Civilization 5 Announced

[v8mark]

Serdoa, this is the kind of post I am referring to:

Originally Posted by Sullla
I don't see any way to solve this problem, because happiness is literally the fundamental game mechanic underlying Civ5. If you tighten it further to discourage city spamming, it will make the game all but unplayable for the large majority who aren't using this strategy and don't know how to manage happiness. Tweaking numbers isn't going to change this. You would need a complete rewrite of the game's whole economy, and that's not coming in a patch.

This in my view is coming close to saying Civ5 cannot be fixed, for the enjoyment of hardcore players such as the RB community. I feel that making such a statement, without even seeing what Firaxis plans to do, is premature.

Yes, but it's a perfectly legitimate opinion, complete with reasoning. He's saying that because global happiness is the direct cause of the problem, and that this was one of the 'core' features that Firaxis are extremely unlikely to change in a patch, the prospects are bleak.

You may or may not agree with this, but it's a legitimate opinion, and not one that's been thought out illogically or for any reason other than to provide an analysis of the game. If, on the other hand, you're suggesting Sullla has another motive for this opinion, I think you're wrong.

It is also not, in my opinion, uncivil. It's on the blunt side of average, and it doesn't use euphemisms, but the language is not overtly harsh. There's a noticeable thread throughout Sullla's writing of frustration, but frankly, I think it's justified, and it's certainly accurate in portraying many people's feelings towards a game they've just spent £40/$60 on. He also goes out of his way to avoid directly attacking Firaxis or other players who enjoy the game. I think it's wrong to suggest he has any moral obligations aside from those.

In short, I want to read an accurate report as to the merits and failings of Civ5, which I am confident has been provided. Of course, it's just my opinion, and of course, people can interpret things in different ways, particularly when it comes to the written word on the internet.

[lossofmercy]

Have I asked anyone to stop discussing things? No

Don't take it so defensively man! I am just saying that there is a lot of great things that the players have analyzed for us and their content has been very valuable. And for a content this good, I wouldn't even worry about "the mood."

I just find the prevalent mood here has been more unhelpful than helpful, and think it would be in everyone's best interest to remain critical about the game but present those criticisms in a more constructive fashion.

Why? Besides that, who are you trying to help? What should it be helpful towards? Why are you trying to help them?

I think we can all be adults here, dealing with positive and negative criticism is part of being one. What does positive criticism actually do in this case? Its not like Sulla has direct relationship with the patching team. As for me, I think the overall attitude has been very helpful--to me. And should be to Firaxis too, they get a free player-tester base giving deep and insightful feedback.

This in my view is coming close to saying Civ5 cannot be fixed, for the enjoyment of hardcore players such as the RB community. I feel that making such a statement, without even seeing what Firaxis plans to do, is premature.

If Firaxis is actually able to solve these problems, then good for them and the thinking people here will re-evaluate their opinion of the game. But, it is of Sulla's opinion that fixing this will be really difficult, or even impossible. That means fixing the game will be more difficult than a one man team. If you want to focus on the positive, you should be the one trying to say how this can be fixed. You should showcase why Sulla's opinion is not only incorrect, but very possible to fix. As for me, I can understand his position and I cannot think of a good solution to it either.

Sulla can be proven wrong, he is no god after all. But ending every opinion with "I could be wrong, I am no god" makes it sound lame doesn't it? And just trying to focus on the positive is, let us be honest, a bit wimpy.

[sunrise089]

Commenting on the "doom and gloom" and "is the game fixable" discussion...

I've been quite the critical of Civ5. I think the game is an embarrassment, certain members of the dev team with oversight authority should be ashamed of themselves, non-paid testers were just a bunch of yes-men, and that it's not fun to play in the current version.

That said, I certainly think the game can be improved upon and fixed. Lots and lots of suggestions in this thread, not to mention at the larger sites, give examples of how to do that. Of course we can speculate about how much Firaxis will actually change and improve, but potential is certainly there. Not because the base game is well thought out, but because with computer programs you can change pretty much anything with enough effort, and I can't say for a fact that such effort won't be applied.

