ5 beta-testers here and on Apolyton seem to like the new game while consistently seeing its faults, and are optimistic about its steady improvement in the future.

The various Civ4 beta-testers on this site have expressed steady derision toward most aspects of the game, and aspersions regarding the integrity of the Civ5 beta-testers (never mind their competence).

Rather than question if the Civ5 testers have been bought off, I wonder if there's any resentment on the part of at least some of the Civ4 testers for possibly not being invited to the party... and jealousy regarding Jon Shafer (a peer, right?) being given the opportunity of a lifetime.

I had the opportunity to be a beta tester for Civ5 and decided not to. But nice guess.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

I had the opportunity to be a beta tester for Civ5 and decided not to. But nice guess.

OK, so Speaker doesn't get to complain anymore. He could've fixed it.

[Atlas]

I'm not a programmer, but I think I see a pattern.

The various Civ5 beta-testers here and on Apolyton seem to like the new game while consistently seeing its faults, and are optimistic about its steady improvement in the future.

The various Civ4 beta-testers on this site have expressed steady derision toward most aspects of the game, and aspersions regarding the integrity of the Civ5 beta-testers (never mind their competence).

Rather than question if the Civ5 testers have been bought off, I wonder if there's any resentment on the part of at least some of the Civ4 testers for possibly not being invited to the party... and jealousy regarding Jon Shafer (a peer, right?) being given the opportunity of a lifetime.

Nice try, actually Civ4 beta testers can provide insight into the process that others not be able to. They have seen how the "thought" (sometimes thoughtfull, sometimes thoughtless) process behind how the decisions are made.

Ask a Civ4 beta tester about collateral damage, you will get an earful!!!!

[Aretii]

I enjoy Civ V quite a bit. I just wish the AI were better at the game. Not the tactics of war and movement, I can accept it will be terrible there because of 1UPT. But at basic stuff like teching, expanding, managing happiness resources, exploring, and managing city-states. They consistently waste their time on wonders in the early game when they should be making more workers and settlers. In the Emperor game I just finished, I won a Diplo victory in 1808, and Hiawatha still had two cities. Two! It was an Archipelago, there was loads of unclaimed land. Two! What was he doing all game?! Alexander hit the Renaissance two turns before I entered the Modern Era. On Emperor! Furthermore, part of the hullabaloo over city-states is attributable to the fact that the AI doesn't know how to deal with them. I managed to run the table on the Maritime city-states (lol gg) and none of the AIs contested that at all. The most allies anyone else had was one. I had nine.

Now, I actually am growing more and more appreciative of the diplomatic side of the game. The AIs were very willing to be friends at the beginning of the game. I expanded aggressively into territory that by rights should have been Germany's or the Iroquois Confederacy's, a dream of a city with fish, pearls, whales, three sheep, and iron, all in first or second ring, then nabbed an even better city an island or two past it (AI are awful at expanding/exploring on Archipelago). Relations cooled with Hiawatha and Bismarck, and then Bismarck created a coalition against me when I allied with a city-state that was in his sphere of influence and started doing much better on the demographics. That was cool. Getting ganged up on as I did better was cool. Having Germany execute a drop on my border city as Babylon and Turkey tore up my fishing nets was cool. Bismarck faking me out by signing a research agreement two turns before he invaded was very cool (though I still got the tech - I dearly hope that the people who break the agreement by invading do not). The AI not knowing how to siege anything (they didn't even pillage my resources!) was less cool, but, as I said, I'm willing to make tactical allowances.

I still like this game, but I'm uncomfortable with the fact that I'm moving up to Immortal so soon. I really hope that they help the AI get smarter at the basics of Civ, or the SP value will be very short-lived. I don't like knocking on the doors of Deity within three games of playing.

[sunrise089]

I'm not a programmer, but I think I see a pattern.

The various Civ5 beta-testers here and on Apolyton seem to like the new game while consistently seeing its faults, and are optimistic about its steady improvement in the future.

The various Civ4 beta-testers on this site have expressed steady derision toward most aspects of the game, and aspersions regarding the integrity of the Civ5 beta-testers (never mind their competence).

Rather than question if the Civ5 testers have been bought off, I wonder if there's any resentment on the part of at least some of the Civ4 testers for possibly not being invited to the party... and jealousy regarding Jon Shafer (a peer, right?) being given the opportunity of a lifetime.

Krill on logical fallacies in 3..2..1..

Aside from that, the argument doesn't hold up. First, some Civ4 testers had an opportunity to work on Civ5 and turned it down, as was reported above. Second, the Civ4 testers were more than willing to discuss problems with the various iterations of that game, even right after release. The fact that doing so did correlate with not being invited back seems like more support for the Civ5 tester critique.

Plus, I think you're misstating the incentives here. Is it human nature for non-testers to be jealous of testers? In broad terms, sure. But the incentives are much stronger the other way. Testers receive financial and other compensation from the developers. Plus they devoted a lot of time to a project. They're way more likely to soften their criticism and view things through rose colored glasses than we are to be unfairly harsh.

Lastly, remember that people like darrell, kylearan, and myself were not testers for either game. If we're only looking at incentives, what conclusion seems most likely from:

*Civ4 testers = critical
*Non-testers (both here and on the main forums) = critical
*Civ5 testers = complimentary
*Advertising-dependent game websites = complimentary

[Krill]

Oh goody, I wasn't asked to be a beta tester, that means everything I say sticks.

Civ5 cannot draw on these resources from Civ4 because the 1UPT gameboard obsoletes and nullifies any lessons learned under the old game mechanics.

This I have to disagree with.Which lessons? Those about diplomacy? Those about economic growth, or tile improvements? Even those about sentry nets and the importance of reaction time when you have 5 move horses running about out of the FoW? 1upt is how C4 gets played for the first 50 turns, to a close approximation at least. Sure, (your) comments about the AI are fair, but civ isn't about how to make the best possible AI ever, it is about making the best possible AI for the game.

And the testers should have been showing how to play the game. Has anyone seen that you can still warrior rush in this game? I just did it on Emperor, could have taken peace for 236 gold, enough to start the whole maritime CS gig. Instead went for the kill with 1 archer supporting and knock out America. Guess what? Unhappy with 4 pop and 2 cities when I annexed the city.

Instead of teaching an AI to not die, just make it a bad idea to rush. Choking works but costs so much production it is rarely beneficial unless you steal workers - you know what, I think I just realized why the AI sucks at protecting workers. because if it didn't, there would be absolutely no point in any warfare before turn 70.

And congratulations. I'm surprised you had the time to find her.

[Yazilliclick]

I had the opportunity to be a beta tester for Civ5 and decided not to. But nice guess.

Ah so you're to blame!

[Txurce]

Sunrise089, Atlas, Speaker,

If none of what I surmised applies to anyone here – great!

I agree that Civ4 testers can provide unique insight into the process, and that they are free to cross lines that Civ5 testers cannot. Whether crossing those lines is essential to having a substantive conversation – as opposed to “this game blows” – is another matter. I don’t really care whether anyone in particular votes yea or nay on the game. But when addressing specifics, I’ve found the Civ5 testers to be straightforward and often critical.

[Sareln]

Hey, it's a Sirian! Glad to hear about your adventures in development.

I'm holding off on CiV for a brief moment to get out of the pre-order/1st week sales numbers statistic... that and the term just started :neenernee