View Full Version : I kind of hope sales of this expansion are low....


Tapewormlondon
Feb 17, 2012, 07:18 PM
Whilst i welcome this expansion and also hope it drastically improves the game, I really hope that the sales of it are well below what 2K and Fireaxis hope for.

My reason for this is that I would like 2K to see that the amount of casual gamers that I believe this game was tailored for have moved onto other things - because thats what casual gamers do, and those hardcore fans of old have moved onto something else due their poor experience with the game wasnt what they expected (I am in this camp - hello Paradox games you star you!).

I know, I know - people do like this game.....thats why you are in this forum right? but i think its fair to say that CiV was recieved by alot of fans of the series with vastly negitive feelings. Bugs, non immersive, lack of features etc. I personally (notice the personally bit) believe this game was a huge let down and I never thought i could be saying this, but such a let down it was, that i will not part with my money until I hear that this game (or any future iterations of it) are vastly.....and i mean like competley different..... improved.

My hope that it sells poorly because it will show that for quick sales, the casual market is the way to go - BUT if you want a long lasting brand and continuous sales from a ready made database it is most certainly not (At least in a game like CIV - for other games it will work.....COD Im looking at you).

Hopefully this will ensure future Civ games are produced with the flair and vision I have experenced with past Civ games, and that can only be a good thing. Will it sell well though? and if it doesnt, would it mean the end of the franchise??

Lance of Llanwy
Feb 17, 2012, 07:21 PM
Given that the game has been in the top-10 most played games on Steam since it was released, such a scenario seems highly unlikely.
And this expansion failing to sell well would probably send the opposite message, given that it is centered around adding new systems and mechanics and thus complicating the game.

gingerbill
Feb 17, 2012, 07:23 PM
lol , i love people trying to pretend only casuals liked CIV 5 , stop making up nonsense . There's been so many polls and topics for ages trying to prove this but it never does.

I have 400 hours played on CIV 5 , loved every minute of it . Looking forward to the DLC a lot.

Im glad it was diffrent than CIV4 i didnt want the same game remade , CIV5 was fresh and diffrent and a bold step , i think its at least as good as CIV4.

Putmalk
Feb 17, 2012, 07:34 PM
I'm really sorry, but the OP makes little sense at all.

You hope the expansion receives poor sales so that future sequels will be better products?

You do understand that poor sales tend to lead towards cancellation? Poor reaction leads to "improvements", poor sales lead to different projects.

Buccaneer
Feb 17, 2012, 07:48 PM
I don't think I agree with anything the OP said. This will sell well as has every Civ expansions prior to this.

Arlborn
Feb 17, 2012, 08:12 PM
Your argument is a bit flawed OP. Yes, I didn't enjoy Civ5 as much as I enjoyed Civ4 either, but it does seem this expansion pack is actually adding complications into the gameplay mix(more city states types, religions, espionage, more units to think about tactically, etc) and if it does sell badly(highly unlikely, really) it might actually give them the opposite impression than the one you would like, that more complication is bad. You wouldn't want that, would you?

I actually think they listened to people's complaints and are trying to address some of it with this expansion. Of course we won't know it for sure until it is out, but that is the initial impression I'm having about this expansion pack. One can only hope, right?

Louis XXIV
Feb 17, 2012, 08:39 PM
If an expansion sells poorly, they'll likely reduce complexity to increase to a more general audience or, if they have other options, stop producing Civ games in general.

Selous
Feb 17, 2012, 08:53 PM
If an expansion sells poorly, they'll likely reduce complexity to increase to a more general audience or, if they have other options, stop producing Civ games in general.

or even worse, consentrate more on facebook and console type games :wallbash:

i will be getting this xpac, the real question is, right at launch? depends on when it is released and how much for, but i will be getting it somewhere somehow

Helmling
Feb 17, 2012, 09:47 PM
Whilst i welcome this expansion and also hope it drastically improves the game, I really hope that the sales of it are well below what 2K and Fireaxis hope for.

My reason for this is that I would like 2K to see that the amount of casual gamers that I believe this game was tailored for have moved onto other things - because thats what casual gamers do, and those hardcore fans of old have moved onto something else due their poor experience with the game wasnt what they expected (I am in this camp - hello Paradox games you star you!).

I know, I know - people do like this game.....thats why you are in this forum right? but i think its fair to say that CiV was recieved by alot of fans of the series with vastly negitive feelings. Bugs, non immersive, lack of features etc. I personally (notice the personally bit) believe this game was a huge let down and I never thought i could be saying this, but such a let down it was, that i will not part with my money until I hear that this game (or any future iterations of it) are vastly.....and i mean like competley different..... improved.

My hope that it sells poorly because it will show that for quick sales, the casual market is the way to go - BUT if you want a long lasting brand and continuous sales from a ready made database it is most certainly not (At least in a game like CIV - for other games it will work.....COD Im looking at you).

Hopefully this will ensure future Civ games are produced with the flair and vision I have experenced with past Civ games, and that can only be a good thing. Will it sell well though? and if it doesnt, would it mean the end of the franchise??

Since this expansion is obviously tailored more toward the hard-core fan base (they're giving us back religion, for Pete's sake) then poor sales would be sending the message to the developers and publishers that marketing to a more casual audience was the smart move and that the die-hards are not a reliable market.

The effect would be the exact opposite of what you were hoping.

PieceOfMind
Feb 17, 2012, 09:57 PM
I've been saying for many months that an expansion was highly likely and I'm even more confident to predict the upcoming Gods and Kings expansion will sell well. Whether fans of previous civ games like civ5 or not, Civ5 has been very well received by most gamers in the market and I'd expect with the sort of visibility that Steam gives to games and the power of its sales methods that G&K will sell well even if it turns out to be fairly crap.

If it happens to be a good expansion, it will sell even better.

BobDole
Feb 17, 2012, 10:28 PM
1) Not all the "hardcore" fans hated the game. Such as.....some of the people on this site, for example (if you're visiting this site to read about and discuss Civ V, you're not a casual fan in all likelihood).

2) Poor sales only hurts the entire franchise. Then everyone loses.

3) The game has been in the Top 10 played games on Steam since it launched. It's obviously doing well. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely to sell poorly anywa.

seasnake
Feb 17, 2012, 11:03 PM
said it before, and I'll say it again:

There are still people on this site that think Civ jumped the shark with Civ IV, and think that Civ III is the pinnacle of Civ.

There are still people who proclaim Civ II was the best of all time and the newer games have better graphics and worse gameplay.

Anytime a new game comes out some embrace, some don't. Way of the world.

Tapewormlondon
Feb 17, 2012, 11:40 PM
Since this expansion is obviously tailored more toward the hard-core fan base (they're giving us back religion, for Pete's sake) then poor sales would be sending the message to the developers and publishers that marketing to a more casual audience was the smart move and that the die-hards are not a reliable market.

The effect would be the exact opposite of what you were hoping.

Ok, firstly i want to just say im not trolling or bashing the game. it was ok, but really that was it in my opinion - again as i said in the OP, my opinion. And I know there are many who love the game, i appreciate that.

But you surely can not deny the fact that this game detracted for a lot of people that played the series prior. im pretty sure im not the only person that left the game entirely and if you missed the origional fury on these very forums, well. I actually wasnt one of those, I waited a full year, saw shed loads of GAME CHANGING patches which came out after DLC, then i became a hater.

Secondly, to say that many polls on this forum say its the greatest game since <insert prefered choice here> is pretty obvious - its Civ fanatics......although a recent one currently live i noticed about if it was "better than past reiterations" has "NO" currently leading.....that says a lot on a site dedicated to the series. Anyway going slightly off topic here so....

Thirdly i have bolded the point that kind gentleman has made up top. They are giving us back religion????? It should have been in the game from the god damn start. Oh they are bringing in new nations....oh no they were all in the last version. We are being expected to pay for an expansion that brings something that was in its predessor. if you are happy to do that, fair play, good move 2K. I certainly am not. But many are, which is why games companies spew out half finished, half assed peices of rubbish, Because many fans will buy what ever comes out - hell I bought all the DLC hoping some magical patch would come out that would make me like the game. Of course it never arrived, because I dont like the way this incarnation has been produced and No patch in the world is gonna change that. But i wanted it to. And yeah I am a little buttsore!!!!

