Interview with Alex Mantzaris about BTS

[Atlas]

Why don't economics justify it? Vanilla was playtested more than Warlords, and made a ton of $$$. Warlords required far fewer resources to develope - no graphics engine, few new game mechanics, very little new art or music, so since it sold for about the same thing Civ was selling for at that time, why couldn't it have the same testing process?

I think what T-Hawk is saying is that a game needs to be played by the public for months to really find all the balance problems- this is not economical, ie. Vanilla (the best balanced of cIV versions) took months to find the CS slingshot.

[ThERat]

T-Hawk, your post is excellent and touches issues that might have caused my burn out as well...

While many people condemn Civ3, I agree with your comparison of both games. I remember playing a certain SGOTM for Civ4 and the discussion about GP's and which GP would pop which tech was mind numbing. It was not intuitive nor fun, it was a hellish chore and really put me off.
I think while Civ4 overall gives far more choices, the path is laid down in too many ways in order to be successful on higher difficulties.

I have bought warlords hoping for better warfare without that crippling WW, but got really disppointed in the end. Now, I look at the cover of the new expansion and it doesn't give me that 'I need to have this as soon as possible' feeling. I always liked civilization for the history aspect, I don't need mech bots and other stuff.
Knowning that Soren isn't working on BTS but a certain Alex is enough reason for me to let others get burnt before buying that expansion.

[T-hawk]

I think what T-Hawk is saying is that a game needs to be played by the public for months to really find all the balance problems- this is not economical, ie. Vanilla (the best balanced of cIV versions) took months to find the CS slingshot.

No. What I'm saying is that the prospect of slightly greater sales for Warlords doesn't justify the costs of a full-blown playtesting process. The vast majority of game consumers are either casual players with no interest in the expansion, or will buy it based on the feature list and inevitable move of the MP online community. We're in the tiny minority here, folks, carefully criticizing the balance of an expansion before buying it. Even an additional monthlong round of playtest polish on Warlords and its features would net what, maybe a few hundred extra sales? It just wasn't economically feasible.

[Kodii]

To a previous point, I agree that CIV is and is becoming much to complicated. Very few my age have interest in a game like CIV, and when they do, it is too complicated to pick up easily. "Dumbing it down" might just be the right thing to do. Focusing on old problems and carefully implementing new ones would probably appeal to the majority here.

As T-Hawk said, we are a tiny minority. Just because the majority of RB members will not purchase BTS doesn't mean the majority of CIV players won't. Money is going to be made off BTS, and that is probably the developers' only concern.

[sooooo]

I like complication. Bring on the complication!

We're in the tiny minority here, folks, carefully criticizing the balance of an expansion before buying it.

Slanderous! Who are you accusing of carefully criticizing???

I'll just buy it without carefully doing anything I s'pose. Probably on the day it comes out . I'm one of those grown-ups with a salary, so the small price of a computer game represents no "risk" at all. I'd only spend the money on beer otherwise ...

[sunrise089]

Even an additional monthlong round of playtest polish on Warlords and its features would net what, maybe a few hundred extra sales? It just wasn't economically feasible.

I still don't understand this. Why was it worth it to Firaxis to spend the $$$ playtesting Vanilla but not warlords. And if you use the community to test many of the features for free (as Sulla was apparently asked to do), I'd assume many of them would be more than happy to do so. So the only "cost" is a moved ship date. Unless the game was a holiday release (and Warlords wasn't) then it should cost very little.

[mostly_harmless]

Excellent post T-Hawk. I played all of the Civ series and the other Sid games (SMAC & Colonization). I was feeling the same rise in "shortcuts & freebies" although I never could point it out as clearly as you did. In the last months I found me spending way more time with Colonization and lately MOO than with CIV, where I reduced my playing to that of RB events only.
I have not bought Warlords and will probably hold buying BtS for some time, waiting for the community to give a first feedback.

mh

[LKendter]

I can sum up the difference between Civ3 & Civ4 pretty easy. I could sit down with Civ3 and play 4 hours straight. With Civ4 I can play those four hours, but I wind up taking several short breaks. Civ4 is to much thinking, and I can't concentrate 100% of the time on it.

[scooter]

I can sum up the difference between Civ3 & Civ4 pretty easy. I could sit down with Civ3 and play 4 hours straight. With Civ4 I can play those four hours, but I wind up taking several short breaks. Civ4 is to much thinking, and I can't concentrate 100% of the time on it.

Heh, with Civ3 I got so irritated with corruption and waste and the micro involved to minimize it that took most of the fun out of it. As for the too much thinking thing, would you rather have a game where there is a "absolute best way to go" in so many areas, as opposed to where in Civ4 you actually have to think about what path would work best. Personally I find that more fun, it's a thinking game and that's what makes it fun for me.

[Clovis]

I found the same to be true as LKendter, except with CivII, not III. But CivII would bore me by the time I got to 0 AD, because there weren't enough meaningful decision to make.