Are you looking forward to Civ World?
- Thread starter kamex
- Start date
Sparthage
Fighting Tyranny
I'm interested, but Civ3 will remain my main civ game for a loooooong time.
Fanatic Noob
King of Noobism
I think I will give this game a big try when it will come to open beta, or if I will get invite then faster ;]
I'd imagine no-DLs would be a much harder thing to enforce on facebook than it is here. And even if they did, what's the worse that can happen? Get banned from facebook? Don't think I've ever heard of that happening (not denying it might have though).
I've got a Piece OfMind alias on fb and have had it for ages, and my normal fb profile separate. Never had a problem.
As best I can tell, there are still "games" in the sense that they begin and end. It looks like the length of a game is on the order of 1 week. If they ever moved to a pay-to-play system, many would just not join new games.
It's not like some persistent game where you develop an avatar/character and have much invested in the game.
I suspect this type of game would struggle to survive with a pay-to-play scheme. Like many MMO devs have realised, it's best to make it free-to-play but let some people pay to avoid the grind.
In a relative way : definately!
Civ Rev wasnt a sequel of civ4. civ5 was. civ rev wasnt available on PC, so applying all aspects I believe that civ5 is worse (a bigger disappointment) than civ rev was.
Ofcourse straying completely out of course with its old hardcore fangroup, Firaxis (Sid) now decides to be a new Zynga developer with
Moderator Action: "kidgaming" is a little strong. Please don't associate people that like facebook games with children.
Next they could make a blockbuster :
"How to loose
Edit : Changed kidgaming with better description. my 28 year old wife actually used to like these games, so it wasnt meant as a negative description, but from the graphics, gameplay, difficulty etc its not a completely wrong description IMHO.
While the game is not without its flaws, I'd say civworld as it is now is definitely more of a civ game and more interesting than civ rev ever was.
And to this idea of "apply different standards to civ rev because it was on consoles so lower expectations -> less disappointment", why not apply the same to facebook as well? This game was probably developed on a smaller budget than civrev and it's free to play (unlike civ rev). If you wanted to apply the "expectations" argument, would it be wrong to say the expectations for civworld should be even lower?
My point is, apply the same standards to any game regardless of platform. It's not as if your time is less valuable to you when you're playing on a console than a PC.
*****
Civworld is much slower paced than civ rev, but it's more mature (in its audience). Now that your opposition is made up of human players, making the best use of the resources in the game is more critical. One can take advantage of (profit from) movement in market prices for commodities. Based on how the market is behaving, deciding what resources to harvest becomes important. Then deciding how to place buildings to most efficiently collect those resources is a tough problem. Do you lay down more guard towers (buildings that reveal more surrounding terrain) in search of valuable deposits or stick to whatever cluster of resources you might already have? You only have limited resources at your disposal and if you waste them, earning them back can be very slow.
Decide what civ to join or create your own, or even go as an independent. Propose civics that the members of your civ must vote on to pass/fail it. When your civ is underperforming, do you defect to another better civ? If your civ is doing well, do you elect to close borders to prevent other less experienced players joining?
There are all sorts of decisions going on in civworld. It may be that most people will be bored of civworld after only one or two games, but the design goal of "no two games being the same" is probably achieved much better here than it was in civ rev. There are a fair few balance issues that will hopefully get addressed though. For example, building markets and running merchants to "harvest" gold is pointless as gold is almost always less valuable than all the other resource types. Culture also seems to be valued a lot less by players than food, production and science.
And to this idea of "apply different standards to civ rev because it was on consoles so lower expectations -> less disappointment", why not apply the same to facebook as well? This game was probably developed on a smaller budget than civrev and it's free to play (unlike civ rev). If you wanted to apply the "expectations" argument, would it be wrong to say the expectations for civworld should be even lower?
My point is, apply the same standards to any game regardless of platform. It's not as if your time is less valuable to you when you're playing on a console than a PC.
*****
Civworld is much slower paced than civ rev, but it's more mature (in its audience). Now that your opposition is made up of human players, making the best use of the resources in the game is more critical. One can take advantage of (profit from) movement in market prices for commodities. Based on how the market is behaving, deciding what resources to harvest becomes important. Then deciding how to place buildings to most efficiently collect those resources is a tough problem. Do you lay down more guard towers (buildings that reveal more surrounding terrain) in search of valuable deposits or stick to whatever cluster of resources you might already have? You only have limited resources at your disposal and if you waste them, earning them back can be very slow.
