More complexity isn't always better, but significantly less complexity is almost always bad in a strategy game.  Strategy gamers tend to crave at least a certain level of complexity.  If I want something simple, I fire up something from a simpler genre.  'Dumbed down' and 'strategy' don't mix.

I also lol'd hard at EA openly saying 'cutting content' is a good idea.  Only EA.

*Shakes head back and forth while waving finger*

Uh, no you didn't just talk shit on my love Jon!  You play nice, or I'm going to hit you with my shoe!

And really, he was also responsible for Beyond the Sword.  He left and joined Stardock for a reason, he wants to make the kind of games Stardock makes and Brad wants.  I think that says a lot.

yet Soren designed Civilization 4 and Shafer designed Civilization 5... the HUGE difference between the two is out there for anyone to see it.

Chanta!

This assinine childish crap has already been done to death on several other threads. Grow up. The decisions that wrecked the Civ franchise were made by the heads of the companies.

Extending a complex design is different to making your own from scratch.  Besides, all I'm saying is that the single game that Jon designed all himself, leaves me wondering where this complexity he talks about is.  If his next title is deep and complex, then I will be happy.  But at this point, evidence points one way and words point another.

Proof?

Ultimately the design of the game rests on the shoulders of......... you guessed it......... the designer.  

Don't bitch about game designers until you've been one in a large publically traded corporation.

How do people so easily forget how upper management seems to operate and think in pretty much every single industry? Maybe they haven't encountered it, or maybe they have just been drinking too much kool aid. Kissing corporate ass won't get you anywhere, and if you blame the mistakes of upper management on those who implement their decision you basically are an ass kisser.

If CivV happened at Stardock I would blame Shafer, but it didn't.

And I designed Galactic Civilizations and Elemental: War of Magic. GalCiv is loved. WOM was panned. Did my design skills suddenly fall apart? Or do other factors weigh far more?

If you read the current issue of Game Developer there's a Civ V post mortem. The biggest problem they ran into was lack of time. They had to axe a lot of features from the design because they ran out of deveopment time.  

Not to belittle game design - it's important - but it ultimately is only one factor of many that determines if a game is good or not.

I think this is a very interesing point. It is not unusual for a game design to be create that is then cast aside completely in the face of techinical and other development restriction found during implementation. Game design is like a trip plan made before hitting the road, and who knows whether the roads you plan to traverse can be travelled with ease. Looking at Civ V with a critical eye, it becomes clear that the game is in a similar state as many other iterations within the series at launch. Civ 3 and 4 both had good expansions which increased the overall depth of a simplisitc base experience.

And we all know gamers are not a fickle and petulant lot

Congrats on getting into the biz!

Commerical is the almost only way to get financed but indie is the way to freedom...poor, broke freedom...but freedom darn it.

I wouldn't mind reading that, because my experience of beta testing Civ5 is completely different.  Yes, they ran out of time, but the design was fully implemented (as confirmed by designer and producer).  There just wasn't any time to iterate through balance changes and consequently got a very unbalanced / minimal tested game OOTB.

Where can I read this post mortem?

Indeed, but you designed both in very different "moods" so to speak, judging by your own posts about the latter... using my own impression and terms here, let's say you designed GC2 (brilliantly) ala Brad, while you designed the original EWoM ala Shafer...

The insults from the "geniuses" here I couldn't care less about, so spare them for somebody else that cares about people full of inferiority complex. That's that.

Your point is interesting. I know corporate matters in and out, in more than one country. Been there, done that. My work experience is not limited to a nuts house payed by the federal payroll. I have more than that, so quit suggesting bs about "knowing the corporate world and blablabla". I know enough to understand that your point is valid, but also enough to understand what one can do (and the signs of it) to prevail if one is interested in more than "saving one's chair"... none of that I have seen in your protege.

Anyways, that is my point of view. You may disagree or not, but you have to respect it as much as I respect yours. In any case, time will tell. I hope you are right though, because I really care for Stardock.

Regards,

I heard from a very reliable source (ie: a Firaxian) that this is simply not true (I was also a tester and did not notice what you said).  Whilst it's true they ran out of time, there was no axing of a lot of features from the design.  The correct situation was that due to designer focusing on one or two components of the game, the other components were rushed and didn't get the focus they should've had.  The person I spoke to specifically mentioned the designer spending way too much time on diplomacy, and neglecting the rest of the game till the end when it was too late.

So don't know what your comment is meant to imply Brad, but it's just not true.  I haven't read the GD article yet so I can't tell if they made it up.......... or you did.

A nameless, faceless 'Internet Nerd' with apparently an equally namless and faceless 'reliable source', or Brad Wardell, CEO and owner of Stardock and the current employer of Jon Shafer, the 'developer' in question.

Try this one on for size:
When the lead guys are given - note that word - the authority to make a new title, they are also given - there's that word again - a design brief.  The design brief can cover a range of things, from the projected budget to the implimentation of certain, specific features.  They're entrusted to ensure that the game meets all of these specific requirements and arrives on time and on budget.
With a massive franchise like Civilisation, do you think they'll turn to one man and say "Ok, do whatever you want, make it costs whatever you want, and take as long as you want.  We have 110% faith in your currently undocumented vision."  If you believe one thing, believe this: the words 'Civilisation: Revolutions' were listed in the design brief.  Jon wasn't given a blank cheque and a team of slaves, he was given an outline and a deadline and told to make a fucking smash hit.  I don't like Civilisation V, but I don't blame a singular person for it's failings.

