Interview with Firaxis' Dennis Shirk!

[ShuShu62]

Someone new to this forum is unlikely to understand such a subtle distinction, and quite frankly, regardless of how you might be able to imply that from the context, I think it's less than obvious and possibly slightly disingenuous.

Someone who has been posting more than is wise on the forum is unlikely to recognoze when to stop.

Here's a hint, when you start attacking folks as noobs when they have made the same point you are trying to make (i.e. same side), but more effectively... its time to take a breath.

P.S. Given all the obvious royal we usage on the boards, when you pick a clear example that wasn't... That's not really a good sign either.

 

[SuperJay]

Someone who has been posting more than is wise on the forum is unlikely to recognoze when to stop.

Here's a hint, when you start attacking folks as noobs when they have made the same point you are trying to make (i.e. same side), but more effectively... its time to take a breath.

P.S. Given all the obvious royal we usage on the boards, when you pick a clear example that wasn't... That's not really a good sign either.

Hehe, well said.

Video game forums are serious business; the royal "we" on video game forums?!? EVEN SERIOUSER.

 

[da_Vinci]

It's been shown time and time again that when someone says something of theirs is "very large and long", they're probably exaggerating to impress you.

Now THAT is hillarious!

dV

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Dennis Shirk did a decent job at defending the title--but I would have responded to his defense of not including religion by asking--wasn't there a way to design religion so it didn't affect diplomacy so much? (But still include it on a cultural level?)

He did, however, point out that other "systems" would probably be included into expansions, as was the case with Civ 4 and Beyond the Sword. These systems would probably address missing systems like espionage and religion, he said. I liked that he said that the design team always read forums, and that the best gameplay and feedback come from people who are forumers.

If the developers do go ahead and add these other "systems" that was left out from cIV, it isn't because of the feedbacks from the forums. The decision was already made based on 2K telling them to send a unfinished product, and to replicate the same approach they had done with cIV (vanilla+expansion+expansion).

So instead of us getting some of the features that was popular with the predecessor's game, all we got was half of what cIV vanilla was; and, the possibilities of not only what we will get from ciV DLCs, but as well as limited expansion packs that will fall far short from what we received from cIV and its expansion packs.

ciV = more expansions and DLCs

cIV = two expansions.

It is in the business to make more money than what they had done in the last product that they had made.

 

[jjkrause84]

I think the idea that appeaing to casual fans is good for busines is PAINFULLY short-sighted. They'll make a quick buck now but who's gonna buy Civ6? How many casual gamers have bought EVERY iteration of a particular game series? How many casual gamers can you count on?

This is modern corporate mentality in a nutshell. Sure, things in ten years might not be so great but HEY look at this quarter's profit!

 

[Penwa]

I turned it off as soon as he started complaining about British people. If your customers complain about your product you don't then go and complain back at them. You certainly don't single out a nation and complain about it. he just appears as an unintelligent, chauvinistic moron.
He has just put me off of buying another one of their products.

 

[Venereus]

I turned it off as soon as he started complaining about British people. If your customers complain about your product you don't then go and complain back at them. You certainly don't single out a nation and complain about it. he just appears as an unintelligent, chauvinistic moron.
He has just put me off of buying another one of their products.

Didn't their last product do that for you already?

 

[Zechnophobe]

Sorry, but I think the choices are there. What civ should I be

There are less civs, and each civ has only one leader.

which policies will I pursue

You only make this decision once per SP unlock, and cannot re-evaluate it.

, what wonders to invest in

There are less interesting and useful wonders in this game.

, where to place cities,

Since tile yields are less variable, this decision is less important

should I buy a good tile and enjoy the bonus now or wait

Hmm, ties in with previous point, but I guess I'll let you have this one.

, should I invest in these city states, is it worth the money

The potential is there, but the answer is almost always 'Yes'

, specialist numbers

The number of buildings that provide them is less, and there are no civics like Caste System, or wonders like Statue of Liberty (civ4), angkor wat(civ4) to change that decision

, build a settler or go for a worker

or build any of a large variety of other things. I'd certainly HOPE that was still there. Even then, the number of buildings that strictly require another building mean you have less building options.

, etc. The choices are there, my contention is that they've only made it easier to figure out what your choices are. Therefore it is simpler, not dumber.

Well, let's abandon 'dumber' since it has an obvious negative connotation. Less Complex is really the better way of stating it. And what does 'simpler' mean other than 'less complex?'

