How important is it for Firaxis to admit mistakes or acknowledge failure?

[0urBall]

I think Firaxis should acknowledge that the launch was too hasty

To play devil's advocate a bit, I would say Firaxis would happily do this. But 2K won't let them, as the launch timing specifically is probably more on the publisher than the developer

Hypothetical of course, and impossible to answer, but I wonder what the reception would be if this version of the game was only being released around now instead of February.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I think what Firaxis need to do is create a sense of confidence in their vision, and I don't think they are doing that. What I want as a customer is the reassurance that this game that I paid a lot of money for, is going to be a game I will be playing in 2-5 years time.

So it's all about that future vision for me, and I'll also note that the more they fiddle around giving people 'options', the less confidence I have in that future vision, because the more it feels like they don't have one.

The thing is, though, nobody can guarantee that this game will be supported for another 2–5 years if player stats remain as mediocre as they are now. "Confidence in their vision" might appeal to you personally, but it clearly isn’t convincing enough players overall, plain and simple!

 

[Kev1916]

I think Firaxis should acknowledge that the launch was too hasty and that there were some miscalculations regarding the expectations of a significant portion of their player base, particularly around features like Civ Switching.
It’s not that I need an apology personally, but rather that the community would benefit from transparent communication: What Firaxis has learned from this and how they plan to move forward? Without that, I fear many players will continue to feel frustrated, believing their feedback is being ignored. Others might worry that Firaxis could “overcorrect” by making too many changes to satisfy long-time fans, potentially alienating those who are currently content.

Either way, I believe clear and transparent communication will help Firaxis retain its existing players and possibly even win back some of the older fans, if they feel their major concerns are being addressed, at least to some degree.

To add to that ( never going to happen ) they should say sorry for launching an uncomplete over priced game with , withheld content .

Acknowledge they should have not have used loyal fans as play tester for a beta game and state changes have been made and lesson's learned ( again not happening )

 

[McSpank01]

The thing is, though, nobody can guarantee that this game will be supported for another 2–5 years if player stats remain as mediocre as they are now. "Confidence in their vision" might appeal to you personally, but it clearly isn’t convincing enough players overall, plain and simple!

True, but the two things kind of go hand in hand. If Firaxis see this game as just on the first step on a path to greatness and have big plans for how it is going to be improved and made into a top class 4X game (and they prove it), then I think that will lead to players coming back and a resurgence of support.

If however, this is basically as far as they had got in thinking about what the game is gonna be... well then we are screwed.

 

[Chuma]

Play the long game, people are still playing CIV VI several years after launch even with development of any new content supposedly "ended"

I am sure they are going to improve it eventually after a few years and I will get it for much cheaper on Humble Bundle. Not sure I will be alive for CIV VIII, let's see if the cutting half my stomach out surgery works.

 

[AD1730]

I think what Firaxis need to do is create a sense of confidence in their vision, and I don't think they are doing that. What I want as a customer is the reassurance that this game that I paid a lot of money for, is going to be a game I will be playing in 2-5 years time.

I want to know that the developers and designers of the game have this vision, this dream for how the game will be played, what it will look like when it is at it's most complete point. I want to be brought along on that dream.

I don't really need an apology, but I would like to be given a sense of how they view this period on the development of the game. Is this essentially early access for them? Are they where they expected the game to be, or is it a catastrophic mess and they are just constantly fighting fires.

I just need to know how confident I can be that the game will reach a point where it is considered good. I don't mind too much that it is kind of lacklustre now, with many glaring issues, if this is all part of the process of creating a truly great game. I am a little angry it was released in such a poor state, but we have to move on.

So it's all about that future vision for me, and I'll also note that the more they fiddle around giving people 'options', the less confidence I have in that future vision, because the more it feels like they don't have one.

It's hard to have much confidence in a vision that sharply deviates from the franchise's overall identity. They lack an identity because they abandoned the one that had been built up over decades to create their own vision.

 

[AD1730]

To play devil's advocate a bit, I would say Firaxis would happily do this. But 2K won't let them, as the launch timing specifically is probably more on the publisher than the developer

Hypothetical of course, and impossible to answer, but I wonder what the reception would be if this version of the game was only being released around now instead of February.

Maybe the UI and some of the graphics elements would have benefited from more development time. However, I don't think more development time would change the fact that fundamental design decisions are the primary factor in alienating much of the fanbase. Those decisions were made years ago and (presumably) underwent months of testing.

 

[McSpank01]

Maybe the UI and some of the graphics elements would have benefited from more development time. However, I don't think more development time would change the fact that fundamental design decisions are the primary factor in alienating much of the fanbase. Those decisions were made years ago and (presumably) underwent months of testing.