Im fine with that, just not the way I believe the game was rushed out, poorly executed and (in my opinion) aimed at a much more casual market in order to increase overall sales. And im certainly not happy with the way that games companies are supported by people for doing it time and time again. It just doesnt make any sense to me.

Anyway claps for 2K and everyone enjoy the expansion. It probably WILL be the best thing since sliced bread and i will miss out LOL - FML!

seasnake
Feb 17, 2012, 11:52 PM
And again same complaints were made about Civ IV. Civ III complete had a ton of nations, Civ IV is released with 18. Paratroopers were in Civ III, didn't make to Civ IV until BTS. Civ IV shipped practically unplayable, Civ III complete was highly stable...

RD-BH
Feb 18, 2012, 12:53 AM
Disagree.

I don't like Civ5, but I have bought the DLCs, and I will buy the expansion pack.
I treat the purchase like an investment ...
... eventually they will deliver a game I will waste thousands of hours playing,
... and it will be FUN 8) 8) 8)

AriochIV
Feb 18, 2012, 01:17 AM
I share Tapeworm's disappointment with Civ V, but I think the various patches have done a lot to improve the game, and one can only hope that a full-blown expansion will do more. Only time will tell, of course.

It seems to me that people who have been hoping that Civ V will fail don't seem to realize that the failure of Civ V is less likely to bring about a newer, better Civ VI than it is to bring about the death of the Civilization franchise. Game publishers right now are interested only in producing first-person-shooters and Facebook games, and not much else.

Gomer_Pyle
Feb 18, 2012, 01:43 AM
LOL. Eveyone buying this expansion is so stupid i my eyes.

First you accept that CiV is a finished product. But on top of that you also send the developers the message that this unfinished and simplified kiddy game is what we want. Please bring "My Noobishness" some freshly cut garbage.

Enjoy and thanks for destroying the best game series.

Warned for trolling.

Horizons
Feb 18, 2012, 01:45 AM
I hope that it sells well, it extensively patched and tweaked and provides hundreds of hours of fresh play for each and every Civ5 player.

Revoran
Feb 18, 2012, 02:17 AM
Disagree.

I don't like Civ5, but I have bought the DLCs, and I will buy the expansion pack.
I treat the purchase like an investment ...
... eventually they will deliver a game I will waste thousands of hours playing,
... and it will be FUN 8) 8) 8)

I'll be the first person to defend Civ5 - I really like the game, but...

Why buy it if you don't like it? It seems foolish to buy a game you don't like in hopes they'll make the next game differently. If you buy a game, it sends a message to the developers that you like that game and it was a good decision to make it a certain way. Since you don't like Civ5, why would you want to send the message to Firaxis that it's okay for them to keep making games like Civ5 (games you don't like)?

Basically what I'm saying is: If you genuinely don't like Civ5, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet.

Monthar
Feb 18, 2012, 02:29 AM
Secondly, to say that many polls on this forum say its the greatest game since <insert prefered choice here> is pretty obvious - its Civ fanatics......although a recent one currently live i noticed about if it was "better than past reiterations" has "NO" currently leading.....that says a lot on a site dedicated to the series. Anyway going slightly off topic here so....

A poll saying it is not better then previous iterations does not mean it is worse than them. If anything, that type of poll is saying it's as good as previous iterations. In any case, you can't believe the results of any of these polls, because they only represent the votes of the most vocal players and are usually worded in such a way as to ensure the results the poll creater desires. For instance if I created a poll that asked, "Does your family know you're stupid?" and only gave the options of yes or no, either answer would be an admission that you are stupid even if you aren't. Therefore a poll such as this is invalid.

dexters
Feb 18, 2012, 02:41 AM
Yeah XP failing would send the wrong message. TBS games already have a thin market and 2K isn't exactly the most financially 'rich' developer out there. They're always one failure of their bread and butter Grand Theft Auto franchise from failing entirely.

So the failure XP of a genre that is considered to be niche will just send 2k to developing something else. Civ is the only 4X TBS game out there that is getting the kind of polish and budgets usually reserved to mid-tier 'FPS shooters'.

It's sincerely sad that people would even hope for failure of a game like this. If you don't enjoy Civ5, continue supporting the franchise by playing Civ4 on steam so 2K can log and see your activity.

RD-BH
Feb 19, 2012, 04:03 AM
I'll be the first person to defend Civ5 - I really like the game, but...

Why buy it if you don't like it? It seems foolish to buy a game you don't like in hopes they'll make the next game differently. If you buy a game, it sends a message to the developers that you like that game and it was a good decision to make it a certain way. Since you don't like Civ5, why would you want to send the message to Firaxis that it's okay for them to keep making games like Civ5 (games you don't like)?

Basically what I'm saying is: If you genuinely don't like Civ5, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet.

Simple answer: Loyalty

I have liked just about everything they have made.
In a long string of games Civ5 is one disappointment.
I believe it will improve,
... and I believe they have more than earned my loyalty.
Think of it as an investment.

I've worked for broadcasters that fire people for a single onair mistake.
I've worked in mines that went from long term, high pay jobs to minimum wage temps.
My dad was fired for being one minute late the year his pension was due.
Loyalty doesn't mean much in the US anymore,
... but it still means something to me.

strhopper
Feb 19, 2012, 05:05 AM
I'm lazy so I didn't read the whole thread so my coming point may have already be made.


To the Op ; every iteration of civilization has a group of people that are disappointed. I for didn't like Civ 4 (found religion and the paper, rock, scissors combat tedious) but each one has bring enough improvements that after playing the new one I couldn't go back to the old version.

I think CIV was a success personally I bought it on day one and have 750 hrs of play time.

Helmling
Feb 19, 2012, 10:07 AM
Ok, firstly i want to just say im not trolling or bashing the game. it was ok, but really that was it in my opinion - again as i said in the OP, my opinion. And I know there are many who love the game, i appreciate that.

But you surely can not deny the fact that this game detracted for a lot of people that played the series prior. im pretty sure im not the only person that left the game entirely and if you missed the origional fury on these very forums, well. I actually wasnt one of those, I waited a full year, saw shed loads of GAME CHANGING patches which came out after DLC, then i became a hater.

Secondly, to say that many polls on this forum say its the greatest game since <insert prefered choice here> is pretty obvious - its Civ fanatics......although a recent one currently live i noticed about if it was "better than past reiterations" has "NO" currently leading.....that says a lot on a site dedicated to the series. Anyway going slightly off topic here so....

Thirdly i have bolded the point that kind gentleman has made up top. They are giving us back religion????? It should have been in the game from the god damn start. Oh they are bringing in new nations....oh no they were all in the last version. We are being expected to pay for an expansion that brings something that was in its predessor. if you are happy to do that, fair play, good move 2K. I certainly am not. But many are, which is why games companies spew out half finished, half assed peices of rubbish, Because many fans will buy what ever comes out - hell I bought all the DLC hoping some magical patch would come out that would make me like the game. Of course it never arrived, because I dont like the way this incarnation has been produced and No patch in the world is gonna change that. But i wanted it to. And yeah I am a little buttsore!!!!

Im fine with that, just not the way I believe the game was rushed out, poorly executed and (in my opinion) aimed at a much more casual market in order to increase overall sales. And im certainly not happy with the way that games companies are supported by people for doing it time and time again. It just doesnt make any sense to me.

Anyway claps for 2K and everyone enjoy the expansion. It probably WILL be the best thing since sliced bread and i will miss out LOL - FML!

You say religion "should" have been in the game all along. Who dictates what "should" and should not be in the game? The designers decided it should not, but you seem to imply that because we, the die-hard fans of the series, demand religion, then they should give it us.

Your whole post presumes that they are making the game for us.

They made the game to make money, and make money they did.

