Civ VI Lead Left Firaxis - Final Nail In The Coffin?

[blackbutterfly]

Jon Shafer left because he designed a half baked game and left Firaxis in a terrible bind.
He obviously was terrible at time management and organizational skills. (You can see that in the game (At the Gates) he designed after that. It was 4 years late and was still a sloppy mess.

Thankfully, Ed Beach stepped up as well as the community and salvaged that turkey.

Peak civ? Weak civ is more like it.

I do not know the details of Jon Shafer's departure from Firaxis.
But let's give credit where credit is due:

1. Hex tiles: Civ V's most revolutionary design was the use of the hex grid instead of squares.
2. Civ V's maps: I believe Jon Shafer programmed most the maps for Civ V, notably the Scrambled maps. (As you may or may not know, I loved these maps so much I modded their equivalents in Civ VI before we got the World Builder)
3. 1 unit per tile: the move away from stacks of doom model.

Together with the awesome scenarios Into The Renaissance and Scramble For Africa, Civ V was for me "Peak Civ". One thing I'm pretty sure you ought to agree with me is that the AI in Civ V put up a considerably better fight than in Civ VI.
IDK if it is the new additional game systems or what but AI has regressed in Firaxis games.

When it comes to AI I think Firaxis peaked with Civ:BE (which is based on Civ V's game engine).

Well Civ 6 ends up very good IMHO after the last two expansions and end up a colorful and fun game to play.

But you have to agree that like someone else said, Civ VI is in need of a final patch. I had hoped Anthology would have given Firaxis/2K some impetus to do that.
So many bugs...that I'm pretty sure Jon Shafer's Civ V at launch wasn't this bad, am I right?

 

[LastSword]

Jon Shafer left most probably because he was too young/inexperienced to fit in/understand corpo culture. Who knows about tensions when outsider came and took this sweet lead developer position.

Firaxis was never good at releasing proper initial product anyway. My personal experience/advice: never buy their games at release.

You may like it or not but civ5 was the most "revolutional" part of the series, which is moving in kind of sluggish speed (quite common for big titles).
After all civ6 is simply civ5 II, slightly recoloured.

Iirc Anton Strenger was responsible for RF and NFP. Imho RF was much better than extremely neuter GS, at least trying to add something new to the game. About NFP: I wish lead designer would block zombies and vampires. Though with wifi-joke, mother-russia, etc. one can except that civ series will be less and less serious in future.

 

[Zegangani]

I mean just look at how NFP fixed many of R&F systems.

Dramatic Ages fixed loyalty.
Secret Societies fixed governors.
Etc.

I can see the Ideas behind the NFP Games Modes, but they certainly didn't improve or even fix R&F Mechanics. The Game Modes on their own are fine and very fun, but the main Issues of them are:
1) They don't improve any particular Aspect of the Game that really needs some Attention (like Late Game, Passive Religion Spread, World Congress, Agendas or even Espionage f.e.), half of them just help you win your Games faster (I'm looking at you, Monopolies ) and the other half I don't see any reason for having them other than Fun.
2) AI doesn't use them properly and is at more disadvantage when the modes are enabled, and most of them need some more work/tweaks and Bug Fixes.
3) They are seperated from most of the Game's Mechanics, where they certainly need that, because they are just small mechanics and some more interaction with other Game Systems would immensely improve them.
4) Couple all that with the fact that half of them are just Fantasy Modes that are Fun but don't fit to Civ, they don't appeal to everyone and break Immersion.

As for Dramatic Ages and SS fixing R&F Mechanics:
- Dramatic Ages: One of the best Game Modes introduced IMO, but the AI suffers from it too much, Free Cities should only exert Loyalty Pressure in Dark Ages, and having no Normal/Heroic Ages is really a pity. I'm Ok with No Dedications Though, but what the Ages Mechanic really needed, is reworked Era Scores and balanced Dedications. So, No, they didn't improve Loyalty, not to mention fix it.
- Secret Societies: How did they improve Governors? the Governors are still the same and work pretty much the same as before NFP. SSs are just national Governors that help you win the Game even faster. how does that improve the Game? They are Fun, but they neither improve something nor fix anything.

