How important is it for Firaxis to admit mistakes or acknowledge failure?
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
lol. I really don't like VI, but even I have to disagree with that nonsense. It turned out to be by far the most successful civ game, even 4x game, of all times.
It caught the wind of a multiplayer almost viral sort of popularity. I don't think it's later changes contribute as much to its success as whatever happened in the competitive community (which is part of the problem).
"It turned out to be by far the most successful..."
You can't just offer an analysis while wearing blinders. The success is in spite of the core design of the game, which was heavily analyzed post-launch. No one thinks the board gamey direction is what made the game excel, unless we want to credit Potato with the entire success of the game. Which, let's keep in mind, is ironic as the importance of adjacencies and yield-gaming was nerfed by the absolutely flattening of these features in 7.
The districts and tile based city building was a kind of, "neat idea, not total failure, has problems, shouldn't be tried again." Absolute consensus at launch that later success did not argue against. Nor was 7 cashing in on that success, as if to validate VI's design choices.
"Alright fine, but let's not do this again," was absolutely the consensus around 6 and I don't sense that its later success overturned that at all.
This makes me wonder whether you no what words like "no one" and "consensus" mean, and where you have this info from. I'm very familiar with the launch of 6 on here – its problems and merits. My memory isn't the best anymore, but it rarely fails me completely. I don't remember any "consensus" that unstacking districts shouldn't be tried again, not even a large scaled opposition to the mechanic per se (a few things about its implementation though). In contrast, it seemed clear all the time from launch of 6 to the announcement of civ 7 that unstacking cities is basically a given for the next game. It's certainly one of the big appeals of civ 6 for peaceful players or planners. But this runs off topic to this thread – except if you think FXS should apologize for civ 6. But if you think they should, you've probably lost any grasp on the reality of these matters. And again, for me civ 6 was the entry that made me think I'll never go back to civ, and still, it's easy to acknowledge its success, popularity, and design – it just wasn't the civ game for me. (I loved unstacking cities though).
By the way, weren't you in a similar situation some months ago after the launch of 7? What made you actually come back? What changed?
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
Ah, ok, sorry.
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
Of course they have to acknowledge their mistakes. You cannot learn or grow if you live by the delusion that everything is fine and you're free of flaws. They have to admit that the game development was rushed, and that they released an unfinished game at an absurd price, and never do that again.
'burning the fanbase' is not something I would issue an apology for. People who don't want to play Civ7 aren't the people you should dedicate your words towards - that's a waste of time. it's those that own the game and don't play it (or do play it and complain about it) that you have to address.
'burning the fanbase' is not something I would issue an apology for. People who don't want to play Civ7 aren't the people you should dedicate your words towards - that's a waste of time. it's those that own the game and don't play it (or do play it and complain about it) that you have to address.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I believe they acknowledge their mistakes internally completely and their actions (like delaying release of RtR first part to focus on fixing) is surely an indicator. But admitting the same things publicly is a different thing and from marketing perspective they have to limit it for now. I believe we'll have full roast in post mortem several years from now.
Of course they need to continue selling the game, so some people who not own the game clearly should be the target of improvements, but I don't think people who genuinely hate the game or those who can't accept it's core features for the immersion reasons should be the target.
Last edited:
McSpank01
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 296
I think recent statements by the makers of Football Manager 2025 have highlighted to me my appreciation for honesty and the importance of only releasing a game when it was in a fit state. For context FM25 was meant to come out.. obviously this year. It is maybe the most radical overhaul of a game that has been releasing versions each year for a very long time.
Essentially it was decided that the game could not be released as an 2025 game, it was still too far away from being ready, and was cancelled and effort put into working on a version to release in the next season. Admittedly this was pretty badly handled from a marketing perspective initially, lots of radio silence and mixed messaging, until it was eventually confirmed the game would simply not come out.
Miles Jacobson, the boss of Sports Interactive and probably the face of the Football Manager franchise, recently did an interview where he just came out and talked candidly about the decision making process:
www.bbc.co.uk
I found it quite refreshing to hear someone who is clearly passionate about his game, who only wants to make something that people enjoy playing and won't release unless it meets his high standards. You can see the commercial pressures put on him to release an unfinished product, maybe much more pressure than you might think for something like Civilisation, as FM has so many tie ins to sponsorships and the actual premier league itself.
It just made me wonder what it would have been like if Civ had followed a similar path, what if they just waited a year, came out and said 'you know what, the game wasn't ready, and we want it to be good'.
Alternatively, what if they had come out and admitted the game isn't ready now, but actually demonstrate that they are passionate about making it good. I don't get that sense from the dev diaries we tend to see. I'm sure they do want the game to be great, but mostly this is hidden under marketing speak and overplaying of minor tweaks as huge breakthroughs.
