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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree for the most part . . . but two of the modes (barbarians and corporations), while far from "done" here, I'm hoping were test studies for inclusion in the next civ. To your point they would have both worked better if just added to the game instead of being made as they were.

Those are the two modes that I really want to be fleshed out and incorporated into the base game of Civ VII.

 

[Linklite]

Think you will find you are in a very small minority there. I'll be astonished if we don't have something similar in Civ VII.

Maybe, but I think he's correct. Ilike the idea of modularity in theory, but when you turn a feature on, it needs to function as if it's integral to the whole. H&L mode has a significant degradation in quality because the AI doesn't know how to use the heroes. They're just buffed regular units. All the game modes that require the AI to be adapted are just mostly ignored by the AI. Carpets of cultists sitting around doing nothing but annoying me by blocking my paths. I've yet to see a vampire. They haven't even adapted the AI to account for whether a victory condition is active or not

I'd love the game to be even more modular, ro customise your game but I don't think Firaxis is capable of/willing to pile on the resources to get the job done properly. In that case, modularity is just making things worse.

 

[UWHabs]

Maybe, but I think he's correct. Ilike the idea of modularity in theory, but when you turn a feature on, it needs to function as if it's integral to the whole. H&L mode has a significant degradation in quality because the AI doesn't know how to use the heroes. They're just buffed regular units. All the game modes that require the AI to be adapted are just mostly ignored by the AI. Carpets of cultists sitting around doing nothing but annoying me by blocking my paths. I've yet to see a vampire. They haven't even adapted the AI to account for whether a victory condition is active or not

I'd love the game to be even more modular, ro customise your game but I don't think Firaxis is capable of/willing to pile on the resources to get the job done properly. In that case, modularity is just making things worse.

I understand the challenges. Trying to program the AI to play where culture victory is disabled, barbarian clans are on, secret societies off, heroes on, on a terra map, and in a modded game where forests give +14 combat strength defending in them is obviously not an easy thing. That is a big reason why I don't tend to play with those modes - sure, sometimes the AI will steal Hercules from you, but I seriously doubt that they target him and use him to the fullest. I mean, we've all seen Sinbad spend his years fishing in a little lake. That's why at least I'm happy that their optional - sure, they're not balanced. But you know what? Sometimes it is fun to have Hercules lead your army. I enjoy making my stupidly powerful capital with vampire castles. Those features absolutely should not come to the detriment of the core game, but sometimes it's fun to have a little sandbox mode available. And in that sense, I really don't mind if these modes continue on and stay as a semi-regular feature.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

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.

Civ5 was so terrible I stopped playing Civ games till like last year.

Also I think CIV VI was designed to be able to be ported to mobile from the start.

It works flawlwssly on my iPhone, and the base game was 13 bucks.

I don't even agree that BC was a well-designed mode. Yes, the core idea was good, but just a few test play-throughs should have made it evident that numbers were completely off, particularly getting the entire arctic world plastered with city states was a huge let-down for me with this mode. So again, we ended up with something based on a idea with merit, but with implementation so superficial it ended up breaking the game (balance).

Both Barbarian Clans and Corporations are pretty ironclad proof that there is either literally zero playtesting, or that the playtesters get completely ignored.

Someone putting out a mod for Fallout or Skyrim that was this broken would get downvoted to oblivion

 

[Zaarin]

@Zaarin re: Civ V at launch. How many years ago was that? I really do not recall. (I may have been super busy at work and not really had time to play at launch).

2010.

I don't even agree that BC was a well-designed mode. Yes, the core idea was good, but just a few test play-throughs should have made it evident that numbers were completely off, particularly getting the entire arctic world plastered with city states was a huge let-down for me with this mode. So again, we ended up with something based on a idea with merit, but with implementation so superficial it ended up breaking the game (balance).

All fair points.

Think you will find you are in a very small minority there. I'll be astonished if we don't have something similar in Civ VII.

I usually am and don't much care, though I also know I'm not the only one who has criticized Civ6 for its lack of coherent, integrated design--and I'm not just talking about NFP's modes. If Civ7 is an incoherent mess like Civ6, I'll be giving it a pass. Civ6 feels like it was sorely lacking in strong central leadership and vision, like its leads said, "You're doing great! Just do whatever you want!" with no internal communication whatsoever. So the individual systems are fine, but the sum total is an incoherent wreck. If Civ7 can't fix that, it'll be the first Civ game I pass on.

