Interview with Firaxis' Dennis Shirk!

[Geddy]

What really pisses me off is the dishonesty of this. If they said they were going to dumb it down very few would have bought it.

Instead they chose to hide it, particularly the delayed demo. What is utterly boneheaded about this attitude is that it was done to try and get more customers, so they loose many many people to gain a handful.

These people should never have been allowed near CiV. As for me, 2 can play at that game, and you can be sure any future releases I'll be buying at the $4 software shop here in HK. The man insists they are legitimate copies......

 

[Thormodr]

What really pisses me off is the dishonesty of this. If they said they were going to dumb it down very few would have bought it.

Instead they chose to hide it, particularly the delayed demo. What is utterly boneheaded about this attitude is that it was done to try and get more customers, so they loose many many people to gain a handful.

These people should never have been allowed near CiV. As for me, 2 can play at that game, and you can be sure any future releases I'll be buying at the $4 software shop here in HK. The man insists they are legitimate copies......

As crappy as Shafer 5 is and as dishonest as the developers have been, two wrongs don't make a right. Buying pirated copies or pirating the game itself is wrong.

I'll choose not to invest in any more Shafer 5 products. Hopefully many more people will do the same and Shafer, Shirk and co. will get what they deserve.

 

[Geddy]

Who said anything about pirated copies? I'm buying a legitimate copy according to the shop owner. I don't support buying pirated software.

 

[jpinard]

Why are people automatically blaming Jon? I'm more of the line it was interference from people like Dennis and some of Jon's vision got nerfed for mass-market.

You have to remember, people like Dennis (ie marketers) don't always care about the product, but are geared to sales and net profit. I would love for Dennis to prove me 1,000% wrong on this.

 

[ohioastronomy]

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!

Quite apart from simple/complex, there is the issue of how well crafted the game itself is. It's much harder to change a lot of things at once than it is to change a few things - because it's very tough to get a balanced game. There is also a lack of what we used to call "chrome"; you know, the little replay at the end of the game and the like. Or the disfunctional civilopedia.

If you like quick and military-oriented games this could work for you. It lags terribly in large/huge maps or slow speeds and doesn't fit many playstyles. That's a problem.

 

[PickledDictator]

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.

Civ Rev, as a lover of the civ series IMO is a failed experiment to move away from a complex thinking game (chess) to a simple thinking game like (checkers).

I am not saying these isn't a market for it on the console, of course there is, but on sites like this and others, this is NOT what the majority was looking for. We want variables and some of us micromanaging. Its a PC game, its supposed to have more depth!

I should not be able to win 75% of my games on deity after a month. Where is the replay value in that? Where is the hook that makes Civ so fun...ala ONE MORE TURN

All the civ games are flawed to one point or another, no AI can compete against the human, but trying to pawn Civ V off as a successor along the series line is a no no. It's a slightly more difficult Civ Rev, and a way to easy version Civ 1-4.

If the Civ series is going to follow in the footsteps of Civ Rev, which it practically admitted in the podcast (dont' want to lose casual gamers) then I fear we will never see what they admitted was perhaps the most balanced of the Civ games (CIV IV BTS)

why move away so radically, it represents a fundamental shift in thinking, and I think that is what pisses so many fans off. Civ Rev never had a bit following anyways, why would you cater to that atmosphere?

CIV IV BTS is the standard now, CIV V should have built upon that, not moved away from it. Interesting concepts, poorly implemented, with an AI that seems unsure as to what its strategy is. Game has balance issues which currently ruin it.

So....back on point, Civ Rev does not represent an individual as being "stupid". It represents an individual who can ease into a complex series with a slightly easier edition. Far less intimidating. I get that, but what about those of us who want more (many of us)?

Civ was the pinnacle of strategy TBS games, in its current rendition, that is not the case.

I am not saying my opinion is right, or that even those who like some of what I have to say will agree with everything, its just an opinion.

What I hate is fanboi's who can't see whats really happening here, who just blindly love anything even though the flaws are numerous and ruin a potentially great game.

The other thing I hate is reviewers who give absurdly high grades to a game they obviously put little time into...come on, I want an honest review, not some garbage that was paid for by the PR department.

Lastly I really want a big company to come out and admit that the all mighty dollar was the real reason we released a game that was not beta tested properly.

$100 for the Deluxe edition.....haha money grabbers.

Piracy is wrong, but I understand some peoples motives for doing so, aside from obvious greed. When you can't trust the companies making games, or the "official" reviewers to give it an honest review, things can get chaotic.

anyways, probably get warned again about the piracy part, but if someone can't see that a part of piracy stems from garbage, and being burned for 60-100 bucks a pop, well...you are truly blind.

