Jon Shafer on Civ5- mistakes made, lessons learned

[apocalypse105]

I'm thinking he realized that problem too late to have changed. (It would have required ripping out all the AI code and starting over.)

It was overall painfully obvious that it had been rushed to the store shelf; but that pressure would have been coming from the parent company and not the developers.

Exactly And He wasn't working allone ahe worked with other people so He shouldn't take the blame in my opinion.

 

[PreLynMax]

I disagree that Civ 5 was a mistake. Sure, it's not as depth as Civ IV, and it's not as good as Civ IV because of that, but Civ 5 is a better fifth installment of said franchise than say... SimCity 5 (and that abomination of a game)!

I just got a new gaming rig a few days ago, and sadly, I cannot install Civ IV because I lost the disk !

 

[Mrdarklight]

"Bad mouthing" actually isn't covered by NDAs; its just that any potential future employer upon finding out someone did would assume he'd do the same for them and not hire him.

If they don't badmouth their current employer for fear of turning off their future employer, does that still apply when he has no future employer, only future investors?

 

[apocalypse105]

I disagree that Civ 5 was a mistake. Sure, it's not as depth as Civ IV, and it's not as good as Civ IV because of that, but Civ 5 is a better fifth installment of said franchise than say... SimCity 5 (and that abomination of a game)!

I just got a new gaming rig a few days ago, and sadly, I cannot install Civ IV because I lost the disk !

At least know it feels like you are fighting a war with units rather then roll the dice gambling

 

[glider1]

I just got a new gaming rig a few days ago, and sadly, I cannot install Civ IV because I lost the disk !

I think you can get Civ4 on Steam PreLynMax. Hopefully it doesn't lock you into DRM. If you are willing to play Civ4 with mods again, just do it, the game hasn't aged at all because of the work the modders have put into it. I've played Civ5 for two years straight but coming back to Civ4+mods is pure joy.

Cheers

 

[Polisurgist]

The problem that Shaefer cites has nothing to do with Civ5 or Civ at all. In any multiplayer game that only allows a single winner in the end, no alliance or agreement can last. As options dwindle and the endgame approaches, the advantages of honoring the terms of the alliance will eventually hit zero for one party or the other. That's just game theory.

The only way to solve this in Civ is to allow multiple winners per game. Maybe Nebuchenezzar can win Domination, but I can keep playing and win a cultural victory after that, so we'll actually maintain an alliance that helps him scientifically and me culturally. But if the game ends when he launches the ship, it's not a question of if I'm going to backstab him, it's a question of when.

 

[Copernic]

Thanks for this interview of Jon Shafer.

After reading it, I had the feeling that Civ V was sacrificed by someone who wasn't exprienced enough with the franchise.

"I learned a lot with Civ V... blablabla... A now with ATG, I'm ready"... I would have prefered the opposite.

Nowadays, I play Civ IV, not Civ V which is not fun at all due to design mistake Shafer mention in his interview.

 

[vra379971]

I will say this about Civ V. Vanilla...not good. Expansion Pack....mhm, on par ish with Civ 4. Now, with this next pack, Civ V many finally surpass Civ 4.

 

[PreLynMax]

I will say this about Civ V. Vanilla...not good. Expansion Pack....mhm, on par ish with Civ 4. Now, with this next pack, Civ V many finally surpass Civ 4.

 

[Horizons]

lol so he took a dump on Civ, left it in a broken state for others to fix and now criticizes the product. Seems like Jon is a bit of a d!ck.

 

[kaspergm]

The problem that Shaefer cites has nothing to do with Civ5 or Civ at all. In any multiplayer game that only allows a single winner in the end, no alliance or agreement can last. As options dwindle and the endgame approaches, the advantages of honoring the terms of the alliance will eventually hit zero for one party or the other. That's just game theory.

The only way to solve this in Civ is to allow multiple winners per game. (...)

I don't agree that this would be the only solution. An alternative would be to incorporate some sort of check for whether a given AI player has an actual chance of winning the game. Thus, once you enter this "late game" stage - define that as start of a certain era, like start of Atomic, or whatever - game would evaluate, which civs would still be in the running for victory. Thus, if a certain AI player has neither army capacity, cultural capacity nor science capacity to realistically be in the winning race for any victory condition, these players should instead strive to ally with whoever player in the victyory race that they find most suitable.

This would limit the field to a number of players actually competing for victory - and hence less likely to coorporate on the long run - and another set of players who support those players and are available for diplomatic means.

 

[Irkalla]

To be honest I feel like Jon was the sacrificial lamb here. It's rare to see a game be as crap tier as Civ 5 was on release and it not be the publisher's fault.

Sure is funny how everything changed when Ed came in the door, though.

We'll probably never know what really happened or who was at fault, but it's not really any of our business either.

 

[ds61514]

To be honest I feel like Jon was the sacrificial lamb here. It's rare to see a game be as crap tier as Civ 5 was on release and it not be the publisher's fault.

Sure is funny how everything changed when Ed came in the door, though.

We'll probably never know what really happened or who was at fault, but it's not really any of our business either.

I wonder if the differences are because Civ 5 vanilla was designed by a computer modder (Jon), while F&K/BNW was designed by a board game designer (Ed).

I find most mods have great ideas but are weighed down by bloat & shoddy implementation.