Yeah, I think the modular game modes are actually a great idea overall, I just wish that they were a little more connected to the rest of the game.

You're making my point for me as these are mutually exclusive outcomes. Modular features cannot be integrated into the core game by definition. Hence Civ6's problem with coherence (though that problem runs deeper than the modes).

 

[Alaindor]

And coincidentally Barbarian Clans was also the only really well-designed mode.

I can't agree to that. The idea was good, but as for most of NFP modes, the execution was poor and playtesting obviously non-existent. Having polar caps overcrowded with helpless City-States is game-breaking.

Modular features cannot be integrated into the core game by definition. Hence Civ6's problem with coherence (though that problem runs deeper than the modes).

I absolutely agree here. Modular features that you can turn on or off simply cannot be integrated in the core game mechanics. They could have made a better job at it though, especially M&C for which the idea is good, once again, but the AI is totally broken and will simply not develop luxuries. Game-breaking, again.

 

[Zaarin]

I can't agree to that. The idea was good, but as for most of NFP modes, the execution was poor and playtesting obviously non-existent. Having polar caps overcrowded with helpless City-States is game-breaking.

Yes, as I said above, that's a very fair point. I'm hopeful that Barbarian Clans will translate into more nuanced minor civs, but the current implementation has problems for sure.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Both Barbarian Clans and Corporations are pretty ironclad proof that there is either literally zero playtesting, or that the playtesters get completely ignored.

Firaxis Civ team really need to take a page from Amplitude. Their OpenDevs and public Beta were such a good idea for both feedback and managing player expectations.

I'm surprised at how quick Amplitude are able to ship hotfixes to bugs and exploits not long after they are reported on the forums.

Also they may also have access to more advanced dev tools. I've not really got into HUMANKIND modding yet (cos my priorities have shifted).
But I think in a corporate/enterprise or certainly commercial (non-game) setting Civ VI would not have passed QA (Quality Assurance or "testing").
Test frameworks, automated tests, etc. are not new.

 

[pokiehl]

Firaxis Civ team really need to take a page from Amplitude. Their OpenDevs and public Beta were such a good idea for both feedback and managing player expectations.

I'm surprised at how quick Amplitude are able to ship hotfixes to bugs and exploits not long after they are reported on the forums..

You are being afflicted with "grass is greener" syndrome right now with regards to Humankind.

I get it - many of us here have sunk hundreds if not thousands of hours into Civ 6. Familiarity breeds contempt and after 5+ years, we are all thirsty for something new: Civ 7 or another historical 4x game. But your view of the situation with Amplitude and Humankind simply isn't accurate.

1. Arguably the Open Devs did the game no favors. There's a line of thought floating around on their forums that the feedback OpenDevs, which were small slices of gameplay, ultimately led to the team taking in feedback that didn't actually gel with the full picture of the game. I think FULL betas of games are a much better approach than piecemeal slices.

2. Humankind is still severely lacking polish; they've fixed a lot of the gamebreaking bugs, but many of these still persist. Additionally, the balance is horrendous and their fixes for core systemic issues are bizarre and miss the mark. For instance, there was a major flaw that resources don't scale with map size (that is, if you pick a small map or a huge map, they will basically have the same number of resources) AND resources clump around the map unevenly. Big flaw that ruins large maps. So they "fixed it" by adding a resource setting. However, this STILL doesn't scale with map size, and it completely amplifies the resource clumping. This one issue has really, really hurt my enjoyment of the game.

Another polish issue is that when you build a Farmer's Quarter, all the tiles around it get a 2d farm texture slapped on them - even if the tile is actually rocky (which should have mines) or a forest. This issue was introduced a few patches ago I think and still has yet to be resolved.

I can go on and on, and I haven't even touched on balancing yet. I'm not trying to condemn the game, but I feel like your view of Humankind is colored by your overall lack of familiarity with it; it's fresh and new and shiny for you.

Dig into Humankind with the same magnifying we all have used with Civ 6, and you'll be dismayed with the issues you find.

