Was there anything GOOD about streamlining?

[Jolly Rogerer]

I tend to think of streamlining as either:

1) the simplification of a system that nonetheless retains all the effective flexibility of the old system

2) the improvement of an interface so that fewer clicks / keystrokes / visual re-orientations are required

Thus using a slider to reallocate your economic resources is easier than changing numerous specialists from one type to another, though effectively they are the same in terms of production. This would be an example of streamlining.

Civ5 seems to have gone the opposite direction in terms of streamlining in a number of areas. The interface is definitely a step backwards from Civ4. What they did to Civ5 was simplification rather than streamlining. They dropped entire elements rather than retaining and improving them.

 

[SpearMan153]

In fact, religion is out because of the design philosophy behind the AI, not lack of resources.

Only if you are assuming a civ4 style model of religion effects on diplomacy. There are other ways of modeling religion which would fit with the civ5 philosophy just fine. Given the importance of religion throughout history I would be suprised if it were not added in a later expansion.

Bottom line: Firaxis was overly ambitious and didn't understand their own limits.

I agree to a point. I do think they underestimated effort required for the big changes like the game engine, diplomacy system, 1upt system and quality has suffered.

But I can't fault them for trying. Better to try for greatness and fail then not to try at all (or something like that). And I think they actually did TRY not to be overly ambitious. Hence cutting features like religion that could be cut.

Its the kind of underestimation that happens all the time in software projects and is partly the nature of software (accurate estimation is hard because what makes software "good" is so fuzzy - you don't know what/how to build it until you build it). Which is often more a poduct of unrealistic inflexible deadlines then anything else.

As a software project I think civ5 has been somewhat a success (its no moo3). They met their deadline, its profitable, lots of people enjoy the game despite its issues.

This however has come at the cost of alienating a sizable portion of long term fans which is an outcome that could/should have been avoided.

I think we are yet to see civ5 as the game it was designed to be and had it been released in a better state I think more long time players would have been won over (or at least would have been less upset about it as an addition to the franchise even if deciding they like 4 better).

 

[sketch162000]

I think we are yet to see civ5 as the game it was designed to be and had it been released in a better state I think more long time players would have been won over (or at least would have been less upset about it as an addition to the franchise even if deciding they like 4 better).

This theory only really works if you assume that everyone is okay with the design in the first place. That's the thing. A lot of people who are disappointed with Civ V (myself included) fundamentally disagree with the direction that the game has taken. The fact that this direction also ended up a buggy, incomplete mess is just salt in the wound.

Take the controversial 1upt, for example. A lot of people are arguing that it should have never been done. Not just, "Oh, the AI just needs to be reworked," but the opinion that even if Civ V's combat model was polished to its best possible state, it still would have been the wrong choice, at the core. I've heard several opinions like that on various features of Civ V.

 

[Rusty Edge]

As a software developer and on behalf of the devs can I just say: never knock the devs its all the pointy haired boss's fault.

Streamlining is not about conserving resources it is all about a "less is more" design philosophy. This is really hard to get right for a game like civ where one person's streamlining is another's dumbed down.

Streamlining is things like:
- don't need to connect resources by roads
- simplified trade route system
- no whip
- puppet city system
- simplified tech tree

The idea is to drop low value features and to reduce/eliminate repetative low value sub tasks. Again in games like civ people differ on the "low value" part.

Removing non core (yes great to have, important but essential) features like religion and espionage IS about conserving resources and was exactly the right decision for civ5 from a risk/project management point of view (assuming new and improved versions are added in later expansion).

Given the decision to :
a) write a new game engine from scratch
b) radically change combat system

They would have been crazy to try and shoe horn religion and espionage into the budget. The problem is they didn't give themselves the budget needed for the rest of the game.



I don't get the impression that the dev's priorities were screwed. I think they did a pretty good job given the constraints they were under.

The management decision to release the game in its rushed, unfinished state howerver was... debatable.

What I suspect they underestimated was the work needed to get their shiny new game engine running and also the amount of tweaking to get a descent tactical and diplomatic ai (given the more complex design). So I'm speculating that they probably blew the budget on the game engine and had to rush everything else.

Result: bad tactical ai, insane diplomacy, poor performance and stability problems.

Given time (and budget) constraints you have 2 choices
a) cut scope
b) cut quality

I think they had already got the scope about right (enough for a good game with everything cut that could be cut). Quality is what suffered.

Here's a thought- If they were so pressed in designing this tactical wargame, why not drop diplomacy altogether- default "Always war" save on the leader graphics and concentrate on a tactical AI?

