Jon Shafer leaves Firaxis!

[bryanw1995]

But Civ 5 had the pre-existing customer base of 3.5 million, thats the point and 3.5 million have not rushed to buy it.

Plus how many more copies of Civ 5 do you think are there to be sold?

a lot of cIV's sales were at bargain basement prices years after the release, greatly inflating that number. ciV will be the same, lots of people will buy the game + dlc's + expansion all in one from steam over the coming years. a million right now after all the controversy is, frankly, quite surprising to me. I think that what's happening is that it's now building more off civrev owners and people who skipped/didn't like cIV because those people will see the "but, but, it's too much like civrev!!" comments all over the internet and think that's just fine for them.

hopefully when cVI comes out they will try to step civrev/ciV owners up to a more complicated game.

 

[bryanw1995]

Well, call me a hater if you wish but somehow I don't think that "A lot more people will eventually buy Civ V, but haven't gotten around to it yet." Christmas time (now) is the last big influx, the next will be after DLC milking, when Complete editions will be finally released. Amazon user reviews are pretty powerful tool.

Originally Posted by jacyp
(...)Right now the only feelings I have are: 1) expand as quickly as possible cos the AI will mindless do the same. 2) crush all neighbors before they crush you. 3) conquer the world.

Or if I don't wanna make any wars: 1) don't expand or you will anger someone. 2) give your neighbors anything they want, even if it will lead to a war with another civ, doesn't matter as long as your neighbors are standing between you and them. 3) build some military anyway cos your neighbors will betray you when you are close to whatever victory you're after. 4) when your neighbors betray you, easily obliterate the invading forces with your tiny army, giving you confidence to just conquer the rest of the world with it. 5) conquer the world before you achieve any victory you're after.

This is golden, dear sir. That's exactly how it is, unless you're an eight year old playing on Warlord setting.

try playing on different maps if you want to play a different style. random maps are probably best, they really put a premium on exploration so that you can at least figure out what type of map you're on. sometimes you'll spawn next to rome and france; sometimes you'll be in an archipelago with 9 luxuries. I'm playing a large world map right now to try out the incas, I just spawned in europe. closest civ is france in middle east and russia in a mostly accurate (though farther east) location. wu is getting whomped by alex so she's no threat, and now that I'm expanding into asia I'm FINALLY bumping up against russia. I'm at musketmen and just started building up military b/c earlier in the game it wasn't necessary. just got dow'd by songhai (in south africa) and wu, but with the new diplomacy I see that they both covet my lands and have a serious expansion warning on me. russia finally just got hostile, but I have rome on their south/west as my best buddy. I'm going to end up with 20 cities without conquering a single city, and once my military isn't the weakest in the world I won't get any more dow's most likely.

Just because the game requires different tactics/strategies doesn't mean it's not any good.

 

[Lord Shadow]

And so you decide to respond with the same kind of hyperbolic, vitrolic, generalized accusations that the Haters employ.

Yes, I apologize for that, truly. I was simply overwhelmed at the moment.

 

[MrCynical]

What we do know:
-Civ V has sold over 1 million copies in its first 3 months of release thus far. Over 50% have been direct downloads.
-A good portion of these sales are probably from the existing playerbase of Civ 4, just as a good portion of Civ 4's initial sales were from the Civ 3 player base.
-A small and vocal part of the playerbase has consistently criticized the many shortcomings of this iteration of the series. Many of these criticisms are based on the game's differences from its predecessor in the series.
-The game received excellent reviews from the vast majority of critics, with a metascore of 90. The common theme in these reviews is that the game is far easier to get into than past Civ games, has an easier learning curve, and is graphically beautiful. The common issues in the review is that the AI does not seem to properly understand the 1UPT system and that the graphics are an absolute drain on machines.
-There have been 3 post-release DLCs, 1 major patch, and a few minor patches since launch.

So what does it all mean? Until Firaxis/2k comes out and makes a comment about changing game direction and/or ending support, absolutely nothing other than the ability to speculate on the forum.

I do have to point out a few rather large mistakes you're making here Sneaks.

1)Civ 5 may well have sold well, and may well continue to do so, but that really doesn't say anything about how good it is. If a long running game series has an abysmal entry, it will probably still be one of the best selling ones as the existing fanbase will buy immediately, and new players won't really be able to tell in advance. The worst selling entry in the series will actually be the one after the worst game.

I haven't really commented much on Civ 5 on this forum. What I will say is that I bought it immediately after it was released on the strength of the amount of fun I've had with the preceding four games. For various reasons Civ 5 is already gathering dust on my shelf. Any expansions and the eventual Civ 6 I will definitely wait and see before I consider buying them. I don't really resent having spent the money I did on Civ 5 - the Civ series as a whole has still been an absolutely bargain for what I've got out of it. I am just going to be rather more wary of any future entries.

