Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Stretchy Man, Dec 1, 2010.
I want to spend 50 in this game... do you have a release date?
This thread made me laugh out loud in the middle of the library.
"if you're playing against gandhi and he doesn't declare war randomly on you at some point, then we haven't done our job."
I agree that this just doesn't feel right...if someone wants random personalities, that's what a random personalities OPTION is for. Not just making everyone act like the unholy offspring of Monty and Cathy from IV by default.
Now don't get me wrong; in IV when Gandi would say "I studied on killin' you", it was the funniest thing ever. But that's because you knew you earned it *lol*.
As said before, it's pretty much being taken out of context. Gandhi is still one of the less aggressive leaders in civ5.
It would be nice if the OP actually provided a source so we could see its proper meaning. (EDIT... Nevermind - see below)
Another possible point of confusion: When it says "at some point", that probably wasn't meant to mean at some point each game, but at some point in a series of games.
This could totally be taken as an insult.
This is an encouraging quote, even if it hasn't been realised. At least it shows the right type of thought.
I'm not sure that helped. I don't think many people want the AI to randomly start wars they have no chance of winning like they do in Civ 5. Maybe Shirk confused 'random' with 'uncharacteristically'. Buggered if I know what he meant.
Well, in one of games (and I only played 4 or 5 before get bored to death), Gandy declared on me after been liberated by me 2 times, and I NEVER attack him or did anything bad to him.
Actually under my protection he expanded to 4 cities and had 4! (FOUR) spears. Well I had modern armor!
Yeah that's pretty random.
Found some more gems:
This model also allows Civ 5 to run on integrated graphics including most modern notebooks and computers that do not have an independent graphics card, at an acceptable framerate. The game has been extensively tested and tweaked for these lower end systems, so it should run out of the box. Dan Baker.
Civilization V is, in fact, very, very scalable (amazingly so in my opinion. I cant tell you how floored I was to hear about the gamut of machines that the game will run on.). Tobey.
I think the other factor too is there really is a culture on this team of making the code as lean and as streamlined as it can possibly be. Which, paying attention to the small details as you're going along, little things add up. There are a lot of little things built into the game. Josh Barczak.
I think on this project one of the most valuable lessons is that the senior engineers set the tone for the project and if they're really concerned about the performance and really concerned about code optimization. John Kloetzli.
One of the nice things about working here is that our secret sauce is making the game great. Gameplay great. So the cool thing about that is as a graphics guy I can actually talk about what we do because we don't consider that our competitive edge. And gosh there's so many things technically. Dan Baker.
Civilization V is going to have a multiplayer component like none youve ever experienced in the past. Tobey.
But from my perspective Steam was just a really good way to get a game out there. Within the company there are a lot of people, including me, who were surprised when I came home and installed steam and it was like "Do you want to install the game here?" And I was like "Whoa, why doesn't everything do this? This is amazing!". This whole idea of taking your games and making them account based seems to be a good thing to be a part off. Dorian Newcomb.
For me, one big things was also to give players a lot of flexibility in terms of how they develop their empires. So happiness is a good example of that. Happiness is now empire-based instead of city-based and what that lets players do is expand a lot and have a lot of small cities or a few really big cities. Shafer.
Yeah we've moved the entire art team onto AI. You'll find out what the results of that are soon. Shafer.
Filed under technically true.
Did he really sad that? Art team into AI? No wander of result!
Some of them are incredibly now that we know the game xD
Wow, this is heavy stuff. I mean I like CiV 5 a lot (don't hate me...) and I am playing it like an addict since it came out, but even I must admit certain shortcomings.
It is always dangerous to take quotes out of context; they can easily be taken the wrong way. However, most of the stuff, it seems, wouldn't even be true *in* context. Especially the war and AI stuff.
I know it is their job to market the game and build the hype and I don't even blame them for this. It's just a pretty hard slap in the face to compare it to the end product. I am glad I didn't read and see much of the hype before CiV 5 came out, so at least I cannot say I had different expectations ;-)
They do it all the time in civ4. Was it ok back then, and not anymore?
No, I think he meant just what he said. Actually I think it's closer to being you confusing 'randomly' with 'uncharacteristically' in this instance.
In other words, Shirk wasn't saying "we want Gandhi to every now and then do something out of character". He was saying "we want the character of Gandhi to be just random enough that at least once he will declare war on you". Before release the devs spoke of the various 'flavours' that each leader would have in the game and that while they had base values for each flavour there could be a bit of variability around it. E.g. If on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is peacenik and 10 is warmonger, maybe Gandhi has a base value of 0 and the variability around that value is 2, so in some games Gandhi will have a personality that prevents him ever declaring war, while in others he will have enough courage to do it if he sees it necessary (but probably still be unlikely to go on a conquest spree).
Anyway, putting that aside for a moment, I agree that the pre-release marketing hype was exactly that - hype - and that much of it was pretty bad. In my view the main area where the game didn't meet the hype is in its performance issues.
I didn't believe it either. But I found it here, in the very first ciV podcast: http://www.civilization5.com/#/community/podcast_transcript_1
Unfortunately you can't hear the laughing from reading the transcript. It was a joke.
This thread might as well be titled: "How to make quotes look silly by removing them from context" (heh, that's maybe a bit harsh)
The problem with this concept is that it makes leaders all alike.
By allowing for +/- 2 in a scale of 10, the extremes have to be at 2 and 8, unaltered. Otherwise they can't do as much changing as others do.
Now, the average leader will have a 5 as starting value, which can become a 3 (modified) or a 7 (modified).
Which means, he can be as passive as the peacenick (Gandhi) and be as aggressive as Monty.
And in the worst case, all the average leaders become Monty, with one or two exceptions who are eaten in the first turns of the game.
The result is, what we see in Civ5: maniac leaders without a distinctive personality.
Actually, each Civ5 game is a game with "random personality" like in Civ4.
That was laughter from despair, because he was true.
See exhibit A: Civ5.
That makes sense. (Note to them: this is why you write "[laughter]" or similar.) I'm not sure what it would mean if it wasn't a joke anyway, it's totally nonsensical and meaningless if taken as a serious statement.
All the quotes posted here that I actually think are relevant, are perfectly in context. The context is simply that they are hyping the game up before release. In retrospect it's fairly amusing to see what they chose to hype vs which parts of the game are actually solid; that's all.
It didn't sound so nonsensical in the actual recording, but I agree the transcribing wasn't very well done.
Here's my revision of it: Everything in bold or blue wasn't in the transcript.
I said it's nonsensical if taken as a serious statement (which, duh, it wasn't in the actual recording). It wouldn't make sense because putting the art team to work on the AI would not accomplish anything useful. As in, I wouldn't believe it if they seriously claimed it.
The bolded parts seem to be important.
"Doing things differently". I cannot express how much this hurts.
"Changing things for the better" - ok.
But "doing things differently"? This is just, what many have articulated during the past weeks and months: the game feels like they wanted to Civ5 to be as unlike Civ4 as possible.
The result can be revised on any installation.
Furthermore, the "came out really early" is another indication of what was going on. Early decisions were made and reality was not allowed to interfere with the nice ideas from the beginning of the project ("only the sky was the limit").
Well, fortunately, hexes worked. Unfortunately, combat did not work, but hey... "it came out really early", didn't it?
Separate names with a comma.