The intense criticism of the publisher is separate from the evaluation of the game IMHO. Let's say the core mechanics of Civ5 were just outstanding. We still have a rushed release with save game incompatibilities, all sorts of documentation errors, a quarter of the buildings and improvements in the game not working as advertised, ROP rape, infinite horses, broken research agreements, etc. Imagine if when Gran Tourismo 5 finally comes out only the Nissan GTR is drivable. Everything else doesn't work. I don't care how good of a driving simulation the game is, it obviously should not have been released. The anger and, to be frank, bafflement, comes from how obvious the bugs and mistakes are. As has been said time and time again, Firaxis took our $50+ after either having testers who were absolutely incompetent, testers completely corrupted by devs who couldn't handle criticism, or devs who just plain didn't give a sh*t about the problems.

And, the best thing in response an insider like Sirian can tell us is that there was significant release date pressure. Now aside from the reality that Firaxis could have spent more resources or worked harder to make a release date (aka not firing lots of staff a few months out), I do understand that release date pressure if a major issue in the game industry. But imagine it anywhere else. Do we find best selling books not run through one round of edits? What about motion pictures with placeholder special effects? CDs with non-mixed and mastered audio? And, if we did get one of those things after paying full price, would a promise that the product would eventually be fixed and sent to us really allay the criticism?
_______

Side issue, on the idea of an updated Civ4. I mentioned in a post here a few years ago that I'd personally pay expansion pack money for a nice new high-res graphical skin of Civ4. Sirian has said that one of the goals of the devs was the make the game more polished, pretty, and accessible. I DO think there was a way to StarCraft II-ize Civ4 without falling into the same trap of too much repetition. First, do the stuff Firaxis wanted to do with Civ5 - new graphical skin, slick art-deco menus and buttons, vastly improved automation interface with new defaults. Add hexes if it's really important. Then add the sort of changes introduced in FFH - ranged units, new combat systems, a larger variety of unique and semi-unique units. Then add city states if you want. Remove religion. Add social policies. But keep the core and workable happiness, economic, and tile improvement systems.

To me that's a pretty darn good game.

[Amelia]

What strikes me the most is that comparing Civ5 and FFH, comparing it based upon gameplay only (not on fantasy / realistically), it seems that FFH did a better job of becoming Civ4's sequel rather then Civ5.

Admittedly Civ5 tries to be unique, so they have a slightly harder job, but i think if both Civ5 and FFH2 were sold on the market at the same price, bearing the title "A new title of Civilization", FFH2 would get more sales then Civ5.

[CaptSAH]

Firaxis took our $50+ after either having testers who were absolutely incompetent, testers completely corrupted by devs who couldn't handle criticism, or devs who just plain didn't give a sh*t about the problems.

And, the best thing in response an insider like Sirian can tell us is that there was significant release date pressure.

Working inside the software/computer development industry, I can tell you that Sirian's explanation makes perfect sense. The poor design decisions made with this game are another matter, but the straight-up bugs in this game (and the weak documentation, etc.) just screams rush-job.

Rest assured that there were scads of meetings with testers where these bugs and issues were raised and simply ignored by the powers-that-be. Trust me. I've been there. And it's usually not the developers that "didn't give a #!$@"... it's the bean-counters running the show from on high. They set a "marketing window" and had deals in place to ship on that date... and by jingo they were determined to hit that date come hell or high water. So long as the game didn't crash your system and erase your hard drive, it was going to ship on that date.

It's an incredibly short-sighted move. Firaxis still earned a good pay-day from this move thanks to all the suckers (like me) who ponied up the cash on release day. Firaxis will pay, pay, PAY for this mistake the next time they release something of this sort (Fool me once....). But by then, the executives who made this call will have already moved on to some other position where they can make yet another quick cash play while ruining reputations and mortgaging the future. The testers and other folks who tried to actually do the right thing will be left holding the bag and trying to clean up the mess.

And people wonder why PC gaming is struggling......