I will agree that a lot of piracy is pure greed however, and that piracy as a rule of thumb is just WRONG.

 

[eviltypeguy]

I'll choose not to invest in any more Shafer 5 products. Hopefully many more people will do the same and Shafer, Shirk and co. will get what they deserve.

Yes, they deserve the commercial success that it is apparent Civilization 5 has become. I'm not interested in buying Thormodr 5.

 

[zonk]

Why are people automatically blaming Jon? I'm more of the line it was interference from people like Dennis and some of Jon's vision got nerfed for mass-market.

You have to remember, people like Dennis (ie marketers) don't care about the product, they care about the sales and gross profit. That's all. People like Jon care about the product.

Well, not trying to stir anything -- but Dennis often makes a point of saying "Jon's vision" and in multiple places says explicitly "Well, I'll have to defer to Jon on the details".

I have no doubt Jon cares about the product -- but I just think he really needed to take off his "expert" glasses when doing the modeling and pre-code architecture. In far too many places, it seems like he essentially took the view of the expert, who would calculate total hammer costs and come up with the "best" solution --- and then he tried to make it "clearer" (by brute force/making the answer on what to buy/build obvious) to the rest of us.

I think that also comes through when Dennis talks about the SP vision, the CS vision, and the elimination of religion vision -- Jon knew what the exploits were... flipping civics... using religion as a diplomatic magic wand... etc -- and he basically took a gordian knot solution to those exploits (as in -- OK, we'll just lop 'em out entirely... voila - exploit eliminated). The problem with that approach is twofold: 1) it presupposes that EVERYONE ALWAYS took advantage of those exploits and felt the game was ruined by their existence... the latter is certainly not true, and I think the former is much less true than people think, and 2) it ends up just creating NEW exploits.

 

[Thormodr]

Yes, they deserve the commercial success that it is apparent Civilization 5 has become. I'm not interested in buying Thormodr 5.

Uhhh...ok.

I guess what you are saying is that you don't want a deep, rich, complex, immersive and fun Civ game. To each his/her own I guess.

 

[Bad Brett]

That guy in the beginning... his voice reminds me of "high talker" Dan from Seinfeld.

 

[Thormodr]

Well, not trying to stir anything -- but Dennis often makes a point of saying "Jon's vision" and in multiple places says explicitly "Well, I'll have to defer to Jon on the details".

I have no doubt Jon cares about the product -- but I just think he really needed to take off his "expert" glasses when doing the modeling and pre-code architecture. In far too many places, it seems like he essentially took the view of the expert, who would calculate total hammer costs and come up with the "best" solution --- and then he tried to make it "clearer" (by brute force/making the answer on what to buy/build obvious) to the rest of us.

I think that also comes through when Dennis talks about the SP vision, the CS vision, and the elimination of religion vision -- Jon knew what the exploits were... flipping civics... using religion as a diplomatic magic wand... etc -- and he basically took a gordian knot solution to those exploits (as in -- OK, we'll just lop 'em out entirely... voila - exploit eliminated). The problem with that approach is twofold: 1) it presupposes that EVERYONE ALWAYS took advantage of those exploits and felt the game was ruined by their existence... the latter is certainly not true, and I think the former is much less true than people think, and 2) it ends up just creating NEW exploits.

I think you've analyzed it really well.

 

[Buccaneer]

As good as BtS was (despite espionage), we didn't need Civ5 to be Civ4.5. I believe you can make a new and different civ game while keeping the complexity and challenge for all levels of players. I applaud the new 1upt system, as well as Social Policies; those are things that are new and different. But they failed miserably in providing a game that is complex and challenging. I guess I am optimistic that the foundation is there and as long as they have the resources (which they haven't shown to be the case), they can improve on it. They got the sales from the console crowd, for whatever that's worth, now they need to make a good civ game for the rest of us.

 

[zonk]

I think you've analyzed it really well.

Thanks... just for that -- I'm preordering Thormodr V right now

 

[DiabolicX]

Yes, they deserve the commercial success that it is apparent Civilization 5 has become. I'm not interested in buying Thormodr 5.

The commercial success is due to many of us being plain out right duped! I would have not bought the game knowing what I know now, hell.... even after the first few hours.
I personally have never seen such a divide within the player base as I have seen here due to this release.

 

[Thormodr]

As good as BtS was (despite espionage), we didn't need Civ5 to be Civ4.5. I believe you can make a new and different civ game while keeping the complexity and challenge for all levels of players. I applaud the new 1upt system, as well as Social Policies; those are things that are new and different. But they failed miserably in providing a game that is complex and challenging. I guess I am optimistic that the foundation is there and as long as they have the resources (which they haven't shown to be the case), they can improve on it. They got the sales from the console crowd, for whatever that's worth, now they need to make a good civ game for the rest of us.