2)"A small and vocal part of the playbase"? Might be a small part, might be the vast majority. The point is that you have no way of knowing. Of the "vocal" component of the fanbase - i.e. the ones on this forum - the reaction has been poor, even allowing for the short time since release. What the opinion of those who don't post here is, neither you or I can really tell.

3)Civ 5 got good reviews. So does pretty much every game that is in a long running series, much anticipated, and marketed on numerous sites. There's a reason I don't pay much attention to professional reviewers any more. That's not to say Civ 5 is bad - merely that it's score would fall in the 8 -10 range on virtually all sites regardless of how good it actually was. Personally I can think of at least twenty people on this forum whose opinion I'd give far more weight that any of the review sites.

Now, you ask what all this means. I seriously doubt Jon Shafer left Firaxis on amicable terms. The statements by all concerned are classic face saving non-statements, and it's a really strange time for him to quit unless he had no choice. Will they stop supporting Civ 5? Of course not. They'll be looking to get a couple of expansion packs and a ton of little DLC packs out of Civ 5, and they need to get enough of the fanbase (old and new) at least tolerant of Civ 5 for those to sell. Someone somewhere will already be thinking about Civ 6. There'll be several more patches to go - whether they fix everything (in particular game balance and the AI) is another question.

My personal opinion on Jon Shafer leaving is that I'm somewhat hopeful about it. I'm not going to indulge in the kind of gloating that's been going on earlier in this thread - it's just a game after all and I'm sure he intended to make a great Civ 5. That said, his departure makes it a lot easier to do a major overhaul of the game without having to admit how mistaken/poorly implemented some aspects of his vision for Civ 5 were.

 

[BubbaYeti]

I'm assuming "leaves Firaxis" really means "was fired by Firaxis"...not because I know that to be true, but it makes me feel better about things.

Ding dong the witch is dead...

 

[Bad Brett]

I see one HUGE problem with Shafer resigning. Most players, even those who enjoy the game, agree that the AI is rather bad. In other words, the AI is one of those things that really need to be improved. We know that Shafer wrote most of it on his own. In order to improve it, another programmer must try to understand Shafer's code and improve it. And I would say that's almost impossible, even for an experienced programmer.

Now people will say "but hey, they managed to improve the AI in BTS without Soren". Well, there's a difference here. The AI in a game like Civ 4 can be improved simply by changing the basic behaviour, such as tell the AI to attack the city with the weakest defense or go for the Pyramids if they have access to stone.

Civ 5, however, has tactical combat with 1upt. I can only guess how the pathfinding algorithms look... If it was Civ 4, you could simply order the AI to construct more siege weapons, but the main issue in Civ 5 is that the AI can't move the units properly.

To fully understand and improve Shafer's algorithms is mission impossible. I would be very surprised if these problem ever will be fixed.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I see one HUGE problem with Shafer resigning. Most players, even those who enjoy the game, agree that the AI is rather bad. In other words, the AI is one of those things that really need to be improved. We know that Shafer wrote most of it on his own. In order to improve it, another programmer must try to understand Shafer's code and improve it. And I would say that's almost impossible, even for an experienced programmer.

One of the things people tend to gloss over, though, is that the CivIV AI was bad too. Really bad, even after BTS. People overlook it and give it a pass because they like the game.

(Oh, did I just say something bad about CivIV? Uh oh, here they come.)

 

[Bibor]

To fully understand and improve Shafer's algorithms is mission impossible. I would be very surprised if these problem ever will be fixed.

Shafer isn't listed in the AI/Gameplay programming section of game credits.

 

[CornPlanter]

People overlook it and give it a pass because they like the game.

If you checked Civ4 forums you would see constant complaints about AI and other things.

It's just that Civ4 with all it's flaws is still better than Civ5. And in Civ5 AI is much more important due to 1upt.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It's just that Civ4 with all it's flaws is still better than Civ5.

Yeah, exactly. Improve the general gameplay and the AI doesn't have to be perfect for the game to still be fun.

 

[Stilgar08]

Shafer isn't listed in the AI/Gameplay programming section of game credits.

That's interesting: So we lynched the wrong guy all the time!

 

[Mr Jack]

The statements by all concerned are classic face saving non-statements, and it's a really strange time for him to quit unless he had no choice.

It's not a strange time to quit at all. I work in games, and I can tell you for certain that the majority of voluntary, amicable moves in the games industry happen shortly after a project is finished.

 

[Senethro]

That's interesting: So we lynched the wrong guy all the time!

makes yer fink donnit

 

[Bad Brett]

One of the things people tend to gloss over, though, is that the CivIV AI was bad too. Really bad, even after BTS. People overlook it and give it a pass because they like the game.