What I was suggesting is that while Civ V followed Shafer's "one-thing-in, one-thing-out" philosophy of game design in order to keep the game streamlined and accessible to the broadest possible audience (which is why religion was left on the cutting room floor). That strategy seems to have been successful, but in the process, irritated a lot of die hard fans. Die hard fans who, I should point out, still bought the game, play the hell out of it, and spend a ridiculous amount of their non-play time talking about the game.

You can see why our complaints might not mean much to the designers. At a certain point, they have to wave their hands in the air and say, "You can't please everyone." And trying too hard to please people who are going to buy your product no matter what (and probably complain about something no matter what) doesn't make good business sense.

Now, here's where things look up. Who is the market for expansions? Ah, much more like us. Casual gamers are less likely to be lured into expansions. They're clearly not following the one-thing-in, one-thing-out model for this expansion. There are two completely revamped game dynamics (implementations of ideas that have been in past civ games but, arguably, have never worked quite right) being added, and nothing--so far as we know--being taken out.

So yeah, a lot of us long-time civ fans were disappointed in some of the changes in Civ V. I was. I miss health. I don't like that archers can shoot over whole tiles. Global happiness is not as rich, in my opinion. I miss religion and espionage being in the game world, even if I hated Civ IV's approaches to both. But despite all that, I've logged more than a thousand hours in Civ V.

Now, after just about burning out on Civ V, I'm glad to see some new elements coming into play. It's pretty much perfect timing. I'm curious to see if espionage will be a rich vein of differentiated gameplay (and not just a nuisance like in past games). I'm just plain excited by the religion system that will let you customize your people's beliefs.

I'll buy it. If you don't, that's fine, but do you really think that your individual complaints would form a sound basis for a boycott? Come on. It's just a game. If it's not fun, there's a simple solution that doesn't require any outrage: read a book instead.

Helmling
Feb 19, 2012, 10:09 AM
I'm lazy so I didn't read the whole thread so my coming point may have already be made.


To the Op ; every iteration of civilization has a group of people that are disappointed. I for didn't like Civ 4 (found religion and the paper, rock, scissors combat tedious) but each one has bring enough improvements that after playing the new one I couldn't go back to the old version.

I think CIV was a success personally I bought it on day one and have 750 hrs of play time.

That's how I am too, man. I can never go backwards. I tried playing a Civ IV multiplayer game with my kids just because it runs so much faster, but none of us could get into it. We went back to Civ V hot seats instead.

Buccaneer
Feb 19, 2012, 10:39 AM
I'm lazy so I didn't read the whole thread so my coming point may have already be made.


To the Op ; every iteration of civilization has a group of people that are disappointed. I for didn't like Civ 4 (found religion and the paper, rock, scissors combat tedious) but each one has bring enough improvements that after playing the new one I couldn't go back to the old version.

I think CIV was a success personally I bought it on day one and have 750 hrs of play time.

I agree. I've been playing Civ since Civ2 MPE(?). I tried Civ3 and hated it and went back to Civ2 until Civ4 came out. When Civ5 came out and saw the hex-based 1upt as well as the Social Policies, I knew I could never go back to Civ4 with its SoD and Civics.

But as much as I loved Civ4, I didn't like the generic religions, the awfulness of espionage and irrelevancy of UN resolutions and now it appears we are getting them in Civ5. I just hope that 1) we can turn them off or 2) they are done very much differently.

Gucumatz
Feb 19, 2012, 12:04 PM
I admit I was dissapointed with Civ 5 Vanilla... but weren't a ton dissapointed early on with Civ 4 as well?

This expansion appears if it can rectify the ship, and I will buy it.

Sommerswerd
Feb 20, 2012, 10:32 AM
I admit I was dissapointed with Civ 5 Vanilla... but weren't a ton dissapointed early on with Civ 4 as well?

This expansion appears if it can rectify the ship, and I will buy it.So so true..:)

Remember when Civ 4 first came out and nobody could run it because you needed a very, very specific, and advanced kind of graphics card to run it? I mean I was playing Civ 3 just fine, with all the bells and whistles, on a 8 year old machine when Civ 4 came out, then I try to install Civ 4 on a couple 1-2 year old machines and no dice... I was mad:mad: Alot of people were mad... I had to conduct major surgery on my desktop to get it powerful enough to run Civ 4... So imagine my dissapointment when the same thing happened with Civ 5... Couldnt run it, CPU not powerful/advanced enough :(

In fact I have practically become a novice computer programmer figuring out all the issues with graphics, connectivity, pitboss etc.

There is one big difference though with Civ 5. Even though Civ 4 was unplayable when I first installed it, from what I COULD see, I could tell that the game was a gem and that I would love it once I got it working. However with Civ 5... not so much. The little I could see just wasnt that impressive to me. I guess that is why I didnt bother to upgrade. But now that Espy and religions are back, (and Corporations too I hope) I will be happy to upgrade for Civ.

Glassmage
Feb 20, 2012, 02:37 PM
People like OP's are delusional. Civ5 is very popular!

AlpsStranger
Feb 21, 2012, 04:35 AM
I share Tapeworm's disappointment with Civ V, but I think the various patches have done a lot to improve the game, and one can only hope that a full-blown expansion will do more. Only time will tell, of course.

It seems to me that people who have been hoping that Civ V will fail don't seem to realize that the failure of Civ V is less likely to bring about a newer, better Civ VI than it is to bring about the death of the Civilization franchise. Game publishers right now are interested only in producing first-person-shooters and Facebook games, and not much else.

Sadly, this is undeniably true. There is no way to "vote with your wallet" that will register dissatisfaction with Civ5 but not appear indistinguishable from dissatisfaction with the franchise.

I don't really play Civ5 at all, but I might give it a shot after I see what everyone thinks about the expansion.

tithin
Feb 21, 2012, 04:49 AM
I like* the implicitation that people who don't play the game constantly are somehow inferior to those that play the game a massive amount. I never could get into the earlier civilisation games - I found them unwieldy and difficult to play. I tentatively played the Civ V demo on release and loved it. Bought it at full price and have over 200 hours played on it - this is more than some and less than most but the point I'm raising is this - it is not your place to determine who is worthy to play the series, and to somehow decide that this expansion should fail because you feel it no longer caters specifically to you is childish and arrogant

This is asides from the point made by others that by wishing failure on the expansion, you're essentially wishing for the death of the series that you so claim to love.

(*this is sarcasm)

Gamewizard
Feb 21, 2012, 09:36 AM
I remember seeing in the Steam stats during this past week that more people were playing Civ V at one point than were Modern Warfare 3 multiplayer. That should be enough to tell you that Gods and Kings will sell plenty to their expectations.

Mivo
Feb 21, 2012, 10:02 AM
My hope that it sells poorly because it will show that for quick sales, the casual market is the way to go - BUT if you want a long lasting brand and continuous sales from a ready made database it is most certainly not

This isn't how the decision makers (those who control the money) think, though. It's a view that may apply to small, independent companies that focus on a very niche market, but not to 2K Games. Here, it's more likely that poor sale numbers will result in a shelving of the series than to lead to changes that might appeal to a small market segment.

You see, for companies like 2K the PC market isn't necessarily attractive, at least not in comparison to the console market, for numerous reasons. This is different for companies like Shrapnel, Matrix or Paradox, but for 2K the fact that Civilization appeals to a relatively wide audience is probably the sole reason why they continue the series.

I also don't think that the people here on this forum (or really, on any forum) are very representative of the player base, and that's true for pretty much every game. People on forums have an above average interest in the games they play and are "hardcore". There is a lot of "soft stuff" around the core, and there's in fact more of the "soft stuff" than there is core. While we may well play the game a lot more intensively and have substantially stronger emotional ties than a more average player, we don't pay more for it.

In other words, if you want to continue getting strategy games with mass market production qualities (graphics, audio), you'll need to become tolerant of what you call casual gamers, because they enable you to play this game at all. And a game can appeal to both the "soft stuff" gamers and the hardcore gamers. It's not mutually exclusive at all, it's simply a matter of proper scaling. (And I would disagree that Civ5 was dumbed down in general -- 1UPT made it more complex, except that the AI predictably struggled with it.)

