So you call me a 'fanboi'

[Clement]

Would you care for some salad?[Cough] I made it my self.[cough cough]
[cough] Rich unprotected coastal cities. [cough]
Is that a treaty in your [cough] pocket?[cough]

[pant] Desert Fairy[cough]Magic[cough][cough]

Aghh! sorry for the sudden cough attack folks!

lol, well to be fair i don't mind the salad one as it is pretty funny

 

[Isikien]

I remember declaring war on one of the leaders and laughing when he replied with something like "haha! i show you why you will be wrong" what world leader would say "haha" like nelson muntz from the simpsons? lol. loads of silly things like this from indestructable cities made of magic bricks to a truly incomprehensible inability to build international trade routes make the game fall short in my opinion of what is minimally believable and what is'nt, hence why i can't find immersion anywhere in the game, just my opinion of course!

So 'I studied on killin' you' isn't an immersion breaker for you?

 

[lietkynes]

You've been a tester for that game. The game is full of flaws, bugs, bad design and weak implementation.
So, either you didn't do your job as tester or you weren't taken seriously by the developers.

I seriously doubt a game designer would accept much criticism on game design issues from beta testers. After all, he's the lead game designer for the most successful strategy game ever and they are just beta testers, why should he think they are right and he is wrong ?

Of course after reading Sulla and Dale posts you would think they are way better than Shafer at game design, because they are very good at pointing out his mistakes and really it's difficult not to agree with their points. But that doesn't mean that they would be able to do better then him. Finding someone else's mistakes is easier then making your own design.

 

[Clement]

Would you care for some salad?[Cough] I made it my self.[cough cough]
[cough] Rich unprotected coastal cities. [cough]
Is that a treaty in your [cough] pocket?[cough]

[pant] Desert Fairy[cough]Magic[cough][cough]

Aghh! sorry for the sudden cough attack folks!

So 'I studied on killin' you' isn't an immersion breaker for you?

Hey, we not supposed to compare Civ 5 to Civ 4 remember? "it's a totally different game!"

Well joking aside, i agree with both of you, looking back with rose tinted glasses at Civ 4 made me forget that the leaders did speak in silly ways too, but i think the excellence of the game itself made me not notice, Civ 4 was so deep and interesting that in an odd way the leaders earned the right to joke and be cheekily out of character with me as a player, for me personally when a leader does that to me in Civ 5 it just feels irritating instead of funny because i'm unhappy with so much else of the game, again, just my opinion.

 

[lschnarch]

I seriously doubt a game designer would accept much criticism on game design issues from beta testers. After all, he's the lead game designer for the most successful strategy game ever and they are just beta testers, why should he think they are right and he is wrong ?

Sorry, but what would be the point to have beta testers, then?
"Don't tell me where the game doesn't work, after all *I* by the Lord's Grace am the lead designer?"

Of course after reading Sulla and Dale posts you would think they are way better than Shafer at game design, because they are very good at pointing out his mistakes and really it's difficult not to agree with their points. But that doesn't mean that they would be able to do better then him. Finding someone else's mistakes is easier then making your own design.

Of course it is much easier to pick out the flaws. No doubt about this.
And I am far away from claiming that either of the two you mentioned would be a better designer.
Well, maybe they would be slightly better, since I regard Civ5 as a complete desaster.
The UI is a slap into the player's face, but was heavily advertised for "accessibility".
The combat is so poor that it is hard to put in words. Three months after release. But it was heavily advertised. Actually, it was the *one* thing about which they talked all the time.
Diplomacy is completely erratic. You could as well roll dice. And it has already been significantly changed.
The engine is hardware demandin like no good. The relative output compared to the demand is poor. Yet, it was advertised as "scaling and even been developed with the help of Microsoft"

The whole game feels like everybody in the development team was allowed to create his own "baby" and then they tried to combine it all. And they failed.

So, yes, even Dale and Sullla might have been better leads, as it is hard to imagine it getting even worse.
After all, we are not talking about the first garage-made game from an indy developer, but about the last iteration of an almost 20 years old franchise. There should have been some lessons learned from the past.

 

[LDiCesare]

I'm still in the early days of playing at the moment, but I find myself partially disagreeing that immersion is an issue.

