Dennis Shirk acknowledges fan disappointment and Civ5 development problems

[Aristos]

keep trying, folks... keep trying.

On Topic: Jon Shafer IS the main responsible, like it or not, yet many here seem to hold him as a Demigod. Demigod las pelotas! He is a mediocre developer that did no hesitate to abandon ship. I cannot understand how he gets so much defense, specially from some people that should show a little more neutrality...

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

keep trying, folks... keep trying.

On Topic: Jon Shafer IS the main responsible, like it or not, yet many here seem to hold him as a Demigod. Demigod las pelotas! He is a mediocre developer that did no hesitate to abandon ship. I cannot understand how he gets so much defense, specially from some people that should show a little more neutrality...

Ok so Shafer (who btw had never been lead designer on a project [and a new civ game is no small project]) set goals that were to lofty to reach within his rushed timeframe. Yeah because that never happens. Obviously Shafer is incompetent and should never get a job in this industry again.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

He is a mediocre developer that did no hesitate to abandon ship...

Here's another perspective; He instead got tired of seeing staff leaving Firaxis, went vocal and upset about it (like any good designer & developer would), eventually got a better offer from StarDock, left without looking back once his task (as in a clear contract honored) was completed on CiV.
Even i can be wrong to imply as much.

 

[dexters]

We don't know why Jon left.

Soren Johnson is also gone. So the point is moot. Brian Reynolds also left after 1 iteration of Civ. If anything Civ4 benefited from having Soren stay there for 2 Civ entries.

I think Civilization as a franchise surviving this long and thriving is a testament to the fans and the great team of developers. (I never understood why some posters insult the devs). Firaxis problem is unlike Stardock, they are owned by the publisher and is subject to publisher pressure.

Civ5 was most definately forced to release on the date set by 2K, they had the same experience with Civ3 with Infogrames, and C3C patching was adruptly cut short when Atari simply cut funding to it. I'm still quite bitter about that.

If Firaxis could finance their own projects, we'd get better product and their key talent might stay longer.

 

[Drawmeus]

keep trying, folks... keep trying.

On Topic: Jon Shafer IS the main responsible, like it or not, yet many here seem to hold him as a Demigod. Demigod las pelotas! He is a mediocre developer that did no hesitate to abandon ship. I cannot understand how he gets so much defense, specially from some people that should show a little more neutrality...

We don't know that any part of this is true. We don't know why he left. We don't know that he's responsible for the failures. We don't know whether he left for good reasons or bad reasons. We know NOTHING except that he was lead designer and that he did leave.

If you're wondering how a lead designer could not be responsible for the failures - if corporate told him that the game's ship date was going to be late 2011, early 2012, even late 2012 (none of these are impossible for a project of this scale, and the first one is downright likely given when companies like to ship their products and given that the downstream aspects of the project - AI, UI - are by far the most rushed), then in 2010 decided that it looked good enough to ship because it was well-managed and they needed some cash, then is it his fault that key aspects of the project had to be rushed? It is entirely possible that another year of dev time could have caught all of the major issues we talk about today with time to either polish as needed or change as needed.

I'm not saying Shafer is responsible. I'm not saying he is a good manager or a good designer. I AM saying that blaming him for the mistakes given what we, the public know about the project (which is almost nothing except that it appears to have been pushed out the door early for one reason or another) is the exact opposite of 'neutrality'. We simply don't have that information.

 

[tokala]

Well, I know no single player strategy game in which the fanbase doesn't care a lot for the quality of the AI. Of course, you could say that these only constitute a minority of the customer base. Still, I don't think that the majority of users is totally oblivious of AI issues.

Yeah, the fanbase does care, but the games studios/publisheres either don't or simply do not have the budget to get it "right".

Didn't a Paradox guy mentioned in the QtT thread that something like 1/4 of their budget goes into AI, and don't they still usually need about a year from release to get it into the shape to pass fan judgement?
Than there's the Frog who certainly does care about the AI, but apparently EWoM was such a mess at release that the AI was one of the lesser problems.