For a real picture, you should go visit their G2G forums. Many seasoned players have articulated the myriad issues a lot better than I can.

it’s actually pretty funny. The Humankind forums are really similar to civfanatics: hardcore fans complaining about the game nonstop and telling everyone to play a different game!

Also they may also have access to more advanced dev tools. I've not really got into HUMANKIND modding yet (cos my priorities have shifted).
But I think in a corporate/enterprise or certainly commercial (non-game) setting Civ VI would not have passed QA (Quality Assurance or "testing").
Test frameworks, automated tests, etc. are not new

I don't quite know what you mean here. Game development IS a corporate/enterprise/commercial setting, and bugs are not unique to videogames. Go look at the forums of popular art programs, music workstations, or any number of software programs, and you'll find the same thing you find here: long-time users annoyed at persisting issues and forecasting the doom of the software

As a final note, I said earlier we don't expect new content for Civ 6, but I am confident we'll get a final wrap-up patch like Civ 5 did. I'm not defending the current state of the game at all, and it needs another round of polishing.

 

[blackbutterfly]

I don't quite know what you mean here. Game development IS a corporate/enterprise/commercial setting, and bugs are not unique to videogames.

I realize many of these game publishers now rival Fortune 500 companies (especially post pandemic) but they are not what I mean by "enterprise". I mean those companies like AXA, AIG, CGI even Apple. Corporate, suit & tie firms.
I speak out of experience. In an enterprise setting there will be at least a minimum amount of software engineering process like CMMI. That is part of the bureaucracy, for better or worse.

On the plus side, there will be thorough QA, matched with some sort of engineered integrated testing. Read up on the wiki though it's pretty mind numbing

Importantly things like continuous integration, use of some sort of test framework, automated test suites. Etc.

---

Re: HUMANKIND:
I am on G2G.

 

[Zegangani]

I realize many of these game publishers now rival Fortune 500 companies (especially post pandemic) but they are not what I mean by "enterprise". I mean those companies like AXA, AIG, CGI even Apple. Corporate, suit & tie firms.

No Wonder, the Gaming Industry is more profitable and successful than The (Hollywood) Movie Industry, and not just because of Corona, but Corona has sure added to that, and it's still steadilly growing.

 

[blackbutterfly]

No Wonder, the Gaming Industry is more profitable and successful than The (Hollywood) Movie Industry, and not just because of Corona, but Corona has sure added to that, and it's still steadilly growing.

...and the point you're trying to make is?

Let me explain this another way:
Do you think Apple would have released (a product with the quality of) Civ VI?

I don't think so.
In a corporate environment, once it is brought to management attention that a product suffers from quality issues (i.e. bugs), management do the only thing they can do: enforce software engineering (SE) process.

Most people are familiar with source control. E.g: git (gitHub), subversion, cvs.
Source control like git, is like the most basic SE process.

I'm fairly certain Firaxis employ source control, as there is branching and tagging (from SteamDB).
And I think most programmers these days know the virtue of using source control (even though it can be time consuming in itself to use).

These other things like continuous integration systems, test frameworks, deployment and monitoring systems are the next step. Take a look at Java for examples.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I speak out of experience. In an enterprise setting there will be at least a minimum amount of software engineering process like CMMI. That is part of the bureaucracy, for better or worse.

On the plus side, there will be thorough QA, matched with some sort of engineered integrated testing. Read up on the wiki though it's pretty mind numbing

Importantly things like continuous integration, use of some sort of test framework, automated test suites. Etc.

You seriously think the likes of Firaxis don't use these types of processes?? lol

 

[blackbutterfly]

You seriously think the likes of Firaxis don't use these types of processes?? lol

Are you kidding me right now?!!

I think from the number of Civ VI bugs and the abysmal quality of the releases either they altogether don't use any sort of automated test suites or most certainly don't use them effectively.

In this respect Amplitude are faring much better with HUMANKIND IMO.

 

[Alaindor]

Do you think Apple would have released (a product with the quality of) Civ VI?

When Apple moved away from Google maps, their maps software was that good, Tim Cook had to give a public apology.

Come on. I currently work in a Fortune 500 company and I can tell you that despite the nice ISO, CMMI, ITIL and whatever certifications and processes there are, QA and testing remain on the struggling side to make it through resources, budget and planning constraints. I expect no less no more of Firaxis, even if their core business is supposed to be delivering software.