I'm of the opinion that Ages and Civ Switching are potentially an exciting new direction for the game, that could work really well... they just don't right now. That is why I need Firaxis to tell me what they think they will do to make the succeed, and it has to be much more than weak answers like giving players more options or playing with modifiers a little bit.

 

[ColtSeavers]

True, but the two things kind of go hand in hand. If Firaxis see this game as just on the first step on a path to greatness and have big plans for how it is going to be improved and made into a top class 4X game (and they prove it), then I think that will lead to players coming back and a resurgence of support.

If however, this is basically as far as they had got in thinking about what the game is gonna be... well then we are screwed.

Not sure what you mean by this. My impression was that you're quite happy with the game so far, especially with the current Ages system. What kind of "vision" are you expecting here? I'm pretty sure Firaxis's original "vision" was to release additional Leaders and Civs, improve/ introduce some more or less familiar features (like Spying, the World Congress, etc.), and enjoy the DLC revenue coming in. What other kind of vision do you think they had in mind here?

 

[reddishrecue]

I think it's really important for Firaxis to know about its mistakes and I'm sure it does by now, but the staff can't do much for civilization at least for now or even in the future. I really can't tell what Firaxis can do for civilization at this point but it's not that bad, the game is fine to me despite the ratings, its just not the only game that is out there.

 

[McSpank01]

Not sure what you mean by this. My impression was that you're quite happy with the game so far, especially with the current Ages system. What kind of "vision" are you expecting here? I'm pretty sure Firaxis's original "vision" was to release additional Leaders and Civs, improve/ introduce some more or less familiar features (like Spying, the World Congress, etc.), and enjoy the DLC revenue coming in. What other kind of vision do you think they had in mind here?

Sorry, no I am generally unhappy with the game, I cannot bring myself to play it at this point. That however isn't because it has ages or civ switching. I think both of those have the potential to work really well, it's just that the implementation is so basic and poorly thought out. That is why I think with a lot more work and thought, with more complex and immersive systems surrounding it, those ideas could be good. I just need Firaxis to tell me what they think the future game looks like.

 

[Leucarum]

It's was a throwaway comment, but in the designer commentary for the last patch, specifying that they didn't use a mode they'd added felt really weird. In the context to me it felt a little petulant or frustrated that people had asked for something which went against what they wanted. That almost certainly wasn't what was intended, but it stuck out awkwardly to me.

 

[CivKirk64]

I'm of the opinion that Ages and Civ Switching are potentially an exciting new direction for the game, that could work really well... they just don't right now. That is why I need Firaxis to tell me what they think they will do to make the succeed, and it has to be much more than weak answers like giving players more options or playing with modifiers a little bit.

I'm all for this, I like hearing how people like the idea, but not implementation.
I like what I see so far for me it is working, I also know it can certainly use some work.
It will get better as they adjust the mechanics, and introduce new ones. The switching will feel even better the more civs and leaders we get over the years.

The constructive criticism we see here is amazing, and a lot of people have a bunch of really fun and wild ideas for both this game and the series. We've all designed "Our Perfect Civ Game" in our heads over the years and our minds are aflutter with how we would tweak VII.

I will say it is a little grating to come on some of the threads here and day in day out the same handful of people arguing their goalpost for success and failure, or the degree to which this game needs to be blown up and just release 6(+2) already.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I'm all for this, I like hearing how people like the idea, but not implementation.
I like what I see so far for me it is working, I also know it can certainly use some work.
It will get better as they adjust the mechanics, and introduce new ones. The switching will feel even better the more civs and leaders we get over the years.

Well, let's see then what kind of rabbit Firaxis will pull out of the hat this time. I'm afraid you might be a bit over-optimistic here! After all, they've had more than enough development time already, and this is the result they came up with. But I'm happy to be proven wrong here!

 

[Khanite]

I'm still waiting for them to admit to the invisible units bug.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Only restore classical mode, and flush away the "new continent" idea is what matters now.
They fired Ed, so they will never admit anything.
But they can change their destiny, by NOT BELIEVING IN DESTINY, or "Manifest destiny" XXXXX... forced on everybody...

 

[queenpea]

They fired Ed, so they will never admit anything.

Huh?

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Huh?

Isn't it obvious? As head designer it was his duty to admit Civ switching is a failure, and so is "new continent", random leaders, etc.
A new Head will not have to admit to anything, just to fix something, and by accepting the task, he is committing in hiding all the dust under the carpet.
It's really under the Sun.

 

[Nikolai II]

Ed fired? Nothing suggest anything of the sort.

 

[Kwami]

They fired Ed, so they will never admit anything.

Do you have any proof of this? I haven't seen anything at all. It seems unlikely to be true.