Interview with Firaxis' Dennis Shirk!

[TheBlackAdderBG]

I still feel like I was lied to and conned out of my money. Why were they just not up front with all the facts initially. Yea I know they wanted to make money now but WTH dont advertise apples and sell me oranges. I still feel duped for spending $50 on civ rev 2 instead of getting what the name says, civ 5.

Agree absolutely!

 

[sketch162000]

I think they're gambling that the financial gains netted by appealing to more casual players will offset the few veteran fans of the old Civilization franchise that they may lose by making the game more accessible and streamlined. Which is a sound business decision; again, it doesn't matter who buys their products specifically, just how many people do overall. And in that sense, Civ5 may prove to be quite profitable for Firaxis and 2K Games, as it should appeal to a larger consumer audience that historically has not purchased Firaxis products in large numbers. Hopefully, Civ5 will change that trend.

Agreed.

But then, you would think that appealing to a large casual audience was the very point of CivRev. Why repeat the "streamlining" with Civ V? Just so more people can gloat that the play a TBS on PC?

Firaxis is only delaying the inevitable, anyway. Games usually add more content and expand their mechanics with each successive iteration, especially on console. CivRev II is almost definitely to add more features, as is Civ VI. So what, in a few of years it's going to be "CivRev II and Civ VI, now with new features such as religion!" even though they already implemented it years ago? Gah...I'm becoming disillusioned with the industry...

 

[Thormodr]

I still feel like I was lied to and conned out of my money. Why were they just not up front with all the facts initially. Yea I know they wanted to make money now but WTH dont advertise apples and sell me oranges. I still feel duped for spending $50 on civ rev 2 instead of getting what the name says, civ 5.

They knew if they were honest up front that the hardcore fans would be super pissed off and the game would acquire a bad vibe even before it was released. They likely lose a fair amount of their guaranteed sales. So, they had to wait.

Hopefully though, they will now lose a fair amount of their future guaranteed sales. I don't think their little bribe of a free DLC is going to cut it.

 

[Rince]

Sure, don't try to counter anything I say. Just quote me and change the words.

Your reply did nothing to prove anything I just said wrong. You just took what I said, and turned it into a cheap insult directed at me like some 12 year old who doesn't know what to say.

Sorry, my point was not to argument with you. It was also not meant as an insult. I just find that those complementary sentences perfectly illustrate the two positions or viewpoints that people seem to have of Civ5.

 

[eviltypeguy]

You seem to be ignoring the point that I and others made --

It's not about "not liking change" -- it's about if you take X out, what fills the turns in between wars... or worse -- what exactly is there to do if you particularly WANT to go to war besides click Next Turn a few thousand times and wait for the next pink science or blue science to pop.

No, I'm not ignoring those posts, I simply don't agree with their conclusion.

Removing features from a product does not necessarily make that product worse than an older version.

There are plenty of things to do besides clicking next turn and going to war; see Realms Beyond if you need ideas.

Personally, I've started working on a mod.

 

[Jediron]

You have "streamlining" and "streamlining" . Take for example the new Shogun 2 :TW
That is a streamlined game too, only this time, they sticked with their game-concept; iow; they did NOT re-invented the battle-mechanics, for example. Thank heaven they didn't. They improved the concept of the orginal as a whole, without changing the game-mechanics too much. Take a look at their "spionage/assasin" unit. Instead of scrapping it, they went a step futher and improved the concept. To me, that's a step in the right direction. Strenghten the weak points and improve the proven, good concept.

With CIV 5, they have gone a different route. A route, which i utterly disguise. Infact, they went sofar with their "new idea's"; there's hardly anything left from the old concept.
mupt (multiple units per tile) = dead
square = dead
religion = dead
civics = dead
old type warfare = dead

Are the most important ones. Then you have a new battle-mechanic ala PG-style and City-states.
The warfar type, which in my opion should not be combined with a strategical game which CIV is.
City-states that should not be there, since it ruins the concept of CIV, which is BUILDING up a civilization, NOT Buying/Instant Ally some....think about it, it does not make sence.

Therefor i believe this game does not even deserve the title "Civilization", how dare they !
I though i bought Civilization and ended up with a whole other game, then i expected. And i don't like it a bit. It's not only different then i expected; it is also a poor game. I couldn't care less that there are patches underway and/or mods are made. The game should be good enough to begin with...

Anway, aldo it's too late they could learn a lesson or two from TW.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Point taken.

But is your difference basically saying the developer of the game didn't listen to the customer's opinion? If so, it would seem backwards to change what most of your customer's find "near perfect". (Yes, I'm using the paraphrased text because I can't listen to it at work and forget what that previous poster said he said exactly.)

Just because someone listens to an opinion, but doesn't incorporate what was expressed in that opinion, does not mean the opinion was ignored.

You have to evaluate feedback given in the context of the goals of a product and then decide if it should be incorporated, and if so, in what form.