 

[lschnarch]

As a software project I think civ5 has been somewhat a success (its no moo3). They met their deadline, its profitable, lots of people enjoy the game despite its issues.

All the respective polls here and elsewhere have shown that a good 33% - 50% (33% in the beginning, ~50% now) of players are unsatisfied with the game.
Which means a third or even half of the "success" is based on the positive experiences with PREVIOUS Civ games.

Which in turn means, if V would have started on its own merits it would have been a major disaster, economically.

 

[sketch162000]

All the respective polls here and elsewhere have shown that a good 33% - 50% (33% in the beginning, ~50% now) of players are unsatisfied with the game.
Which means a third or even half of the "success" is based on the positive experiences with PREVIOUS Civ games.

Which in turn means, if V would have started on its own merits it would have been a major disaster, economically.

Which also means that Civ V's expansions and Civ VI, if they even make it, stand to be failures from a business standpoint, because for many fans, the goodwill of the series is now tainted.

 

[Iranon]

There is a cost to running a franchise into the ground, but it's probably lower then most people expect. It doesn't prevent future profits, just changes how you can pursue those: You can't rely on hype and goodwill, but it actually opens up avenues (more acceptance for something fresh if it's genuinely good; this also means the rights to the name are still worth something).
Moreover, money now is always better than money later.

And Civ5 has not ruined the good name of the franchise, at least not where it counts.
Many 4x enthusiasts may denounce it and turn away, but they aren't important: there aren't that many anyway, and you can't count on them thanks to the efforts of niche developers and the availability of many old but still excellent titles.
You could argue that, to bring the best entertainment to the greatest number of people, the decision to make a streamlined blockbuster rather than a future classic was the right one.

Personally... I'm past caring about any entertainment industry even if I care about the medium.

 

[Martin Alvito]

All the respective polls here and elsewhere have shown that a good 33% - 50% (33% in the beginning, ~50% now) of players are unsatisfied with the game.
Which means a third or even half of the "success" is based on the positive experiences with PREVIOUS Civ games.

Those polls are drawing from a biased sample. Most people that buy a game never make it to a fansite, and even fewer post. Since the fansite community tends to be a lot more sophisticated than the majority of the playerbase, you can't take its judgment as gospel. The more casual Civ players I've talked to have been pretty satisfied, and they pay the same amount as we do.

Where I'd be concerned as the developer is that the hardcore loyalists tend to be the players that buy the expansions and DLC, which is where the big profit potential is. But the game seems to be more popular than it was a few months ago based on the Steam player numbers, suggesting that the core game has probably made money.

 

[lschnarch]

Those polls are drawing from a biased sample. Most people that buy a game never make it to a fansite, and even fewer post. Since the fansite community tends to be a lot more sophisticated than the majority of the playerbase, you can't take its judgment as gospel. The more casual Civ players I've talked to have been pretty satisfied, and they pay the same amount as we do.

Where I'd be concerned as the developer is that the hardcore loyalists tend to be the players that buy the expansions and DLC, which is where the big profit potential is. But the game seems to be more popular than it was a few months ago based on the Steam player numbers, suggesting that the core game has probably made money.

Well, curent player numbers are only a third or a fourth of what they were after release.
This means quite some people have dropped the game.

And the assumption that people who are not members of a forum would be fine with the game is just completely unproven, to say the least.
People who are somewhat fine with the game are at least as prone to try to meet and exchange with others as are people who are facing problems and are looking for help. In both cases, they will end up here or at other places.
Furthermore, the loss of longtime fans counts double in regards of word-of-mouth advertising.
The one time player won't recommend the game to friends and relatives.
The satisfied longtime player will do so.

And if you lose significant numbers of the latter than you may feel it in future.

 

[SpearMan153]

This theory only really works if you assume that everyone is okay with the design in the first place. That's the thing. A lot of people who are disappointed with Civ V (myself included) fundamentally disagree with the direction that the game has taken.

no sequel design is going to suit 100% of all fans - I've never played a game (or used any software) that I'm 100% happy with every element in it. Have you?

I totally get that many long term civers don't like the direction that civ5 has taken thats cool - we all have our likes and dislikes we're all entitled to our opinions. Civers are a really diverse bunch after all - some love micro, some can't stand it.

Just because you (and many others) don't like the design doesn't make it rubbish - it just means its not to your taste. I find that the overall design decisions and approach taken by civ5 although contraversial and not to everyone's taste are entirely reasonable and defendable (even if you disagree).