(Oh, did I just say something bad about CivIV? Uh oh, here they come.)

That may be true, but the difference is that a poor AI affects a tactical game such as Civ 5 much more. While removing SoD's may be a great idea, somebody should have realised that it would require a very advanced AI in order to work properly.

As I said earlier, the SoD issue could have been easily solved simply by changing the rules so that you attack the weakest defender instead of the strongest. You could save time by moving your units together, but placing the entire stack outside a city would be suicide. Less micromanagement, less frustration, but with the same tactics as in Civ 5.

A simple solution that would have been easy to implement. But Shafer decided to do it the hard way, and they messed up big time.

 

[Stilgar08]

Anyways, I'm pretty sure we will get tons of DLC:s still, but major changes to this game... I don't see them happening.

I din't even buy the game but from reading in the forums, tha last patch already WAS a big change - not enitrely successful nevertheless bold and leading to the right direction - This is going to continue, I'm quite sure about that.

Dumb down can smarten up over time - All civ-vanillas didn't have the depths as in the end of the life-cycle. - Keep the faith!

Concerning cVI: It's not gonna happen, before at least ONE expansion (and hopefully lots of patches for CiV) - and this is a big chance for the game to turn the tide even for the hardcore fanbase... (not counting myself into this one)

makes yer fink donnit

Nope! Personally I'm not interested in the persons (never lynched him myself ) but in the game, even though I'm a steam-h8er and thereful didn't buy it.

 

[Fistalis]

makes yer fink donnit

Not really. As lead designer you come up with the design doc. Others simply do their best to follow it. Things like the AI that plays like another player (aka "plays to win") 1UPT global happiness etc were part of his design. While others may have had some input into the end result(doing what they could to achieve the goals he set as project leader, hugely important is setting goals that can be achieved), the actual design direction and philosophy is all his.

Not to say any of this had to do with him leaving(none of us know.. and its doubtful we'll know anytime soon, if at all). But if they blame(d) anyone about the direction civ V took he would be the man to look at.

 

[Sneaks]

I do have to point out a few rather large mistakes you're making here Sneaks.

1)Civ 5 may well have sold well, and may well continue to do so, but that really doesn't say anything about how good it is. If a long running game series has an abysmal entry, it will probably still be one of the best selling ones as the existing fanbase will buy immediately, and new players won't really be able to tell in advance. The worst selling entry in the series will actually be the one after the worst game.

I haven't really commented much on Civ 5 on this forum. What I will say is that I bought it immediately after it was released on the strength of the amount of fun I've had with the preceding four games. For various reasons Civ 5 is already gathering dust on my shelf. Any expansions and the eventual Civ 6 I will definitely wait and see before I consider buying them. I don't really resent having spent the money I did on Civ 5 - the Civ series as a whole has still been an absolutely bargain for what I've got out of it. I am just going to be rather more wary of any future entries.

2)"A small and vocal part of the playbase"? Might be a small part, might be the vast majority. The point is that you have no way of knowing. Of the "vocal" component of the fanbase - i.e. the ones on this forum - the reaction has been poor, even allowing for the short time since release. What the opinion of those who don't post here is, neither you or I can really tell.

3)Civ 5 got good reviews. So does pretty much every game that is in a long running series, much anticipated, and marketed on numerous sites. There's a reason I don't pay much attention to professional reviewers any more. That's not to say Civ 5 is bad - merely that it's score would fall in the 8 -10 range on virtually all sites regardless of how good it actually was. Personally I can think of at least twenty people on this forum whose opinion I'd give far more weight that any of the review sites.

Now, you ask what all this means. I seriously doubt Jon Shafer left Firaxis on amicable terms. The statements by all concerned are classic face saving non-statements, and it's a really strange time for him to quit unless he had no choice. Will they stop supporting Civ 5? Of course not. They'll be looking to get a couple of expansion packs and a ton of little DLC packs out of Civ 5, and they need to get enough of the fanbase (old and new) at least tolerant of Civ 5 for those to sell. Someone somewhere will already be thinking about Civ 6. There'll be several more patches to go - whether they fix everything (in particular game balance and the AI) is another question.

My personal opinion on Jon Shafer leaving is that I'm somewhat hopeful about it. I'm not going to indulge in the kind of gloating that's been going on earlier in this thread - it's just a game after all and I'm sure he intended to make a great Civ 5. That said, his departure makes it a lot easier to do a major overhaul of the game without having to admit how mistaken/poorly implemented some aspects of his vision for Civ 5 were.

I agree with a lot of your points here, but not all. Completely agree that Civ V may taper out in sales or eventually harm future games. To be completely honest, it is way way too soon to tell. Civ has always been one of those games that is popular to grab from bargain bins or Steam sales, so its long term profitability is just too unknown at the moment.