CA's trademark tactical AI feature are suicidal generals at least since Rome, and the strategic AI is simply unable to cope since they switched away from the province-based strategic map.

HoMM4's AI was a joke, HoMM5 relied on scripted campaign AI.
SupCom/FA/2 again did mostly scripted campaign AI, okay they at least hired Sorian and he apparently performed a minor miracle for the skirmish AI, but that again took a lot of time.

Wasn't it agreed upon by the pros that in a TBS game with the complexity of Civ5 it is simply impossible to make a competetive symmetrical AI from due to budgetary as well as computing time reasons? And so most will settle for a "bare bones" AI good enough for the majority of players at release.

 

[Psyringe]

We don't know that any part of this is true. We don't know why he left. We don't know that he's responsible for the failures. We don't know whether he left for good reasons or bad reasons. We know NOTHING except that he was lead designer and that he did leave.

While I mostly agree with you, I'd also say that there was some writing on the wall way before he left. After Civ5's release, Shafer apologized at Qt3 for the state the game was released in, and said that he'll definitely try to fix it as long as they let him. Around the same time, Dennis Shirk gave an interview to Shanghai6 in which he basically blamed every controversial design decision on Shafer - he didn't say "we did that because ..." or "Firaxis thinks that ...", he said a lot of "Jon thought ..." or "Jon wanted ..." whenever a controversial feature was being talked about. After hearing this interview, I wrote here on CFC that if I were Shafer, I'd be worried about that. I wasn't surprised at all when I later learned that he left Firaxis.

Of course you're right, it's speculation. And I'm far from calling Shafer the sole culprit anyway, I think it's highly unlikely that the state of Civ5 can be attributed to mistakes made by a single person. But I had the impression that Shafer lost the backing of his producer several weeks before he left.

 

[Drawmeus]

While I mostly agree with you, I'd also say that there was some writing on the wall way before he left. After Civ5's release, Shafer apologized at Qt3 for the state the game was released in, and said that he'll definitely try to fix it as long as they let him. Around the same time, Dennis Shirk gave an interview to Shanghai6 in which he basically blamed every controversial design decision on Shafer - he didn't say "we did that because ..." or "Firaxis thinks that ...", he said a lot of "Jon thought ..." or "Jon wanted ..." whenever a controversial feature was being talked about. After hearing this interview, I wrote here on CFC that if I were Shafer, I'd be worried about that. I wasn't surprised at all when I later learned that he left Firaxis.

Of course you're right, it's speculation. And I'm far from calling Shafer the sole culprit anyway, I think it's highly unlikely that the state of Civ5 can be attributed to mistakes made by a single person. But I had the impression that Shafer lost the backing of his producer several weeks before he left.

It's certainly possible. It's not unfair to speculate on things like this. I take issue when people state them as fact, is all - that amounts to character assassination without evidence.

As far as Shirk goes, I haven't seen him out-and-out blame Shafer for the mess - "Jon thought" is going to be something totally normal to say when Jon is the lead designer, it doesn't mean he was wrong. And I also think Shafer would apologize whether it was his fault or not.

 

[dexters]

We don't know that any part of this is true. We don't know why he left. We don't know that he's responsible for the failures. We don't know whether he left for good reasons or bad reasons. We know NOTHING except that he was lead designer and that he did leave.

If you're wondering how a lead designer could not be responsible for the failures - if corporate told him that the game's ship date was going to be late 2011, early 2012, even late 2012 (none of these are impossible for a project of this scale, and the first one is downright likely given when companies like to ship their products and given that the downstream aspects of the project - AI, UI - are by far the most rushed), then in 2010 decided that it looked good enough to ship because it was well-managed and they needed some cash, then is it his fault that key aspects of the project had to be rushed? It is entirely possible that another year of dev time could have caught all of the major issues we talk about today with time to either polish as needed or change as needed.