Since the argument was the game was dumbed down, I gave an example of things I didn't think were dumbed down at all, this of course was the first example that's why it is included.

Fair enough, but just having an example or two of areas where complexity still exists doesn't mean the rest hasn't been hacked out.

Sorry, but it's a completely different system. In Civ 4 I could cultivate good relations with my neighbor and they would not attack me, even if it would have been to their advantage to do so. Meanwhile, all the good things they'd done for me meant NOTHING if I needed their land, boom i attacked. And if we shared religion, I knew I could make it up easy to them. If someone attacked me and left me with 5 junk cities on islands I would hate them, but because we were both Hindu he's still pleased and willing to trade with me. The AI in Civ V is supposed to be like us, in that I could have coexisted peacefully with Augustus for 1000 years but if I'm getting a tech lead he's going to stop me, good relations or not. Again, if the AI was smart about this it would be a LOT more fun than civ IV. The Idea is good, but the execution is flawed.

Remember, I was responding to this:

It takes a smarter AI to meaningful diplomacy decisions than merely adding up the mods, comparing it to it's scripted personality and computing "I like this person +18, I don't like him -5, I don't declare war if I'm over 10 like, therefore I will not fight this person, I'll just quietly build colosseums as he prepares a death army on my doorstep."

The weights and values are changed, but the underlying concept is not. All they've done is made it so that the AI is weighted more towards war when it is losing to you (or when you build a city, or befriend a city state, or build a mine, or research a tech, or take a deep breath) than it was before. That isn't any harder to program. The hard part in both cases is determining how it goes about achieving its goals, and secondarily is giving it the correct goal.

Actually, I'm comparing social policies to civics, and showing how one is easy for a computer to figure out and the other takes long term planning to be used effectively. It's easier to pick out the most helpful civic for the moment knowing you can just switch in a few turns to another than to thoughtfully pursue policies that further victory. It's a more difficult decision to refrain from investing in Piety now so you can enjoy Rationalism than simply switch to Representation to speed up your research for a while.

This is not true actually. The Civics require the AI to consider them whenever they are able to change them. I would not at all be surprised if the AI's in civ 5 just have set 'SP order paths' where they get them in a certain order independant of game state. Well, or maybe it wiggles about a little depending on certain specific factors. Doing a passable job of that is easy, since they are all beneficial effects. Doing civics that have downsides is a lot harder. At any given time the AI needs to decide between hereditary rule vs representation. Which is better for it?

Actually, it will. If the AI is better at combat, you'd be neglecting defensive structures/improvements at your own peril. If the AI was aggressively pursuing wonders to get more culture you'd have to choose to build wonders as well and risk occasionally missing out or to build units/buildings you're certain would be helpful. The choices would be much more interesting if you feared the consequences more.

So, I think you misunderstand. Look at units, and look at buildings that make units better. In virtually every situation it is not worth building those buildings because they aren't as effective as just having MORE UNITS. Whether or not the AI attacks doesn't change that. I'm not going to suddenly have buildings that provide wider areas of effect (instead of just one of: Culture, happiness, gold, science, xp, production speed, food).

Also, considering that military victories are the easiest kind in this game, making them harder to get, or making other AI's more of a militant threat, doesn't help that. It just means you focus EVEN MORE on pumping out units.

 

[masterminded]

Zechnophobe, while I think that you are correct in the argument that the choices are not there, I think that focusing on certain categories in isolation isn't the best way to examine the issue, which is to consider how these elements come together in the metagame. It seems to me that options for the player remain, but there is always an optimal path because the metagame encourages narrow strategies to victory.

Take cultural victories, for instance. In Civ IV, there were multiple paths to it through religion, wonders, etc. The player could shift to these strategies quite nimbly. Civ V presents a narrow road to cultural victories: build only a few cities because social policy costs do not scale well with empire size, build the right wonders, focus on a handful of buildings, pick the right social policies, etc. This requires that players begin the game with the intent to win a cultural victory for optimal results. Shifting to this later in the game is much more difficult given the constraints. In turn, this leads to restricted gameplay. Sure, the player can deviate from this strategy somewhat by trying to do other things, but this approach is suboptimal. The incentive remains to follow the a very structured road to victory, which eliminates viable interesting choices and instead presents the player with the illusion of choice.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Zechnophobe, while I think that you are correct in the argument that the choices are not there, I think that focusing on certain categories in isolation isn't the best way to examine the issue, which is to consider how these elements come together in the metagame. It seems to me that options for the player remain, but there is always an optimal path because the metagame encourages narrow strategies to victory.

