Has firaxis lost it?

[SupremacyKing2]

If that's true, then that doesn't bode well for sites such as CFC, Apolyton, and WePlayCiv,

Every past civ game has followed the same pattern. Firaxis updates the graphics, adds one or two big features and removes or simplifies other features. It's their famous 1/3 rule. I just don't see them ever changing that. So, I think it is rather safe to say that civ6 will follow the same pattern which is why I think hardcore civ players will be disappointed.

 

[rastak]

Every past civ game has followed the same pattern. Firaxis updates the graphics, adds one or two big features and removes or simplifies other features. It's their famous 1/3 rule. I just don't see them ever changing that. So, I think it is rather safe to say that civ6 will follow the same pattern which is why I think hardcore civ players will be disappointed.

Well, I really wish they'd move on something else if that ends up being the case. Do people enjoy being unhappy?

 

[Sherlock]

Good article, thanks for the link.

 

[rastak]

Good article, thanks for the link.

It was good, I haven't had such a good laugh in a while. Laughter is good for the soul.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I'm not convinced by the common complaint of games appealing to a 'wider audience'. I would've thought that means, by definition, that more people like the game. It also seems eminently reasonable for a AAA company to be wanting to sell many copies of its games, rather than aiming for a narrower 'hard core' segment, which would surely make it no longer a AAA company.

I suppose there are different ways to do it.

CK2 is a good example where it was done right: The game itself kept its depth (in fact, I'd say it became even deeper because they expended many mechanics), but at the same time it also became *a lot* more accessible because Paradox designed a better UI and improved game feedback to the user.

On the flip side I always felt restricted when I played the new X-COM. I liked to equip soldiers myself, I loved managing multiple bases, I liked the original combat system. That stuff is gone and I frankly never understood why it *had* to go instead of making it more user friendly. The result is a game that I find to be highly style over substance and where I'd rather play the original (or Xenonauts - thanks kickstarter!). But, yes, I can see why it makes sense from a business standpoint - if you are the one making the money.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I couldn't finish the article. I tended to aree with the guy, but he lost me at Skyrim. It was more shallow than Morrowind, but it also made a lot of things better. Having to put on my uniform to get Legion quests sounds like great roleplay on paper, but it's just a hassle in practice, and while character creation in Skyrim is much simpler, there are more and better customization options through the perk trees.

Here's the thing about appealing to a wider audience: Turn based strategy games are inherently a niche genre. You can make them more accessible by improving the UI and in some cases removing mechanics that make them more complicated but don't add real depth, but there's a limit. It doesn't just apply to TBS, but pretty much every genre that isn't explicitly marketed to stereotypical teenagers and frat boys. There are games that managed to pull this off: Skyrim and Mass Effect 2 are good examples, and possibly Enemy Unknow, which I really enjoyed, but can't really compare to the original X-Com which I never played.
Developers fail when they don't understand why a genre is popular with its fans and cut off integral parts when they "trim the fat" or introduce elements of more popular genres, or just plain mess up.
That applies to many EA games, but other publishers are just as guilty. Dead Space and Resident Evil wre transformed from survival horror into third person shooters, Sim City was reduced in scope and downgraded to make it less complicated for the Call of Duty crowd and less interesting for city builder fans (and we don't even need to go into the always on debacle. Two of those series are dead now, Maxis lies in ruins, and Visceral Games will soon follow, and Colossal Order has made a proper Sim City which has already sold half a million copies within a weak. Of course half a million copies is not much for a big publishers because it bare makes up for the ridiculous marketing budget, let alone the overblown development cost, but that's another issue. What does that have to do Firaxis ? I'm not entirely sure, I've gone a bit off track now.
Ah, yes. The developers of Beyond Earth don't understand the audience. Neither did John Shafer with Civilization 5. Both games are more shallow than Civ 4 vanilla. Both have taken out important parts of their direct predecessor, seemingly without much thought behind it. Civ V got rid of religions, growing cottages, health and city flipping, and changed the maintenance system to make larger emires a thing of the past. Beyond Earth made diplomacy even worse than Civ V and removed any reason to aspire for friendly relations, and got rid of Great People, thus making wonders far less appealing and specialists practically useless.
I don't know if I should have any confidence in BE. I used to say that if Civ V could be salvaged, so can BE, but the recent patch was a huge disappointment and many of the changes seem to suggest that they don't understand their own game. They don't understand what works for us, they don't understand what we like or dislike. The big issues were ignored (diplomacy, specialists) or exacerbated (wonders), and they didn't even fix the two borderline gamebreaking bugs they introduced in the first patch (eternal war and no quests past turn 100).