Personally, I'd like to see Civ6 in 2014-15, so I certainly hope that G&Ks will sell exceptionally well and surpass the money people's expectations by a huge margin!

jozef57
Feb 21, 2012, 10:19 AM
Personally i do hope that civ5 will become, with this expansionpack, the game it should ahve been from the start. More stuff to do than senseless going to war to get away with being bored. I pled every civ game from 2 introducedover 10 people to the game all fanatic players now. But the all like civ4 beyonf the sword better than 5? Why more to do more subtility. I am now alreay promoting the expansion pack, i am sure it will become a true civ game again. Looking foreward to civ 6, 7 & 8 to:-)

dexters
Feb 21, 2012, 10:30 AM
Sadly, this is undeniably true. There is no way to "vote with your wallet" that will register dissatisfaction with Civ5 but not appear indistinguishable from dissatisfaction with the franchise.

I don't really play Civ5 at all, but I might give it a shot after I see what everyone thinks about the expansion.

I understand the mechanics of groupthink so I don't want to engage in the US v Them mentality. And people do have the right to hold opinion on Civ5.

Civ5 is a different game than 4 so there is no doubt some players who liked 4 will have difficulty adjusting.

If is fair to say however there is a subset that has a malicious outlook on the franchise because they take the failure of Civ5 to be Civ4 2.0 as a personal attack on their support of the franchise.

That I think is sad to see. Civ has no doubt lost some players who enjoyed 4 but can not get into 5. But it has undoubtely gained many as well. It's continued high ranking in Steam attests to the its success.

turboraton
Feb 21, 2012, 10:48 AM
27k "casual" players still play this game after release day.

eris
Feb 21, 2012, 10:50 AM
Even with the attempts at moderate language, it still comes across to me as "They didn't do it the way I wanted. I hope they fail." And that feels just too destructive and bitter to me. I can understand people being disappointed and all, but not the bitterness and seeming hatred shown in the desire for someone else to fail.

This expansion gives me nothing but hope that the developers are still tying to walk the strange boundary between casual gamers and those of us obsessed with micro-management, tactics and detail. I can't think of any reason to discourage that or even give the slightest appearance of discouraging that.

In fact, I am convinced that if expansion sales are not brisk enough to get the bad taste of initial fan reaction out of their corporate mouths, we are unlikely to ever see a hint of Civ 6, whether anyone feels the reaction was deserved or not.

Glassmage
Feb 21, 2012, 11:00 AM
I hope there is no Civ6. It is time for them to move on.

dexters
Feb 21, 2012, 11:02 AM
XP introduces a lot of neat ideas and I think some of those features, religion, should have been in vanilla. But what done is done.

That said, I kind of see the other side of the argument. Civ4 is a highly refined game built on the skeleton of Civ3 *still my preferred game of the 2* ; the refinements however came at the expense of expansiveness of play, by gimping trading, limiting per turn deals, spamming the map with resources. Creating ficitious blocks, an overpowered diplo-Lite UN victory, adding a heavy diplomacy crutch as a last minute balancer because the bloc system didn't work out as intended and resulted in frustrating play initially.

The tightness *achieved through restrictions aside* ; what Civ4 did very well was civics and the specialist economy, which gave a subset of OCD players a lot to manage.

I'll come right out and say it. I'm not great with that aspect of the game, because I never enjoyed it. I have a few economies I like to try in Civ4 and that's it, I prefer building and engaging in politics, which I found stale with vassals and restrictive trades. And in that sense I can be accused of being a middling player who 'don't get it' but I certainly do know what I like and civ4 , while a great and fun Civ game that I spent hundreds of hours in, isn't it.

Back on topic. the espionage system, and relgion/ideology inflection concepts to be introduced makes me far mor excited than any number of civic mimicry they could have added to placate their critics. I'm sort of glad they're fixing what needs to be fixed and expanding game scope, instead of patching things for people who will not be satisfied because Civ5 isn't like Civ4.

Alexastor
Feb 21, 2012, 11:04 AM
I played Civ 3 and Civ 4 but didn't really get into them, Civ 5 did make a lot of things right when it comes to getting new players it. Yes it has some flaws, but that is due to the necessary changes they had to make. I think the next Civ will be based on Civ 5's formula again and a lot more polished, doing the changes was probably a good choice, though, given the amount of players the game still has.

AlpsStranger
Feb 21, 2012, 01:31 PM
I also don't think that the people here on this forum (or really, on any forum) are very representative of the player base, and that's true for pretty much every game. People on forums have an above average interest in the games they play and are "hardcore". There is a lot of "soft stuff" around the core, and there's in fact more of the "soft stuff" than there is core. While we may well play the game a lot more intensively and have substantially stronger emotional ties than a more average player, we don't pay more for it.

Funny thing is, DLC could make us more valuable than casual users. Hardcore PC gamers love DLC, right? :mischief:

Mivo
Feb 21, 2012, 01:54 PM
Funny thing is, DLC could make us more valuable than casual users. Hardcore PC gamers love DLC, right? :mischief:

I thought about this a bit when I wrote the previous post, but didn't touch it because I'm actually unsure if this is a significant factor. There are some hardcore Civers here who very strongly resent DLC and pretty much boycott it, or at least will only cherry pick the best parts. And then there are some of my friends and colleagues who play Civ5 maybe once every few months (or at least casually) and who have swooped up every piece of DLC because they like to have the complete game. So I speculate that this might balance each other out. (But hardcore players are nevertheless financially relevant because they keep the community going and make games seem alive.)

For myself, I bought all the DLC because I enjoy playing with and against the new civs (and really dig the map generation scripts from the Explorer's Pack), and the other stuff that I never even looked at (cradles) because I want to make it attractive for 2K to keep working on the game. Before DLC became the thing to do, I'd have bought a second copy of the game. Silly, I know! (But there aren't many video games I can play for hundreds of hours, seeing as most bore me after 2-10 hours, so I like to support the ones that manage to keep my jaded interest.)

Buccaneer
Feb 21, 2012, 07:14 PM
I understand the mechanics of groupthink so I don't want to engage in the US v Them mentality. And people do have the right to hold opinion on Civ5.

Civ5 is a different game than 4 so there is no doubt some players who liked 4 will have difficulty adjusting.

If is fair to say however there is a subset that has a malicious outlook on the franchise because they take the failure of Civ5 to be Civ4 2.0 as a personal attack on their support of the franchise.

That I think is sad to see. Civ has no doubt lost some players who enjoyed 4 but can not get into 5. But it has undoubtely gained many as well. It's continued high ranking in Steam attests to the its success.

I agree with you, dexters. I truly believe that Civ5 has outsold vanilla Civ4 in the same time frame. It is a different game and it truly is sad that those whom could not adjust or accept the difference continue to attack the game. As much as I loved Civ4 and BtS, they really had to change to hex-based 1upt, as well as make each element (units, resources, food, hammers, etc.) means something more valuable than the excesses of Civ4. Civ4 2.0 would've meant an expansion of the SoD, which is truly horrible to contemplate. Now we have to see would adding some of the worst features from Civ4 would do to Civ5.

Buccaneer
Feb 21, 2012, 07:16 PM
Funny thing is, DLC could make us more valuable than casual users. Hardcore PC gamers love DLC, right? :mischief:

DLC is just a distribution model for PC games add-ons, particularly given the shrinking market of PC gamers. I can't think of a single popular PC game that does not have at least one DLC. So what's the issue? This is not 2005 anymore.

markusbeutel
Feb 21, 2012, 08:52 PM
I agree with you, dexters. I truly believe that Civ5 has outsold vanilla Civ4 in the same time frame. It is a different game and it truly is sad that those whom could not adjust or accept the difference continue to attack the game. As much as I loved Civ4 and BtS, they really had to change to hex-based 1upt, as well as make each element (units, resources, food, hammers, etc.) means something more valuable than the excesses of Civ4. Civ4 2.0 would've meant an expansion of the SoD, which is truly horrible to contemplate. Now we have to see would adding some of the worst features from Civ4 would do to Civ5.