All designs have strengths and weaknesses, various tradeoffs, its a balancing act and its hard. Weaknesses often take a lot of effort and tweaking to minimise. Whether you like the design or not depends on how much you like the strengths and how much you can tolerate the weaknesses.

Speaking for myself I quite, like the civ5 design. Its a game I'm enjoying playing. there's stuff that works (for me) and stuff that doesn't work so well.

The fact that this direction also ended up a buggy, incomplete mess is just salt in the wound.

that's kind of my point

its the combination of design you don't like, plus poor release quality that makes for the anti civ5 angst (imo)

You may not like its direction, you may never like it but had the overall quality been better at least you don't have that salt in your wound as it were. Your more likely to at least find some part of the game that you like that compensate for the parts you don't like and may be won over in the end.

Also you're more likely to be able to take a step back and say: I don't like this and that aspect of the game but I can see where the devs are coming from - its just that this game is not for me.

Take the controversial 1upt, for example. A lot of people are arguing that it should have never been done. Not just, "Oh, the AI just needs to be reworked," but the opinion that even if Civ V's combat model was polished to its best possible state, it still would have been the wrong choice, at the core. I've heard several opinions like that on various features of Civ V.

and just has many find it their favourite part of civ5
others would like it if only they'd fix certain issues
others think stacks were the best
others can't stand stacks
others don't care either way

me, I never had any issue with stacks per say (not so keen on unit spam) but enjoy the 1upt system more

who's right? who's wrong?

I'm glad they mixed things up and tried some new radical contraversial stuff even if they ultimately back away from it to the sound of a beeping truck (like certain aspets of diplomacy system). At least it gets people thinking, community debate happens: like all the various ideas on combat systems uupt, xupt, 1upt etc. Its all good (long term). modders try new stuff out. it stops the franchise getting stuck in a rut and stagnating. this is how innovation happens.

 

[SpearMan153]

All the respective polls here and elsewhere have shown that a good 33% - 50% (33% in the beginning, ~50% now) of players are unsatisfied with the game.

Which means a third or even half of the "success" is based on the positive experiences with PREVIOUS Civ games.

I really think any poll on a fan site must be taken with a large grain of salt for all the reasons stated elsewhere

hence I used the fuzzy terms: like signifcant number and somewhat

from an objective business and software point of view - I think that civ5 is a success they will turn a profit and the franchise is not doomed

from the point of alienated fans - I agree it's a abject failure

I do think Firaxis/2K have come away however with a black eye due to loss of goodwill from above alienated fans, which was not the outcome they were hoping for.

Which in turn means, if V would have started on its own merits it would have been a major disaster, economically.

maybe, maybe not. I could argue that long term fans are probably harder to please then an entirely new audience for an entirely new game.

But then again I only got the game because its Civ but thats because pc games is not usually what I spend my money on.

Either way this IS a sequel and by definition can/will never stand on its own merits so the question is moot.

 

[SpearMan153]

Here's a thought- If they were so pressed in designing this tactical wargame, why not drop diplomacy altogether- default "Always war" save on the leader graphics and concentrate on a tactical AI?

erhh...

because its not a tactical wargame and is not designed to be a tactical. Its supposed to be an empire building game with a strong war component like all the other civs before it.

now you may think it fails as an empire builder and all that is left is a second rate war game - that's fine but is not a view I share and was certainly not the design goal of the devs.

besides they were going for a rich and nuanced diplomatic system (this was one of their big ticket items pre-release after all) - yes they failed that particular design goal, but it is entirely salvageable (imo).

 

[lschnarch]

because its not a tactical wargame and is not designed to be a tactical. Its supposed to be an empire building game with a strong war compenent like all the other civs before it.

Well, an empire-building game would be about building empires.
In other words, you would have to settle and cover the lands, improving your infrastructure, developing in all kinds of areas like technology, relationship with foreign nations, internal and external trade, cultural identity and what not more.

Any of these aspects is significantly limited in comparison to the warfare aspect.
Especially if being compared with the predecessor, but even if you only look at the game by itself.
For empire-building, it just takes too long without anything meaningful happening.

And the warfare aspect of this game is as tactical as it ever could be.
Shafer and his gang tried to implement a tactical battle system into a game about strategic decisions, had to limit quite some of the strategic options due to make tactical warfare working and finally failed at the latter.

now you may think it fails as an empire builder and all that is left is a second rate war game - that's fine but is not a view I share and was certainly the design goal of the devs.

I agree that it was surely not their intent to fail, but that makes it even worse.

besides they were going for a rich and nuanced diplomatic system (this was one of their big ticket items pre-release after all) - yes they failed that particular design goal, but it is entirely salvagable (imo).

