![]() ![]() ![]() In contrast, Civ5 multiplayer was barely functional on release, and the game was clearly designed almost solely around a singleplayer experience and Civ5 is still a much weaker game compared to Civ4 in terms of balance and mechanics because balance issues that would have been caught by proper stress-testing were concealed by an incompetent AI. Some parts of the game, such as the entire Civ4 scoring system, were designed almost wholly by multiplayer testers. For example, Civ4 was exhaustively tested in multiplayer, revealing many design problems that were subsequently resolved. If properly done, multiplayer testing will lead to a much stronger game than testing around an AI and its inherent limitations. MP is one of the best ways to balance a game because good players will seek out and exploit every potential weakness in the design. Sometimes, I'll see someone who is arguing on the side of a mechanic I believe in, but the argument is just awful or the logic is flawed and that sucks because I want to call them out on it regardless. By far the most frustrating thing is when post after post is just another yell of "make it this way or that way". I've been beaten in debates here quite a few times (the phrase "written daggers" comes from experience -> it's uneasy being put in a position you can't argue out of, and people have done it to me here), and that's part of what keeps me coming back along with the game's actual strategy discussion. For every well-reasoned point brought up by either side, you have what, a dozen statements made without basis or are pure fallacy or insults? I admit I'm no angel in this regard, because my frustration over that gets the better of me more than I'd like, but I'd honestly prefer to drill discussion and not insults. ![]() It's one of the biggest frustrations for me here. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |