Interview with Firaxis' Dennis Shirk!

[kaltorak]

Sure, it isn't as good as its previous iteration, but they weren't trying to make it as good - they were going for something wholly different. Nor did they disguise this in any of the press release.

That's not true. Many times they tried to remove the fear of simplicity players were having. They stated several times that we should not fear loss of complexity

 

[Rince]

Thormodr, a completely unrelated question, do you ever sleep? You seem to be posting 24h a day. I have come to wonder whether you are acutally a human being.

 

[Yngvi]

My problem is not with vanilla vs. expansion, or features removed and added, or streamlining vs. simplification. The game is just too easy. It's like playing in a sandbox and going from prince to king to emperor involves no noticable increase in difficulty. I just mow these other players down without trying. Even in one endgame, when Arabia was well ahead of me in techs and money, he did not buy all the CS and get a diplo, or build the spaceship, or even attack me. He just sat there on his continent until I built the spaceship. Yuck.
And I am someone who never got past monarch on Civ IV and even there lost far more games than I won.

 

[Bill Bisco]

Thormodr, a completely unrelated question, do you ever sleep? You seem to be posting 24h a day. I have come to wonder whether you are acutally a human being.

He has vigilance and speaks for those who do not have the energy to counter every fallacy other posters make. I praise him for this.

 

[Fistalis]

Well we were to lazy to attempt to make anything that would please our fanbase, So we decided to target a mainstream audience with this version. But don't worry we planned on adding more complexity and systems through tons of expansions and DLCs so if your willing to pay extra you might be pleased in the future.

Pretty much sums up the feeling i got from the interview.

 

[Bad Brett]

Well we were to lazy to attempt to make anything that would please our fanbase, So we decided to target a mainstream audience with this version. But don't worry we planned on adding more complexity and systems through tons of expansions and DLCs so if your willing to pay extra you might be pleased in the future.

Pretty much sums up the feeling i got from the interview.

Yeah. What really irritates me is that both Shirk and Shafer are talking about that "they have created a good foundation". Seriously, what the...? Who wants to pay for a foundation? Is it completely natural to release unfinished games nowadays?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

You know, I like Civ V. Some questionable decisions were made when making it (especially going over the top with making it "accessible" to supposedly moronic young gamers new to the franchise), and it is quite clear, I think, that it was rushed out on the market without enough QA, but with some proper patches and tweaks it will be a great game. I prefer it to Civ IV already. And I'm a confirmed "whiner", as a study of my posting history will show.

I didn't really care for BtS - too much complexity, too many things. The spies like locusts, the corporations like leeches - aaahhh!

 

[kaltorak]

I didn't really care for BtS - too much complexity, too many things. The spies like locusts, the corporations like leeches - aaahhh!

Well we are not saying everybody has to like that. But they really could have left the civilizationX franchite for that, and the CivRevX franchite for players like you who prefer the oposite :/

 

[Morningcalm]

Annyong haseyo. Waegorae? kkk

First of all, I said I thought the foundations of Shafer 5 were made of rotten cement not that the game was rotten cement.

I also never said that there was nothing of worth in the podcast besides the streamlining comment. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I found the bit about the Mexican to be interesting too. I like linguistics.

As far as the "told you so's", I agree that it's not productive. People are just reacting to Shirk's comment with a sad realization that our worst fears have been realized more than anything.

Finally, it's not Thormondr, it's Thormodr.

Thanks for correcting my spelling mistake, and the semantics concerning rotten cement. Korean mockery appreciated, also. But I might ask "Wae-gu-reh-yoh" to you.

As for the podcast: in post 133 of the forum you said what I said you said. XD To quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

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."

Now to talk about other things:

Yeah. What really irritates me is that both Shirk and Shafer are talking about that "they have created a good foundation". Seriously, what the...? Who wants to pay for a foundation? Is it completely natural to release unfinished games nowadays?

I interpret that as evidence of two things:
1) 2k clamped down hard on the scheduled deadline and told Firaxis to release it (be it bug-free or no). 2K had financial problems and so that decision I think can be easily imagined.
2) Firaxis was a bit unorganized--so keen to include new content that they somewhat neglected to add extra polish time at the end of the development cycle. Ultimately they ran out of time.

 

[ShuShu62]

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.

This reminds me a LOT of the cIIIv release. The concept of cultural power was a complete diversion from cIIv and the crushing corruption obliterated ICS as we knew it. Stacks of doom were another controversial change.

I think we can all agree that there were many ways they could have created a cIIv.5 rather than a cIIIv, but had they not made the decision to go to CIIIv we would never had gotten BtS.

Those of us who agreed that BtS was exquisitltely balanced and infinitely played, were ready for something new. The something new has extreme AI and play balance issues, just as cIIIv had. But 1 was needed to get to 2. 3 was needed to get to 4. 5 will be needed to get to 6.

The only question here is whether the new concept is good enough to warrant the years required for the polishing or not. What the interviewer said, and what many folks dericively referred to as dumb fanboys are saying is, 'yes'.