Take cultural victories, for instance. In Civ IV, there were multiple paths to it through religion, wonders, etc. The player could shift to these strategies quite nimbly. Civ V presents a narrow road to cultural victories: build only a few cities because social policy costs do not scale well with empire size, build the right wonders, focus on a handful of buildings, pick the right social policies, etc. This requires that players begin the game with the intent to win a cultural victory for optimal results. Shifting to this later in the game is much more difficult given the constraints. In turn, this leads to restricted gameplay. Sure, the player can deviate from this strategy somewhat by trying to do other things, but this approach is suboptimal. The incentive remains to follow the a very structured road to victory, which eliminates viable interesting choices and instead presents the player with the illusion of choice.

This is a pretty good point. You could build Temples and cathedrals for the happiness boost they give, and then realize you have a lot of them, and decide to get cultural victory by doing it more so. Or perhaps in spreading your religion to allies in hopes of better relations, you notice you have a chance to win via the Apostalic Palace.

It really is a long lonely road to achieve cultural victory in 5. Is.. is that a tumbleweed over there? oh dear.

 

[Stefanskantine]

To me this is a fairly massive simplification of russian history. While both stalin and the tsars were autocratic heads of state, and cruel ones, that is where the similarities start to end. The tsars used an estates based system which favored wealthy landowners and the power of the tsar was considered to come primarily from peasents
and religion, stalin's power came from factories/urban populations and wealthy land owners ceased to exist. Tsar: head of a state religion considered divine Stalin: State atheism. Tsar: Self suffient army corps with prestigous cavalry, Stalin: human wave army drawing supply. Tsar: relatively continous social policy through sanguine progression of tsars. Stalin: Was Kruschev much like stalin really? doesn't seem continous to me. I could go on and on and on as there are so many reasons why stalin was nothing like the tsardom other then the autocracy and cruelty of course.

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. No one is arguing that the two systems are similar simply because Stalin and, say, Nicholas I just *happened* to be cruel autocrats. Rather, the argument is that there is something inherent in Russian culture which favors, and gives rise to, centralization and autocracy. You can disagree if you want to, but I am not the only person making such an argument. The St. Petersburg Times editorial I linked previously indicated support for Monarchism being alive today in Russia. Here is BBC story citing polls which in various ways indicate that Russians tend to prefer centralization and autocracy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8311189.stm

You seem to argue that the two are inherently different because of petty distinctions like State Orthodox Christianity versus State Atheism. But ask yourself, what is the truly important core of those official doctrines? The Christianity/Atheism part, or the State part? The content of the doctrines are unimportant, they are merely tools for centralizing power.

And your argument that the two were clearly different because one had cavalry and peasants, while the other had a human wave and factories just doesn't ring true to me. It sounds too much like a simplified middle school textbook. Of course the technological tools available to society change over time. Are you suggesting that a Monarchy can *only* make use of peasants and cavalry, and as soon as it upgrades its technological infrastructure it must immediately lose all monarchic traits? That doesn't make much sense to me. If you're correct, it must be good for meddlesome international powers like the US to know that if they don't like tribal/feudal warlordism in say Afghanistan or Somalia, then they can automatically modernize their governments simply by arming them with modern weapons. Oh wait...

Finally, I am not arguing that Stalin and other USSR leaders were *exactly* like the Tsardom. I am merely arguing that certain cultural elements that came about during the Tsardom persisted and could be observed during Communism, and in fact persist to this day.

 

[jacyp]

Zechnophobe, while I think that you are correct in the argument that the choices are not there, I think that focusing on certain categories in isolation isn't the best way to examine the issue, which is to consider how these elements come together in the metagame. It seems to me that options for the player remain, but there is always an optimal path because the metagame encourages narrow strategies to victory.

Take cultural victories, for instance. In Civ IV, there were multiple paths to it through religion, wonders, etc. The player could shift to these strategies quite nimbly. Civ V presents a narrow road to cultural victories: build only a few cities because social policy costs do not scale well with empire size, build the right wonders, focus on a handful of buildings, pick the right social policies, etc. This requires that players begin the game with the intent to win a cultural victory for optimal results. Shifting to this later in the game is much more difficult given the constraints. In turn, this leads to restricted gameplay. Sure, the player can deviate from this strategy somewhat by trying to do other things, but this approach is suboptimal. The incentive remains to follow the a very structured road to victory, which eliminates viable interesting choices and instead presents the player with the illusion of choice.