 

[blackbutterfly]

- Dramatic Ages: One of the best Game Modes introduced IMO, but the AI suffers from it too much, Free Cities should only exert Loyalty Pressure in Dark Ages, and having no Normal/Heroic Ages is really a pity. I'm Ok with No Dedications Though, but what the Ages Mechanic really needed, is reworked Era Scores and balanced Dedications. So, No, they didn't improve Loyalty, not to mention fix it.

A little OT now apart from the fact Anton Stenger was responsible for the introduction of Loyalty in R&F:

R&F was supposed to introduce rubberbanding if I remember correctly from the dev blogs/interviews.
Rise & FALL.

Except there was no fall in R&F. In order to counter the loyalty mechanics you had to go bigger, wider and faster!
Dramatic Ages actually gives you true rubberbanding, in that you lose cities in a dark age.
That is IMO "fixing" R&F.

Imho RF was much better than extremely neuter GS, at least trying to add something new to the game.

Each to his own. I preferred GS to R&F what was for me a deeply disappointing expansion: micky mouse/cartoony governors and the very half-baked loyalty system. It broke what was for me a much better game: Standard Rules.
GS corrected some of these mistakes, but also gave us the climate system, which I must say I love. (Anything to bring the map alive!). That's credit to Anton.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can see the Ideas behind the NFP Games Modes, but they certainly didn't improve or even fix R&F Mechanics. The Game Modes on their own are fine and very fun, but the main Issues of them are:
1) They don't improve any particular Aspect of the Game that really needs some Attention (like Late Game, Passive Religion Spread, World Congress, Agendas or even Espionage f.e.), half of them just help you win your Games faster (I'm looking at you, Monopolies ) and the other half I don't see any reason for having them other than Fun.
2) AI doesn't use them properly and is at more disadvantage when the modes are enabled, and most of them need some more work/tweaks and Bug Fixes.
3) They are seperated from most of the Game's Mechanics, where they certainly need that, because they are just small mechanics and some more interaction with other Game Systems would immensely improve them.
4) Couple all that with the fact that half of them are just Fantasy Modes that are Fun but don't fit to Civ, they don't appeal to everyone and break Immersion.

5) They are also completely optional and if you don't play Dramatic Ages, like I do, it has no effect on loyalty in my games at all.

 

[kaspergm]

R&F was supposed to introduce rubberbanding if I remember correctly from the dev blogs/interviews.
Rise & FALL.

Except there was no fall in R&F. In order to counter the loyalty mechanics you had to go bigger, wider and faster!
Dramatic Ages actually gives you true rubberbanding, in that you lose cities in a dark age.
That is IMO "fixing" R&F.

I mostly agree with what you say here. Personally, I do still miss the normal ages, but that's not the main thing that' keeping me from using this game mode: I really feel that the Dark Age/Golden Age dedications being turned into cards waters the game down and makes it too easy (in line with just about everything else in NFP). Not that the normal dedications are great as they are, quite on the contrary they are quite horribly ballanced, but at least sometimes they leave me with a meaningful choice like, do I want to take Monumentality if I get a classical era golden age, or do I want to take Exodus instead to secure a religion? With dramatic ages, it's just slot in whatever card whenever you need it and reap all the benefits.

 

[Alaindor]

I mean just look at how NFP fixed many of R&F systems.

Dramatic Ages fixed loyalty.
Secret Societies fixed governors.
Etc.

Really? *cough* *cough*
Or maybe you're being sarcastic?

I fail to see how SS fixed anything, just another layer of buffs. As for DA, well, it definitely changes the game but the AI can't cope with it at all so it's a no-go for me

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I do not know the details of Jon Shafer's departure from Firaxis.
But let's give credit where credit is due:

1. Hex tiles: Civ V's most revolutionary design was the use of the hex grid instead of squares.
2. Civ V's maps: I believe Jon Shafer programmed most the maps for Civ V, notably the Scrambled maps. (As you may or may not know, I loved these maps so much I modded their equivalents in Civ VI before we got the World Builder)
3. 1 unit per tile: the move away from stacks of doom model.

