Initial Reactions

[Akka]

And I'm talking about the number of people playing Civ 5 currently as oppose to Civ 4.

If 4 were truly the superior title, you'd think more people would still be playing it than 5.

And how do you know the number of people playing Civ4 ?
I mean, you can easily compare Civ5 and BE because they both integrate Steam DRM. But Civ4 didn't had this crap, so there is no way to see how many people play it.

Additionnally, if a game sells more, it will have more potential players. It doesn't necessarily means it's better still, or mobile games would be objectively better than any others.

Neither of these make a case for Civ 5 being "terrible" or "poorly designed."

It makes a case for your counter to be void.

Wait, how has no one thought of this before? That seems incredibly obvious.

Because it doesn't work. The entire game design completely change depending on one or the other.
Not only the combat system would be massively different and opposite (SoD management requires abilities doing collateral damage, but these are nonsensical and pointless if there is 1upt), but the entire game is changed according to the design difference and their aftereffects (if you have 1upt, then it means you have in the end a limited number of units usable, so the production capacities must be scaled to this number, for example).

It's beyond simply having to balance both (which would already be a nightmare), it's about both simply forcing two entirely different games.

 

[Lexicus]

Neither of these make a case for Civ 5 being "terrible" or "poorly designed."

Well, I'm not trying to make that case - I don't like Civ V enough to play it (haven't played it in close to two years) but I don't think it's a "terrible game" and I just finished arguing here that you can't make an objective argument about game design anyway.

 

[Sunwolf]

My Initial Reaction to the announcement of Civ VI was "Meh" because I really wasn't that impressed with Civ V. I still haven't played a complete game because I find I enjoy Civ IV both with and without mods more than Civ V. I am glad to see they may be changing the stacking limits a bit as the 1 unit limit was too radical a change from Civ IV.

 

[hangman]

You do realise that "something taking time" is the biggest reason features never make it into games, right? Time is not a luxury any developer tends to have.

Because it doesn't work. The entire game design completely change depending on one or the other.
Not only the combat system would be massively different and opposite (SoD management requires abilities doing collateral damage, but these are nonsensical and pointless if there is 1upt), but the entire game is changed according to the design difference and their aftereffects (if you have 1upt, then it means you have in the end a limited number of units usable, so the production capacities must be scaled to this number, for example).

It's beyond simply having to balance both (which would already be a nightmare), it's about both simply forcing two entirely different games.

Both of you are making this out to be some super complicated endeavor. It is not. I have myself (along with framedarchitect) designed and balanced a total conversion mod from the ground up (it's right there in my sig), so I do actually have an idea of how time consuming balancing can be and what it entails.

The entire game design completely change depending on one or the other.
Not only the combat system would be massively different and opposite

I disagree but there are no specifics here for me to counter, so I'll just leave it alone.

(SoD management requires abilities doing collateral damage, but these are nonsensical and pointless if there is 1upt),

Collateral damage rates might count for one or two quantities out of the hundreds or thousands that make up the game. The mechanics are simple so the script shouldn't be terribly long (maybe like 50-100 lines?). And what happens when you only have one unit? You don't apply it. Just like in Civ4. Simple.

(if you have 1upt, then it means you have in the end a limited number of units usable, so the production capacities must be scaled to this number, for example).

So you multiply it by a constant that you define for a "game options" XML/SQL table, which will change according to the UPT option. You multiply the UPT production constant with whatever production quantities you like in the DLL or scripting language, and voila, problem solved.

two entirely different games.

lol no, it's not like you'd have to rebuild the UI from the ground up or rehash ALL of your 2D and 3D art, like the devs have to for every new Civ. Even many game systems aren't going to be affected, like espionage or religion, and the vast majority of the scripting will be fine too.

