Shafer looking back at CIV5

[darrelljs]

<Krill>
Anyone willing to pay to be a beta tester is too stupid to do it well.
</Krill>

Darrell

[Ceiliazul]

Lol at Darrell.

[Krill]

Beta and Alpha testing have one key attribute: communication. Everyone involved needs to be able to explain the problem. Finding a solution is not necessarily needed, though in alpha testing it's generally a plus to give a range of possible solutions along with the effects of each. The developer then has to slog through all of the those problems, catalogue them, fix them, and in certain cases redesign whole systems. In an alpha test, it's about breaking the game and finding flaws in the game play, and generally putting up with the bugs whilst they get fixed (there are always bugs). What the developer doesn't need is 10 times as many people saying they don't like the implementation for X Y and Z reasons, most of which they don't fully understand.

You don't need many alpha testers to have a good group. What is needed is actually a good understanding of the production aims, patience, great communication and ability to fit into what is effectively a new web community, and understanding of general strategy game mechanics. And not many people have all of those, plus adding in any random Tom, Dick and Harry can really fuck up the community vibe and make communication about game problems and potential fixes difficult. Alpha testers can and do affect the game mechanics in quite striking ways: As much as Soren is lauded for the balance in CIV, without Aeson we'd have been lucky to have BtS as polished as version 1.00 of vanilla, due to the amount of balancing work he was involved in. I don't think it's an understatement to say he helped balance every single mechanic, or explained why it was balanced the way it was when others were unsure.

But it depends what the aims of a beta test are, as to the number of people required. If it is to stress test the game and find bugs, then you want as many people as possible to play it for you and report the bugs. The resources put to a beta test are wasted if you don't get those reports. I think it's generally better to use an alpha test of individual whose communication and game skills you know are good to break the game, and find the general bugs in the system then, and afterwards you have a generally functional game whom you want to expand out to more people to ensure you got rid of all the bugs you can find prior to release.

One way to expand the system is to co-opt whole communities that are stable (ie small websites) rather than have random people, but having people pay to beta test isn't the worst thing in the world as it does mean they are not draining your resources. And as they are likely the more enthusiastic people, they will see the game when they have to expect it to be buggy, become indoctrinated to an extent, and won't be pissed off if the game is released with a few bugs: in fact, look at what the Civ 5 testers were like.

[AutomatedTeller]

No MP, huh. A disappointment for me with any strategy game.

The weird vibe comes from being on kickstarter. He wants people to believe in him. So he admits mistakes and promises to do better. Very canid, surreal self-analysis.

Thanks for posting.

On 1UPT.
" As I touched upon earlier, ATG is designed to be a strategy title which takes place primarily at the strategic level, rather than the tactical."

CIV is a tactical game? Ouch..

that was exactly what jumped out at me. No wonder CivV was disliked - it was, apparently, a tactical game when people wanted grand strategy!!

[Sian]

... saying Grand Strategy and I'm starting to look after Europe Universalis, Victoria and Heart of Iron ... not Civ (in any shape or form)

Schematics aside .... argeed

[Sareln]

... saying Grand Strategy and I'm starting to look after Europe Universalis, Victoria and Heart of Iron ... not Civ (in any shape or form)

Schematics aside .... argeed

Speaking of, Paradox have been busy bees with expansion packs for Victoria II, CK2, and a new iteration of EU in the pipe.

[Thoth]

I'm still reading the article, but this:

It doesn't matter what your intentions are or what's going on under the hood if the end result just isn't fun.

Is pure and utter Truth.


Edit:

Ditto this:

the fewer moving parts you have the easier it is to tell what's going on.

Sage advice for game designers/modders.




This unfortunately, was part of what killed C5:

put a ton of love and great work into the game, and it really shows in the art, audio and tech.

Too much love into the shiney stuff, not enough love into the grubby mechanics.

[TheArchduke]

... saying Grand Strategy and I'm starting to look after Europe Universalis, Victoria and Heart of Iron ... not Civ (in any shape or form)

Schematics aside .... argeed

Speaking of, Paradox have been busy bees with expansion packs for Victoria II, CK2, and a new iteration of EU in the pipe.

EU IV looks rather good, though I want to remain unspoiled and did not enter the beta like last time.

I have high hopes for that one. They showed that they finally manage to polish their games with CK2.

[Dp101]

Personally, I'm surprised he admitted that most of his design didn't work. That must have been difficult, but it made me think better of him. What I AM unhappy about is the fact that there has not even been a whisper about civ 6. I think civ V killed the civ series off.

[superjm]

Personally, I'm surprised he admitted that most of his design didn't work. That must have been difficult, but it made me think better of him. What I AM unhappy about is the fact that there has not even been a whisper about civ 6. I think civ V killed the civ series off.

Eh, the game only came out two years ago and there's supposedly another expansion coming out. It's usually a while between Civ games anyway, I imagine 2K/Firaxis just wants to milk Civ 5 for as long as they can.