 

[SuperJay]

I haven't been able to listen to the whole podcast yet (but thanks for providing it, very cool), but can someone who has confirm that Shirk does say something along the lines of future expansions adding layers of complexity for the "hardcore" fans?

I *think* that was mentioned earlier in this thread, but I can't find a direct quote or the paraphrased response from Dennis. Thanks.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Well we are not saying everybody has to like that. But they really could have left the civilizationX franchite for that, and the CivRevX franchite for players like you who prefer the oposite :/

I'm not an admirer of Civ Rev or a Rexer. I just think a game can get *too* complex and labyrinthine. The trick is to find a proper median, which I think vanilla Civ IV did.

 

[taylor_cu]

"There are many things that aren't in there that our fans wish were. All I can say is keep your eyes on the future"

Translation...

You hardcore suckers -- we knew we would get your money no matter what we did... so we went after the wargamer and the Wii'ers. Cry all you want, but we got your money. But - hey - keep an eye on the future! Because we'll give you more opportunities to give us your money... seriously - this release is for you... seriously - we'll have an expansion that you'll like.

Wellcome to the "Age of pc games swindle".
I have hope that some time a gamer lower with enought time, money and BALLS start a legal process against some of those pc game company abusers . Otherwise the Age of pc games windle will remain for long time and getting worst.
Pc games market must be regulated and clients protection laws must be vindicated
"gamers of the world, unite!"

 

[boneman]

This reminds me a LOT of the cIIIv release. The concept of cultural power was a complete diversion from cIIv and the crushing corruption obliterated ICS as we knew it. Stacks of doom were another controversial change.

I think we can all agree that there were many ways they could have created a cIIv.5 rather than a cIIIv, but had they not made the decision to go to CIIIv we would never had gotten BtS.

Those of us who agreed that BtS was exquisitltely balanced and infinitely played, were ready for something new. The something new has extreme AI and play balance issues, just as cIIIv had. But 1 was needed to get to 2. 3 was needed to get to 4. 5 will be needed to get to 6.

The only question here is whether the new concept is good enough to warrant the years required for the polishing or not. What the interviewer said, and what many folks dericively referred to as dumb fanboys are saying is, 'yes'.

I agree with what you posted here. cIV vanilla really didn't do it for me, I played it some but quickly lost interest (the memory leak issue got me put off in the beginning as well). It was good, just didn't seem like much to it. Warlords and then BtS changed that and I played it extensively. I think they did the right thing by changing some of the core concepts, but it needs a lot more polish and I hope they add a few bits back in. Really, some improved combat AI, tech/tile/food/building/unit cost/benefit would go a long ways towards making it an engaging game. Maybe a global health variable wouldn't hurt either. I look forward to what their patches bring.

 

[el_hidalgo]

heh. Why wouldn't they love them? Free labor.

I'm being dead serious in saying this -- why doesn't Firaxis just release core engines, make it clear that's what you're buying -- then either leave it to the mods, or partner with the modders for DLC? I mean - Paradox did it with the old Europa engine when they moved to Clausewitz.

They should take this opportunity to release the source code for IV... like Activision did with CTP2 on Apolyton. I can't see how that would harm their bottom line at this point. Might even help.

As for free labor... (hey, shouldn't that have been a civic? You get 10 free specialists in all your cities, no upkeep cost. OP I guess.) Anyway, I digress, but modding is enjoyable in its own right. It's also free labor, yes, but that just means everyone benefits: Firaxis, the players, and the modders. I know I would enjoy the game much less if I didn't have the ability to mod it myself. Is it work? Maybe, but it's also fun, or else nobody would do it for free. Nobody digs ditches for free.

 

[afa2000]

So many things . . .

First, Ischnarch has a great point. Can you say, "contradictory argument?"

Secondly, Thor, can I join your "tag team?" I repeat; complaints and criticisms SHOULD be posted here. This site serves the civ community. That means all of us. This is exactly the correct place to do so. Given the point that Ischy just made, it seems now (especially in light of this interview) that either the defenders of the thing are not so much damage control by company employees, but simply irrational folks feeling bad about being burned by their fav game company.

The whole idea of the console crowd vs. hardcore gamers bothers me too. The unspoken assumption is that the general run of people are dimwitted clods too stupid to learn how to play a strategy game. Not sure that I agree with that or that that attitude is good. I feel that a large segment of the general population could play a game like civ. Maybe they simply have better things to do. A good portion of the time, so do I. Honestly it's not that complex compared to the games I played as a kid. Anyone old enough to remember the name Avalon Hill will see this point. Making the thing even more simple-minded is a step in the wrong direction. The reasoning is both insulting and flawed; "most of you are too stupid to get this."

The coffee shop analogy; Accurate. The thing to do, though, is, as a consumer, simply take your patronage elsewhere. The sales process has to function on both sides of the sale. If they're not selling what I want, I don't purchase. I'm now buying games from other companies who ARE giving me what I want. That's the ethos of the marketplace, especially nowadays. Loyalty seems like a dead concept--but it works both ways. Goodbye firaxis, hello Paradox. And it doesn't mean that I shouldn't tell the coffee shop folks WHY I'm taking my business elsewhere either.

