Sid Meier's GDC2010 talk, obviously the Civ5 devs didnt listen.. Why?

I've remembered his talk on GDC 2010 all through the release of Civ5, and seen the interesting parallels. I'm sure others have as well, i'm sure there may even be a thread like this already, but i chose to write it anyway, just in case there isnt.


It is rather long, but make a cup of coffee, grab a baguette, and lean back.
Just, trust me. Watch his talk, it goes on about what it takes to suck the player in, keep him/her engaged and constantly dangle a carrot for the next turn. He also talks about the development of Civ Revolutions, and how so much was dumbed down, especially the combat odds, due to players not understanding how odds work..
He talks with a glint in his eye regarding this, but i feel he tried to convey that sometimes, sadly, depth and proper mechanics (math included) is incompatible with a certain playerbase.

To me, it's remarkable how the Civ5 dev team seems to have paid no heed what so ever to this man, or his ideas on game design (which brought us Civ1-4, alpha centauri, etc. nuff said.. he knows his stuff).

To me, after playing Civ5, it really does show that Sid had little or no influence on the game design aspect..
When watching this GDC keynote, with Civ5 in mind, it's remarkable how every single thing he mentions as being crucial for the immersion and psychology of the dev - player "relationship", is completely absent in Civ5.

As if they did not even listen to the father of the series himself..
Sid, here's hoping that you will be deeply involved in the next Civ game, whenever that may be.



Part 1
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-civilization-v/63586

Part 2
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-civilization-v/63584

Part 3 <-- (no wonder the ai sucks, if the odds of the core gameplay itself are twisted beyond logic in the players favor)
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-civilization-v/63582

To be fair, I think the Civ dev team tried. However, they ran out of time, were lazy, and/or were short on resources (and staff). Unfortunate. :|

Morningcalm said:

To be fair, I think the Civ dev team tried.

Click to expand...

I know you're trying to be a good person, but I don't really think we should let them off the hook here. It says "Sid" on the damn box. The least they could do is follow his philosophy ...

Didn't watch those movies, but hearing this is actually a relief. I was very confused about Sid, so I was afraid it is his ideas since AFAIK he is the creative manager of the company. Seemed though impossible compared to the overall superiority of Civ 1 which has been programmed by him AFAIK.

Watched first 5 min and he talked just what I thought Seems Sid Meier isn't that influential anymore

Part 3 has som incredibly fun examples of the playtesters they had for Civ Revolutions...
Such as expecting to win 100% of the time in 3 to 1 odds battles.
Could civ5 have been different if they had playtesters with an IQ above 80? We will never know.

Baleur said:

Part 3 has som incredibly fun examples of the playtesters they had for Civ Revolutions...
Such as expecting to win 100% of the time in 3 to 1 odds battles.
Could civ5 have been different if they had playtesters with an IQ above 80? We will never know.

Click to expand...

Not to distract from the thread's original topic, but this example shows that Sid is wrong and "stupid players" are right.

Have 1 swordsman (a1) fight againt another swordsman (b1) of equal skill and strenght. Any of the both has a chance of 0.5 (50%) to survive.
Add a second swordsman (a2) of equal strength and skills to the first one, and the chance to survive for swordsman (b1) aren't 25% (0.5 * 0.5), but are very, very close to 0.
As combat chances in Civx can easily be translated into numbers of men involved (this becomes even more obvious when one of the units is already damaged), the player' assumptions are justified.

It's just the inherent weakness of determining combat results by using a RNG.

In reality, bigger numbers just win (if no side-conditions like weather, weak/good leaders, attrition, whatever, are brought into the game).

Baleur said:

Part 3 has som incredibly fun examples of the playtesters they had for Civ Revolutions...
Such as expecting to win 100% of the time in 3 to 1 odds battles.
Could civ5 have been different if they had playtesters with an IQ above 80? We will never know.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's the testers fault either .... I remember seeing in the manual, a listing of the "frankentstien testing team(?)" and it included some of the best guys from CivFanantics.

I notice none of them ever talk about what they did for CivV ....they must have signed a none disclosure agreeement.

But I guess they could report all the bugs/poor design they want, but if there is no money / no will / no schedule to address the issues we get the unpolished software we have today

ImperialGuard said:

But I guess they could report all the bugs/poor design they want, but if there is no money / no will / no schedule to address the issues we get the unpolished software we have today

Click to expand...