There is very little scripting with regards to UPT that specifically deals with the stacks themselves (like collateral damage, and which units go first, some UI, etc.) as opposed to broader game quantities that need to be balanced. So at the absolute worst, you're talking about two different interface modes (maybe), some scripting for deciding unit priorities, a script for each stack quantity (of which there are few anyway), and balancing two UPT systems that don't even alter half the game. It would still be time consuming and laborious, for sure, but I wonder if you'd make up for that in increased sales.

 

[Gorbles]

Both of you are making this out to be some super complicated endeavor. It is not. I have myself (along with framedarchitect) designed and balanced a total conversion mod from the ground up (it's right there in my sig), so I do actually have an idea of how time consuming balancing can be and what it entails.

I'm not saying you don't have an idea. I didn't even comment on the inherent complexity. However in terms of man-hours invested, it will be a considerable task when developers work to incredibly strict deadlines and budgets just to ship a game on time.

Modding is great experience when it comes to understanding the underlying framework, what is possible for the non-developer with the engine, and so on, and so forth. But modding grants you absolutely zero insight into how games development works as a process that nomatter where I go, which mod scene I invest myself in, ends up with modders believing stuff possible where it might not be.

 

[Westwall]

Additionnally, if a game sells more, it will have more potential players. It doesn't necessarily means it's better still, or mobile games would be objectively better than any others.

So the only metric we have to go on for why Civ 5 is "terrible" is because you say so.

In that case, my counterargument is that it isn't terrible.

 

[hangman]

However in terms of man-hours invested, it will be a considerable task when developers work to incredibly strict deadlines and budgets just to ship a game on time.

It certainly would be a considerable task, which I've never denied. However, the simplicity of implementing multiple UPT options is directly related to how many quantities you have to keep track of when you're balancing it. If you've got your global quantities set up in a sane and sufficiently abstract way, it's not difficult to balance it literally by just changing a few numbers.

Modding is great experience when it comes to understanding the underlying framework, what is possible for the non-developer with the engine, and so on, and so forth. But modding grants you absolutely zero insight into how games development works as a process that nomatter where I go, which mod scene I invest myself in, ends up with modders believing stuff possible where it might not be.

Sure, but we're not talking about some arcane fundamentals of the game core, like what order the script stack is in or something. We're talking about something the modding community has in fact already done with Civ5 (and I think Civ4? I may be mistaken...).



On a side note, this reminds me of conversations I'd have with framedarchitect about how flexible the code can be and what you can really get out of it

 

[Gorbles]

It certainly would be a considerable task, which I've never denied. However, the simplicity of implementing multiple UPT options is directly related to how many quantities you have to keep track of when you're balancing it. If you've got your global quantities set up in a sane and sufficiently abstract way, it's not difficult to balance it literally by just changing a few numbers.

Sure, but we're not talking about some arcane fundamentals of the game core, like what order the script stack is in or something. We're talking about something the modding community has in fact already done with Civ5 (and I think Civ4? I may be mistaken...).

On a side note, this reminds me of conversations I'd have with framedarchitect about how flexible the code can be and what you can really get out of it

The problem is balance isn't necessarily linear. As a brief example, I can do exponentially more with 4 units than I can with 3. I can do significantly more with 1 strong unit, or stack of units, and 2 unstacked units.

This is also predicated upon AI modding to support this, unless it was primarily a head-to-head mod (which I can understand). I mean, I don't doubt that you can do it, but all of this pressure you're putting on the base game data to be "sane" is a bit presumptuous when there could be any number of roadblocks that exist for particular, sane, reasons.

As for that bit about arcane fundamentals, you misunderstood me, sorry. I meant that you don't know how games development teams are organised and managed - speaking from the context that the developer team should implement this set of changes. The developers do not have the luxury of that kind of free time (I'd imagine this close to going gold, as well, given that release date is what, October?) to implement these kinds of systems.

You're saying "this should be something the developers could have done". I'm simply saying that's not necessarily the case. The biggest constraint on any developer's ability to get something done is time, not a lack of knowledge or insight.