What I meant by a small vocal part is exactly these forums and places like Amazon. It comprises a small part of the fanbase and a vocal part. Anyone that has taken a statistics class or two also knows it can not be seen as a reliable sample section of the entire population of Civ V owners. I did not speculate as to the opinions of the other owners.

I agree that part of Civ V's reviews are based on legacy, but I was really taken aback at how many included phrases about not liking past Civ games or much preferring console games or disliking RTS games, but really enjoying Civ V. Whether or not a small swath of critics will reflect the views of or influence a larger gamer base can be debated.

Here is why I am not buying the Jon got fired over a bad game argument just yet: Over the last decade, lead designers leaving successful games of their own accord has been a common occurrence. Many times this is over disputes with parent companies about game vision and editorial control. This could fall into that realm, ala City of Heroes lead designer going to Champions Online. This could fall into a Modern Warfare/Infinity Ward scenario where he was let go for reasons unrelated to game success, but instead for talking to other developers.

Basically it comes down to the fact that no one here knows. Any suppositions are just that. Not a single person here has any substantive evidence that this game is a failure yet. Not a single person has substantive evidence that it is a success. We lack monthly sales numbers to analyze whether sales plateaued and plummeted or how they compare to IV or III. While we know a lot of the fanbase does not like several of the changes and that others were not implemented well, we also do not know how many people have taken up the series with this iteration.

I for one, plan to maintain a holding pattern than pass unfounded judgment about the future of the game, the franchise, or Jon himself.

 

[3of5]

This whole thread is speculative. But the part of my post that you quoted is about the least speculative bit in it. Jon was the Lead Designer for Civ 5; he is no longer working for Firaxis; they will likely hire or promote a new Lead Designer for Civ 5 to replace Jon. That's pretty reasonable speculation.

I don't understand enough of the rest of your post to respond to it. I'm not even sure what "rationalizing the consequences" means.

Only that the new lead designer position is very low profile, has more to do with babysitting than actual game designing, so it will most likely be filled with someone far less experienced (or even a suit).

I too think, that Jon Shafer leaving pretty much means, that CiV doesnt have very high priority any more, which is most likely bad for the game. Maybe they expect to cut "Warlords" alltogether and just release a "BTS like" modder made Collection. At least that seems very profitab..., ähem, probable i mean.

I too think that someone dedicated enough to Civ4 to put something together like Final Frontier is pretty dedicated to making good games (even the ships models were very thoughtfully envisioned) and planet build queues very complex, the tech tree a bit short though, but still impressive for a Fan mod. I think he brought very good ideas to the franchise. But its hard to argue with the guys, when you're a guy.

@sneakes: we don't even know how many of the sold copies are beeing / have been bought by parents trying to get their shooter obsessive child to play something nicer and ended in the cabinet, touched only once. I would buy it for my child, thats sure, but i don't think i would buy it again for me.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

That's interesting: So we lynched the wrong guy all the time!

No he staded by himself that he was AI lead programmer when asked about the patch...

 

[lschnarch]

That's interesting: So we lynched the wrong guy all the time!

makes yer fink donnit

Nonsense.

We lynched exactly the right guy, regardless of the fact whether he programmed the combat AI by himself or not.

Let us assume three things:
a) improvements in the AI happen linearly each week
b) Firaxis got surprised by the announcement of a late September release (in which I don't believe, but anyway)
c) plans were set up for an release at around Easter 2011 (the last patch has not really made it any more competitive and was released short before Christmas, so an earlier planned release wouldn't change much)

The September release was announced in early March, leaving them with 6 months or 24 weeks time left.
We know how weak the combat AI still is, and how even more weak it was upon release. From this we can deduct that it must have been abysmal in early March. Any alternative assumption would mean that they literally weren't making progress in this area within the remaining 6 months.

Now, what do I have to do as lead designer when I am struck by the message that I have to release half a year earlier?
I have to check where my team stands. Any look at the combat AI must have revealed that there was next to no chance to make it work in a competitive way.

On the other hand Shafer himself has admitted that they were at least partially using Civ4's coding (see the quote about the "not cleaned up xmls).
Now, with Civ4's combat engine they would have had at least something which somehow worked for a Civ game. Maybe not good, maybe even not really decent.. but at least somehow.

Nevertheless, he stuck with his vision of having CivG.

It was HIS decision, HIS design. Even more, as all other components of the game are built around this core idea.
The falsely called so "1upt" idea required to have low production. This required to have only that many buildings.
If you can hardly build anything then the player has to have something to do. This requires the need to have many wars.
Many wars require the kind of "diplomacy" which we're facing.
And so on.

But we've got a techtree which makes you cry when looking at it and how units have been spreadd over the technologies.
But we've got a GDR and FoY.

We have been "lynching" exactly the right guy.