TLDR: Questions in bold.
Just a short while before Civ5, I was toying around with my very first comprehensive mod (in fact, first mod period) of Civ4. I was really working hard on it and progressing until the announcement of Civ5 put everything to a screeching halt and I shelfed it since I was ANXIOUSLY awaiting the new game.
During the design process of my mod, I noticed that my actual time spent playing Civ4 diminished greatly as I was theorizing and sticking more to notes and spreadsheets instead of the actual game. I was very knowledgeable of the game and played it since its vanilla release, so I just went off of all my past knowledge and experiences. I would test things out every now and then, but I never sat down to actually play out a game session of my own (besides having it autorun with AI's battling each other).
I've also noticed a few times on the forums of other modders joking about how they haven't played the actual game in a long time because they've been busy modding.
I think during the early phases of schematic design and even into design development, some of us get so consumed by modding and theorizing that we don't actually play and try out the game.
"All theory, less practice". As modders, do you see yourselves falling into this pitfall at times?
Do you believe this was one of the problems of Civ5? Because some of the bugs and imbalances are so BLATANT that you wonder how they sneaked their way past into the retail game. 0 AD? Selling units vs. producing gold? The AI's thalassophobia? Puppet cities' production choices? We all know plenty of them by now. I was even aware of a good handful just from my very first game.
Even during the live previews, the guys showcasing the game didn't seem too quick with it. Of course they were explaining things as they went along, but still, they seemed somewhat delayed or unconfident in their clicking about the interface and terrain. You'd think after playing out the game so many times it would feel natural (by using more hotkeys) - even if they weren't the game testers (or whatever you call them).
Do you think Civ5 was contrived by mostly theory and not enough actual practice spent playing/testing it?
I'm still enjoying the game "somewhat" and am eagerly awaiting the fixes and patches (as well as DLC content). I think the game has great potential and it fits my philosophy of "less is more" (okay fine, it's Ludwig's). But the numerous imbalances and bugs just raise questions. How could it have been released like that? This is Civ we're talking about... where the game designers are to be just as (if not more) passionate about the game as the players.
Just a short while before Civ5, I was toying around with my very first comprehensive mod (in fact, first mod period) of Civ4. I was really working hard on it and progressing until the announcement of Civ5 put everything to a screeching halt and I shelfed it since I was ANXIOUSLY awaiting the new game.
During the design process of my mod, I noticed that my actual time spent playing Civ4 diminished greatly as I was theorizing and sticking more to notes and spreadsheets instead of the actual game. I was very knowledgeable of the game and played it since its vanilla release, so I just went off of all my past knowledge and experiences. I would test things out every now and then, but I never sat down to actually play out a game session of my own (besides having it autorun with AI's battling each other).
I've also noticed a few times on the forums of other modders joking about how they haven't played the actual game in a long time because they've been busy modding.
I think during the early phases of schematic design and even into design development, some of us get so consumed by modding and theorizing that we don't actually play and try out the game.
"All theory, less practice". As modders, do you see yourselves falling into this pitfall at times?
Do you believe this was one of the problems of Civ5? Because some of the bugs and imbalances are so BLATANT that you wonder how they sneaked their way past into the retail game. 0 AD? Selling units vs. producing gold? The AI's thalassophobia? Puppet cities' production choices? We all know plenty of them by now. I was even aware of a good handful just from my very first game.
Even during the live previews, the guys showcasing the game didn't seem too quick with it. Of course they were explaining things as they went along, but still, they seemed somewhat delayed or unconfident in their clicking about the interface and terrain. You'd think after playing out the game so many times it would feel natural (by using more hotkeys) - even if they weren't the game testers (or whatever you call them).
Do you think Civ5 was contrived by mostly theory and not enough actual practice spent playing/testing it?
I'm still enjoying the game "somewhat" and am eagerly awaiting the fixes and patches (as well as DLC content). I think the game has great potential and it fits my philosophy of "less is more" (okay fine, it's Ludwig's). But the numerous imbalances and bugs just raise questions. How could it have been released like that? This is Civ we're talking about... where the game designers are to be just as (if not more) passionate about the game as the players.