The early days make it all.
Civ V may be a good game if you expect to play it for 50 or 100 hours.
It is not when you expect it to have lasting appeal as Civ 1,2,4 (or 3 for those who liked it), which means hundredS or thousands of hours of fun.
So maybe it's fun for casual players, but not those who want MP, nor those who want to 'cheat' by altering the map to their liking in-game, for instance.

 

[bryanw1995]

bla bla bla....

"This game has potential". I really cannot hear this crap anymore.

The only potential this game has is that hopefully one day the full SDK will have been released.
And I guarantee that after the initial timespan needed for the modders to get familiar with that, the most popular mods will not resemble Shafer_5 very much.

Yeah, some values may get changed. So what? After all, the whole game still is designed to make city placement meaningless.
Yeah, you may add some more statements to the diplomacy. So what? After all, the whole diplomacy still is designed to block the human player.
Yeah, you may make the combat AI a bit more competitive. So what? After all, the whole game is still not designed for a tactical warfare.

And finally, you may change the way city placement works. You may change the AI to take fertile lands into consideration, to check for good production sites. You may enhance the diplomacy and make the AI's react in a meaningful manner. You may create a combat system which works within the maps.

But this will take months and years, and the outcome will have almost nothing to do with Shafer_5 anymore.

really, city placement is meaningless? ever have a capitol on the coast surrounded by grasslands? they've already gone a long way towards promoting better city development. library + public schools make a size 12 city worth as much science as 15 size 2 cities, and that's not taking into account a university/national wonder/etc.

diplomacy is still frustrating, but just because YOU don't know how it works doesn't mean that it's meaningless. if you're a warmonger people will hate you, that's pretty simple. taking over a CS is the same as taking over a major civ. do that 2 or 3 times and expect a dow from everyone else. if you city spam like crazy, get the top military/pop/etc they will hate you. isn't it the same in MP? the last thing you want in a competitive game with 6-12 players is to have a big X on your chest at the start.

I don't know why I'm telling you all this, you've seen it all a thousand times but still choose to ignore it and instead come onto the message boards to rant about your bad experiences over and over and over. if it's so bad then why are you still here? I really enjoy civ5, but I'm spending time at the cIII forums now too because I've started playing that again as well. I'm not on the elemental forums b/c I don't like/play that game. makes sense, right?

 

[bryanw1995]

The early days make it all.
Civ V may be a good game if you expect to play it for 50 or 100 hours.
It is not when you expect it to have lasting appeal as Civ 1,2,4 (or 3 for those who liked it), which means hundredS or thousands of hours of fun.
So maybe it's fun for casual players, but not those who want MP, nor those who want to 'cheat' by altering the map to their liking in-game, for instance.

once the sdk is out you'll be able to do whatever you want with the map. it took 6 months or so iirc for previous sdk's to be released.

I'm at over 600 hours and really enjoying it still.

 

[elthrasher]

Sorry, but what would be the point to have beta testers, then?
"Don't tell me where the game doesn't work, after all *I* by the Lord's Grace am the lead designer?"

Build credibility? "My game was tested by top players!"

Holding playtesters responsible for Civ5 isn't reasonable. We have no idea what the game was like when they received it. The thing about testing is that unless your initial release is perfect (and trust me, it's not), multiple rounds are required to really get anywhere. So maybe the playtesters offered some good feedback and some problems with the game were fixed. That doesn't mean the game is now 100% perfect. You have to go back and test the new & improved game to see if it is sufficiently improved.

There can be no doubt this game was rushed to release. I expect a result of having to rush meant there were fewer rounds of playtesting and less time to absorb playtester feedback than you would have wanted in a perfect world.

I've been involved in playtesting other games. Sometimes you see the final release and go "oh yeah, this feature here, that was my idea to fix this horribly broken thing!" The other 99% of the time you go "yeah, that's still a problem. I told them."

 

[lietkynes]

Sorry, but what would be the point to have beta testers, then?

To catch bugs, more or less. I understand that a small group of players was selected to test game design issues, but I doubt that serious critics ("the core maths are broken") would have been taken into consideration by the lead designer.

After all, we are not talking about the first garage-made game from an indy developer, but about the last iteration of an almost 20 years old franchise. There should have been some lessons learned from the past.

I think people are over-estimating Firaxis which, in my opinion, is a company that is living on old glory but seriously lacks talent. The departure of Shafer might be good, a fresh approach to the game from a new designer is probably a good thing. Time will tell.