In a little bit over 2 years (2 years, 4 months) vanilla CIV IV sold just over 3 million copies according to Take-Two. In just under 1.5 years, CIV V has sold around 1 million copies according to VGchartz, (not the most accurate measurement - but most likely in the ballpark).

IMO, people continue to attack the game because they felt they were mislead as to what the game would be like when they originally purchased it. And yes there was a demo they could've tried beforehand - but this was Civ - and they thought they knew what they were getting.

"The thing is, Civ V is a big sloppy kiss/love letter to our fan community. We want it to be for the hardcore. We want to make it as accessible as possible, but Civ Rev kind of took care of that route. It’s for the people who want the kind of Civ-lite [experience]. Civ V is for hardcore PC." Dennis Shirk

http://www.vg247.com/2010/07/09/interview-civilization-vs-dennis-shirk/

This one contradictory comment, combined with the supposedly streamlined gameplay of CIV V, alienated a lot of hardcore fans, and you can see this if you visit any of the major Civ sites, (WePlayCiv, Apolyton, Realms Beyond, CivFanatics - and virtually all foreign Civ sites), during the week or two period when CIV V was released. Consequently, the CIV V sections of these forums are now all but dead, (CivFanatics being the exception) - although CivFanatics traffic is nowhere near what it once was. Many of these disgruntled players still post on the forums in hopes that Firaxis will do a 180 of sorts on any future expansions or versions of the series - and in a way they've succeeded.

Religion is coming back, despite the devs stating that it didn't coincide with their vision of diplomacy in CIV V upon release. On that front, Diplomacy itself was made less of a black box, in that we now know why a Civ likes/dislikes us. This too went against the initial stated design goals regarding diplomacy and how it was supposed to be "mysterious." Without all of the negative posts about CIV V that bemoaned it's lack of features and overt streamlining, we might've been getting a very different first expansion.

And yes, CIV V is still loved by many in the community, and it's highly played on Steam, and not all hardcore players hate it - but it's alienated a greater number of players than any Civ before it. (And yes, CIV IV and III also alienated players of earlier versions, but not to this extent, and not for this long). The question is, has CIV V brought in enough new players to replace those that have now left the series?

strhopper
Feb 22, 2012, 01:38 AM
In a little bit over 2 years (2 years, 4 months) vanilla CIV IV sold just over 3 million copies according to Take-Two. In just under 1.5 years, CIV V has sold around 1 million copies according to VGchartz, (not the most accurate measurement - but most likely in the ballpark).

IMO, people continue to attack the game because they felt they were mislead as to what the game would be like when they originally purchased it. And yes there was a demo they could've tried beforehand - but this was Civ - and they thought they knew what they were getting.

"The thing is, Civ V is a big sloppy kiss/love letter to our fan community. We want it to be for the hardcore. We want to make it as accessible as possible, but Civ Rev kind of took care of that route. It’s for the people who want the kind of Civ-lite [experience]. Civ V is for hardcore PC." Dennis Shirk

http://www.vg247.com/2010/07/09/interview-civilization-vs-dennis-shirk/

This one contradictory comment, combined with the supposedly streamlined gameplay of CIV V, alienated a lot of hardcore fans, and you can see this if you visit any of the major Civ sites, (WePlayCiv, Apolyton, Realms Beyond, CivFanatics - and virtually all foreign Civ sites), during the week or two period when CIV V was released. Consequently, the CIV V sections of these forums are now all but dead, (CivFanatics being the exception) - although CivFanatics traffic is nowhere near what it once was. Many of these disgruntled players still post on the forums in hopes that Firaxis will do a 180 of sorts on any future expansions or versions of the series - and in a way they've succeeded.

Religion is coming back, despite the devs stating that it didn't coincide with their vision of diplomacy in CIV V upon release. On that front, Diplomacy itself was made less of a black box, in that we now know why a Civ likes/dislikes us. This too went against the initial stated design goals regarding diplomacy and how it was supposed to be "mysterious." Without all of the negative posts about CIV V that bemoaned it's lack of features and overt streamlining, we might've been getting a very different first expansion.

And yes, CIV V is still loved by many in the community, and it's highly played on Steam, and not all hardcore players hate it - but it's alienated a greater number of players than any Civ before it. (And yes, CIV IV and III also alienated players of earlier versions, but not to this extent, and not for this long). The question is, has CIV V brought in enough new players to replace those that have now left the series?

alienated more players? Is this opinion because you state this as if it's fact

I have no qualms admitting I like CIV 5. But if you are going to make a statement like that give us some facts to back it up. You started of with giving us sales and at least linking sources, so where is your source for alienating more people?

Like I stated earlier I like civ 5 and didn't enjoy civ 4. You win some you lose some. :goodjob: But I know my opinion doesn't always mean it's the majority

Bibor
Feb 22, 2012, 03:11 AM
I'm pretty sure Civilization V with expansions will be the best game in the series.

JEELEN
Feb 22, 2012, 04:40 AM
Well, at least one person´s sure then. :)

People like OP's are delusional. Civ5 is very popular!

27k "casual" players still play this game after release day.

That´s... ridiculously low compared to previous Civ releases...

strhopper
Feb 22, 2012, 05:33 AM
Well, at least one person´s sure then. :)





That´s... ridiculously low compared to previous Civ releases...

Again what is your source?

His 27000 stat I'm sure comes from looking at daily peak on steam which today was 19000

Brichals
Feb 22, 2012, 05:36 AM
27k concurrent players is a large playerbase.
And VG chartz only measures boxed sales I think.

I think the sales have done well.

JEELEN
Feb 22, 2012, 06:42 AM
How does 27,000 casual players vs millions of copies sold constitute ´a large playerbase´? :confused:

hazman79
Feb 22, 2012, 07:18 AM
I like* the implicitation that people who don't play the game constantly are somehow inferior to those that play the game a massive amount. I never could get into the earlier civilisation games - I found them unwieldy and difficult to play. I tentatively played the Civ V demo on release and loved it. Bought it at full price and have over 200 hours played on it - this is more than some and less than most but the point I'm raising is this - it is not your place to determine who is worthy to play the series, and to somehow decide that this expansion should fail because you feel it no longer caters specifically to you is childish and arrogant

This is asides from the point made by others that by wishing failure on the expansion, you're essentially wishing for the death of the series that you so claim to love.

(*this is sarcasm)

I find sarcasm always works best when you have to point out that you are being sarcastic

Louis XXIV
Feb 22, 2012, 07:49 AM
How does 27,000 casual players vs millions of copies sold constitute ´a large playerbase´? :confused:

Because most people don't regularly play a game two years after release. The number might be comparable or greater for Civ4, but we'll never know just because there was no way to know (steam is the only reason we know for Civ5, we have no idea how many people play offline). Anecdotally speaking, I've run into more people who play Civ5 than I did for Civ4, but that just might be a different group of people I run into these days. I also know a guy whose family is friends with Brian Reynolds. I don't think he's played a version since Civ2.

strhopper
Feb 22, 2012, 08:03 AM
Because most people don't regularly play a game two years after release. The number might be comparable or greater for Civ4, but we'll never know just because there was no way to know (steam is the only reason we know for Civ5, we have no idea how many people play offline). Anecdotally speaking, I've run into more people who play Civ5 than I did for Civ4, but that just might be a different group of people I run into these days. I also know a guy whose family is friends with Brian Reynolds. I don't think he's played a version since Civ2.

This^

@JEELEN The simple fact that CIV is in the top ten games being played at any given moment this long after it's release speaks volumes. I don't know how that is not impressive to you? for a niche market it's doing well. This isn't BF3 or Call of Duty after all

But I'm not going to go around saying it's has a larger user base then CIV4. Why? Because there is no way to know for sure.


edit: those numbers are PEAK totals for one day. Which is competitive with TF2 which is a free to play game

Brichals
Feb 22, 2012, 08:03 AM
How does 27,000 casual players vs millions of copies sold constitute ´a large playerbase´? :confused:

It's 27k at a time. Thats peak so lets say average is 20K throughout the day. If everybody plays an average of 4 hours in a sitting that works out as 6 x 20 for 120K people played Civ5 that day. It's actually massive after 2 years. Most games are lucky to get above 5K concurrent players. They must have sold well over a million.