If it would have been only the diplomacy at which they failed.
The fans still would have been disappointed, saying "how could they miss this?" but they would embrace the game as a total.

But they failed literally in each and every aspect and therefore they are getting flak from every direction.
Whatever was advertised as the main, big points of Civ5 turned out to be flawed:
Combat? Sucks, to say the least
Diplomacy? Has been overhauled already. Going to be tweaked again with the new patch. Still sucks, at least being weak almost beyond words to express.
Social Policies? Have been tweaked and tweaked and tweaked. A big part of the fanbase is at least unsatisfied with the core idea of having them unchangeable and only giving benefits.
Engine? Crashes, lags, slow turn times. But very high hardware demand. Although before release they said how great it would be to have an engine especially designed for their kind of game.

In short: they haven't delivered in any advertised area. They weren't even able to copy a working civilopedia into the new game.
Whatever they've touched, it has turned out to be a mess.

Honestly, if you don't assume intent then the only explanation is complete incompetence. And we're already five months past release. How long are we expected to wait for a game worth our money?

 

[nokmirt]

I like the game but the AI should have been a major priority to begin with.

 

[JohnnyW]

Honestly, if you don't assume intent then the only explanation is complete incompetence. And we're already five months past release. How long are we expected to wait for a game worth our money?

It's hard to argue against statements like this. At least with logic.

 

[Aristos]

Honestly, if you don't assume intent then the only explanation is complete incompetence.

It's not complete. It's mainly the head. This is a "vission failure".

Funny times ahead though. I rejoice when I imagine the next "product" the guy will deliver. In any case, the near future will prove us right or wrong. I have my bet cast already, but it will be funny to watch what he creates (or destroys ) at Stardock...

 

[SpearMan153]

devs completely incompetent? failed on all levels?

... wow a little harsh perhaps?

each to their own I guess

They have delivered on one area though HEXES
can you give me that one?

 

[lschnarch]

devs completely incompetent? failed on all levels?

... wow a little harsh perhaps?

Not at all.

I look at the advertising and promises, I look at what has been delivered.

They have delivered on one area though HEXES
can you give me that one?

Gladly.

 

[Hail]

But they failed literally in each and every aspect and therefore they are getting flak from every direction.
Whatever was advertised as the main, big points of Civ5 turned out to be flawed:
Combat? Sucks, to say the least
Diplomacy? Has been overhauled already. Going to be tweaked again with the new patch. Still sucks, at least being weak almost beyond words to express.
Social Policies? Have been tweaked and tweaked and tweaked. A big part of the fanbase is at least unsatisfied with the core idea of having them unchangeable and only giving benefits.
Engine? Crashes, lags, slow turn times. But very high hardware demand. Although before release they said how great it would be to have an engine especially designed for their kind of game.

In short: they haven't delivered in any advertised area. They weren't even able to copy a working civilopedia into the new game.
Whatever they've touched, it has turned out to be a mess.

couple of notes:
Combat: combat sucks imho exclusively because the combat AI is ********
Diplo: as been said elsewhere for diplo to be meaningful, there must be incentives for cooperation among nations. apparently RA's and luxury resource spam trade does not cut it.

i agree on you other points

[...]
How long are we expected to wait for a game worth our money?

when it's done

sorry couldn't help myself

 

[Iranon]

devs completely incompetent? failed on all levels?

... wow a little harsh perhaps?

each to their own I guess

They have delivered on one area though HEXES
can you give me that one?

That's nothing to write home about. Civ4 with hexes and Civ5 with square tiles would mostly work the same. Required fine tuning, e.g. sort out map creation and scale growth/costs so the changed number of tiles per city doesn't bork up the pacing, shouldn't be more difficult than doing the same thing in the original versions.

Civ5 might actually play slightly better with squares: 8 adjacent tiles make for slightly more open movement and therefore reduce the traffic jams. The main problem would be acceptance of 1upt... hexes have the wargame pedigree, 1upt on squares may be seen as a throwback to more primitive times rather than a step towards tactics. Irrational but not irrelevant.
Civ4 shouldn't suffer much, except from again running against conventions (squares are more intuitive to most people, without movement restrictions like 1upt or zoc hexes feel gratuitious).

Making a stylistic choice is easy, and tends to receive a lot more focus than warranted.
Imagine the same game with differently themed but functionally identical interfaces - one sleek contemporary one, one reminiscent of an 80ies UNIX environment, one in stuffy wood and polished brass and one with enough bling to melt your eyes. The choice may affect acceptance more than the actual game. And that's terrible.