I kind of hope sales of this expansion are low....

[dexters]

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]

Originally Posted by Revoran

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Tapewormlondon

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]

Originally Posted by strhopper

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]

Originally Posted by strhopper

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Gucumatz

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 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]

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

[AlpsStranger]

Originally Posted by AriochIV

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Tapewormlondon

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]

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]

Originally Posted by AlpsStranger

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]

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

[eris]

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]

I hope there is no Civ6. It is time for them to move on.

[dexters]

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]

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.