Gedrin
Feb 22, 2012, 08:14 AM
Interesting thread.

I for one will not be purchasing the expansion for a few months at least... a year maybe?
I have not purchased any DLC either. Its not that I boycott or anything... its just the game still crashes... alot... in some cases it continues to crash at the same point even if I reload from an autosave [which I have it set to autosave every turn because the game crashes... alot].

[aside: I believe it has to do with the number of units the AI has built.... but I am only playing standard map size and standard number of civs etc...]

When it stops crashing I may consider DLC's & expansions.
[new balance $0.98]

markusbeutel
Feb 22, 2012, 09:44 AM
alienated more players? Is this opinion because you state this as if it's fact

I have no qualms admitting I like CIV 5. But if you are going to make a statement like that give us some facts to back it up. You started of with giving us sales and at least linking sources, so where is your source for alienating more people?

Like I stated earlier I like civ 5 and didn't enjoy civ 4. You win some you lose some. :goodjob: But I know my opinion doesn't always mean it's the majority

Fair enough - so take it as a subjective comment that's based on the amount of negative threads CIV V still conjures up to this day versus how many of these threads popped up 1.5 years after the release of earlier Civ games. Then take a look at how many dead CIV V forums there are versus active CIV IV forums on the same websites - Civfanatics is the only forum that still has both, (besides the 50 or so regular posters that frequent the 2K official forum).

Mivo
Feb 22, 2012, 10:39 AM
In a little bit over 2 years (2 years, 4 months) vanilla CIV IV sold just over 3 million copies according to Take-Two. In just under 1.5 years, CIV V has sold around 1 million copies according to VGchartz, (not the most accurate measurement - but most likely in the ballpark).

Beautiful attempt, and I'll play. :)

As for the time frame, if you subtract the "little bit over two years" (the four months) from the "just under 1.5 years", you get approximately two years vs. one year rather than the implied "nearly the same period of time". It is twice the period, not almost the same.

While you do mention that these numbers are allegedly for the vanilla version, it is relevant that after two and a half years Civ4 already had had two expansions, both of which undoubtedly had a significant impact on the base game. It is also likely that this number includes bundles (base game and expansions), particularly the gold version that, as far as I remember, already existed two and a half years after the game's original release.

As for the numbers themselves, one of them (the one that favours the desired "Civ4 was more successful!" view) is marketing-tainted and thus likely to be inflated as it comes straight from the publisher. The other number (that favours the desired "Civ5 is less successful" impression) is from a source that, as you mentioned yourself, is unreliable and, in addition, seems to at least partly ignore that Civ5, unlike Civ4, had a likely larger percentage of digital sales (due to being exclusive to Steam, and as all copies required Steam activation, it is a reasonable assumption that more customers bought Civ5 directly from Steam, particularly because they had enabled preloading of the data).

So in conclusion I see very little evidence that Civ5 actually sold fewer copies. If anything, I feel that it may well have sold better in spite of a fairly large handicap (Steam). The fact that according to Steam there are 25k+ players who simultaneously play the game pretty much around the clock, even though there have not been any expansions yet, seems to indicate that Civ5 is quite popular.

rysmiel
Feb 22, 2012, 10:42 AM
What I was suggesting is that while Civ V followed Shafer's "one-thing-in, one-thing-out" philosophy of game design in order to keep the game streamlined and accessible to the broadest possible audience


I think the success of such mods as Rise and Rule for Civ III and Fall from Heaven for Civ IV illustrates that greater complexity than the base game in each case is not at all inherently a bad idea, and would argue that that particular value of streamlined and accessible is one that might better be provided by a Civ Rev port-and-enhance line of development separate from Civ V and putative Civ VI+.


Now, here's where things look up. Who is the market for expansions? Ah, much more like us. Casual gamers are less likely to be lured into expansions. They're clearly not following the one-thing-in, one-thing-out model for this expansion. There are two completely revamped game dynamics (implementations of ideas that have been in past civ games but, arguably, have never worked quite right) being added, and nothing--so far as we know--being taken out.


I am definitely hopeful about this, too. I've played a fair bit of Civ V, there's much in it I really like and a fair bit I really do not, but on the whole I've been mostly playing Civ III this past few months (I am one of those who thinks Civ IV totally jumped the shark); if this expansion provideds a couple more levels of complexity it might well get me playing Civ V more

Louis XXIV
Feb 22, 2012, 11:02 AM
The number of people who play the mods is very narrow. While those people love it, it indicates a good model is an accessible base game that is easily moddable to the amount of complexity that is desired.

mabalogna
Feb 22, 2012, 11:17 AM
I think a lot of people have amnesia. Civ 3 wasn't complete until Conquests came out - and Civ 4 wasn't complete until BTS came out. Both versions in the series were missing units, game concepts, and civilizations in the vanilla, and were only made into "the greatest game ever" after undergoing the trial and error of 2 expansion packs each; Civ 5 is no different.

Buccaneer
Feb 22, 2012, 11:23 AM
In a little bit over 2 years (2 years, 4 months) vanilla CIV IV sold just over 3 million copies according to Take-Two. In just under 1.5 years, CIV V has sold around 1 million copies according to VGchartz, (not the most accurate measurement - but most likely in the ballpark).

IMO, people continue to attack the game because they felt they were mislead as to what the game would be like when they originally purchased it. And yes there was a demo they could've tried beforehand - but this was Civ - and they thought they knew what they were getting.

"The thing is, Civ V is a big sloppy kiss/love letter to our fan community. We want it to be for the hardcore. We want to make it as accessible as possible, but Civ Rev kind of took care of that route. It’s for the people who want the kind of Civ-lite [experience]. Civ V is for hardcore PC." Dennis Shirk

http://www.vg247.com/2010/07/09/interview-civilization-vs-dennis-shirk/

This one contradictory comment, combined with the supposedly streamlined gameplay of CIV V, alienated a lot of hardcore fans, and you can see this if you visit any of the major Civ sites, (WePlayCiv, Apolyton, Realms Beyond, CivFanatics - and virtually all foreign Civ sites), during the week or two period when CIV V was released. Consequently, the CIV V sections of these forums are now all but dead, (CivFanatics being the exception) - although CivFanatics traffic is nowhere near what it once was. Many of these disgruntled players still post on the forums in hopes that Firaxis will do a 180 of sorts on any future expansions or versions of the series - and in a way they've succeeded.

Religion is coming back, despite the devs stating that it didn't coincide with their vision of diplomacy in CIV V upon release. On that front, Diplomacy itself was made less of a black box, in that we now know why a Civ likes/dislikes us. This too went against the initial stated design goals regarding diplomacy and how it was supposed to be "mysterious." Without all of the negative posts about CIV V that bemoaned it's lack of features and overt streamlining, we might've been getting a very different first expansion.

And yes, CIV V is still loved by many in the community, and it's highly played on Steam, and not all hardcore players hate it - but it's alienated a greater number of players than any Civ before it. (And yes, CIV IV and III also alienated players of earlier versions, but not to this extent, and not for this long). The question is, has CIV V brought in enough new players to replace those that have now left the series?

I understand your points but I do not agree with them. I was in a similar boat 10(?) years ago when Civ3 came out. I was a fairly well-known Civ2 strategist at Poly and was heavily involved in the pre-release discussions regarding Civ3. After release, I rejected many things about Civ3 including its new implementations of borders (Civ4 and Civ5 did this better) and resources (Civ5 does this the best), among many other elements. I simply dropped Civ3 and happily played Civ2 until Civ4 was released. Civ3 wasn't important to me and therefore, I gave it no more further thought and did not dwell on what-it-could've-been at Poly or CFC.

