I'm clicking the "retire" button on Civ VII

[Krikkit1]

Would folks rather they didn't solicit community feedback?

I think folks would rather have an ok game on release then community feedback about how to make it better as opposed to releasing a terrible game on release (UI and bugs being objectively bad regardless of opinions on various subjective mechanics) and then community feedback for it to be okay (and much much later really good if they are supported that long)

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Would folks rather they didn't solicit community feedback?

I think most of us would've rather they released a good, polished Civilization game rather than a contentious title that would require years of community feedback to make acceptable. It's almost like they shouldn't have ignored all the loud vocal criticism and backlash they recieved from fans before launch telling them "we don't want this in our Civilization game"

 

[Gorbles]

Whatever feedback they did solicit was either skewed or ignored pre release

That isn't what I was asking.

I think folks would rather have an ok game on release then community feedback about how to make it better as opposed to releasing a terrible game on release (UI and bugs being objectively bad regardless of opinions on various subjective mechanics) and then community feedback for it to be okay (and much much later really good if they are supported that long)

I think most of us would've rather they released a good, polished Civilization game rather than a contentious title that would require years of community feedback to make acceptable.

I think so too.

That doesn't have much to do with me asking if they should solicit community feedback at all.

It's almost like they shouldn't have ignored all the loud vocal criticism and backlash they recieved from fans before launch telling them "we don't want this in our Civilization game"

So they . . . should take on board community feedback?

It's confusing. I asked a simple question, and you seem to agree, but the wording makes it feel like you disagree / have some greater point to make.

For my part, I believe soliciting community feedback is tricky. Everyone seems to want them to do it, but nobody seems to want to accept that this can lead to negative outcomes. It doesn't always, but it can. Is that a fair position for me to hold?

Regardless, I think they should. The positives outweigh the negatives, generally.

 

[itix]

It's almost like they shouldn't have ignored all the loud vocal criticism and backlash they recieved from fans before launch telling them "we don't want this in our Civilization game"

I can see why they didnt, though. They have so called "Frankenstein test group" and I can see it was giving positive feedback to core features.
Then there are fans who have seen the game on videos but not played it - wouldn't you assume they love it when they get their hands on it?

 

[Gorbles]

I can see why they didnt, though. They have so called "Frankenstein test group" and I can see it was giving positive feedback to core features.

You can? Wouldn't such a group be under NDA?

 

[itix]

You can? Wouldn't such a group be under NDA?

I have noted they are not shy about praising the game...

 

[AD1730]

I can see why they didnt, though. They have so called "Frankenstein test group" and I can see it was giving positive feedback to core features.
Then there are fans who have seen the game on videos but not played it - wouldn't you assume they love it when they get their hands on it?

For this style of game, where there isn't anything that can be spoiled, the secretive nature of development is antiquated and should be abandoned in favor of a more open and transparent process. I have a hard time believing they would have gone to release with civ switching had they announced earlier and allowed for more community feedback along the way.

 

[Leucarum]

Honestly, Civ really is the sort of game that could benefit from early access. (Though I guess you could call all the players who buy at launch as a covert hidden early access given how 7 has gone down). if Firaxis could have seen how the game was going down before so many decisions with knock-on consequences got set in stone this would have to have been a much better situation

 

[aieeegrunt]

Whatever feedback they did solicit was either skewed or ignored pre release

They clained to have decided on Civ switching before Humankind came out

If true, this should have been enough time to course correct unless they are that arrogant or their dev time is that glacial.

I have noted they are not shy about praising the game...

It’s the same reason most game journalism is conpleelt biased; if you criticize you lose early access priviledges.

Which tells me most AAA game devs are run by utterly hubristic people. If my fly is open or I am making a terrible mistake I would WANT the people around me to point it out

Honestly, Civ really is the sort of game that could benefit from early access. (Though I guess you could call all the players who buy at launch as a covert hidden early access given how 7 has gone down). if Firaxis could have seen how the game was going down before so many decisions with knock-on consequences got set in stone this would have to have been a much better situation

Hell no. I hate this new paradigm. For the love of God, do your goddamn job right the first time

 

[Leucarum]

Hell no. I hate this new paradigm. For the love of God, do your goddamn job right the first time

I dunno... Games that go through early access seem to end up far better than those that don't, so as gross as it is to ask for money for an unfinished product (yes I am aware of the irony in relation to Civ7) I'm ok with it.