 

[blackbutterfly]

I currently work in a Fortune 500 company and I can tell you that despite the nice ISO, CMMI, ITIL and whatever certifications and processes there are, QA and testing remain on the struggling side to make it through resources, budget and planning constraints. I expect no less no more of Firaxis, even if their core business is supposed to be delivering software.

Actually I expect it was quite the opposite at Firaxis (as opposed to Fortune 500 companies).

I'm sure Ed Beach, Anton Stenger and the devs wanted to fix Civ VI. Execs/management would have wanted more content instead, to milk the cash cow that is Civ VI. (They don't get money for fixing bugs, they get money from DLCs and expansions).
For gaming software there is no financial incentive to produce quality products and services, unlike in the rest of the industry. So it's not a question of budget.

But just go onto Steam discussions and you will see a whole heap of threads on Civ VI bugs.
Every now and again someone will ask about launching a class-action lawsuit, but unfortunately AFAIK there aren't any consumer protection laws against "buggy" software. So I suppose the gaming industry has no motivation to ship games without bugs. It's really up to consumers (i.e. us) to stop buying buggy/unplayable games. Or to ask for refunds.
...oh and I almost forgot: competition is the other motivator for Firaxis to produce a better Civ Next

 

[Alaindor]

Budget is always the question in a commercial company.

... but I agree with you: the only incentive to producing quality is if quality is a driver for customer buying decisions. Which implies competition and customers having a choice. And I certainly agree that the amount of bugs and balance issues introduced with each NFP "extension" is beyond unacceptable - not at least without a hotfix being shipped one month later, as all these flaws have been utterly discussed on various threads and forums.

 

[Zegangani]

...and the point you're trying to make is?

I just expressed my Opinion, that it's not a surprise to see Gaming Companies like Nintendo, Epic Games or Activision Blizzard...etc compete with Fortune 500 Companies. The Gaming Industry is Booming, bc nowadays Games aren't tied to Computers and Consoles, Mobile Games are also getting more and more successful, and there was no better Time in the history of Gaming to play Multiplayer Games than currently.

A perfect example of a successful Gaming Company is Nintendo: Microsoft (One of the biggest Software/Hardware (and other services) Companies out there) failed to buy Nintendo, but got even laughed at for even asking. Nintendo didn't just manage to deliver a successful Game after another, but also made it's own consoles, and with Switch, it brought out an undeniably successful Console with which it could be independent from other consoles/companies and build it's own Monopoly around it.
And there is no reason for Epic Games to hide from mega companies either, Unreal Engine 5 is starting to change (not just) the gaming Industry forever, an example being the realistic and cinematic gameplay it's capable of (who would want to watch a Movie if they can be in one themselves? ), and the poly-count limit (that all games suffer from which limits how much Game assets a game scene can have) that it had got rid of. Yes, it's still in developpement and has many bugs, but it's not very far away from delivering the Foundation of the Golden Age of Gaming.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Arguably the Open Devs did the game no favors. There's a line of thought floating around on their forums that the feedback OpenDevs, which were small slices of gameplay, ultimately led to the team taking in feedback that didn't actually gel with the full picture of the game.

In the context of testing in Software Engineering I wanted to add something about Amplitude's OpenDev.

It's not about the feedback. It's about bug reporting.

Normally a QA team would have to be "test monkeys" and qualify if a release can or cannot be shipped by playing and identifying bugs. If there are too many critical bugs, it can't be released. If the QA team have no outstanding critical bugs then a product can ship.
With an OpenDev, they can use us players as the test monkeys. The QA team's job then can be simply to replicate the bug reports and verify if they have been fixed or not once the devs push updates, accelerating the QA process.

I don't doubt for a minute the OpenDevs did not contribute to the quality of HUMANKIND when it shipped.
I think Firaxis can take a leaf from Amplitude here.

 

[Solver]

Not to comment on Amplitude's design, but their open devs are nothing unique. Firaxis doesn't have a public group like that (they'd probably be overwhelmed by the amount of people wanting to be on it), but they've employed a private, handpicked group of players from the community during Civ development dating back to C3C, as the credits for the games also indicate. Having spent fifteen years on that Civ group, I say with the utmost confidence it's been instrumental to Civ. That's not the same as a QA team, which of course also exists, and has a very different task.