Interview with Firaxis' Dennis Shirk!

[Venereus]

No, because it is clear in that context who "we" refers to.

When you use "we" on a forum without any obvious context, it implies that the statement is being made on behalf of all forum members.

Context is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. You're just hearing what you want to hear.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Context is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. You're just hearing what you want to hear.

And you're just implying what you want it to mean instead of saying what you mean. For the rest of us mere mortals, we greatly prefer clear communication.

 

[Zechnophobe]

No, because it is clear in that context who "we" refers to.

Let's look at his quote again:

Indeed. If we grow silent then they will take that as acceptance in my opinion.

When you use "we" on a forum without any obvious context, it implies that the statement is being made on behalf of all forum members.

He had JUST QUOTED someone. See how he starts with 'Indeed.'? See that? That's him agreeing with a specific other person, and then stating the conclusion of his agreement. That is a fairly obvious context to determine who 'we' is. If I were to say "We should stop arguing about this", would you think I meant everyone on this forum? Or just you and me, or maybe you, me, and others who have shown an opinion on this particular topic?

You are completely entitled to love this game. Have fun with it, that's great. By don't antagonize people with opposite opinions. Yes, that statement goes for the Haters too.

 

[Venereus]

And you're just implying what you want it to mean instead of saying what you mean. For the rest of us mere mortals, we greatly prefer clear communication.

The point is there's no such thing as "clear communication". There will always be noise and misunderstanding, and you have to work though them, not blame the messenger just because you can't be bothered to make an extra effort.

 

[zagnut]

I agree with da Vinci’s comments on page 13. I bought CivV on faith because all of the civ games have proven to be great in the past. Each one was good out of the box and had that “just one more turn” gene. Unfortunately CivV disappoints in gameplay and that is a shock.

Over time each game in the series got better. BtS was a very large step up for the franchise and much of what went into it came from the modding community. I remember that the Warlords expansion pack was pretty good, but many people had complaints about the skill of the AI. One of our modders, I think it was Blake Walsh, set out to improve the AI and did a remarkable job. He programmed a mod which I, and I’m sure many others, downloaded. It really did make the AI more competent. He was so good that Firaxis hired him to be on the team to improve the AI before BtS was released. He gets programming credit in the back of the manual

But with CivV something very different has happened to the trajectory that the series was on. Instead of becoming more exciting with each release, just the opposite has occurred. I was very excited to buy the latest version, but already, after only two games, the thrill is gone. There have been plenty of complaints voiced in this thread and we can only hope that Firaxis has gotten the message.

On the issue of play-testing the game, the on-line manual lists those people in the Frankenstein Test Group on page 197. I recognize many of the names on that list as players who have been in the civ community for many years. It is hard to believe that so many game balance issues were not addressed, but I don’t want to fault the play testers. The people on that list have a lot more credibility with me than the people at Firaxis management. They are quality players. I would prefer to believe that the play testers brought the type of complaints that are being heard in this thread to Firaxis and were ignored. Firaxis wanted to go in a different direction. We never thought they would, but they have.

Will the game revert to its roots in the patches and expansion disks? One can only hope. After all Civ Rev never caught on, and it was a more easily accessible Civ. I firmly believe that a company should concentrate on its core business. Firaxis seems to have forgotten that.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Let's look at his quote again:

He had JUST QUOTED someone. See how he starts with 'Indeed.'? See that? That's him agreeing with a specific other person, and then stating the conclusion of his agreement. That is a fairly obvious context to determine who 'we' is. If I were to say "We should stop arguing about this", would you think I meant everyone on this forum? Or just you and me, or maybe you, me, and others who have shown an opinion on this particular topic?

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.

You are completely entitled to love this game. Have fun with it, that's great. By don't antagonize people with opposite opinions. Yes, that statement goes for the Haters too.

Oh, you mean like the people running around playing childish name games with Civilization purposely to provoke a response? Okay, I'll stop when they do...

 

[eviltypeguy]

The point is there's no such thing as "clear communication". There will always be noise and misunderstanding, and you have to work though them, not blame the messenger just because you can't be bothered to make an extra effort.

A messenger who doesn't clearly communicate the message isn't much of a messenger.

 

[polypheus]

No, because it is clear in that context who "we" refers to.

When you use "we" on a forum without any obvious context, it implies that the statement is being made on behalf of all forum members.

No it most certainly does not. There is no basis for this. For it to mean that, it would need to be explicitly said to be so. Its pretty clear that no one can speak for all forum members. Its doesn't make sense to think that the use of "we" would imply some kind of universal "we" rather than "we" as in the person himself and the person he was responding to when used in that context.

 

[SuperJay]

But what we get, instead, is "CivSid's little brother, CivJon, goes to grade school". We are back to square one with the "foundation" of something different ... a sibling of CivSid. Looks like we have to nurture CivJon through the same evolutionary process and hope he grows up into something as good as CivSid, BA. And we probably never get CivSid MS or CivSid PhD. The disapointment is understandable.

Bingo - way to hit the nail on the head.

I think that's one frustration I share - the 'back to square one' feeling. They've "reinterpreted the concepts" or however Shirk puts it, with the intent of targeting Civ Rev players who wanted something a little more complex and newcomers to the series. (Which is great, I love more people playing Civ, but why the mandatory training wheels? Gamers aren't stupid.)

So okay, we're starting over again, and we have to buy how many products to get back to something that's engaging, rich, intricate, deep, and infinitely replayable? There's a lot of great ideas here, but give us more to work with. We can be trusted, we're not idiots, and we're not going to shoot our eyes out.

 

[polypheus]

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.