I totally agree. You can make a new Civ that isn't cIV.5. The problem is, as you said, Shafer 5 isn't it.

I admire your optimism that the game will get there eventually. I am usually a very optimistic person about most things to be honest but I can't be here. In my opinion, Shafer 5's foundation is built on rotten cement. No matter what they try and add unto it, if it's anything serious and deep, it will lead to disastrous results.

I fervently hope that if we all stand up for your ideals (a good civ game for the rest of us) that we'll get it in Civ VI. That's why I can't support Shafer 5. I feel that supporting this product will be tantamount to validating it. Maybe I'm too idealistic or stubborn or maybe I'm just fighting a losing battle. Time will tell.

 

[jpinard]

Well, not trying to stir anything -- but Dennis often makes a point of saying "Jon's vision" and in multiple places says explicitly "Well, I'll have to defer to Jon on the details".

I have no doubt Jon cares about the product -- but I just think he really needed to take off his "expert" glasses when doing the modeling and pre-code architecture. In far too many places, it seems like he essentially took the view of the expert, who would calculate total hammer costs and come up with the "best" solution --- and then he tried to make it "clearer" (by brute force/making the answer on what to buy/build obvious) to the rest of us.

I think that also comes through when Dennis talks about the SP vision, the CS vision, and the elimination of religion vision -- Jon knew what the exploits were... flipping civics... using religion as a diplomatic magic wand... etc -- and he basically took a gordian knot solution to those exploits (as in -- OK, we'll just lop 'em out entirely... voila - exploit eliminated). The problem with that approach is twofold: 1) it presupposes that EVERYONE ALWAYS took advantage of those exploits and felt the game was ruined by their existence... the latter is certainly not true, and I think the former is much less true than people think, and 2) it ends up just creating NEW exploits.

Excellent post. If that's true, then Jon's more disconnected than I thought. For example I never researched loopholes on forums, and was almost always beaten on Prince difficulty. I played Civ a lot and didn't want to learn exploits. That's just one reason Civ V is disappointing is you can't help but run into exploiting the game after just a few play-thrus. Easy path to victory is a no-brainer (trading post spam).

 

[Yngvi]

What disturbs me is how easy the game is. Going from Prince to King to Emperor there is almost no difference. A few more barbs spawn, the AI is a little more foolhardy (not smarter or stronger or numerous) and that is it.
I truly hope it is not "rotten cement" but I'm not so confident anymore. I wish the patch would arrive so I would know either way. I tried some balance mods and they do not seem to add much to the challenge....

 

[sketch162000]

I think that also comes through when Dennis talks about the SP vision, the CS vision, and the elimination of religion vision -- Jon knew what the exploits were... flipping civics... using religion as a diplomatic magic wand... etc -- and he basically took a gordian knot solution to those exploits (as in -- OK, we'll just lop 'em out entirely... voila - exploit eliminated). The problem with that approach is twofold: 1) it presupposes that EVERYONE ALWAYS took advantage of those exploits and felt the game was ruined by their existence... the latter is certainly not true, and I think the former is much less true than people think, and 2) it ends up just creating NEW exploits.

This.

It's the mark of an inexperienced designer and it seems just lazy TBH. Worse, it seems to be the most basic philosophy behind the entire game design "Instead of figuring a better way to implement this fundamental game mechanic, we'll just scrap it, and save ourselves the trouble. It's 'streamlining!'"

No. Streamlining is when you go back to the roots of a classic game. The design process in Civ V seems to instead be focused on just scrapping a bunch of stuff from Civ IV, which is why the game feels like an empty shell and several players actually do want Civ IV.5

 

[eviltypeguy]

Uhhh...ok.

I guess what you are saying is that you don't want a deep, rich, complex, immersive and fun Civ game. To each his/her own I guess.

No, I'm saying I don't want a game that fits *your* definition of a rich, complex, immersive one. As I said before, don't assume your definitions match everyone else's.

 

[eviltypeguy]

The commercial success is due to many of us being plain out right duped! I would have not bought the game knowing what I know now, hell.... even after the first few hours.
I personally have never seen such a divide within the player base as I have seen here due to this release.

I'm guessing wildly here, but I'm going to bet a significant number of sales came from people who haven't played civilization before.

And as someone that has played Civ since the original, I don't feel duped, so please don't imply everyone (or a majority even) feels the way you do.