I'm not saying Shafer is responsible. I'm not saying he is a good manager or a good designer. I AM saying that blaming him for the mistakes given what we, the public know about the project (which is almost nothing except that it appears to have been pushed out the door early for one reason or another) is the exact opposite of 'neutrality'. We simply don't have that information.

Firaxis has lost laid off staffers to Brian Reynold's Zynga.
Soren went to EA
Shafer went to Stardock.

 

[Drawmeus]

Firaxis has lost laid off staffers to Brian Reynold's Zynga.
Soren went to EA
Shafer went to Stardock.

Not totally sure why this is directed to me via quote... we do know people have left, but I don't see why that's important to anything I said.

 

[dexters]

I had written something longer, but in the interest of fact based discussion I deleted most of it.


I implied something might be wrong @ Firaxis, but then I realized I have no proof of that.

In anycase, mad props to the Frankenstein team who has done a great job helping Firaxis patch
Civ5. The game has changed quite a bit, but I feel a lot of the criticisms are based on older builds.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Okay now, has dust settled?
Or will we have (again) to go through the same round of ranting flukes by outsiders?

Moderator Action: Stop trolling for a fight
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Without a steady staff, Firaxis couldn't focus on a solid progressive *CODE* pulled out from multiple sources -- as in sections dedicated to specific assets.
Such projects require a clear plan followed to the letter... aka-designed concepts.
Being carried by anyone in any numbers of tasks or duties.

Solution translated into patches.
EOF.
Good bye.

 

[dexters]

^ In english please

 

[JohnnyW]

I implied something might be wrong @ Firaxis, but then I realized I have no proof of that.

Regardless of *PROOF* there clearly is something wrong at Firaxis.
Never has a Civ game been so rushed out the door of development.

You might say that 2K is what's wrong with Firaxis... aka-the publisher.
You might blame the inexperienced lead designer who is no longer with the project.
Obviously something went wrong for the game to have come out the way it did, and Shafer and Shirk have acknowledged this.

civ5 is a flop.
QED.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We don't know why Jon left.

The only person who will ever know for 100% certain is him.

I think Civilization as a franchise surviving this long and thriving is a testament to the fans and the great team of developers. (I never understood why some posters insult the devs). Firaxis problem is unlike Stardock, they are owned by the publisher and is subject to publisher pressure.

Wrong. Firaxis has systematically followed a patch/update path that ignores basic gameplay elements that are known to be unfinished or bugged for nearly a decade. In allowing multiple gameplay 101 failures to go unchecked for years while attempting to nerf obscure strategies they've shown very clearly their priorities. This DLC vs fixing the game policy is disappointing but not surprising.

If Firaxis could finance their own projects, we'd get better product and their key talent might stay longer.

The real question is whether the key talent is still there. Maybe the gradual incompetency really is the cause of a 2k stranglehold. Maybe Atari/2k ran enough of the design team off that there wasn't hope for firaxis. Regardless, Firaxis can't finance its own projects and now things are a mess.

Without a steady staff, Firaxis couldn't focus on a solid progressive *CODE* pulled out from multiple sources -- as in sections dedicated to specific assets.
Such projects require a clear plan followed to the letter... aka-designed concepts.
Being carried by anyone in any numbers of tasks or duties.

We haven't seen good code from firaxis since *maybe* civ 3. Civ V is only more repugnant because 1) it was released a bit sooner in the design process than other titles and 2) it made some questionable design choices. Priority of mechanics was questionable too but if someone in charge of an aspect gets laid off....

 

[dexters]

Wrong. Firaxis has systematically followed a patch/update path that ignores basic gameplay elements that are known to be unfinished or bugged for nearly a decade. In allowing multiple gameplay 101 failures to go unchecked for years while attempting to nerf obscure strategies they've shown very clearly their priorities. This DLC vs fixing the game policy is disappointing but not surprising.....