Together with the awesome scenarios Into The Renaissance and Scramble For Africa, Civ V was for me "Peak Civ". One thing I'm pretty sure you ought to agree with me is that the AI in Civ V put up a considerably better fight than in Civ VI.
IDK if it is the new additional game systems or what but AI has regressed in Firaxis games.

When it comes to AI I think Firaxis peaked with Civ:BE (which is based on Civ V's game engine).



But you have to agree that like someone else said, Civ VI is in need of a final patch. I had hoped Anthology would have given Firaxis/2K some impetus to do that.
So many bugs...that I'm pretty sure Jon Shafer's Civ V at launch wasn't this bad, am I right?

Seriously I thought even the most ardent 5 supporters still acknowledged it was a giant mess when Schafer left post original release. Now I have no idea whether that was his fault or there were other factors involved, but there was a giant mess for the remaining people to clean up.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

After all civ6 is simply civ5 II, slightly recoloured.

Nah. I mean it's an ongoing evolving series. You could say that about any of the releases. Civ 3 is just a redone 2, Civ 4 is just an improved 3.

Maybe Civ6 is simply civ1 VI

 

[aieeegrunt]

A little OT now apart from the fact Anton Stenger was responsible for the introduction of Loyalty in R&F:

R&F was supposed to introduce rubberbanding if I remember correctly from the dev blogs/interviews.
Rise & FALL.

Except there was no fall in R&F. In order to counter the loyalty mechanics you had to go bigger, wider and faster!
Dramatic Ages actually gives you true rubberbanding, in that you lose cities in a dark age.
That is IMO "fixing" R&F.



Each to his own. I preferred GS to R&F what was for me a deeply disappointing expansion: micky mouse/cartoony governors and the very half-baked loyalty system. It broke what was for me a much better game: Standard Rules.
GS corrected some of these mistakes, but also gave us the climate system, which I must say I love. (Anything to bring the map alive!). That's credit to Anton.

I found all that Ages did was make me do stupid gamey crap for era score, like building ships I have no need for or deliberatly delaying finishing a wonder.

It also hamstrings the AI

I greatly preferr the Basic Game

5) They are also completely optional and if you don't play Dramatic Ages, like I do, it has no effect on loyalty in my games at all.

Them being optional is the only thing that saved this game for me

 

[Krajzen]

Personally I very much disliked his design philosophy and overall approach to the game, so I'm quite eager to see some other lead developer in his place. Of course I wish him everything best as a person and he seems to be a nice man who can create popular content, it just didn't suit my particular taste at all.

 

[Zaarin]

Not saying this to throw trash on Anton, but I have to agree that NFP was really poorly designed, although I don’t know who was responsible for the modular design and non-balance approach. If Dramatic Ages and Secret Societies fixed anything, they introduced even more problems in their own right imo. Of course this doesn’t mean Anton might not have designed a great Civ7, we all make mistakes and can learn from them. But he would not be my first pick for lead designer.

I don't think Anton should be held accountable for NFP's failure. It was clear that corporate wanted one final push of content for a game that really couldn't accommodate any more. NFP was scraping the bottom of the design barrel, and the devs were very transparent that the "modes" were just ideas the team had kicked around but hadn't made the cut. NFP is like buying pottery seconds: you don't buy seconds and complain that it's dented, chipped, or discolored.

So many bugs...that I'm pretty sure Jon Shafer's Civ V at launch wasn't this bad, am I right?

No, you're not right. Vanilla Civ5 was bland and unplayable. It took G&K and especially BNW to make Civ5 something actually worth playing. The credit goes to Ed Beach for saving the game.

 

[Thormodr]

I do not know the details of Jon Shafer's departure from Firaxis.
But let's give credit where credit is due:

1. Hex tiles: Civ V's most revolutionary design was the use of the hex grid instead of squares.
2. Civ V's maps: I believe Jon Shafer programmed most the maps for Civ V, notably the Scrambled maps. (As you may or may not know, I loved these maps so much I modded their equivalents in Civ VI before we got the World Builder)
3. 1 unit per tile: the move away from stacks of doom model.