I do, however, blame internet trolls like yourself for latching onto the first available scape goat and riding it like Slim Pickens.


"I KNOW EVERYTHING BECAUSE I'M ON THE INTERNET"

ZehDon:

I suggest you read the rest of the thread and catch up to what's being discussed.  Your post does not address any of the relevant parts of the discussion such as Brad's comment that GD mag said a lot of design components were axed at the END of development.  Your rant about a beginning design brief is irrelevant.

*sigh*  You still don't get it.  I'll make it simple for you:

1. Brad said in GD mag the Civ5 post mortem said that Firaxis axed a lot of the design due to running out of time.

2. I said, that's not true (after consulting with a Firaxian who was in the position to know, and using my experience on the beta team).  I had not read the GD mag article so questioned whether it was GD mag who made that up, or Brad.

3. You then come in and rant about how designers get given briefs and can't just design a game the way they want.

4. I point out that you might want to read this page of posts as your post was completely irrelevent to what Brad said, and what I'd said.

5. You then say it's impossible for the game to ship with everything in the design.  What position do you hold in the game's development to know this as fact?  Or are you just assuming?

Time to catch up mate, I've been talking about Brad's comment that the GD mag post mortem says a lot of the design was axed due to time constraints.

I've had a chance to read the post mortem in GD Mag.  Whilst it doesn't say a lot of the design was axed due to running out of time, it doesn't say nothing was cut either.  The relevant section:

One thing that was highlighted in the article is that the loss of time was due to implementing Steam and the build process to support Steam, as well as the difficulty in forming an MP team.

You know, if everyone ignores the pathetic little troll, he'll get bored and go away.

(that's a hint, btw)

Boo

I call this, "Old Style Strategy/Tacitical Game Design."  The first X-Coms are examples of this.  Excellent games.  One of the reasons I'm itching for the new 3-D, spruced up graphics for Jagged Alliance.  I just hope they put in items like what the Bear Mod did (I think that's the name any way).  I hope the new Jagged Alliance, not the reboot, coming out does as well.  I don't see the logic in making a, "Strategy/Tactical Game," that is dumbed down or simplified.  Isn't this counter-intuitive if not a blatant oxymoron?

On first glance, the statement seems fair pointed, but upon deeper reflection, it is easy to see just how silly it actually is. One of the deepest and most satisfying strategic game consists of only a few simple rules - 6 total units, a differentiated movement/attack vectors for each unit, and one heavily conditional multi unit combination movement. Yet, despite the simplistic set of rules, the game has proven time and again to allow a vast array of strategic possibilities. This very simple game is Chess. Simplification of a tactical or strategic game does not inherently decrease the strategic or tactical value of the experience. In many cases, simplifying overly complex mechanics and removing mechanics giving preferece to a small subset of possible moves can easily result in a much more interesting tactical/strategic experience. While it would be foolish to say that simple games always produce a better experience than more complex games, It would be even more foolish for a game to keep or add complex mechanics that do not add a significant advantage to the experience.

I would argue that chess isn't actually simple, a matter of a few rules.  Each piece essentially has it's own rules and movement, plus some pieces have, "special," moves.  When the options are multiplied out, I don't see it as a small set of rules, but a large set of options for its size.  I see chess as a small game, with a large set of options.  On the outside, sure, you move and take pieces.  Simple.  On the inside, it's how all those different movement rules fit together and how one can take a piece increases the complexity.  The more about what you can do in chess, the more complex it gets.  By the time I stopped playing it, I hadn't had many simple games since I started in the 3rd grade.   Back then, I was simple, until some guy got a better handle on th rules and what he could do and how the pieces worked together.  I guess I'd could say chess can be played simply, but poorly, though you could play with complex strategies and still do badly.  I don't really see chess as a simple game.  Especially so since it took a super computer to make a machine beat a world champ at it it.  Not sure you could do that with checkers.

I think that's kind of the point of kenata's post though. The rules of chess are simple, but that doesn't take away from the strategies and complexities of actually playing the game. If you can simplify the rules and mechanics of a strategy game while still having a deep and rich play experience, then this can be a very good thing.

Exactly. A lot of gamers out there believe that deep and interesting game play requires a large set of complex mechanics, yet more often than not these mechanics do not expand strategic depth. An analysis of chess gives us a very clear glimpse of how to perceive the strategic and tactical depths of a game. The fundamental rules of chess are a small and easily definable set of movement rules, which each piece can only utilize a minimal subset of the total rules. Yet, we are still left to wonder why chess is so tactically and strategically deep. The depth comes from two distinct points - unit roles with viable unit coorindation, and a large set of player choice. In chess, every piece has a specific role defined by its movement rules. Thus a pawn is a natural defender being unable to attack directly and a Knight is a natural offensive unit being able to simply move over any defending piece. Expanding this further, we see that these piece can be used to take advantage of multiple distinct attack vectors. Beyond their simple role, most pieces in chess offer the player a large variety of meaningful movement choices and therefore makes attacking and defending rely on overall strategy as predicting possible enemy moves many moves in advance is near impossible. Any tactical/strategic game which holds true these two points will result in vast depth, and games which achieve this while also maintaining overall rule simplistity are even more desirable.