A developer reflects on Civ V

[RandMcnally]

Overall, I enjoy this latest iteration of Civilization. I really don’t want to look at how many hours I’ve played it.

But, the game isn’t perfect. Jon Shafer, one of the developers on the game, has kicked off a kickstarter campaign for a new game. On his page he discusses some of the lessons he learned while working on CiV.

It’s a pretty interested read. Take a look.

@Jon Shafter

In Civ 5, you might have been lifelong allies with a leader, but once you enter the late-game he has no qualms backstabbing you in order to win. With this being the case, what’s the point of investing in relationships at all?

By no means should AI leaders be completely predictable. However, they do need a clear rhyme and reason behind their actions. The computer opponents in Civ 5 were completely enslaved to their gameplay situation, and as a result they appeared random and very little of their personalities shone through.

.

This is very much true. I understand the AI going to war because I stole their land or I’m getting to powerful, but it would annoy me when I look at the reasons and all it says is, “you are at war.”

[Sitnam]

If I had spent my childhood studying as much as I did playing Civ II and Civ IV I’m sure I’d have a PhD.

But Civ V was a real let down. In steam lining play to make it more accessible they sucked a lot of the fun of playing god out of a civilization. I had fevered dreams before it’s release about the hex maps, minor powers and tactical options a one unit per hex rule creates. The problem is the game is simultaneously in two very different scales and the result is wars in any era feel more like the solid front lines of WWI and beyond. As far as I am concerned Civ IV is best game ever designed, but even I’ll admit it has issues. I just wished Civ V was conceived as an upgrade to IV and not redesigned Civ Revolution.

I hope that’s the lesson he learned, I’ll have to go read the article now.

[wolfman]

@RandMcnally

This is very much true. I understand the AI going to war because I stole their land or I’m getting to powerful, but it would annoy me when I look at the reasons and all it says is, “you are at war.”

We have always been at war with Montezuma.

[RickJay]

Huh, I prefer Civ V over IV.

I agree, however, that the game is not perfect. But that just makes me want Civ VI more.

[Chronos]

Personally, I think that the biggest problem was that they tried to make the game simpler, when a large part of the appeal of the Civ series is how complicated they are. Sure, simple can be good sometimes, but when you want a simple game, Civ isn’t what you’re reaching for.

[mlees]

@Chronos

Personally, I think that the biggest problem was that they tried to make the game simpler, when a large part of the appeal of the Civ series is how complicated they are. Sure, simple can be good sometimes, but when you want a simple game, Civ isn’t what you’re reaching for.

Yes it is.

If I want “complicated”, I’ll bust out Crusader Kings II or EU4.

[Terminus_Est]

@mlees

Yes it is.

If I want “complicated”, I’ll bust out Crusader Kings II or EU4.

I quite agree with this. And if I wanted to conquer the world, with nothing but WAR! WAR! WAR! all the time, I’ll bust out Total War.

[RandMcnally]

A lot of people complain about one unit per tile, and I actually like it. I mean yeah, I wish the AI was much better, but overall I think it was a great change. I am glad that there is no longer a stack of doom and I actually have to think about where I put my archer: do I have it stay a bit back or should I risk it on the hill so it’ll have more line of sight?

Also, I’m stoked for the expansion pack. From everything I’ve seen it looks like they’re changing a few of the core mechanics. I think it’ll be for the better.