At the Gates: New turn based strategy game by Jon Shafer at Kickstarter

How is Jon Shafer simultaneously the lead designer of both the best and worst things to ever happen to the Civ franchise!?!?

My mind is blown. There were so many brilliant things that Civ5 did right, but at the same time there were so many beyond-idiotic things that Civ5 did so very wrong compared to Civ4_BtS...
 
How is Jon Shafer simultaneously the lead designer of both the best and worst things to ever happen to the Civ franchise!?!?

My mind is blown. There were so many brilliant things that Civ5 did right, but at the same time there were so many beyond-idiotic things that Civ5 did so very wrong compared to Civ4_BtS...

Jon was a co-lead on IV with Alex Mantzaris - who was also credited as the lead programmer, while Jon was co-lead and one of the lead writers (presumably AI diplo dialogue). Conversely, in V, Jon became the lead programmer and sole lead designer.

To say he was responsible for the best and/or worst parts of IV would be presumptuous - all we know for sure is that Jon was responsible for - in his own words - roughly 50% of the programming in V, including all of the diplomacy programming up until his departure. He wasn't actually one of the programmers on combat AI - which is one of the main things people either love or hate about V.
 
Jon was a co-lead on IV with Alex Mantzaris - who was also credited as the lead programmer, while Jon was co-lead and one of the lead writers (presumably AI diplo dialogue). Conversely, in V, Jon became the lead programmer and sole lead designer.

To say he was responsible for the best and/or worst parts of IV would be presumptuous - all we know for sure is that Jon was responsible for - in his own words - roughly 50% of the programming in V, including all of the diplomacy programming up until his departure. He wasn't actually one of the programmers on combat AI - which is one of the main things people either love or hate about V.

Actually, I never really explored the (admittedly inferior) combat AI in Civ5 until G&K enticed me.

Civ4 BTS had a clear explanation of AI behavior/diplomatic stance with easy-to-understand values. Civ4 had the Civilopedia always one click away. Civ4 made it so if a barbarian appeared, it would notify your automated workers only if the AI was able to threaten the worker. Civ5, meanwhile, will make sure to interrupt your worker automation after the 'threatening' AI unit is dead. But if you had a worker or great general moving into territory that the AI now controls? Well good luck, because it will still automate that pathing, despite the revelation of danger.

That's what I'm talking about - that's what makes me so disappointed.
 
Leaving aside the discussion on the merits of Jon Schafer (which personally I think has taken place enough times on this forum already), I think his goals are in the right place. His opinion on the flow of a regular 4x game is spot on for me. I have 110 hours logged into Steam for Civ V and, in all this time, I've actually only finished 2 games! I have a lot of fun early on, but eventually the game starts to drag and I get bored. And this isn't because of a particular fault in the fifth Civ, I think it was the same in the previous ones as well.

Of course, there's a long distance in between being able to identify a problem and being able to fix it. But I hope he succeeds.
 
Is this the right place to discuss (what little we know of) the game? Or a new thread in the "Other Games" forum?

Either or. There's also a thread in CivV GD last I checked.

What does that have to do with the quality of the game?

Markets>Your opinion

Given the relatively good scores CivV got in the press plus the fact it has been in the top ten played games on Steam for years, I have to go with the crowd that thinks that market has decided it is a quality game.

That's like proclaiming the Wii was the best home console because it sold the most.

The Wii is the best home console because it did sold the most. I don't think you understand how capitalism works. I get on Steam. I read about game. I buy game. I like game. I buy DLC. Millions others buy game. They also buy DLC. Market decided game is success.


I wouldn't trust anything with the Shafer name knowing full well he has a barebones game design philosophy.

You people act like Shafer personally came over to your houses and scratch your CDs or something. If I was Shafer, I would have nothing to be ashamed about. The same reason Firaxis has nothing to be ashamed about for XCOM. Sure, some diehards and tryhard fans harking back to the rosy-tinted golden days of broken UI in CivIV and general inferiority of CivIII, II, and especially I are going to log in and espoused how the latest entry in the series is "awful", "dumb down", "not a $50 graphics upgrade of CivIV/III/II/I".

Moderator Action: Removed the word fanbois, it is trolling. Please be more civil in your discussion
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Game has a 90 on metacritic. The expansion has an 80.

But yes, you're right. The game has a barebones game design philosophy as evidence by...nothing. There is no evidence other than the kind you created inside your mind to justify your irrational hatred for the newest game in a series you like because it isn't simply a revamped version of one of the other four games you can go play instead if you don't like V. For the love of Science, the game has been out two years now. Even the most irrational FPS CoD player will move on from hating a new release to something else.

But the fact you're here, complaining about the lead designer of a game that came out two years ago and a game that you don't like, is proof that the game worked. If it really was half as bad as you or the umpteeth other amateur critics thought it was, it would be completely forgotten like Empire Earth III or remember uniformly as a game that killed a series.

It wouldn't be in the Top #10 played games daily for over two years. That doesn't just mean you people are wrong, it makes you people reactionaries.

Leaving aside the discussion on the merits of Jon Schafer (which personally I think has taken place enough times on this forum already), I think his goals are in the right place. His opinion on the flow of a regular 4x game is spot on for me. I have 110 hours logged into Steam for Civ V and, in all this time, I've actually only finished 2 games! I have a lot of fun early on, but eventually the game starts to drag and I get bored. And this isn't because of a particular fault in the fifth Civ, I think it was the same in the previous ones as well.

Of course, there's a long distance in between being able to identify a problem and being able to fix it. But I hope he succeeds.

It tends to get to a point where you're so large that there is no external or internal problems that can shake you down. You're not big enough that you've won yet, but big enough that you can only snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on the grounds that you make some gigantic blunder.