In some ways, Civ5 was a natural progression; in other ways it was a lateral at best, (degradation at worst) move and in still further ways, it was simply a radical departure. Despite some of Civ5's weaknesses/streamlinings/simplicities, the addition of the traditional hex-based 1upt was a brilliant change. I can understand those that prefer Civ4's awful SoD approach to massive bulldozer armies would object such a radical departure. Admittedly the AI (as poor as it was in Civ4) probably could handle SoD better than 1upt (which has always plagued traditional single-player PC wargames even before John Tiller's time) but I have been a hardcore Civer since 1996 and find this mode of combat far more fun and challenging than anything they had before.

I would also add Social Policies as the best implementation of a 'civics' model in any Civ game (Civ4's civics offered no decision-making, SP does given its scarceness).

Finally, one of the best things about Civ5 for some hardcore gamers was the absence of Civ4's cheesy religion model, awkward espionage and corporation implementations. Just because they were in BtS does not make them good - they were among the worst features of an otherwise great expansion pack. One last point is that I think Civ5's leaders traits - esp. with UU/UA/UB - was a great evolutionary improvement for hardcore civers from what we have in Civ2, Civ3 and Civ4.

My point is that I had been there when Civ3 came out but I did not continously attack that release and simply moved on (or back) - even when its expansion pack was announced. When Civ5 was released, I gave it a 5/10 with the hope that its patches would improve thing. They certainly have (along with the DLCs) - everyone of them - and I am pleased that they are still working on making the game even better. I didn't want a Civ4 2.0, that's what BtS was for. But the implementation of 1upt in Civ5 would cause me to not being able to play BtS ever again and to hope that they can still make it even better.

Louis XXIV
Feb 22, 2012, 11:37 AM
Well said. There are still some things I think Civ4 did better, but Civ5 also does things better.

The only thing I'll say about Civ3 is this. It blew away a lot of good features added for Civ2. However, in doing so, it provided a good base that the game was able to expand on. Things like gold support for units, resources, city borders, and great persons all had serious flaws when implemented but are now accepted features. I think a lot of good features were because of Civ3 stripping out features from Civ2.

Not that it really excuses it. Civ3 was a rushed game that had a lot of band-aids added to it. It was the first that I truly learned the strategy behind and started posting here, though, so I won't entirely knock it.

dexters
Feb 22, 2012, 12:17 PM
Well said. There are still some things I think Civ4 did better, but Civ5 also does things better.

The only thing I'll say about Civ3 is this. It blew away a lot of good features added for Civ2. However, in doing so, it provided a good base that the game was able to expand on. Things like gold support for units, resources, city borders, and great persons all had serious flaws when implemented but are now accepted features. I think a lot of good features were because of Civ3 stripping out features from Civ2.

Not that it really excuses it. Civ3 was a rushed game that had a lot of band-aids added to it. It was the first that I truly learned the strategy behind and started posting here, though, so I won't entirely knock it.

Yes, Civ3 was a rushed game due to the falling out between Sid and Brian Reynolds. Soren was brought in at the last minute and the game rebuilt from scratch in 18 months(?). Reynolds wanted an RTS game (recall this was a time when RTS on PC had a huge cache and was the hot thing to do- that game ended up being rise of nations)

Years on, it is hard to argue against Sid. Sid's instinct to insist the franchise stick to TBS may be one of his biggest and greatest contribution to the franchise as the absentee lead designer. It was a positive decision.

Also I think you're underselling Civ3 by a bit here. Not only did it provide the base for Civ4, Civ3 fundamentally changed how Civ games were played that has shaped the 2 entries following it.

Before Civ3, AI stuck to a set build pattern. They are thus unable to value buildings and units correctly. When stats changed in mods, patches or if the situation on the ground changed it still used the same old build order. Soren Introduced a valuation table where each stat is assigned a value, and thus relative importance can be weighted and measured by the AI. This is perhaps the single most significant change, without it, the modern Civ could not be what they are.

Before Civ3, diplomacy & trades was an afterthought. Civ3 introduced the trade table with rational valuations by the AI. I personally rank this as my most important feature, because it made Civ games less about the dichotomy between peaceful tree huggers and blooth thirsty warmongers, but introduced politics to the game. My Machiavellian Doctrine (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116771) was written around power maximiation via influence using the game's systems to create de-facto vassals, city-state clients and the like, years before Civ5.

Before Civ3, civ games were about patching together a collection of city-states settled or conquered by the player into an abstract unit called an empire. As you noted, Civ3 globalized unit support but also created 'cultural borders'. Civ3's contribution is the introduction of the empire and nation state as concepts that the game AI could understand. Most importantly it shifted the synergy of the constituent parts of your empire into the whole. The whole idea of 'small' national wonders play into this. The idea of using cities to acquire resources for the national/emperial interests became the norm.

Before Civ3, resources were something of a trade/shield/food modifier. After civ3, we send millions to their deaths for one more source of X.

If anything, I should be mad at the constanty harping about Civ4 by detractors of the current game. Civ3 is so undervalued as an entry and its influence so important I would rather compare Civ5 to that game.

RD-BH
Feb 22, 2012, 12:30 PM
...If anything, I should be mad at the constanty harping about Civ4 by detractors of the current game. Civ3 is so undervalued as an entry and its influence so important I would rather compare Civ5 to that game.

I've always thought SMAC/X was a bigger influence on Civ4.
Civ4 seems closer to it than to Civ3.
... especially BtS

Civ5 is a new direction, and thus it stands alone.

Pazyryk
Feb 22, 2012, 12:37 PM
Yes, Civ3 was a rushed game due to the falling out between Sid and Brian Reynolds. Soren was brought in at the last minute and the game rebuilt from scratch in 18 months(?). Reynolds wanted an RTS game (recall this was a time when RTS on PC had a huge cache and was the hot thing to do- that game ended up being rise of nations)

Years on, it is hard to argue who was right here, and I think Sid's instinct to insist the franchise stick to TBS may be one of his biggest and greatest contribution to the franchise as the absentee lead designer. It was a positive decision.

Also I think you're underselling Civ3 by a bit here. Not only did it provide the base for Civ4, Civ3 fundamentally changed how Civ games were played that has shaped the 2 entries following it.

Before Civ3, AI stuck to a set build pattern. They are thus unable to value buildings and units correctly. When stats changed in mods, patches or if the situation on the ground changed it still used the same old build order. Soren Introduced a valuation table where each stat is assigned a value, and thus relative importance can be weighted and measured by the AI. This is perhaps the single most significant change, without it, the modern Civ could not be what they are.

Before Civ3, diplomacy & trades was an afterthought. Civ3 introduced the trade table with rational valuations by the AI. I personally rank this as my most important feature, because it made Civ games less about the dichotomy between peaceful tree huggers and blooth thirsty warmongers, but introduced politics to the game. My Machiavellian Doctrine (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116771) was written around power maximiation via influence using the game's systems to create de-facto vassals, city-state clients and the like, years before Civ5.

Before Civ3, civ games were about patching together a collection of city-states settled or conquered by the player into an abstract unit called an empire. As you noted, Civ3 globalized unit support but also created 'cultural borders'. Civ3's contribution is the introduction of the empire and nation state as concepts that the game AI could understand. Most importantly it shifted the synergy of the constituent parts of your empire into the whole. The whole idea of 'small' national wonders play into this. The idea of using cities to acquire resources for the national/emperial interests became the norm.

Before Civ3, resources were something of a trade/shield/food modifier. After civ3, we send millions to their deaths for one more source of X.

If anything, I should be mad at the constanty harping about Civ4 by detractors of the current game. Civ3 is so undervalued as an entry and its influence so important I would rather compare Civ5 to that game.

This is an excellent post. Really, each of the Civs have been evolutionary, with III and V perhaps the most undervalued here. Many of the individual changes are badly received at first (sometimes because initial implementation is pretty rough) but then go on to be core elements that feel essential for Civilization. Now, of course, you have to make these evolutionary changes into good game play, but sometimes that takes a bit of patching and expansion to get right.