Paying for expansions; I'm in a unique position here--bought vanilla civ4 only a couple months back. Within a month, purchased BTS. But it was the STRENGTH of the vanilla game that encouraged me to go ahead and pick up BTS. If the vanilla was bad, I wouldn't have bought the expansion. What's happening here is different. The vanilla V is bad, and the expansions are, according to some, required to bring quality to the game. The quality should have already BEEN THERE. It's not, and now, it doesn't matter to me what expansions appear. I won't be buying them. It's a dual issue; the game itself is bad, and no expansion will improve it AND I AM sending a message to the company by not purchasing it. (Posting that statement here helps that message be understood, and if someone doesn't like it . . . then whine a little more about how great the game is and how anyone who doesn't agree with you is a 'hater.')

The homogenizing impulse; well-put. I'd have, less generously, called it "lowest common denominator." But as I stated above, it's the top-down decisions that I don't like, the assumption that most people are mouth-breathing idiots capable of nothing more complicated than, say, checkers.

About Thor/Zonk/et al ; I'd have said that the dispute has become polarized, rather than "radicalized." When I began to monitor the post-release chatter on the site, there were several (ok, a LOT) people posting complaint threads . . . and they were attacked repeatedly. Ad hominems galore, and all the silliness we've come to expect from the defenders of the thing; it's different; it'll get better with mods/patches/expansions; you guys are haters; go back to CIV. If a critical thread tries or tried to be moderate, it ran into the attack dogs, replete with all the variant replies that I just listed. I don't agree that "to the man" is inappropriate in being aimed at Schafer. If he is responsible for this disaster, then he deserves to shoulder the blame. Such are the perils of leadership--if you fail, you EARN the criticism that appears. Most of the comparisons to CIV are valid--CIV demonstrates conclusively that a game CAN be made well. CiV, well, it demonstrates the opposite. I don't think that Thor or anyone else who is unsatisfied is "derailing" anything. They are doing precisely what they should be doing, given their feelings about the game--they're expressing their dissatisfaction. I am too. If anyone has a problem with that . . . go play CiV. It's SUCH a great game, after all. My position is clear too; it's a failed game, revealed to be dumbed down by the developers, who essentially gave up on the idea of IMPROVING the civ series and admitted to taking it a step not just backwards, but into a completely different category. If it was a good product they shouldn't NEED to "fix it."

The comment about gfs is outrageous as well. The unspoken assumption is that women are incapable of comprehending a strategy game because they're too stupid. I'm just going to let it go at that. Hopefully the blatant stupidity of such an assumption is clear to all. My girl and I discuss the whole issue quite a bit, actually.

The age assumption; I'm 52, and yet, so highly dissatisfied with this product that I won't purchase it. In this instance, for or against has very little, if anything, to do with age. It does, however, say something about the reasoning behind this assumption (or speculation or assertion, etc.) What it says is not good.

Well said.

 

[TheBlackAdderBG]

The whole time i listen to that guy,the question "why?" keeps coming to mind.Why you want the game to be streamlined and appeal to casual gamers?If its for the money,then the past Civilizations were not profitable?I do not think so, before digital download boom the numbers of sales were more accurate traceable ,so the Civ 3 and 4 sold maybe 2m and 3m.Then they come with Civ:Rev that sell 300k and they decide that this model is better?! I still think that Civ IV was the most commercial successful TBS game so far and this change is really strange to me.

 

[Thormodr]

The whole time i listen to that guy,the question "why?" keeps coming to mind.Why you want the game to be streamlined and appeal to casual gamers?If its for the money,then the past Civilizations were not profitable?I do not think so, before digital download boom the numbers of sales were more accurate traceable ,so the Civ 3 and 4 sold maybe 2m and 3m.Then they come with Civ:Rev that sell 300k and they decide that this model is better?! I still think that Civ IV was the most commercial successful TBS game so far and this change is really strange to me.

cIV sold more than 3 million copies. It definitely was phenomenally successful.

As of March 26, 2008, Civilization IV has sold 3 million copies according to Take-Two Interactive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_IV

Whether the newest more mass market friendly, follow up on Civ Rev version sells more remains to be seen.

I guess Firaxis and 2K Games believes if it ain't broke, try to fix it anyway.

 

[UWHabs]

Maybe they release this to appeal to the casual gamer, to get them hooked into the game, then through expansions and the next games, they up the complexity.

In some ways, civ was getting somewhat stale. As mentioned, civ4 BtS was so complex that it was very hard to get new people into the game. It was much easier to pick up civ 4 if you've played the "easier" civ 1/2/3. So they release civ5, make it easier to get into the series, then ramp up the complexity later once they have more people hooked.

 

[Justicex]

But there are soo many things that you can do to keep the complexity for those that want it, and "streamline" it for those that don't or need to practice and learn the system. Take a simple example of city resource management. Having emphais buttons to tell your citizens what to work on is great. At the same time, on the same screen, you have a hex map of the city and you can click on the hexes you want worked. The complexity is still there, but is still accessible. Firaxis should have applied this mode of thought to Civ V.