Sid Meier on CNN.com

I don't use Facebook. Nothing there appeals to me. I have three adult children. All three are on Facebook. One plays Farmville. This is my clue that the future will occur whether it includes me or not.

We have this unspoken arrangement. I don't mock them for using Facebook. They don't mock me for playing this unnecessarily complicated, tediously long, and boringly historical game call Civ. They admit that I seem to be having fun with my game. I admit that people who aren't Civ fanatics still have a right to consume oxygen. Neither side feels the need to declare superiority of themselves or to deprecate the other.

Given the tone of conversation I see in this thread, I have to ask, are we the only family/people with this kind of approach to those who play different games for different reasons? Should I be insulting their intelligence every chance I get? Should they be pointing out that I indulge in a game style nobody really cares about anymore as a sign of my increasing obsolescence and irrelevance in their lives?

Just wondering if I can be a Civfanatic and love my children at the same time or if I am irrelevant to Civfanatics even more than to my kids. This thread seems to suggest the latter.
 
"You have your own city to manage and you can do all kinds of stuff (on your own)," Meier said. "However, the most successful players will be those that can also work together with other players."

Emphasis mine.

Is "city" supposed to be "civ", or will each player be restricted to managing one city themselves, like a mayor? If so, it could be kind of interesting having to work with others to piece together a coherent civilization. Maybe one "mayor" of a group of allied cities becomes the group leader, etc. If this is accurate (one city per person), and if it's done right, it could be *very* interesting. There could be something akin to real politics going on within any given civ.
 
Just wondering if I can be a Civfanatic and love my children at the same time or if I am irrelevant to Civfanatics even more than to my kids. This thread seems to suggest the latter.

This is the Internet: if you're not tearing someone down you're not doing it right! ;)
 
I don't use Facebook. Nothing there appeals to me. I have three adult children. All three are on Facebook. One plays Farmville. This is my clue that the future will occur whether it includes me or not.

We have this unspoken arrangement. I don't mock them for using Facebook. They don't mock me for playing this unnecessarily complicated, tediously long, and boringly historical game call Civ. They admit that I seem to be having fun with my game. I admit that people who aren't Civ fanatics still have a right to consume oxygen. Neither side feels the need to declare superiority of themselves or to deprecate the other.

Given the tone of conversation I see in this thread, I have to ask, are we the only family/people with this kind of approach to those who play different games for different reasons? Should I be insulting their intelligence every chance I get? Should they be pointing out that I indulge in a game style nobody really cares about anymore as a sign of my increasing obsolescence and irrelevance in their lives?

Just wondering if I can be a Civfanatic and love my children at the same time or if I am irrelevant to Civfanatics even more than to my kids. This thread seems to suggest the latter.

I'm perfectly happy to live and let live. The corporate suits, however, are aggressively chasing the mass market and are not interested in making those complicated games. If we don't push back then they will stop making one kind of product, will make another, and will claim that they actually are not doing so.

Exhibit 1: the "streamlined" gameplay of Civilization 5
Exhibit 2: Dragon Age 2

In both cases there were specific PR pushes claiming that they were chasing a broader audience by simplifying the games; in both cases a lot of core fans absolutely hated those changes.

So, my bottom line is that I have no issue with other people making Facebook games, but I don't want all future Civs to be designed at that level. And the industry seems absolutely obsessed with doing so.
 
Who cares if I don't like it? It's not aimed at me, not all good games are aimed at me. To me, this does not mark the fall of civ but the progression of civ, I'm just glad to see that a good product is still going and keeping up. It means more money for versions of civ aimed at me (Civ Rev helped Civ V in this way) and that more people are being drawn in.
 
I don't have a problem with this assuming it is not taking any resources away from Civ V patches, expansions and future Civ games (I doubt it is).

People confuse a market expansion with a market shift. Expanding into new areas doesn't hurt the base games.
 
I don't have a problem with this assuming it is not taking any resources away from Civ V patches, expansions and future Civ games (I doubt it is).

People confuse a market expansion with a market shift. Expanding into new areas doesn't hurt the base games.

Civ 5 is a direct example to the contrary. They pitched this as a streamlined, accessible game. They didn't make a "hardcore" and a "casual" version. We've watched studios like Bioware steadily water down their RPG games in search of a mass market; that form of gaming is rapidly moving towards being interactive movies with elements of first person shooters. I can't think of a good example of a single game publisher which is both chasing mass market gold and keeping a niche, or complex, series also in development. B replaces A, always.

A 10% improvement in sales for a 10 million selling game makes them the same money as developing a 1 million selling game, likely at a fraction of the cost. There is no economic justification in their keeping two track - the traditional and "streamlined" ones. They take the name recognition of the older concept, dumb it down, and sell it to a lot more people.

The exception is when they get pushback, or bad word of mouth, or their attempt to water an idea down satisfies no one. Thus the utility in, well, pushing back against these sorts of trends.
 