SAH

[Speaker]

Rest assured that there were scads of meetings with testers where these bugs and issues were raised and simply ignored by the powers-that-be. Trust me. I've been there. And it's usually not the developers that "didn't give a #!$@"... it's the bean-counters running the show from on high. They set a "marketing window" and had deals in place to ship on that date... and by jingo they were determined to hit that date come hell or high water. So long as the game didn't crash your system and erase your hard drive, it was going to ship on that date.

I understand what you are saying, but I would be willing to bet good money that in this particular case, with these beta testers and this developer, that no such meetings or posts (Civ beta testing comments take place on a web forum) ever took place.

[TheArchduke]

Rest assured that the executive pipeline (Yup, the Economist had that word) will ruin more companies and other industries. Why anyone thinks having a manager position for only 6-12 months is a good idea for a company is beyond me.

[Txurce]

Math is an art...

The most important point here is that Civilization 4 cultural victories provide a lot of intellectual challenges. There is, after you have deciphered the code, some degree of just following the script about it, but the same could be said about Chess, so that's hardly a surprise. Fiddling by yourself with the tech tree and trying to find the best way to get to 3x50k is quite the puzzle, and even has a decent dependency on the map you are dealt...

There seems to be very little choice here. Build a monster capital, focused on production and a few artists, and build absolutely everything in it. Puppet everything you find, ally as many city states as you can. Chosing a proper tech order might be of importance. Press end turn alot. I would love to get behind the scenes on this and find the true payoffs and analysis and micromanagement, but I can't quite find it. It all looks very, very straightforward, and I'm afraid my last cultural victory is going to play out it pretty much exactly the same way as my first.

Excellent summation - with one quibble. In chess, following a script and winning most of the time doesn't happen, because the human mind (and chess computers!) are much too complex. This is why psychology is such a major weapon in a chess player's arsenal. In Civ I feel that once you solve a puzzle optimally, you've pretty much solved it. Which is why math is a devastating analytical tool... but not an art, no matter how much beauty one may see in its functions.

[Zed-F]

In short, I want to read an accurate report as to the merits and failings of Civ5, which I am confident has been provided. Of course, it's just my opinion, and of course, people can interpret things in different ways, particularly when it comes to the written word on the internet.

Absolutely people can interpret the written word in different ways on the Internet, and Sulla's statement is certainly open to the interpretation that the game will never be fixed.

I would have been very prepared to agree with a statement that the game would require a lot of effort on Firaxis's part to fix -- Sirian said so much himself -- but that is a far cry, in my view, from impossible.

I can understand why some people might find the distinction to be not worth making. However, I have seen what a good development company can do with a game (Sword of the Stars) that was released with more than a few warts, due to being an indie developer with limited pocketbooks -- but with a strong commitment to post-release support. At the time the game was released I saw unrealized potential and was not disappointed by events that followed. Sword of the Stars has gotten a lot more attention as time has gone on, and for good reason.

I'm not yet prepared to say the same could not happen again with Civ5, despite core game mechanics that may seem more detrimental than helpful at this time. Especially since the game is designed to be heavily moddable, I would be quite surprised if no workarounds could be found that would at least improve matters. And given that Firaxis has been willing to make bold changes thus far, why assume they won't be willing to make bold changes in patches or expansions?

Hopefully they will make better bold changes next time, though!

[uberfish]

What strikes me the most is that comparing Civ5 and FFH, comparing it based upon gameplay only (not on fantasy / realistically), it seems that FFH did a better job of becoming Civ4's sequel rather then Civ5.

Admittedly Civ5 tries to be unique, so they have a slightly harder job, but i think if both Civ5 and FFH2 were sold on the market at the same price, bearing the title "A new title of Civilization", FFH2 would get more sales then Civ5.

FFH and civ5 actually go in opposite directions. FFH adds layers of complexity on top of an already very complex base game to the point where it's impossible to balance the game except by trying to give every civ some broken things to do (some are more broken than others.) Civ5 tries to peel some of the layers off to make the game more accessible and cut down on city micromanagement while retaining the core feel of the game. I guess it will only be clear if the design was truly successful after they've finished patching it.