 

[DiabolicX]

They knew if they were honest up front that the hardcore fans would be super pissed off and the game would acquire a bad vibe even before it was released. They likely lose a fair amount of their guaranteed sales. So, they had to wait.

Hopefully though, they will now lose a fair amount of their future guaranteed sales. I don't think their little bribe of a free DLC is going to cut it.

I agree with you but what they did was fraudulent IMO. (We should file a class action lawsuit, :smile)

Why didnt they just say we are coming out with "civ rev 2" in sept 2010 and the full expansions and the game as many civers know it will be out in Aug 2011. I would have waited instead of buying this piece of garbage where you have gold coming out of your ears, childish ai, 100 turn golden ages and basically no thought provoking decisions.

I was perfectly content playing civ iv and I thought I was going to get civ 5!

 

[Rince]

I think we can close this discussion now. Everyone's mind is made up. People who hate Civ5 now got confirmation that the game was created for the unwashed masses and those who like it now know that they have to be inferior Civ players for liking the game.

Did the podcast contain anything else of interest?

 

[SuperJay]

Agreed.

But then, you would think that appealing to a large casual audience was the very point of CivRev. Why repeat the "streamlining" with Civ V? Just so more people can gloat that the play a TBS on PC?

Firaxis is only delaying the inevitable, anyway. Games usually add more content and expand their mechanics with each successive iteration, especially on console. CivRev II is almost definitely to add more features, as is Civ VI. So what, in a few of years it's going to be "CivRev II and Civ VI, now with new features such as religion!" even though they already implemented it years ago?

That could happen, but I would be surprised if we saw Civ Rev develop into a viable franchise for 2K Games. Between the new Civ 5 product line and Sid Meier's up-and-coming Facebook-integrated products, I doubt there will be much market demand for Civ Rev 2. In fact, I'm guessing that the market research that 2K Games conducted has probably shown them that continuing to deploy two different "Civilization" product franchises it is not a financially lucrative business model in the long-term.

Thus, for a more viable profit-driven product line, it is in their best interests to realign these two franchises and merge them together to better leverage their resources going forward. This can help reduce costs and cut down on the unnecessary investments in product development by focusing their efforts on a single product franchise that targets the casual market segment - such as the Civ Rev players that wants a little more depth without too much complexity.

Gah...I'm becoming disillusioned with the industry...

Indeed. The operative word there is industry. But hey, this is just business. Big business. And business is booming!

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Blame Dennis for that, he said that the people who plays Civ Rev have difficulties to approach a more hardcore game like Civ IV.

Basically the one you pay for the game is saying that you are not so good to approach a more hardcore game, so he made the new one easier for you...

Maybe a different choice of words was better...

PS i don't think that the fanbase of Civ V is dumb, but i certainly can say that Dennis thinks otherways, like a money dumb cow that need a soft and gentle hand to spill milk...

 

[zonk]

I think we can close this discussion now. Everyone's mind is made up. People who hate Civ5 now got confirmation that the game was created for the unwashed masses and those who like it now know that they have to be inferior Civ players for liking the game.

Did the podcast contain anything else of interest?

At minimum, I think the mods should stop forcing people made uncomfortable by the game producer's statement to visit the thread...

 

[Thormodr]

I think we can close this discussion now. Everyone's mind is made up. People who hate Civ5 now got confirmation that the game was created for the unwashed masses and those who like it now know that they have to be inferior Civ players for liking the game.

Did the podcast contain anything else of interest?

Not at all.

It has indeed been confirmed that the game was created for the mass market. It has been watered down to appeal to Civ Rev players. It's a shame but people who loved complex, rich and deep gameplay will have to look elsewhere sadly.

Liking it doesn't make anyone an inferior Civ player. After all, we all love Civ here on these forums. We wouldn't be here if we didn't. Therefore, I would never look down upon anyone for liking it.

However, all it does though, is encourage Firaxis to do more of the same. The more people support this product and buy future content, the more likely it becomes that we are going to get more of the same in Civ VI. It will just vindicate that what they did was right and they'll keep doing it.

If you truly love complex, deep rich game play then you won't buy any of the DLC or expansions. Consider it a service to this community. We all deserve much, much better in Civ VI.

 

[PickledDictator]

I think we can close this discussion now. Everyone's mind is made up. People who hate Civ5 now got confirmation that the game was created for the unwashed masses and those who like it now know that they have to be inferior Civ players for liking the game.

Did the podcast contain anything else of interest?

Actually those people are not inferior players...why does it have to be so harsh. The game is inferior to a real strategy game on PC and feels more like an admitted dumbed down version you would play on a console.

Its appeal is to a mass market to encourage casual games....no problem with that. Those gamers are not inferior, they are just not strategy game buffs. Major difference.