What i've seen from the link given above its some kind of press note about Civilization coming to facebook and and community playing in general (makes me to go back in time when Civ3 play the world was announced), but i dont think it focused on Mr. Meier's achievements. Moreover it doesnt tell if the interview was recorded or aired, if so i will wait anxiously any news on this matter. However its nice to see CNN is taking an approach to this genre in particular. :mischief:
 
Doesn't Civfanatics have it's own subforum for Civworld?
This has hardly anything to do with Civ5, right?

Anyway, ontopic: I hope this game isn't as limiting as Farmville or Cityville. In those games you had situations that you could only grow further if you had at least X friends. Which is very frustrating and annoying even.

For Civworld I don't mind building wonders slower and developing tech slower if I don't ally with anyone. As long as I can play the game.
 
While you can play as your own independent nation, CivWorld is all about joining a civilization with other players. By coordinating to pool resources and agree on policies, you can move more quickly through the game than you could on your own. For example, everyone researching the same technology will complete it faster, and important decisions such as going to war with another civilization must be voted upon by everyone. You can also move up the ranks within your civilization, which gives you other bonuses, such as more votes on policy decisions.

I dig it.
 
This all sounds super, but when exactly does the dynamic in which I have to give money rolls in?

Is it like Farmville?
 
Maybe you could buy civs, but I don't think anything other than that.

I'm just wondering if you could "cheat" by spending money or something around those lines. To buy civilizations and other non-essentials sounds pretty fair to me, but then again...
 
It interesting to see the number of folks commenting who have not payed CIVony (err... evony), Kingdoms of Camelot or any of the similar clones (backyard monsters, anyone?)

Those who have, might possibly comment how the games can appeal to builder types. The diplomacy and alliance angles are even fun for a while, but in the end, the games become a never ending cycle of farming NPC's, abandoned cities, and participating in the occassional coordinated tactical operation.

The definition of 'success' is also a challenge. best out of 18 is very different than best out of 150,000.

I, for one, will be happy when someone successfully implements Grand Strategy via a facebook paradigm.
 
The next Civ it's going to be on the twitters, and the Androids and the Macintosh's Pads too.

The funny thing is that facebook users couldn't care less if they are playing the original or not, Zynga's finest efforts are poor copies of other successful games (yet they work).

I know that throwing the buzzword "on facebook..." works great on your usual shareholder meeting, because whatever "on facebook" and "on twitter" means doesnt really matter. What matters is the boys at firaxis are being proactive, doing lateral thinking, and immersion and web 2.0. Because that's were the synergy is within the cloud computing, going guerrilla style in the street.

And change you can believe in, you betcha.

CivRev is already on iphone/ipad. And facebook is doing great right now, but this industry is so cutthroat all it takes is one big mistake and they'll become yesterday's news in no time. Even a couple years ago myspace was the leader.
 
I love the Civ franchise but I hope (and not secretly) that this entire enterprise is one spectacular fail.

I would love to see a spectacular fail of this product.

I totally agree. The entire Facebook game model is repellant to me - con people into buying fluff for a game; rope your friends into making profits for the game company. The gameplay is deliberately designed to be repetitive and ultra-easy (for the "casual" crowd.) And if it works there won't be a new Civ (at best); any Civ game they design will be aimed at the dollar signs, e.g. the Facebook crowd, and it will make Civ Rev look deep and complicated.

FYI guys, nobody'll make you play it. There's no reason to hope it will fail, other people may like it. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean nobody should get to play it.

Who cares if I don't like it? It's not aimed at me, not all good games are aimed at me. To me, this does not mark the fall of civ but the progression of civ, I'm just glad to see that a good product is still going and keeping up. It means more money for versions of civ aimed at me (Civ Rev helped Civ V in this way) and that more people are being drawn in.

This is my view.
 
Civ 5 is a direct example to the contrary.

The mods can go ahead and ban me, but I'm tired of being trolled.

I get it, you hate Civ V, you hate Steam and you hate the color the sky is in your world.

Sorry man... I hope things work out for you someday.

Moderator Action: If you've got a problem with a post, report rather than replying. Accusing others of trolling is considered trolling in itself.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
It interesting to see the number of folks commenting who have not payed CIVony (err... evony), Kingdoms of Camelot or any of the similar clones (backyard monsters, anyone?)

Those who have, might possibly comment how the games can appeal to builder types. The diplomacy and alliance angles are even fun for a while, but in the end, the games become a never ending cycle of farming NPC's, abandoned cities, and participating in the occassional coordinated tactical operation.

The definition of 'success' is also a challenge. best out of 18 is very different than best out of 150,000.

I, for one, will be happy when someone successfully implements Grand Strategy via a facebook paradigm.

The dirty secret to the online games isn't being "best out of 150,000". MMOs are designed so that the people who spend the most time are defined as "best" - essentially every achievement can be unlocked with sufficient time investment, and it's pretty explicit. Facebook games add the extra dimension of short-circuiting the time requirement with cash.

It's a game platform with a genuinely bad reputation, earned for good cause. If you like playing actual games (not ones where you win by swiping a credit card) then elsewhere is where you want to look.
 
Top Bottom