I think communication has not been great for this game, there is a level of defensiveness you can detect, shielding themselves from criticism and trying to put on a positive face on the work they are doing.
Essentially it was decided that the game could not be released as an 2025 game, it was still too far away from being ready, and was cancelled and effort put into working on a version to release in the next season. Admittedly this was pretty badly handled from a marketing perspective initially, lots of radio silence and mixed messaging, until it was eventually confirmed the game would simply not come out.
Miles Jacobson, the boss of Sports Interactive and probably the face of the Football Manager franchise, recently did an interview where he just came out and talked candidly about the decision making process:
Releasing Football Manager 25 would have damaged us, says maker
Sports Interactive boss Miles Jacobson reveals the reasons for cancelling FM25, and what fans can expect from the new game.
www.bbc.co.uk
I found it quite refreshing to hear someone who is clearly passionate about his game, who only wants to make something that people enjoy playing and won't release unless it meets his high standards. You can see the commercial pressures put on him to release an unfinished product, maybe much more pressure than you might think for something like Civilisation, as FM has so many tie ins to sponsorships and the actual premier league itself.
It just made me wonder what it would have been like if Civ had followed a similar path, what if they just waited a year, came out and said 'you know what, the game wasn't ready, and we want it to be good'.
Alternatively, what if they had come out and admitted the game isn't ready now, but actually demonstrate that they are passionate about making it good. I don't get that sense from the dev diaries we tend to see. I'm sure they do want the game to be great, but mostly this is hidden under marketing speak and overplaying of minor tweaks as huge breakthroughs.
I think communication has not been great for this game, there is a level of defensiveness you can detect, shielding themselves from criticism and trying to put on a positive face on the work they are doing.
Civilization VI - Wikipedia
Not seeing the weakness here.
(I've had to strip links because XenForo still doesn't format the HTML correctly)
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
Admitting it to yourself counts as an admission imo. I don't expect a mea culpa where they're publicly dragging themselves through the dirt (although the obsequeiousness with which they've made sure we KNOW they've incorporated 'fan feedback' is enough of a grovelling apology in and of itself). It benefits nobody, because the individuals that sort of an apology would be addressed to will double-down on their criticism, feeling vindicated.
Admit to what you've done wrong, and learn from it. The learning (a change in behaviour, strategy and attitude) is the apology we need to see and hear. Actions speak for themselves and words, well, are like the wind. Easily spoken, easily forgotten.
Finding ways to expand the playerbase is always what you should be doing, yes. Several Civ6 players here are in the 'won't buy yet' camp, and aren't turned off by things like denuvo and civ switching, and just want to play a fun empire builder and are deterred (correctly, tbh) by the current state Civ7 is in. Civ 7 could be A Game For Them, but isn't yet. If Firaxis keep working towards making it so, then they can be persuaded to buy the game off-sale.
As many people have stated (correctly imo), the first gameplay expansion will be huge. I hope Marbozir's prediction of a fourth age is wrong - I hope my wish for extended, continuous ages and deeper mechanics is granted.
Last edited:
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
Civilization VI - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Not seeing the weakness here.
(I've had to strip links because XenForo still doesn't format the HTML correctly)
Civ 6 had a great release. Not even from a numbers perspective. The atmosphere here at CivFanatics was markedly excitable. Everyone was looking forward to it, and there were few doubts about whether we would enjoy the game or not.
The general reception to Civ7 though? Mixed at best, and those on the 'excited' side were apprehensive about the mechanics. I feel like a lot of the people that enjoyed Civ7 since its release (myself included) were surprised the game wasn't as bad as they feared it would be.
Of course, I wasn't trying to claim anything about the general reception to VII.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I think it's granted that one of the expansions should be about 4th age, no matter whether it's first or second. The decision of the expansion order is on Firaxis, of course.
I generally expect Firaxis to work on improvements as much as possible through free patches (if first expansion will be released at the end of the next year, they have a year to go even before the announcement) and then release 4th age as the first expansion, look at the game as a whole and when use second expansion to expand the whole game with things which are hard to do with patches.
The reason why I expect 4th age expansion first:
- It's not a discussed thing on this forum, but I've seen this on Reddit and, I believe in some reviews - people don't see the game as complete without 4th age. Things like Alpha Centaury flight, ICBMs or even GDR (the thing which got backlash in Civ5 is now one of the staples of the game) are quite missed.