The only other game I know that had a "modder" lead was some expansion for EU. From what I heard, it didn't go that well

 

[Drakarska]

I wonder if the differences are because Civ 5 vanilla was designed by a computer modder (Jon), while F&K/BNW was designed by a board game designer (Ed).

I find most mods have great ideas but are weighed down by bloat & shoddy implementation.


The only other game I know that had a "modder" lead was some expansion for EU. From what I heard, it didn't go that well

Kael, FFH modder, now working for Stardock. IMO, he's a lot better than JS.

 

[GreekAnalyzer]

Thanks for sharing this.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Interesting that Jon did state many of the issues with Civ5 that could have been done better......but he never dealt with the still sad state of the MP code or his part in promoting or not, it's importance in the development of Civ5. Compare this to Soren Johnson that regularly stated how he developed MP in Civ4 and were he saw it in the grand scheme of things.

CS

 

[Drakarska]

Thanks for sharing this.

NP. If you still have BTS lying around, DL FFH2 and give it a spin. You'll definitely be impressed.

 

[Irkalla]

I wonder if the differences are because Civ 5 vanilla was designed by a computer modder (Jon), while F&K/BNW was designed by a board game designer (Ed).

I find most mods have great ideas but are weighed down by bloat & shoddy implementation.


The only other game I know that had a "modder" lead was some expansion for EU. From what I heard, it didn't go that well

Almost all of Valve's games that aren't half-life are conscripted mod teams. Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Dota 2, Day of Defeat, Left 4 Dead (I believe this started out as a Counter-Strike Server Mod.) I also think Portal may have been a mod at one point, but I can't remember.

It just means there was strife at Firaxis. Obviously he would have fixed these issues when he was there if he felt compelled to speak out about them when he left. And was unable to.

Frankly, it's something I struggle with on a daily basis.



Don't think so. It's not very frequent that game designers speak out about the company they were at previously. The games industry is pretty close knit - if he is worried about support, he would want to shut his mouth. But I think he's more trying to come off like "look what I've learned about designing games!" It just came off in a kind of pratish manner. "We could have improved upon X feature by doing Y" would have been better.

What Jon has showed us with his work, he's now said with his mouth.

Also, how did you struggle with Kael needing like 50 abilities? If it were me, I'd have drawn the line at a sensible number like 49.

(I'm assuming you're the actual guinsoo. Post hints at that.)

Interesting that Jon did state many of the issues with Civ5 that could have been done better......but he never dealt with the still sad state of the MP code or his part in promoting or not, it's importance in the development of Civ5. Compare this to Soren Johnson that regularly stated how he developed MP in Civ4 and were he saw it in the grand scheme of things.

CS

Multiplayer is the lifeblood of any game like this. The fact is, players are content. No content that Firaxis will EVER release will be as effective as treating players like content. Anything Firaxis can do to allow us to more easily obtain this content and play with it how we want will better the game and community as a whole.

For example, let's take a game like League of Legends. Their content is alright at best. How many people do you know that play it for the innovative and totally-not-stagnant gameplay and champion design? Now how many people do you know that play it because their friends do? Yeah, there's a pretty big difference there.

But even taking a properly designed Action RTS like Dota 2, we still see that people play it because their friends do. Even though Dota 2's gameplay and non-player content completely trumps anything that Riot is bringing to the table.

World of Warcraft is the same deal. Blizzard has jumped the shark quite a long time ago with their content, but we still see many people playing because their friends do.

There's an up and coming Free to Play called Warframe. I'm pretty hooked on it. It's pretty out there, but it's got a very mature community, which is something I can't say about any of the afforementioned games apart from WoW.

Players are your best content Firaxis. For the love of God, make use of it.

 

[Polisurgist]

I don't agree that this would be the only solution. An alternative would be to incorporate some sort of check for whether a given AI player has an actual chance of winning the game. Thus, once you enter this "late game" stage - define that as start of a certain era, like start of Atomic, or whatever - game would evaluate, which civs would still be in the running for victory. Thus, if a certain AI player has neither army capacity, cultural capacity nor science capacity to realistically be in the winning race for any victory condition, these players should instead strive to ally with whoever player in the victyory race that they find most suitable.

This would limit the field to a number of players actually competing for victory - and hence less likely to coorporate on the long run - and another set of players who support those players and are available for diplomatic means.

Nobody actually plays like that, so there's no reason for the AI to do it. A win is a win is a win. If the game had rankings that took into account being allied with the winner over your score, then this makes sense, but there's no reason for the AI to throw the game in your favor.

 

[eris]

Multiplayer is the lifeblood of any game like this. The fact is, players are content. No content that Firaxis will EVER release will be as effective as treating players like content. Anything Firaxis can do to allow us to more easily obtain this content and play with it how we want will better the game and community as a whole.

That is only one opinion, stated as an extreme. Here is another.

Single Player is the philosphical, historical, and financial lifeblood of any game like this. It is what attracts players. It is what sells copies.

Multiplayer is an option ignored by the vast majority of Civ players and all it does is add bloat to game and un-necessary me-vs-you arrogance to the forums. I have not heard one single MP based addition that ever did one single thing to improve my Single Player experience. Without keeping Single Players happy there wouldn't be a community as a whole in the first place.

But I tell you what, if you back down from your seeming insistence that multiplayer is the only real deal, I will back down from my insistence that you waste the developer's time on things that will never affect the vast majority of players in our community.