I assume that testing wouldn't have taken place just in the last weak before release.
And you don't really need the best players to get a feedback like: "It is boring!"

There were like 35 or so testers listed (the non-Firaxis testers) and none of them should have felt something is missing? No way.

I am pretty sure that some people who were to decide about which feedback was to be taken into account just were thinking: "Forget it, guys. *I* know better!"

I've seen this video several times now and with the civ5 experience I've come to a different conclusion.

Sid pronounces a few things like too much complexity, losing battles despite good odds, etc.
This all has been changed in civ5 compared to civ4.
The example where Genghis Khan gives up almost every city after losing a war is something which is also present in civ5.

Not only is civ5 far less complex, the randomness in the game itself with its emotional aspect has also significantly been reduced.

So, to me Sid had less involvement in civ4 and had more influence on civ5, based on civ rev.
I could be wrong though.

I'm sure Sid knows how to make a good Civ game, but it is also his fault for selling Firaxis to 2K, and I wholely blame 2K for the state of Civ5, yes the devs at Firaxis can make creative decisions about how to get from A to B, but funding for staff and deadlines are totally out of there hands. Not to mention late decisions like using steamworks effecting the entire MP dev cycle...so IMHO. it is not that the programmers and artists don't want to create a great Civ game in Sids world, they just have lost alot of control over the dev cycle with being nothing more than a design house for 2K.

CS

Baleur said:

To me, it's remarkable how the Civ5 dev team seems to have paid no heed what so ever to this man, or his ideas on game design (which brought us Civ1-4, alpha centauri, etc. nuff said.. he knows his stuff).

Click to expand...

Not really, Sid brought us Civ1, the other games had different game designers:
brian reynolds (civ2, smac)
jeff briggs (civ2, civ3)
soren johnson (civ3, civ4)
john shafer (civ4 bts, civ5)

Yeah, Sid had been only marginally involved after CivI.

CanuckSoldier said:

I'm sure Sid knows how to make a good Civ game, but it is also his fault for selling Firaxis to 2K, and I wholely blame 2K for the state of Civ5, yes the devs at Firaxis can make creative decisions about how to get from A to B, but funding for staff and deadlines are totally out of there hands. Not to mention late decisions like using steamworks effecting the entire MP dev cycle...so IMHO. it is not that the programmers and artists don't want to create a great Civ game in Sids world, they just have lost alot of control over the dev cycle with being nothing more than a design house for 2K.

CS

Click to expand...

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, CS. As others have pointed out, it is clear that 2K rushed Civ5 out the door to get revenue on this year's books. They certainly aren't the only gaming company to do this. Anyhow, while the game is fun for me and challanging to play on Immortal, it is clear to me that some of the features of this game were probably tested by the lady who waters the plants. One can only imagine the frustration of the beta testers, QA, and all of Firaxis.

2K basically released Civ5 as an open beta that we all payed $50 for the privilege of testing for them. How brazen of them to expect us to pay $5 more to DLC Babylon. Anyhow, perhaps after the upcoming patch and two or three more this beta may become the great game we deserve by next summer.

Anyhow, the game is still fun for me, but the bean counters at 2K should be ashamed of theirselves and worry about reaction to their other upcoming games.

.. neilkaz ..

Good Find Baleur - I echo your feelings. Lets hope Sid takes back the reigns with direct input and rescues the current mess. Those videos show clear and loud the guy knows his stuff to say the least - not that we should need reminding

Regards
Zy

\there were like 35 or so testers listed (the non-Firaxis testers) and none of them should have felt something is missing? No way.

Click to expand...

If a beta tester says the game is incomplete what happens? A director looks at the report and makes a decision whether to release the game in time for this year's balance sheet or next year's balance sheet. Guess what happens.

neilkaz said:

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, CS. As others have pointed out, it is clear that 2K rushed Civ5 out the door to get revenue on this year's books. They certainly aren't the only gaming company to do this. Anyhow, while the game is fun for me and challanging to play on Immortal, it is clear to me that some of the features of this game were probably tested by the lady who waters the plants. One can only imagine the frustration of the beta testers, QA, and all of Firaxis.

Click to expand...