- It's better for all ages to have one round of expansion
- By the time of second expansion, there would be too many civilizations per age to catch. With 2-3 more DLC packs coming next year, 4th age will already need 16-17 civilizations to catch other ages if it comes as the first expansion.
Last edited:
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
I vehemently oppose the idea of a fourth age, especially as long as firaxis has other fish to fry and problems to fix. Exploration and Modern aren't good ages as it is, and adding a fourth one (albeit at the end, or by splitting exploration into early medieval/feudal and late renaissance/enlightenment) won't solve a thing.
Besides the game already has a big enough problem with continuity between the ages as it is.
What I would advocate for instead is the extension of each current age, with more techs, civics, and units. Why shouldn't Modern end with GDRs? Antiquity should go into early feudal. Exploration should go into late renaissance. Modern should go into the present-day and near future. More milestones and/or ways to complete a milestone should be added too, to ensure the player has something to do that isn't idly spamming buildings, waging wars or clicking the end turn button.
Of course, this doesn't align with the general expectations of the fanbase, but my *fear* is that Firaxis will - in the currently already very people-playing era - try to implement a fourth age *because* fans are expcting them to, without fixing the underlying issues, making the game well and truly unplayable.
Besides the game already has a big enough problem with continuity between the ages as it is.
What I would advocate for instead is the extension of each current age, with more techs, civics, and units. Why shouldn't Modern end with GDRs? Antiquity should go into early feudal. Exploration should go into late renaissance. Modern should go into the present-day and near future. More milestones and/or ways to complete a milestone should be added too, to ensure the player has something to do that isn't idly spamming buildings, waging wars or clicking the end turn button.
Of course, this doesn't align with the general expectations of the fanbase, but my *fear* is that Firaxis will - in the currently already very people-playing era - try to implement a fourth age *because* fans are expcting them to, without fixing the underlying issues, making the game well and truly unplayable.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I clearly expect Firaxis to make a lot of improvements to the game before even announcing the first expansion. And if you look at the changes made in the last half of a year, I think full year ahead would allow making the game quite good.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I think Firaxis should acknowledge that some fans are unhappy. And they should admit that the game needs improvements. I think Firaxis has done both of these things. And we've seen firaxis take another look at age transitions and make some tweaks, introducing continuity mode and now working on a "collapse" mode. So they are tacitly admitting that age transitons did not work for many fans.
But I don't think Firaxis should fall on their sword and apologize and admit the game is a total failure. I think devs should listen to fans and make improvements when appropriate but should have a vision for their game and stand by that vision. I think too much mea culpa can actually undermind the credibility of the devs. Why should players trust the devs know what they are doing if they constantly apologize and admit failure?
Last edited:
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,819
We need a bigger like button for this post.
Adding a 4th age would just exacerbate the problems already there with the age system. The focus needs to be on fixing the current ages, and extending them could be a nice way to give new content without worsening existing problems.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,544
I actually think they've hit this note well. One of the developers notes had a line to the effect of "increase players' feeling of identification and cohesion (or continuity, maybe it was) with their civilizations" and that said to me, "we've belatedly come to realize that civ-switching violates something crucial to many players: the feeling of guiding one civilization from stone age to space age. We'll explore ways we might enhance that effect within our present game design."
Last edited:
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,232
I expect an extension OR a mini-age.
Mini age that has no civ switch, and just extends the timeline and mechanics from Modern to Information.
I think it'd be fun actually, but I do agree that they have other stuff to fry.
Though it's not a Civ game unless we get a spaceship, GDRs, nukes and the internet.
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
Modern already plays like a mini-age. The second it starts you want to finish it, as quickly as possible, before the AI turns start taking an eternity.
A fourth small age after Modern just feels pointless to me. Just incorporate the Information Age inside the third act, and expand the victory conditions to have more intricate steps. (steps you can actively prepare for in the late half Exploration, ideally).
Personally, I would see every Age as having three distinct acts:
Antiquity: Bronze Age, Iron Age, Classical Antiquity
Exploration: Feudal Age, Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment
Modern: Industrial Revolution, Atomic Age, Information Age.
You can tweak the Tech tree accordingly so that the 3rd act of Antiquity and Exploration align with the 1st act of Modern and Exploration, respectively, and potentially even cross over before the Age Transition itself (as it does in Ara). There little you can do to prevent full snowballing, but you can allow the behind players to automatically catch up in Tech at the start of the new Era, or even a new act within the same age on high difficulties such as Deity.
I also like to see the extention of the Modern Age because some prospective Civs (such as the Zulu) lack a clear Modern Wonder, and they could use an Information Era edifice linked to their culture as their Wonder (like the Cradle of Humankind for the Zulu).
But that's probably a discussion point for a different topic.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