Many strategy game buffs may not be first person shooter die hards either. Doesn't make them inferior for preferring medal of honor to Modern Warfare 2

 

[Rince]

Actually those people are not inferior players...why does it have to be so harsh. The game is inferior to a real strategy game on PC and feels more like an admitted dumbed down version you would play on a console.

Isn't that in turn a bit harsh? Civ5 is much closer to Civ4 than CivRev in my opinion (I have never played the full version of CivRev though, only the demo). Civ5 It is still a PC strategy game, it is still a Civlization game, it still has the spirit of its predecessors. It is less complex than Civ4 in terms of variables that you can influence but it is in itself still a complex game.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Not at all.

It has indeed been confirmed that the game was created for the mass market. It has been watered down to appeal to Civ Rev players. It's a shame but people who loved complex, rich and deep gameplay will have to look elsewhere sadly.

I enjoy complex, rich, deep gameplay, and clearly, after having logged somewhere over 40 hours, I think it's rich and deep enough for me. I respect that it isn't for you, but please don't imply that all of us that are long time civilization players or that enjoy rich, deep gameplay hold the same view you do.

I might add that Civ Rev actually had spies but Civ V doesn't.

Yes, shame on Firaxis for listening to their potential customers and trying to make a better game!

 

[jpinard]

Who are these people that loved Civ Rev? Everyone I know (casual & hardcore gamers) hate it. It's practically dead.

 

[serikas]

Listen, streamlined and organic games can appeal to everyone. Someone could pick up Civ5 and master the fundamentals it inside a week, because it's so streamlined. That's what streamlining is: taking away the unnecessary clutter that would confuse and alienate your new target audience - Civ Rev fans who wanted something a little more robust, but not too difficult.

You do have a point, though - is Civ5 streamlined enough? Maybe there's room for more streamlining; that would help it more quickly appeal to players who enjoyed Civ Rev but aren't quite ready for the complexity of a challenging strategy game. Future patches could potentially help, especially by spicing up the early game with some more engaging content, as you noted. Plus, there would be financial benefits to to adding (or removing) features that would attract more of those players and retain a newer, more casual audience with the Civ5 franchise. It's important for Firaxis to expand their profit margins on this product line, and it looks like Civ5 is a step in the right direction in targeting that untapped market segment.

Unless they want to finish civ series with ciV. A lot of people preordered ciV. Why? Because it's civ. Now how many people do you think will preorder if they announce right now that Firaxis accepts preorder for civ 6, with lead designer Jon Shafer?

Sure, streamlined and civ became easier. But will people still be FANATIC to a game that is easy to master and now mediocre? Civ 5 is not a bad game, but there are too many good games around as well. Don't forget that other computer games than civ. If there were no competitors, then civ 5 made a right decision, but the assumption is obviously false.


What is surprising is that when they say it's hard to come up with something better than BtS, how about thinking, is there civ-like game that makes more money than civ?

It is contradictory. No one forces Firaxis to make only civs. If they really throught civ was too complicated for many potential gamers, then they could also expect that the title of civilization could keep away people from ciV. Instead, they could start a new series, say Sid Meier Bros 1.

But they didn't. They made screenshots that looked like it's refined version of cIV. They've never spoken of streamlining. And they gave the title of civilization V, because they know CIV DOES ALREADY HAVE LARGE AUDIENCE AND NO CIV-LIKE GAME DOES BETTER!!!!!

It will get better? Certainly patches won't do it. An expansion pack or two? And how long will that take? A year or two? And think of that other causal gamers who would try and go away from ciV in the meantime and say "I tried civ series, and it was a mediocre causal game just like everything else. That civ fanatics must be pathetic fanboys." How could one keep that gamers to civ? Not only Firaxis can make great stuff.

It is hard to earn trust, and it gets away easily in no time.

 

[zonk]

Some other points of interest --

Dennis bought into the "people said the same thing about IV" myth when responding to complaints... that's just. not. true. Read the content of the threads - there's a difference in the complaints. You can tell when he lauds the "mods already available" - these are all gameplay fix mods.

The Social Policies vs. Civics discussion...

First - it's worth noting that even Dennis didn't seem well versed in the SP names (there's a question where Shanghai struggles to come up with the policy "name" - and Dennis doesn't really know).

He pawns a lot of this off on Jon (some of that I'll have to leave to Jon) -- but he brought up that Jon wanted to make civics an "investment"... a lot of "he wanted to see how it would play out".... "you've got to hold your breath"... "leap of faith"... "we "hope" it works"...

that speaks to poor/inadequate balance testing -- you hold your breath that the players find the same balance you found in development... you shouldn't be holding your breath about it working or it growing stale.

 

[zonk]

Another point of contention --

He discussed City State roles in diplomacy --

Can someone explain exactly WHAT role CS have in diplomacy? You don't parlay with them - you give them money, you declare war, or fulfill quests. That's not diplomacy.