Together with the awesome scenarios Into The Renaissance and Scramble For Africa, Civ V was for me "Peak Civ". One thing I'm pretty sure you ought to agree with me is that the AI in Civ V put up a considerably better fight than in Civ VI.
IDK if it is the new additional game systems or what but AI has regressed in Firaxis games.

When it comes to AI I think Firaxis peaked with Civ:BE (which is based on Civ V's game engine).



But you have to agree that like someone else said, Civ VI is in need of a final patch. I had hoped Anthology would have given Firaxis/2K some impetus to do that.
So many bugs...that I'm pretty sure Jon Shafer's Civ V at launch wasn't this bad, am I right?

Peaked with Beyon Dearth, now? Lol.

Civilization 5 was a near total disaster at launch. They refused to give a 60 turn trial copy at launch, it was that bad. They knew preorders would have plummeted if people would have seen how unready the game was. As it was, they tossed us a bone with a free Mongolia expansion to try to appease us.

Civ VI, while not perfect, was light years better than that turkey, at launch.

 

[UWHabs]

Peaked with Beyon Dearth, now? Lol.

Civilization 5 was a near total disaster at launch. They refused to give a 60 turn trial copy at launch, it was that bad. They knew preorders would have plummeted if people would have seen how unready the game was. As it was, they tossed us a bone with a free Mongolia expansion to try to appease us.

Civ VI, while not perfect, was light years better than that turkey, at launch.

Yeah, by the end of it, 5 was fine. But at launch it was pretty much a gongshow that I remember only getting a few games in before I had to put it aside for a few months for things to get patched up. VI was miles more stable at launch, despite its flaws. I do think VI still has pieces that could have been tightened up better with the NFP, but as someone with 3X more hours on VI than V despite owning both since each launch day, I think it's pretty clear where my opinions lie.

 

[canadamufc]

Thank you for your hard work Anton.

 

[kaspergm]

I don't think Anton should be held accountable for NFP's failure. It was clear that corporate wanted one final push of content for a game that really couldn't accommodate any more.

I half agree with this, but between some of the amazing stuff mods like City Lights adds, a fully fleshed-out coorporation system (and I actually think Industries and Corporations does have some elements with potential) and ... well, something to flesh out late game, I think there was room for one more expansion. But on the other hand, I must admit, since lately l find myself turning more and more stuff off again after having tried it one or two times.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think Anton should be held accountable for NFP's failure. It was clear that corporate wanted one final push of content for a game that really couldn't accommodate any more.

I'm sure half of it was also pleasing the fans wondering where their Maya, Ethiopia, Byzantium, Babylon, and Portugal civs were as well. Not to mention that the Barbarian Clans mode was also least inspired by fans wanting more from barbarians, and the devs ran with the idea.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Peaked with Beyon Dearth, now? Lol.

AI peaked with Beyond Earth.
But Civ V is "peak Civ" for me.

Please don't misquote me or take it out of context.

BTW those two guys who lead Beyond Earth: David McDonough (?) & Will Miller (?). I think they are really smart. I totally love the streamlining of the Civ V game engine they did for BE.

I realize this is probably both an unpopular and minority opinion. So please don't troll me.

But I still play BE on a weekly basis with a small group of hardcore fans, mostly Russian. It is a great multiplayer game. More challenging than Civ VI in multiplayer. Certainly better than Civ V at MP.

The biggest gripe people had with BE is THE PRICE.

Let's be honest, people felt ripped off paying $50 for a re skin of a game that cost $25, basically, am I right?

 

[xxhe]

NFP has its flaws (most of the ideas/modes are good, but they could be implemented in much better ways). However, I really like the communications during the NFP development (all those monthly previews, and the communications of the free patches).

 

[Zaarin]

I'm sure half of it was also pleasing the fans wondering where their Maya, Ethiopia, Byzantium, Babylon, and Portugal civs were as well. Not to mention that the Barbarian Clans mode was also least inspired by fans wanting more from barbarians, and the devs ran with the idea.

And coincidentally Barbarian Clans was also the only really well-designed mode. But yes, the purpose of the patch was clearly to extort money out of fill in the remaining fan favorites, which is why I think it was hilarious that people thought we'd be getting anything but the staples and a few popular fan requests like Vietnam and Gran Colombia.