 

[Thormodr]

Initial reaction is that they are steering away from Civilization 5 which is a very good thing.
New game engine and graphics which will be able to handle large maps is awesome and exactly what I had been asking for. No more "grand" 3 city empires.
They trashed global happiness which was awful so kudos to them for that.
Realizing how terrible 1UPT was and at least modifying it somewhat.
Keeping good things like city states and having religion in right away instead of in an expansion.

After the disaster that was Civilization 5, (redeemed somewhat by CPP) I am cautiously optimistic.

 

[Ikael]

I am really, really optimist towards this game. The fact that they are centering their discourse around game mechanics and new systems, and that they have an overall strategic vision for the game other than "accessibility" and "simplicity" makes me hopeful. The description of the district, hidden agendas and corps systems sound deliciously deep and nuanced.

It is also great to see that they are going all out from the start rather than witholding crucial elements: archeology, religion and spyionage out of the bat. I am expecting a full fledged game on the release day rather than an unfinished beta product, so this is great news overall

 

[RohirrimElf]

Ikael,

thanks for your responce. I`m quite excited as well. Keep in mind we dont know all the details and there could be some good stuff coming our way till launch. So far i like where this is going.

 

[Akka]

So the only metric we have to go on for why Civ 5 is "terrible" is because you say so.

In that case, my counterargument is that it isn't terrible.

I have tons more of arguments (inelegance of systems, lack of immersion from gamey mechanisms instead of strong concepts, "carpet of doom" much worse than "SoD" & weird bad-tactics-as-strategy fight design, general dumbing down, atrociously ugly and overall badly designed interface...) but they have been repeated for years so I doubt anyone is gonna change his mind because I say them once again.

 

[Westwall]

Carpets of doom literally don't exist.

The rest of your arguments are just opinions.

(Inelegant, lack of immersion, weird/bad, atrociously ugly)

You're ultimately not saying anything quantifiable.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Carpets of doom literally don't exist.

The rest of your arguments are just opinions.

(Inelegant, lack of immersion, weird/bad, atrociously ugly)

You're ultimately not saying anything quantifiable.

Bad UI is quantifiable.

1 UPT aside, V takes more inputs to complete the same actions as in IV, sometimes ~twice as many. It's particularly bad with building queues and adding/removing items from them.

However, the 1 UPT vs UI aspect isn't irrelevant, because V has inconsistent input buffering (you issue orders to a few units before it acts with all of them, only some commands occur while others are ignored outright). That isn't just shoddy compared to Civ IV, but in the general sense (honestly even IV was weak in UI). Some of your actions (that most veterans hotkey, but not everyone is a veteran) are also needlessly behind drop down (drop sideways?) menus.

Then you have forced cycling (you click on a unit with movement points, the game force-selects another unit. Repeatedly.), indications that your city state can fire lingering after that city state fired (and still zooming you to the city state with a target icon, unable to actually fire, superceding other things to do on that turn on occasion).

Of course, it was much worse in vanilla, but even now the UI is lagging well behind the game as a whole and Civ V's UI is objectively outperformed in a "does what it says will happen, input buffers, and doesn't require superfluous inputs" by lower budget games over a decade older. The conclusion is that Firaxis has simply not prioritized UI very much after putting together some decent hotkeys in IV.

The 4 city trad thing is even acknowledged by the devs as an issue, but in that vein it's encouraging that they're aware of the possibility of another alpha-strat and seem intent to avoid that outcome.

 

[Akka]

Carpets of doom literally don't exist.

The rest of your arguments are just opinions.

(Inelegant, lack of immersion, weird/bad, atrociously ugly)

You're ultimately not saying anything quantifiable.

I bring arguments that you claim where inexistant.
Now if you're expecting absolutely objectively quantifiable measures, then you should look elsewhere than game design (and art in general), which is by essence a personal appreciation.

Of course that doesn't mean something can't be better than something else (few people would argue that my scribbling over a corner of a page are better than the Mona Lisa), but good luck finding an objective and measurable measure to technically prove it against people who don't want to agree.