I disagree. It is not subtle at all. He quoted someone and responded directly to that person. In that context, it makes more sense that he is referring to himself and the poster he is responding to. If he has not explicitly indicated that his use of "we" is anything more than that, its quite unfair to put words in his mouth to that effect.

 

[Morningcalm]

To clear up any confusion, why doesn't everyone listen to the podcast?

 

[eviltypeguy]

No it most certainly does not. There is no basis for this. For it to mean that, it would need to be explicitly said to be so. Its pretty clear that no one can speak for all forum members. Its doesn't make sense to think that the use of "we" would imply some kind of universal "we" rather than "we" as in the person himself and the person he was responding to when used in that context.

Ah, but the intent for "we" to mean that by those that are abusing it is pretty clearly to attempt to represent all the players on this forum. In fact, you'll often see these same individuals use phrases like, "We, the playerbase" or "any true civ fan", etc.

So regardless of what the literal context might be, it's clear that when you account for the intent of the poster in addition to the context, that their use is intentional.

 

[eviltypeguy]

I disagree. It is not subtle at all. He quoted someone and responded directly to that person. In that context, it makes more sense that he is referring to himself and the poster he is responding to. If he has not explicitly indicated that his use of "we" is anything more than that, its quite unfair to put words in his mouth to that effect.

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".

 

[seasnake]

Simple = less choices to make. Are there few choices to make in GO or a lot? In fact, there are an extremely large number of them. For instance, Chess could be construed as a 'dumbed down' go. It is a much easier game since it is considerably easier to consider all future game states.

There are less decisions, and the decisions have less magnitude.

Sorry, but I think the choices are there. What civ should I be, which policies will I pursue, what wonders to invest in, where to place cities, should I buy a good tile and enjoy the bonus now or wait, should I invest in these city states, is it worth the money, specialist numbers, build a settler or go for a worker, 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.

This is true, I don't think we are denying this. In fact, comments on the simplicity of the game aren't really talking about the combat mechanics. Few here would say that combat is simpler than in 4. It's everything else we have problems with.

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.

Oh *really*? And what exactly do you think they do instead? The very basics of AI programming are:

1) Dictating possible actions to be taken
2) Weighing the likelihood of those actions
3) Determining scenarios that change the weightings.

Whether or not we see a "+10" modifier from a ruler or not, I can just about guarantee the system is still working the same.

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.

So you are saying it takes more work on the part of the AI in civ 5 to get a space race victory, than it does for the AI in civ 4 to get a conquest victory? That's such a bizarre comparison. It really isn't that hard to get an AI to go after space race, and they don't even need to be doing it from the get go. I mean, unless the AI should be playing for space race from the classic era, and not choose as opportunity allows...

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.

Once again, problems with AI have nothing to do with dumbed down game play. I'm not sure why you keep saying this. If the AI plays better, it won't suddenly make the choice of what buildings to build any more interesting.

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.

The major flaw with Civ V is the AI doesn't get how to make it hard for the human. If the AI was taking advantage of everything the game offered it would be a lot fun, as of right now I never really fear losing.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

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".

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.

 

[Mathochism]

Indeed. If we grow silent then they will take that as acceptance in my opinion.

Civ VI will then be more of the same.

People simply shouldn't settle for an inferior product.

Of course, that's entirely subjective as some of us who have been playing Civ since ye olde Civ II days actually greatly enjoy Civ V and would rather play it instead of other iterations of the series. I'm seeing myself as settling for a superior (as in I enjoy it more; not that's it's more polished, as it definitely is not) product; not an inferior one.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Actually i have difficult to call it a "product".

Too many issue.. It is playable on very good PCs (Quad wit a lot of RAM and a very good GPU), on the lower configurations the game have a lot of issues... I can say because i have 3 PC, on the Quad with 8 gm RAM and 9400 gt 1GB is quite fine, but some problems arise on larger maps (it takes quite the time on waiting-turns); on the dual with 4 Gb RAM and a 3570 HD Ati it's near unplayable on normal maps; on a dual with 3 GB RAM and a 2600 HD 512 Mb doesn't start or freezes at the starting video... (we are speaking of a turn-based strategic, not an RTS)


Bugs, overall flaws, exploits and awful AI take the shovel and dig the grave...

For now the game is crap, playable crap, but still crap.

No offense, but claiming that the game is actually in good state is like calling a serial killer "poor man with some issues with the law"....

 

[Ashwind]

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.

I still play CiV to try and discover the fun. But reading the forum provides more fun right now. And it is (almost) free entertainment.

 

[Benzidrine]

I still play CiV to try and discover the fun. But reading the forum provides more fun right now. And it is (almost) free entertainment.

100% percent agree this is almost as good as the release of moo3 that release will always be better because it was so terrible and yet there were still fanboys defending it. I knew then that no game could be so bad as to not have a group of hardcore fanboys become upset at anything approaching criticism. But all forums are fantastic fun after a new release dissappoint some of the fanbase.

 

[SuperJay]

It's interesting that this thread has devolved into claims of a "forum war." You're really empowering the people who annoy you when you start elevating their posts to the level of warfare, or start calling their sigs an viral attack on the entire forum that suppresses all dissent. They sound very powerful! That handful of people must be amazingly influential and convincing if they're able to subvert the whole forum to their tyranny with a few forum posts.

Like I said elsewhere - if you want a more reasonable CFC forum with less hostility, try being more reasonable and less hostile. You can't control anyone's behavior but your own, and by constantly retaliating against people you disagree with, you're just upping the ante - adding more and more hostility. Fanning the flames, so to speak. Don't claim that you're tired of the hostility while you're in the middle of being as hostile as anyone else - obviously you're just fine and maybe even enjoying that hostility, since you're participating in it.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."