I think it's important to differentiate the responses of hardcore gamers from the less capable players. I would certainly argue that Empire: Total War wasn't an outright disaster. There were loads of problems (I was lucky not to be affected by any game-breaking bugs for instance) but I played a long campaign and enjoyed it. This is because I am not especially good at the game, I can't be bothered to spend the time I should for optimal play on it. The rubbish AI didn't annoy me too much because I just enjoyed watching the battles and not having to worry too much about victory, given an equivalent or near equivalent force, and watching my empire grow. I never got to the point where a lack of AI naval invasions became apparent.

I expect if I played Civ 5 I would find it mostly ok and even fun. I've read Sulla's game reports, and they've put me off buying the game (I have Civ4, so why spend so much money on the new one if it isn't far better?) but I would never notice even half the things he cites as making the game broken. I'm not that good at the game. Same thing with multiplayer numbers, I expect a tiny proportion of the people playing Civ5 are ever going to consider going online (that doesn't excuse what sounds like an abysmal multiplayer setup from the devs). I agree that you have to be extremely cautious about games journalism, but if you are an expert in a game you shouldn't be using general games journalism to find out about how good it is anyway. That's what forums are for, listen to what other experts think first. For most people, I expect the writeups of Empire and Civ5 were fine. The biggest thing that put me off Civ5 was reading about the crazy AIs, and the way they've been adding DLC for nations.

I guess I'm just saying that a game that experts hate may still appeal to a sizable audience. Depending on how the game was designed/marketed and whether it has any previous games in the series that may not be a problem.

With Elemental being the wreck that it was on release, I don't see how anyone could be upset that Stardock is hiring people to make it the game it should have been from the start. Shortly after SD's hiring of Kael, the game's quality skyrocketed through the numerous beta patches. I played the 0-day Impulse release version, so I could see Elemental finally make its way to becoming a game as the months dragged by. I, for one, am happy that Stardock is hiring professionals who know their shi... erhm, stuff. Y'all still have a long way to go, but with this AAA team you got brewing up, we should have a Shadow Magic killer finally come to fruition. I hope you all work for developing the game towards a technology vs. magic theme. The framework is there, and it would make for awesome conflicts.

I also hope you can show your haters that you're not an Indie developer with total control like they think you were, Mr. Shafer. My favorite Civ was that CivII clone, Call to Power! F-YEAH!! I have little love for 4, but 3 wasn't that bad.

GOOD LUCK!

It's all Obamas fault.  Bush is part of the Illumanati

I only mentioned gaming journalism because I agreed with you, but most gaming journalism probably isn't really aimed at you if you're a highly skilled player who will notice high-level balance flaws (such as in Civ5).

With regards to Empire, the point I was making is that although the game was broken, this may have had no effect on the experiences of many people. That doesn't stop it being broken, but it does affect the seriousness of the problem. I appreciate that it's an annoying argument, but I'm not saying the game isn't broken or that the devs shouldn't be criticized for blatantly broken bits of the game. I just don't think you should judge a game purely on how solid the game mechanics are. Games can be totally unbalanced and still be fun, good games. It depends what you're looking for. With Civ 5 in particular I think people had high expectations for mechanics that weren't met at all. It basically isn't aimed at the same high skill players who enjoyed Civ 4 at the top difficulty levels (at least, I really hope it wasn't). I couldn't say what Empire players were like, I didn't get the impression that there were so many hardcore Total War players, but I don't know the community so that's just a hunch.

Not all games have good quality difficulty levels, most don't offer much in the way of AI resistance for high level players. If I was such a player I expect I would be more cautious about buying games, because I would need a decent challenge to enjoy the game. This is where forums and such are invaluable sources of detailed information about gameplay.

I can't find the bit Femmefatal48 quoted from you, but I'm not arguing that the game isn't broken. I'm arguing that to a substantial number of players, it doesn't matter. No one will refute your points because they can't, but I think they don't like your implication that the entire game is a disaster and unplayable for anyone. For people with a real appreciation of the mechanics and some skill at the game, Civ 5 is from the sounds of it so badly designed as to be unplayable. For your more casual gamers it may be an amusing way to spend some time. I would hope that if you made it clear that it's more experienced players who will have a problem with a game or that it's certain broken mechanics that spoilt the game for you rather than making sweeping statements about the overall quality of the game, you might get less defensive responses. I will not argue that the lack of naval invasions in Empire was not appalling and broken, but I will argue that it didn't make the game a disaster for everyone, ever (which I think was implied in your post).

Jon Shafer was in charge of a team that made bad design decisions that made it through the internal development and QA process and right out into release. Fundamentally broken game design decisions.  It's entirely valid to question his design abilities and wonder what he took away from that experience.  If what he took away is nothing and if he stands behind the decisions made in civ5, I do not have confidence in his abilities on the Elemental team or whatever future Stardock games he works on.  Simple as that.  

It is laughable to think he owes you any type of explanation about Civ 5 on the Stardock forums (or anywhere else for that matter).

It is fine if you have no confidence in his abilities, but clucking about it on here just makes you look petty.

Most hard-core Civ players do.

Also note, that in the time I had at the 2k forums (roughly 2 months), Mr Shafer did not make a post, and from what I noticed only 1 Firaxis dev posted one comment about some patch.  A Firaxis policy, no doubt.

Civ V fans there were, for the most part, very unhappy with the post-release support and overall game mechanics.

Now, Mr Shafer is with Stardock...  And on the first week, he makes a post in our forum (minus the avatar, but still he's a noob post-er here so we'll let it slide).  All I have to say is that he is blending right in with the Stardock philosophy.

**Mr Shafer... a suggestion for your avatar.  A Wizard perhaps?

  Again...welcome!

The problem with the SD staff participating in the forums is that they get all emotionally and mentally wrapped up in saying the right things on the forums when really their mind should be actually improving the game.

Are/were you as critical of Brad and SD about Elemental as you are about Jon with Civ5? If not, why?

 Rofl.. Thats funny man... maybe he doesn't want to download & install an old version of Flash (or whatever program it is that lets you upload to SD) to be able to upload an avatar... I sure as hell don't.

I am beginning to feel that hiring Jon was a bad thing.

Not because of CIV 5 (I actually quite enjoyed it, and will go back to enjoying it when i have the time). But because it seems that the forums of Elemental are now full of the sort of people that the 2k forums were full of. Maybe one day we'll all understand the opinion is not fact, no matter how strong that opinion is.

'Jon Shafer was in charge of a team that made bad design decisions' is an opinion not a fact. 'Jon Shafer was in charge of a team that made design decisions' is fact, whether those decisions were good or bad is an opinion. Some of us think a lot of the choices he made were good choices. Some of us also think that when he worked on BTS for CIV 4 he also made a lot of good decisions. I wish everybody would take their bile and hatred away from the Elemental forums and go complain somewhere else.

Which game was that?

Real ID, security issues aside because of bastard human nature, where the fuck are you?

Wait, that was a bit off-topic.

One of the great things that Jon Shafer will do for Elemental is making coffee for the Elemental team. He will be the "Lead Designer" of the coffee there (hex shaped cups, 1 sugar cube per cup,...) in addition to be paid for playing the game.