By the way... I just learned in the 2k forums that based on special request there (to be more correct: here) will be some ex post infractions?
If you think a post deserves an infraction then report it.
Dislike CIV5 development? Tell us how!
- Thread starter Bibor
- Start date
If you think a post deserves an infraction then report it.
Personally, I think that almost no post here ever deserved an infraction (ok, with the exclusion of the unavoidable 0.01%).
But I know that many people think differently, so most probably you should repeat that "invitation" more often.
Ok, ok. Time to get back to the topic now.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
If this is true, and I believe it is, then you have two choices:
a) accept the game is out there and work in your own way on making it better
b) denounce the game and wait for the next one (or simply move on)
Either way, negative comments on the numerous current (or previous) issues with the game will just turn away people for good.
I still believe that many balance flaws of Civ5 are cosmetic and can be fixed easily (most of them were indeed made by changing a few numbers in the XML files). And that the only true core issue that can be solved only by Firaxis is the AI (or someone like Dresden, once the full SDK is out).
One might or might not "like" the way CIV5 went, but if these people personally think the damage is irreparable then its not very polite to turn away people who might like the game - if not for the flood of negativity.
I've done a little of both as you can see in my sig. I tried helping with the globaldefines thread and I've moved on with my reference to EU3. I also frequent this forum for various reasons, one of which to monitor any progress (of which there was some recently with the patch news).
I think this game could be made very good with only 3 changes:
1) replace the global happiness mechanic with something that makes sense
2) make diplomacy worthwhile (and not just for cheesy RAs and luxury selling)
3) make a tactical AI
Now those are 3 very difficult changes, but with only those changes I would love this game no question. Since I can't help with these issues directly I basically have to wait it out, which is a frustrating position to be in.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
I honestly wish that this forum didn't allow polls, or alternately that polls with slanted answers (like this one) got squashed. They don't lead to useful discussions in general. I won't answer the poll because I don't think the options are even remotely inclusions of the real choices.
A more interesting discussion could revolve around "how ambitious should your changes be."
They should have recognized that it's a terrible idea to include core concepts that were beyond their ability to properly execute - such as the disastrous one unit per hex idea. If the AI can't use an idea well in a (mostly) single player game then it is a bad idea, full stop, regardless of how cool it looks in practice. Soren recognized this and specifically called it out. Civ 5 is loaded with examples.
This is very, very different from advocating some minor tweaks on Civ 4. Truth be told, I can rarely will myself to finish a game in any version of Civ - I know how the movie will play out, and the hours involved in executing it aren't worthwhile. So I'd actually be a fan of a faster, leaner game - with interesting strategic choices. That is not the same as a boring misconceived attempt at reaching a mass audience with halfway measures - resulting in a game neither satisfying to the long-term fans nor reaching new people. This marks two "accessible" Civs in a row (yes, the abominable Civ Rev counts) with sales lower than their "complex" predecessor. Simplifying in a manner like this is driving the franchise down the drain, not expanding it.
A more interesting discussion could revolve around "how ambitious should your changes be."
They should have recognized that it's a terrible idea to include core concepts that were beyond their ability to properly execute - such as the disastrous one unit per hex idea. If the AI can't use an idea well in a (mostly) single player game then it is a bad idea, full stop, regardless of how cool it looks in practice. Soren recognized this and specifically called it out. Civ 5 is loaded with examples.
This is very, very different from advocating some minor tweaks on Civ 4. Truth be told, I can rarely will myself to finish a game in any version of Civ - I know how the movie will play out, and the hours involved in executing it aren't worthwhile. So I'd actually be a fan of a faster, leaner game - with interesting strategic choices. That is not the same as a boring misconceived attempt at reaching a mass audience with halfway measures - resulting in a game neither satisfying to the long-term fans nor reaching new people. This marks two "accessible" Civs in a row (yes, the abominable Civ Rev counts) with sales lower than their "complex" predecessor. Simplifying in a manner like this is driving the franchise down the drain, not expanding it.
Lovely. I'm now fading in perplexity.
1) Risking the alternative would actually be worse or brake the whole (current) model of what balances growth, science and production. Go right ahead, but extremely solid benchmarking is still a must.
2) Agreed and while they're on this mood for complex (but -oh- so much necessary) fixes, work at all the Victory Condition_S principles in a coordinated system of intertwined basics such CS golden buyouts for the kill & votes. Add a financial Win while on the subject.
3) I can smell a Stacks reference comin' but whatever makes War different than Peace, don't let it fall *ENTIRELY* into the Handicap realm... cuz, in the strict Combat sense of the term, plan of Attacks aren't defensive tricks that lead nowhere but to inevitable attrition gimmicks.
Rooftrellen
King
This isn't even a question.
You obviously MUST wait until the product is finished.
You rely on a small fan base and get by on their loyalty. You face financial and contractual trouble if you release the game in an unfinished state and lose some of that fan base.
After all, Blizzard can afford to lose a number of fans...they have plenty. You are small, just getting by. Losing any of that loyal base, you go from just getting by to almost getting by...which isn't getting by, which means financial trouble. It also means not getting more contracts in the future, since you become a big risk.
I'm shocked 46 people said a small company like you describe can afford to release an unfinished product. More shocking is 44 of those people said not only to release a poor quality product that could ruin the reputation of the company, but to keep pouring more money into that poor product.
Given only those 3 options, there is really only one. Just getting by is ok, but releasing an unfinished game is suicide.
You obviously MUST wait until the product is finished.
You rely on a small fan base and get by on their loyalty. You face financial and contractual trouble if you release the game in an unfinished state and lose some of that fan base.
After all, Blizzard can afford to lose a number of fans...they have plenty. You are small, just getting by. Losing any of that loyal base, you go from just getting by to almost getting by...which isn't getting by, which means financial trouble. It also means not getting more contracts in the future, since you become a big risk.
I'm shocked 46 people said a small company like you describe can afford to release an unfinished product. More shocking is 44 of those people said not only to release a poor quality product that could ruin the reputation of the company, but to keep pouring more money into that poor product.
Given only those 3 options, there is really only one. Just getting by is ok, but releasing an unfinished game is suicide.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
#3 is technically impossible, no game is EVER finished, just released.... do you think Civ4 BTS after all the official patches was a "finished" game? No it wasn't... and no game is ever finished to the perfection at which point a desiner can say "I will stop working on this and any change will make it worse". There are degrees of "finished" to a game, and essentially the question is not "will you finish it" but "Is this game releasable" AND "should I stop patching it" [separate questions]
r_rolo1
King of myself
A unfinished product ( note that I don't mean completely finished , but in like " without major gaps, bugs and exploits discovered in less than 2 days" ) is either a alpha or a beta. There is no issue in selling a alpha or a beta ... as long as you sell it as a alpha or a beta. Selling a alpha or a beta as anything that is not a alpha or a beta is atleast disengineous ( can be called far worse things ) and I really can't see how that can be a better business move than anything else ( even simply not sell 
)
)Rooftrellen
King
I assumed that "unfinished" meant "not ready for release."
If it actually meant "game that has been developed and polished to the point of near perfection," then I have to say that I voted incorrectly.
I was under the assumption that we were talking about rather glaring problems, however, such as crashing, the game being a terrible resource hog for how good it looks or how well the AI seems to play, several bugs, etc.
If the "unfinished" game is not like this, but, rather, a game ready to go to the consumer but not 100% perfected...I stand corrected.
SpearMan153
Prince
ha ha another excellent poll Bibor well done
Bibor I disagree that a decent 1upt ai is nearly impossible - I'd guess it would take a single talented developer maybe two or three months of effort to come up with quite a decent ai that would provide a fun challenge for a reasonably competent player (ie not a walkover).
Of course a really good ai that could beat an expert player would take decades of research and a couple of super computers. but that's not really in the scope of a $50 computer game.
lschnarch I like how you say they should have kept religion and espionage in the game and then complain that they should have cut scope
Bibor I disagree that a decent 1upt ai is nearly impossible - I'd guess it would take a single talented developer maybe two or three months of effort to come up with quite a decent ai that would provide a fun challenge for a reasonably competent player (ie not a walkover).
Of course a really good ai that could beat an expert player would take decades of research and a couple of super computers. but that's not really in the scope of a $50 computer game.
lschnarch I like how you say they should have kept religion and espionage in the game and then complain that they should have cut scope
lschnarch I like how you say they should have kept religion and espionage in the game and then complain that they should have cut scope
Sorry, but you have completely missed the point.
This was the sentence about religion and espionage.
And that was the sentence about cutting the scope, if necessary.
To make it more clear:
Except for their inability to come up with ideas for improvement, there wasn't much reason for dropping religion and espionage. Yet they did without providing anything as a replacement.
Even under the assumption that they would have been surprised by the release date in late September(having been announced in Feb) they still happily played around with things which turned out to be not working at release (and even don't do so today, 5 months past release: 1upt, diplomacy, city states...)
That are the things which should have been cut.