 

[Dralix]

I seriously doubt a game designer would accept much criticism on game design issues from beta testers. After all, he's the lead game designer for the most successful strategy game ever and they are just beta testers, why should he think they are right and he is wrong ?

Sorry, but what would be the point to have beta testers, then?
"Don't tell me where the game doesn't work, after all *I* by the Lord's Grace am the lead designer?"

You're actually partially correct here, hyperbole aside. The point of a beta test is not to critique design elements. By that time, it's too far down the process to overhaul the design. That kind of stuff should have been worked out long before. The point of beta testing is to see if the game is working as designed.

 

[moscaverde]

Well joking aside, i agree with both of you, looking back with rose tinted glasses at Civ 4 made me forget that the leaders did speak in silly ways too, but i think the excellence of the game itself made me not notice, Civ 4 was so deep and interesting that in an odd way the leaders earned the right to joke and be cheekily out of character with me as a player, for me personally when a leader does that to me in Civ 5 it just feels irritating instead of funny because i'm unhappy with so much else of the game, again, just my opinion.

This, and the great "actual quotes" mod.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Good call Dale! What I really think you should add to this is that not only do you have some serious issues with this game, but despite this you're more than willing to continue to work to improve the game through mods (and have the skills to do it too to boot), as you did with your anti-ICS mod, which had some great ideas (some of which may or may not have influenced the patch changes). And I'm sure you have more coming!

I'm perfectly fine with people having serious issues with this game, but what we really need more of is people like Dale who are willing to improve the game despite its flaws so we get a better product in the end. The LAST thing we want to do is to alienate ANYBODY intent on improving the game, even if we may not agree with his/her ideas.

QFT... there is some precious wisdom explicitly deployed in just two simple paragraphs that even i must learn from.

 

[zuraffo]

Yes, I get it. I am trying to say I feel the same (more immersive) as you during my initial "testdrive". I don't know. I am waiting to see if you can still be so optimistic into your 6th or 7th playthrough.

That's not my point at all. My point is that whilst criticism of depth is a valid criticism in itself, it is not the same as a criticism of immersion. IMO Civ5 appears to allow for deeper immersion for the casual player than Civ4, even if there is a lack of depth.

 

[zuraffo]

Of course after reading Sulla and Dale posts you would think they are way better than Shafer at game design, because they are very good at pointing out his mistakes and really it's difficult not to agree with their points. But that doesn't mean that they would be able to do better then him. Finding someone else's mistakes is easier then making your own design.

Doing post-mortem analysis is always easier than taking the helm. The view is always clearer on hindsight.

 

[JimMac99]

Dale, you make some good points (as did Sulla). I definitely feel the lack of immersion, but hadn't realised the maths discrepancy.

With your knowledge of how things work behind the scenes, are you hopefull that these problems will be resolved (without the aid of mods)?

 

[Dale]

Of course after reading Sulla and Dale posts you would think they are way better than Shafer at game design, because they are very good at pointing out his mistakes and really it's difficult not to agree with their points. But that doesn't mean that they would be able to do better then him. Finding someone else's mistakes is easier then making your own design.

Well, I have a pitch document for a stand alone Civ 5 product linked in my sig (wasn't taken up, so I'm debating whether to do it as a Civ 5 mod or just make it into a game I can sell). Have a read and tell me what you think. (Note: a pitch document's goal is to highlight the major features, not the entire design)

I also hear Sullla put out there that he might put on paper his design for a "Civ" styled game.

 

[Dale]

With your knowledge of how things work behind the scenes, are you hopefull that these problems will be resolved (without the aid of mods)?

Firaxis is working hard to ensure Civ 5 supports the majority of players. But you need to remember that CFC players are really a tiny percentage of the overall player base and they receive feedback from all player groups, not just CFC.

 

[Arsenic Steel]

Firaxis is working hard to ensure Civ 5 supports the majority of players. But you need to remember that CFC players are really a tiny percentage of the overall player base and they receive feedback from all player groups, not just CFC.

Good thing being a player comes first and players are able to create forum accounts in places other than CFC, maybe even a place where the overall player base is.

 

[LDiCesare]

really, city placement is meaningless? ever have a capitol on the coast surrounded by grasslands?

I'd like to know how you pulled that one out. In such circumstances, assuming few forests, the map generation code is biased to turn some land into hill. Plus it'll send you additional goodies to enhance your start location, mostly luxuries.