My own favorite in Civ5 is that they are (at least starting to) separate commerce and science. In Civ<5, the slider made these two completely interchangeable. In Civ5, they are starting to become two different game elements that need to be managed separately. I say "starting to" because the RA system completely negates everything I just said. But I think in later Civs you will have to manage gold and research as very different game elements.

Buccaneer
Feb 22, 2012, 12:45 PM
I do realize that I have been too harsh on my experience and perception of Civ3 and do apprecriate its criitcal value as a building block for Civ4 and Civ5. Civ2's value and fun was in its scenarios and events editor, even if the main game became a joke to play. My point still stands though, I left Civ3 alone after my falling out with it.

Birdjaguar
Feb 22, 2012, 01:09 PM
I've been saying for many months that an expansion was highly likely and I'm even more confident to predict the upcoming Gods and Kings expansion will sell well. Whether fans of previous civ games like civ5 or not, Civ5 has been very well received by most gamers in the market and I'd expect with the sort of visibility that Steam gives to games and the power of its sales methods that G&K will sell well even if it turns out to be fairly crap.

If it happens to be a good expansion, it will sell even better.The expansion has convinced me to buy the game. Sales $ +80

I hope there is no Civ6. It is time for them to move on.Or perhaps it is time for you to let go and move along. ;)

Civ 3 has been my all time favorite and I've been playing since Civ 1. I'd like tosee all the innovations of SMAC added to Civ especially the unit creation part. I want to custom make my troops.

qec
Feb 22, 2012, 02:30 PM
I've been a regular, at least on the front page of the site checking updates and new polycast episodes, for like a couple years now. Been coming almost everyday and checking and posting on the forums for like 2 months now.

Very rarely in this time have I ever got the message 'Server too busy', but after finding out about the Exp Pack yesterday and checking if any news is out every couple hours, I get the server too busy message on a regular basis. So I figure that must be from increased traffic, and if that is any indication of how popular such an expansion may be then I have a feeling it'll sell pretty well.

Sommerswerd
Feb 22, 2012, 03:40 PM
I come on here a lot (waaaaay too much TBH:blush:), and I have seen the server too busy a bunch of times, but NOTHING beats the day Civ 5 came out. That day you just could not get on, period, all day long... It was crazy!:lol:

Louis XXIV
Feb 22, 2012, 04:00 PM
If anything, I should be mad at the constanty harping about Civ4 by detractors of the current game. Civ3 is so undervalued as an entry and its influence so important I would rather compare Civ5 to that game.

Excellent post with excellent points (sorry I had to cut them out, they almost deserve to be quoted in whole). You're right about a lot of good features (diplomacy screen is one I had even forgotten was a change). Civ3 was one of my favorite games. I still find it a lot of fun. Maybe it's unfairly maligned, but this might just have to do with the fact that there's no bad Civilization game.

BTW, was it Soren Johnson who was brought in or Jeff Briggs? Briggs was the main developer, but Soren obviously took Civ as his baby (which shows in Civ4).

dexters
Feb 22, 2012, 07:35 PM
Excellent post with excellent points (sorry I had to cut them out, they almost deserve to be quoted in whole). You're right about a lot of good features (diplomacy screen is one I had even forgotten was a change). Civ3 was one of my favorite games. I still find it a lot of fun. Maybe it's unfairly maligned, but this might just have to do with the fact that there's no bad Civilization game.

BTW, was it Soren Johnson who was brought in or Jeff Briggs? Briggs was the main developer, but Soren obviously took Civ as his baby (which shows in Civ4).

You are correct. Briggs took over lead design after Reynolds left. He is featured prominently in the special edition 'bonus video' that can still be found online.

Soren's role was programmer, but seemed to have a pretty strong influence on the design.

Actually now that we're talking about it, I started searching and found this ancient thread posted here linking to a chat Soren had over at Apolyton on Civ3 AI.

Fun read.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=101948&postcount=1

Louis XXIV
Feb 22, 2012, 07:44 PM
Soren is a cool dude. Back when there were many, many active Civ sites, we convinced him to have a Firaxis team compete. The team was mostly just him, but he was a good sport about it, even when the Germans (the fan site, German Webring team not the German civ) steamrolled Firaxis.

Interestingly enough, though, every single team except one (including Firaxis) picked an Industrious Civ.

Helmling
Feb 23, 2012, 09:15 PM
I hope there is no Civ6. It is time for them to move on.

I hope that there is no Civ 6 because it's time for ME to move on.

RD-BH
Feb 24, 2012, 05:30 PM
Meh, 20hrs Civ4/week vs 20hrs Civ5 -or-Civ6/week ...
... its all good: "Time Well Wasted"
I don't want to move on ;)

Mivo
Feb 25, 2012, 10:34 AM
I hope that there is no Civ 6 because it's time for ME to move on.

Where to?

Glassmage
Feb 25, 2012, 12:06 PM
They should make new Alpha Centauri and move to other projects. Civ5 and its expansions and DLC's are good enough imho for a good legacy.

Minor Annoyance
Feb 25, 2012, 01:22 PM
I'm so sick of people who think because they don't like something it should not exist and be taken away from everyone else.
Self-centered.

strhopper
Feb 25, 2012, 08:13 PM
I'm so sick of people who think because they don't like something it should not exist and be taken away from everyone else.
Self-centered.

Yes, this was my point earlier about not liking CIV4. Just because I didn't like it didn't mean I thought it should end.

That's the good thing about civ. You may not like this iteration but there's always another one coming in a few years.

I still think most people think this way. Only the extreme views tend to post. I.E. super fans and haters alike

and yes I am a fan of CIV 5. My favorite since CIV3 didn't like 2 or 4. Was too young to ever really get into the first one. Only got to play that one on SNES :mischief:

Menzies
Feb 26, 2012, 04:21 AM
I can see only one thing being achieved by poor sales of the expansion; they will give up on expansions. That is the opposite of what we want, but hey...

ywhtptgtfo
Feb 28, 2012, 06:25 PM
Not that it really matters to me. I used to be a big Civ fan until I got my hands onto EU3 and CKII. Now that's what real historical strategy games should be...

Liex
Feb 28, 2012, 08:34 PM
Not that it really matters to me. I used to be a big Civ fan until I got my hands onto EU3 and CKII. Now that's what real historical strategy games should be...

I suddenly found myself addicted to CKII, it's really amazing. But it's way too much about micromanagement. It's not a bad thing, but after 5 hours of continuous playing I felt like I was reaching a dangerous stress-level with all those treacherous nobles and succession crises.

Civ never pretended to be as realistic and micro-oriented as CKII did, but it's more universal and less effort expensive. Now that my summer vacation is about to end, it'll be nearly impossible to play CKII (sadly... I really want to unify Iberian Peninsula under a single Crown). But if Civ5 G&K was released today, it'd make up for a nice and viable pastime, for sure.

spfun
Feb 28, 2012, 11:31 PM
I hope the expansion does very well as its a fantastic game. And i loved Civ1,2,3 & 4. Though i have to say Civ5 is probably my most played now.

therottweiler
Feb 29, 2012, 07:04 AM
is it me or are there a lot of whiners on almost every game forum? I love the CIV series.. I started with the original CIV on floppy disk and played everyone. CIV 5 is a fine game and has given me hours of entertainment. I look forward to the expansion it should add some great features!

z220580
Mar 20, 2012, 12:17 AM
I discovered Civilization only 1 yr ago (Yes i know, what a shame but hey, better late than never)


I went out and bought a gaming laptop just to play that game. 1Yr has passed and i have clocked 500hrs in the game. This is the game i have played the most in my life without getting bored and i will be buying everything they have to offer.


Will the sale go down, i doubt it. I am not a hardcore gamer but yet this game has given me hours upon hours of replayability due to the enormous amount of variables that comes along in a game.

I have never seen any game that gives u so many different victory options, so many different units and maps. My my my, i don't think i am ever gonna play anything else again if Firaxis keeps supporting that game. This game actually makes you use your mind as opposed to those shooters that makes your mind go numb and aggressive.


Hallelujah to the Civilization series :)