 

[Krikkit1]

I dunno... Games that go through early access seem to end up far better than those that don't, so as gross as it is to ask for money for an unfinished product (yes I am aware of the irony in relation to Civ7) I'm ok with it.

The fact is no game is ever a “finished product” it just eventually becomes an unsupported product.

The issue is when in the product’s life cycle are you buying in and how much more improvement is needed to make it “good”.

All games should probably release an early access version that is honest about being early access. (Civ games of 4+ are basically early access until the first expansion)

 

[Nikolai II]

I have noted they are not shy about praising the game...

Pretty sure most of them don't post here.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's becoming too normalised to insult developers because of subjective disagreements with decisions made in any given game. That's not for me, personally. See y'all around.

 

[McSpank01]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's becoming too normalised to insult developers because of subjective disagreements with decisions made in any given game. That's not for me, personally. See y'all around.

Think we should separate out the actual devs from the money men making the decisions. Rarely are the devs the ones to actually blame. I’ve no issue laying into the suits.

 

[itix]

It’s the same reason most game journalism is conpleelt biased; if you criticize you lose early access priviledges.

Nah. They would not test a game they dont like.

Which tells me most AAA game devs are run by utterly hubristic people. If my fly is open or I am making a terrible mistake I would WANT the people around me to point it out

I dont think they are. Devs are constrained by management decisions and then there are budget and time limitations.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Nah. They would not test a game they dont like.

Oh sweet summer child

 

[Leucarum]

I'm critical of where the game ended up, but the devs had a very clear vision, and all the changes are interconnected and in a vacuum make sense. Maybe "I'm not mad, just disappointed" better describes the sentiment.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Think we should separate out the actual devs from the money men making the decisions. Rarely are the devs the ones to actually blame. I’ve no issue laying into the suits.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's becoming too normalised to insult developers because of subjective disagreements with decisions made in any given game. That's not for me, personally. See y'all around.

I am coming from the perspective of a high functioning autistic who works as an aerospace machinist who was raised by Prussians from a generation where validating feelings was not the number one priority, who’s provincial flag is literally black and white, so perhaps, perhaps I am being too harsh.

I mean after all I work in an environment where tolerances are tenths of a thousandth of an inch and a single mistake can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars so the expectation is you WILL do it right the first time.

Then I look at where AAA studios are today where it is SOP for a game to launch and not even be able to launch, and the expectation appears to be that the game will maybe be actually finished after at least half a dozen major patches and several heavily monetized expansions.

I look at how major bugs or functionality issues will languish for months, except where an unpaid modder working in their spare time will fix it overnight. The “AI science bug” in Civ6 springs immediatly to mind.

I think about when my girlfriend was upper management for a software dev company, and the comical state of the work ethic and professionalism of the majority of the staff.

I look at the top ten most popular mods on the Civ6 workshop, and 7 of them are fixing the UI.

You know what? Shade where shade is due.

 

[j51]

I blame agile.

The creators are no longer treated as artisans but commodities, low bid wins. Their work is forced as quickly as possible, then our lords rely on "the process" to fix up whatever stuck to the wall.

Blaming Agile is a fascinating perspective. I like it.

 

[j51]

I am coming from the perspective of a high functioning autistic who works as an aerospace machinist who was raised by Prussians from a generation where validating feelings was not the number one priority, who’s provincial flag is literally black and white, so perhaps, perhaps I am being too harsh.

I mean after all I work in an environment where tolerances are tenths of a thousandth of an inch and a single mistake can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars so the expectation is you WILL do it right the first time.

Then I look at where AAA studios are today where it is SOP for a game to launch and not even be able to launch, and the expectation appears to be that the game will maybe be actually finished after at least half a dozen major patches and several heavily monetized expansions.

I look at how major bugs or functionality issues will languish for months, except where an unpaid modder working in their spare time will fix it overnight. The “AI science bug” in Civ6 springs immediatly to mind.

I think about when my girlfriend was upper management for a software dev company, and the comical state of the work ethic and professionalism of the majority of the staff.

I look at the top ten most popular mods on the Civ6 workshop, and 7 of them are fixing the UI.

You know what? Shade where shade is due.

Nah man.

When something doesn’t work, it’s always management’s fault. Even if it isn’t in the immediate sense. They have to take responsibility. That’s one of management’s major roles. “Heavy is the head…” yada yada yada. A manager has to be able to motivate their employees to deliver. If they can’t, they probably shouldn’t be a manager.