Resource depletion and seasons should be able to shake up the mid- to late-game enough that, like the revolutions mod for IV, if the player is able to maintain an increasing empire, it is leaning more towards the ability side than the runaway end of the spectrum.
 
Markets>Your opinion

you know companies have marketing ppl too?
if you value a product based upon its market success then who has to take credit for it is the marketing guys, not necessarly the design ones...
 
Civilization 5 was a piss poor game and is now an average one. (Still the worst of the series, though) Some of the blame has to be laid at Jon Shafer's feet but a lion's share has to be given to greedy 2K Games. They forced the release of a half baked game to satisfy their stockholders, knowing full well that the game would sell well on reputation alone.

Well, it was an utter disaster, as we all know very well. Given another year, perhaps the game would have been decent but we'll never know now.

Anyway, I am quite excited about At the Gates. It explores a time period that has been largely ignored and one that I very much am interested in. It's got some cool game concepts that seem pretty interesting, at least in theory. I love the graphics since they give me a Civ II nostalgic feeling. Best of all, there will be no corporate fat cats interfering with game design or forcing it to be released far too early.

I have never supported a Kick Starter game before but I think this will be my first. I'd love to see Jon Shafer redeem himself. Plus, if he succeeds, maybe more people will follow in his footsteps and start making games that the Triple A companies won't touch due to an obssession on graphics over gameplay. (Style over substance)

This is a feel good story that I want to be a part of. :) (Plus, no 1UPT! Lol)
 
Jon Shafer's game? I know not what course others may take, but as for me, no. Just no.
 
Jon was a co-lead on IV with Alex Mantzaris - who was also credited as the lead programmer, while Jon was co-lead and one of the lead writers (presumably AI diplo dialogue). Conversely, in V, Jon became the lead programmer and sole lead designer.

To say he was responsible for the best and/or worst parts of IV would be presumptuous - all we know for sure is that Jon was responsible for - in his own words - roughly 50% of the programming in V, including all of the diplomacy programming up until his departure. He wasn't actually one of the programmers on combat AI - which is one of the main things people either love or hate about V.

Again, I am not sure about that. The_J made me see for the first time that he is listed as "co-lead" in BTS's manual, but strange things happen in this world, including how some type of people always manage to get more credits than they deserve.

My "proof"? A similar incident happened some three months ago in the Stardock forums, where one day Brad decided to try to "promote" little Joni's name in a post about the future of Stardock projects; in the original post, he named Shafer exactly as he is named in this OP, as lead designer of Civ4 and Civ5. I protested immediately, and lo and behold, some 10 minutes later the post was edited to remove the "lead designer of Civ4" part and replace it with something more down to Earth.

Now, one would imagine that if the original claim (and the one in this post) was true, and little Joni being right there at Stardock, that Brad would have "corrected" me like The_J did. But NO, they did not correct me, but the post. Hmmmm....

Moderator Action: Using the term "little Joni" is demeaning and unnecessary and is trolling. Please be more respectful and civil in your posting.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
This is a feel good story that I want to be a part of. :) (Plus, no 1UPT! Lol)

Not only that, visible diplo modifiers with numbers where having a a different religion is gives you a diplo hit :)

Anyways, there's certainly not enough historical 4x TBSes out there so I welcome this. If executed properly I think it can be a good game.
 
Well, it was an utter disaster, as we all know very well. Given another year, perhaps the game would have been decent but we'll never know now.

Of course, Firaxis/2K spent at least 100 times more on developing Civ V than Shafer now proposes to spend on At the Gates. And you're saying they really needed to work on it longer and spend 200 times more. Is that a bad sign? If he couldn't develop the Civ V you want while spending at least ten million dollars, what is he going to do with a few hundred thousand dollars, at most?
 
Seems it would be better developed as a Fantasy TBS game but besides that reminds me of a more developed Travian than anything else... How much technology progress can be made, are we talking about playing for 300 turns(or seasons) then what's the point? Why a nomadic type game rather than a transitional one with added benefit of technology and "clans" and of course Rome. Growing power base which affects said overall game.... See where I am going with this...
 
I have to go with the crowd that thinks that market has decided it is a quality game.

Therein lies your problem :lol:

Continue to enjoy your civ 5 along with your CoD, the best video game series ever made and while listening to Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga, because according to you they are the greatest musicians in the history of mankind.

Civ 5 was made to bring more people into the series and they took this route by dumbing down the game(typical) to attract the farmvillers. This is the current trend in gaming.
 
Whatever the case, this is Jon Shafer's sink or swim game. If he botches it, he has no one to blame but himself.

Until then, I'll be optimistic and support him. The game definitely has potential. :)
 
Well, you are right in that, Thor... but I will watch it from the sidelines. I don't expect that much from lit...umm, from Big Jon.
 
I have been following John's blog on game design and I really think he has good vision and talent. I share also his view of the mid game problem in this kind of games, he seems to want to try to solve it with a changing world, I would have also add some intermediate important goals.

Being a bit selfish I am going to wait for the DLL support which appears it will be reached, for me it is all about modding. Also, come on, open alpha and beta, listening to the community... this is what we have always wanted, don't be so hard on him or the project, I really hope the best for it.
 
I like game designers who share their thoughts, but I always end up having several issues with what Shafer writes. It's still interesting to read, but I'm not very likely to go "yes, that is so true".

When I see how much more I agree on what Soren says and writes I can't help but think that its not accidental that Civ4 was much more my kind of game than Civ5.
 
I don't believe for moment that anyone who was a serious player of Civ 4 could like Civ 5.
Also lets not forget the fact that no demo was released until release day. No prizes for guessing why that decision was made...
 
Top Bottom