 

[Kutuzov]

Of course half a million copies is not much for a big publishers because it bare makes up for the ridiculous marketing budget, let alone the overblown development cost, but that's another issue.

Quite an important one actually.

The developers of Beyond Earth don't understand the audience.

I'd prefer to use the past simple there. They didn't understand their audience. They've admitted to that rather publicly and have declared that they're going to rework the game later. Who knows, you might actually like what they end up doing with the game. Or maybe not. But we'll have a better idea if they understand the audience better when they do. But it's more 'satisfying' for some to sling mud at them instead of waiting, I suppose.

I don't know if I should have any confidence in BE.

I don't think that you should have any either. If you're (plural) still unhappy with Civ:BE, the chances are very strong that you're going to be increasingly unhappy in the future at least until we see what they have planned for v2.

Further, I have no interest in trying to keep Firaxis on track myself. I'm happy playing what they're offering. I don't think they should listen to 20 or 30 'guys on the Internet' who are unhappy and think they know the industry better either. They were told by these same people that Civ V would fail as well. It turned out to be a huge success.

If they make bad mistakes and sink, they sink and it won't affect my quality of life one bit if they do.

 

[liv]

I think overall the game developers tried to make a game different from its predecessors by taking away some of the mechanics from CIV V but the mechanics they introduced to replace these, such as tech web, affinities, quests, health, trade stations, aliens did not succeed as they were just poorly thought out or bugged. They were not really meant to be dumbed-down features. It would be difficult to argue that the web is dumber than the tech tree (in theory). Or that the virtue tree is dumber than the social policy tree. They ideas that choose your own strength when you start (in terms of what you want to be or bring) is not dumber than choosing something already set up for you (like japan over Korea)
The shortcomings of the game are therefore not related to the issue of masses or core users at all. The game just falls flat because the mechanics are not well designed. The review linked to by the OP makes no sense.


Can BE be fixed? Theoretically perhaps but the two patches they released seem to have introduced issues that they refused or were unable to hotfix. It does not install much confidence.
I am still hopeful. I think BE is esthetically pretty so if mechanics can be improved I would continue to play it.

 

[Hail]

Firaxis lost it.

 

[Kutuzov]

It would be difficult to argue that the web is dumber than the tech tree (in theory).

Not arguing, just curious. I happen to think they did a reasonably good job with their tech web as it is a TRUE tech web, unlike ES's four tech trees posing as a tech web for example. The problem with a true tech web is that it allows players who are generating enough science per turn or are willing to spend the time to research pretty much whatever they like without too many required techs. Is there another game that, in your opinion, has implemented a similarly open tech web better?

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Quite an important one actually.

Possibly. Wasn't the new Tomb Raider deemed a financial failure after it "only" sold 3.4 million copies?

In regards of the tech web:
I think the current victory conditions make fixing the whole thing impossible. You'd have to remove most or even all the affinity stuff from the tech web OR alter the victory conditions, so that they are more flexible tech wise. Maybe something like "reach tech level 4" (= have spend 40.000 science on techs) could make stuff more flexible. Then every tech would become useful.

Another idea that came to my mind: Give the player multiple ways to unlock the very important stuff. For example: Reduce Academy base yield to 1, but unlock them with either Cognition OR Artifical Intelligence, and add a +1 yield bonus to both of the techs. Biowells give only +1 food, but are unlocked with either Bionics (+1 health) or Terraforming (+1 food). That way the whole beeline problem becomes a bit less pronounced and the player can develope different strategies.

 

[Greasy Dave]

@OP
read this and watch the interviews :

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/1/31/3928710/making-of-xcoms-jake-solomon-firaxis-sid-meier

This video will explain more simply and faster than I can why no, Firaxis, hasn't lost it. Even if you don't like the game, or Jake Solomon...you have to praise and give cudos to Sid Meier and his company for giving young game designers a chance. Sometimes they miss the target and sometimes they score triple 20's. Either way, they're given a chance to have a go.