A brilliant reading of what people seem to be wanting to say, but are expressing it in a lot of wrong ways.

I've been trying to say what you just said yourself, but so far I couldn't explain it as you did. Kudos.

I think the game can be reworked to fix this illusion so it can be a reality of choice, but unfortunately it seems too late to rework the game in this manner. Let's hope a MOD does that, or perharps an expansion?

Cheers.

Edit: just an addedum - dispite my disappointement expressed above, I still find that if the game becomes balanced, with an improved AI and bug free, it will be a good and enjoyable game.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Someone who has been posting more than is wise on the forum is unlikely to recognoze when to stop.

So when will you stop posting?

Here's a hint, when you start attacking folks as noobs when they have made the same point you are trying to make (i.e. same side), but more effectively... its time to take a breath.

Since I've never played the name game or insulted other forum members with that term, I assume you're talking about others who have. So, in that case, I agree; please tell them to stop.

 

[masterminded]

A brilliant reading of what people seem to be wanting to say, but are expressing it in a lot of wrong ways.

I've been trying to say what you just said yourself, but so far I couldn't explain it as you did. Kudos.

I think the game can be reworked to fix this illusion so it can be a reality of choice, but unfortunately it seems too late to rework the game in this manner. Let's hope a MOD does that, or perharps an expansion?

Cheers.

Edit: just an addedum - dispite my disappointement expressed above, I still find that if the game becomes balanced, with an improved AI and bug free, it will be a good and enjoyable game.

I'm hoping for mods to make the game more worthwhile. In order to give the player the flexibility to change strategies, too many systems would have to be extensively reworked otherwise. I've never changes on the scale needed in a previous civ expansion.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Who do you (eviltypeguy) mean by they? You (eviltypeguy) should be clearer when you (eviltypeguy) use pronouns, we (the Civ community) all know how unclear they (pronouns) can be. You (eviltypeguy) need to lead by example by foregoing or disambiguating them (pronouns) in all of your (eviltypeguy) posts from now on.

Finally, a clear posting I can agree with!

But seriously, you're doing just fine; it's the others who keep trying to pretend that "all civ fans" or that they are the only "true civ fans" that I feel are being disingenuous.

That's all I'm asking; for others to stop trying to pretend that the people who don't like the game are the only "true fans".

 

[Ayt]

They're the one making implications about an undefined group of people, etc. If they can't deliver their message clearly, it's entirely justifiable how someone (based on their agreement, posting history, etc.) could reasonably interpret them to be implying "we" in the "royal sense" as "usual".

We don't agree.

 

[Gismo]

So they decided to change game concepts and such. And yes, as BtS pleased the hardcore fans, they decided to make 5 appeal more to those who might have loved Rev and wanted something more--but who may not be ready to leap into Civ 4's complexity.

I feel so utterly betrayed... If they had stated this before release, I definitely had not bought it.

I'm back to Civ4 and I don't think I'll buy any expansion for Civ5 ever...

 

[UKScud]

They'll make a quick buck now but who's gonna buy Civ6? How many casual gamers have bought EVERY iteration of a particular game series? How many casual gamers can you count on?

This is modern corporate mentality in a nutshell. Sure, things in ten years might not be so great but HEY look at this quarter's profit!

You have it spot on...

...and I feel cheated. If I had known beforehand that Civ5 was going to be for casual gamers I would certainly not have bought it. But they have my money now...are they going to get any more of it...HELL NO!

The only saving grace is that it is moddable...but I didn't set out to buy a set of game building tools. I spent my hard earned money expecting a complex strategy game built on the reputation that Firaxis used to have.

Have they made a profit...no, not in the long run as they've spent their reputation.

 

[fantsu]

Don't want to go into the same old debate: IV or V, again...

But one thing about this interview:

This guy is an idiot. He attacks against British people. I'm not even British, but that guy annoys me. He is an racist a-hole.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Don't want to go into the same old debate: IV or V, again...

But one thing about this interview:

This guy is an idiot. He attacks against British people. I'm not even British, but that guy annoys me. He is an racist a-hole.

He's trying to SHIRK the real issue. Hur hur hur.