I don't have an issue with this. I love how the Civ3 AI was built up over 2 years of continuous patching and the AI we had in 2003 was superior to the vanilla version.

Civ is a complex game, a lot of design decisions do not become apparent until there has been serious playtime.

Frankenstein helped with the testing of IV which smoothed the release version. And even the best launch still left a lot of people unhappy with Vanilla civ4. But those issues were eventually patched also. With 5, Frankenstein appears to have been hampered as Shirk admitted due to Steam implementation. It's a shame.

 

[Valkrionn]

Eh, that's just the definition I think he was going for; and I don't think it's that misleading. I interpreted it as 'functions that make the game able to be played' (not 'played enjoyably' or 'played without endless frustration', but just 'played' in general).


Well yeah, I agree that that is an issue. I just happen to have no problem with it, because I always use two clicks rather than attempting shortcuts. This indicates a bad UI, in that it means unnecessary clicks, but I simply don't have a problem with it, because I've never used shortcuts anyway. Queuing is much easier for me now than it was in Civ4, not because the UI is better in terms of efficiency, but because the GUI is clearer. I think the GUI makes up for the UI to a large extent in that regard. At least, for me it does, and that's why I don't think it's as bad as you do.

Without getting too far into the UI debate...

Queuing is atrocious in Civ5. Sure, it's more blatantly explained, but it takes many times the clicks it took in Civ4.

SIMPLE SOLUTION: Add a player option to switch between blatant queue, and civ4-style queue. Hell, my Economy Mod had a civ4 style queue shortly after the game's release! It's not a difficult matter to tie that behavior to an option.


TheMeInTeam, you should be more vocal on Franky.

 

[Psyringe]

It's certainly possible. It's not unfair to speculate on things like this. I take issue when people state them as fact, is all - that amounts to character assassination without evidence.

Agreed.

As far as Shirk goes, I haven't seen him out-and-out blame Shafer for the mess - "Jon thought" is going to be something totally normal to say when Jon is the lead designer, it doesn't mean he was wrong. And I also think Shafer would apologize whether it was his fault or not.

The strange thing (for me) was that, in this interview, Shirk said "we" when talking about less controversial issues, but always said "Jon" when talking about the more controversial ones. I agree that it was by no means an out-and-out blaming, but I've never seen a lead developer being singled out by his producer especially and exclusively for the controversial design decisions. At the time I clearly had the impression that Shirk was trying to distance himself (and Firaxis) from Shafer, though it may not even have been a conscious decision to do so.

I mentioned Shafer's apology for a different reason: I believe that back then, he really did want to fix the game (although it was a bit odd already that he added a caveat in the form of "as long as they let me"). And then he left. So either he turned around on his own stated desire to fix the game he designed, or he left Firaxis not totally voluntarily. Combined with the distancing in the interview from Shirk, I think that the second explanation is more likely. But yes, it's all speculation, and probably not extremely useful as such. (Which makes it even more important to get some information that has a bit more substance, like Shirk's post-mortem with which the thread started. Imho. )

 

[Camikaze]

Without getting too far into the UI debate...

Queuing is atrocious in Civ5. Sure, it's more blatantly explained, but it takes many times the clicks it took in Civ4.

SIMPLE SOLUTION: Add a player option to switch between blatant queue, and civ4-style queue. Hell, my Economy Mod had a civ4 style queue shortly after the game's release! It's not a difficult matter to tie that behavior to an option.

Yeah, I agree. My point was though that the GUI does appear to be better in terms of those blatant explanations. Hopefully, a happy co-existence of keyboard shortcuts and are clearly explained UI will eventually result.

 

[Iranon]

That's a general trend that holds for both gameplay and interface design: It must look appealing straight away. Something that's awkward at first and only turns out to be good once you're used to it is less and less acceptable.

A shame really, because often practicality for experienced players is sacrificed in the attempt to make things appealing for newbies. Mind you, Civ4 wasn't a saint of the old school by any means...