 

[sherbz]

@OP
read this and watch the interviews :

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/1/31/3928710/making-of-xcoms-jake-solomon-firaxis-sid-meier

This video will explain more simply and faster than I can why no, Firaxis, hasn't lost it. Even if you don't like the game, or Jake Solomon...you have to praise and give cudos to Sid Meier and his company for giving young game designers a chance. Sometimes they miss the target and sometimes they score triple 20's. Either way, they're given a chance to have a go.

Ok ill hold my hand up and say when i posted the OP it was a bit of a troll post. But there was a small/large part of me that thought exactly as the writer of the original article did (apart from the Skyrim bit).

However, reading this, i think this is equal bull sh1t. It sounds as though Solomon is Sid Meier's playboy who he has been grooming for years and years to do a full stint in his basement. I also think it demonstrates what is wrong in firaxis - namely Sid Meier.

As others have said, Sid has been rail roading himself down the lite strategy version for a while now - trying to access the console market by dumbing down his titles and refining everything to the point it isnt really a strategy game anymore, its more a case of choose "A" "B" or "C".

He also seems to fall foul of the trap that many do in the games industry - More sales = more success. Whilst this might be true in the short term, it doesnt in the long term. Ignore your core fans and you will get hurt - badly.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Sometimes they miss the target and sometimes they score triple 20's. Either way, they're given a chance to have a go.

Yeah, even Beyond Earth is interesting in its failure - it's still a solid if underwhelming game and surely not just the safe option.

They could've gone for Civ6 straightaway. They could have just pumped out another Civ5 or XCOM expansion. Instead, they took a risk and made a game that was pretty much the pitch by two upcoming developers.

Firaxis isn't perfect but they are a company that is certainly aiming for longevity and having an interesting and varied portfolio of games and IPs. I certainly prefer having Civ:BE over having yet-another-Battlefield/Call of Duty, BioShock, GTA or even Thief - all good games that are a bit too much "tick the boxes".

 

[keldaur]

The new XCOM, despite its flaws, is a great game by itself and that's the thing.

It's just that having XCOM tagged on it, we the players who played the originals, feel deeply dissapointed with the whole streamlining proccess it went into (which is huge).

I guess that's how you guys feel about CivBE, so you have my sympathies, even tho i don't think it's a trash can game like many people around here make it look like.

 

[Callonia]

I question Firaxis's wisdom in thinking that the planet do put up enough of a resistance when all you have to do is put up an antibug zapper fence and that ends all the forms of alien's involvement in development of your civilzation instantly.

And at very least, I have learned if Firaxis says it's hard, it really means easy. I probably should go and put together a firaxis dictionary so that i can refer to it and remember what firaxis really means the next time they pitch other game of theirs.

 

[kaltorak]

I agree with the article.

I disagree with skyrim tho. I know I know, coming form morrowind oblivion and skyrim went in a direction that I didn't like either. But with mods, that was fixed. And mods are part of the game.

 

[Riker13]

I have followed Sid and his games since MicroProse back in 1982 with "Wild Bill" Stealey and I enjoyed there games because it was all new back then, I have also Loved the CIV franchise although some were better once the DLC came in to play, XCOM yep I enjoyed that of course the originals may have been better because once again they were new and I have had fun with the later version but......I do believe after BE came out and now Starships Firaxis has lost the plot, its like reading novels from your favourite author then one day another book comes out it has the authors name on it but its written by someone else, your favourite authors essence is not in the pages.

I feel sad

 

[Joch]

you could argue Firaxis lost it, but the sales numbers are there, 6 million for Civ5, 2 million for BE. Both games were financial "successes", which at the end of the day is the only thing that matters to shareholders.

One question I do have though, when Civ6 does come out, why does anyone expect it will be anything other than a flashier version of Civ5?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

One question I do have though, when Civ6 does come out, why does anyone expect it will be anything other than a flashier version of Civ5?

I don't expect it to be a flashier verson of Civ 6. I expect it to be simplified, but mostly fixed after two expansions, without ever reaching it's predecessor.
I thought I knew what I was getting into when I bought BE. Essentially an early access game that will be finished after three months and vastly improved through expansions. It's been five months, and it still hasn't improved. Some things are better, some things are worse, and Firaxis is now on my list of untrustworthy developers. If I see that Civ 6 is being developed by one or two newbies without any lead designer credentials I'll definitely skip it until the complete edition.