If it makes you feel any better, this is kind of an industry standard especially now in a bad economy. I'm a software engineer by trade. I think I've seen maybe one project schedule that had adequate time for quality assurance in my ~12 years in this profession. Some of these projects have failed, basically because the test budget wasn't where it should have been. Some were successful because we amazingly got it right the first time. Most were completed over budget because there wasn't enough budget for testing in the initial estimates.

http://www.cio.com/article/495306/Recession_Causes_Rising_IT_Project_Failure_Rates_

I offer this not as an excuse but as a glimpse into the IT world for those unaware of the challenges involved in a project like this.

neilkaz said:

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, CS. As others have pointed out, it is clear that 2K rushed Civ5 out the door to get revenue on this year's books. They certainly aren't the only gaming company to do this. Anyhow, while the game is fun for me and challanging to play on Immortal, it is clear to me that some of the features of this game were probably tested by the lady who waters the plants. One can only imagine the frustration of the beta testers, QA, and all of Firaxis.

2K basically released Civ5 as an open beta that we all payed $50 for the privilege of testing for them. How brazen of them to expect us to pay $5 more to DLC Babylon. Anyhow, perhaps after the upcoming patch and two or three more this beta may become the great game we deserve by next summer.

Anyhow, the game is still fun for me, but the bean counters at 2K should be ashamed of theirselves and worry about reaction to their other upcoming games.

.. neilkaz ..

Click to expand...

They rushed it out the door to have it available for the holiday season. Computer games do much better if you can buy them for the kids for Christmas. So you want the game out and to be getting your press up when parents are thinking about what to get their kids. This means you need an early fall release that you can possibly push back once but if you aren't out before November, you're going to get slaughtered on Christmas sales.

lschnarch said:

Not to distract from the thread's original topic, but this example shows that Sid is wrong and "stupid players" are right.

Have 1 swordsman (a1) fight againt another swordsman (b1) of equal skill and strenght. Any of the both has a chance of 0.5 (50%) to survive.
Add a second swordsman (a2) of equal strength and skills to the first one, and the chance to survive for swordsman (b1) aren't 25% (0.5 * 0.5), but are very, very close to 0.
As combat chances in Civx can easily be translated into numbers of men involved (this becomes even more obvious when one of the units is already damaged), the player' assumptions are justified.

It's just the inherent weakness of determining combat results by using a RNG.

In reality, bigger numbers just win (if no side-conditions like weather, weak/good leaders, attrition, whatever, are brought into the game).

Click to expand...

Most historical battles numbers were a small factor, countless people have written about this including Sun Tzu and Machiavelli. If you equalize leaders, terrain, supply, logistics, and allow for only the basic head-on confrontation (no tactical outmaneuvering) then things come down to numbers. The combat engine in Civ5 allows for some implicit outmaneuvering through the flanking bonuses and is interesting with the both survive possibility.

In large periods of history attackers needed a 10 to 1 advantage to reliably capture territory, but this is unfun so civ enables good players to win a 4 to 3 advantage (lure out 3 warriors, kill them, heal promote then kill the city with your 4 on 0).

On lots of stuff I feel the developers did listen, the first 15 minutes are great.. It's fairly easy to get into the game, much of the system is easier to understand, etc. Of course the tradeoff is some of the depth is missing (although mods can fix a lot of that).

Ideally I'd like to see a lot of the good aspects of Civ IV BtS brought into Civ5, but I'm not holding my breath, I think we might get that after two expansions.. but Civ IV Vanilla came out without some of the features from later expansions of Civ III so that's nothing new.

LordTC said:

They rushed it out the door to have it available for the holiday season. Computer games do much better if you can buy them for the kids for Christmas. So you want the game out and to be getting your press up when parents are thinking about what to get their kids. This means you need an early fall release that you can possibly push back once but if you aren't out before November, you're going to get slaughtered on Christmas sales.

Click to expand...

Yes this is most certainly the case, and they did this for Civ4 as well, but Civ4 was in a much better state at the end due to Firaxis having complete control over the dev cycle for 90% of the civ4 development, before being bought by 2K. And looking at the decisions made and the amount of programmers/artists hired for Civ4, as compared to Civ5, IMHO that is directly what we are seeing, a underfunded, under personel manned, game released for Xmas.

Civ4 did have problems as well from being a little rushed and required a couple patches....but nothing like the beta game we all paid $50 to test now.

So yes you can pay a heavy price for missing the Xmas season, but 2K is going to have to seriously consider the huge impact this is going to have on their reputation and therefore future sales. Customers are not going to toterate this again for sure.

CS