Decide what civ to join or create your own, or even go as an independent. Propose civics that the members of your civ must vote on to pass/fail it. When your civ is underperforming, do you defect to another better civ? If your civ is doing well, do you elect to close borders to prevent other less experienced players joining?
There are all sorts of decisions going on in civworld. It may be that most people will be bored of civworld after only one or two games, but the design goal of "no two games being the same" is probably achieved much better here than it was in civ rev. There are a fair few balance issues that will hopefully get addressed though. For example, building markets and running merchants to "harvest" gold is pointless as gold is almost always less valuable than all the other resource types. Culture also seems to be valued a lot less by players than food, production and science.
Psyringe
Scout
Good point - from a logical point of view.
However, I think that there's also an emotional factor involved. A couple of years ago, it was easy for many CivFanatics to accept CivRev as something that simply wasn't meant for them - because they expected Civ5 to cater to the fans of the series. Now, since many fans are disappointed by Civ5, it's much harder to hold the skepticism back. With CivRev being targeted at newcomers to the series, Civ4 being a disappointment for many fans, and CivWorld being targeted at yet another group of players, I can understand that many fans are questioning the general direction that Firaxis is taking its flagship series to. There's an understandable fear that they (and their preferred playstyles) are simply being left out of Firaxis' future plans. I think that's one of the things that vincentz wanted to point out by linking CivRev, Civ5, and CivWorld together as such a progression.
Honestly, given some of the hatred of facebook I've seen expressed on just the civfanatics forums, I would guess there are just as many if not more civfanatics who have accepted that civworld simply isn't meant for them, than for civ rev.Good point - from a logical point of view.
That's a fair thing to ask.
Reasonable fears, I agree. However Firaxis are not going to waste the IP of the Civilization flagship. This game seems to me, from what I've played, a game heavily influenced by Sid and is more an experiment than a continuation of the civ series. In this sense it must have been like making civ1, not knowing how the audience will react to it. I'm sure you and many other civfanatics are aware that civ1 in its initial development was not turn-based. Looks like Sid finally found a platform (massively multiplayer is much easier to do now than it was 20 years ago) where the original idea can work better.
Well, no, but they might choose to use the IP to make games that doesn't appeal to "us old-timers". Considering the sales of earlier Civilization games, I think that would be a really stupid direction to take the IP in, but it's hardly unheard of for a company to do really stupid things. It wouldn't be the first time a well-known strategy IP has died on the vine: X-Com, SimCity, Master of Magic, Warlords, Commandos, Master of Orion, Populous, Jagged Alliance -- hell, even Warcraft is pretty much dead as a strategy IP today.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
We can talk all day about what they might do.
Be fair. You started it.
Well, let's just agree that Firaxis (/2K) might do something stupid or they might do something smart.
Optical
The Fall of the Eleventh
On another note, who voted for "planning to pay for premium currency"? 
jtb1127
Deity
"Yes, and are planning to pay for premium currency"
This is the exact reason I hate facebook and don't plan on paying it.
This is the exact reason I hate facebook and don't plan on paying it.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
I would like to know who was the one guy who advocated paying...
Empire4XAttache
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 4
For better or worse, the devs need to make cash, and as people continue to substitute social media like FB for other standalone apps, the devs will follow in suit.
Jumbo-sized PC games are becoming less relevant (outside of the hardcore gamer-niche). It may hamper development in one area, but it's accelerating it in another. We should give Civ World a chance (at least I am).
And hopefully they will continue to invest in & create larger-than-life standalone titles too ^_^
Jumbo-sized PC games are becoming less relevant (outside of the hardcore gamer-niche). It may hamper development in one area, but it's accelerating it in another. We should give Civ World a chance (at least I am).
And hopefully they will continue to invest in & create larger-than-life standalone titles too ^_^
I voted: "Yes, and are planning to pay for premium currency"
I am playing Civ World Beta now for 2 weeks and spent over 50 hours on it. It is fun and it is great to play with real friends and new people in a Civ of up to 50 players, discussing strategies, helping new players and exchanging about the game mechanics (it is still a real beta) online while playing.
I play FB games alot, played most of Zynga's games and never ever bought any virtual currency.
Yet I bought Civ Bucks because they are cheap and compared to Zynga Cash or other established FB virtual currency they provide you with a huge benefit and therefor it is value for money. Firaxis did a great job restricting each player to use just 10 Bucks per 24 hours. Imho this is great for the game balance as rich people can not dominate the game and win just by their power of money in the real world.
Similar threads
- Sticky
