CIV IV vs CIV III

Status
Not open for further replies.
you're taking polling data from a civ4 forum. of course, if it was done in a civ3 forum, it'd be biased, too. but my point is that there are ALOT of dissapointed civers - far more than the 15% imo.
 
you're taking polling data from a civ4 forum. of course, if it was done in a civ3 forum, it'd be biased, too. but my point is that there are ALOT of dissapointed civers - far more than the 15% imo.
As there were many disappointed with CIII. A series like Civilization by necessity has to buck a good deal of continuity with each new installment to remain fresh and appealing as a series because the overall "story" of the game and aim of it remain the same, and that naturally results in a lot of :mad: faces for Firaxis:king:
 
you're taking polling data from a civ4 forum. of course, if it was done in a civ3 forum, it'd be biased, too. but my point is that there are ALOT of dissapointed civers - far more than the 15% imo.

I agree with you that we cannot know how large the share of Civ3 fans who were disappointed by Civ4 really is. Forum polls, while still more reliable than personal experiences, are no substitution for marketing analyses. So the 15% that the polls measured may (and probably will) have been distorted by factors of unknown combined magnitude.

However, I do not agree that the number of disappointed fans was necessarily larger than the 15% shown in the polls. This is because there are many factors that can/will distort the numbers, but they run into *both* directions. Here are some possibilities:

Possible factors for making the number smaller than it really is:
- Civ3 fans might have stayed away from the Civ4 forums
- Some customers may have been so very disappointed that they just uninstalled the game and moved on, and never entered any forums to talk about their experience.

Possible factors for making the number larger than it really is:
- According to economical science, disappointed customers are seven times more likely to voice their opinion than satisfied customers.
- Satisfied customer may have been busy playing the game (instead of being active in the forums), so that disappointed customers may have been overrepresented among active forum users.
- Among people who usually don't go to forums, those with technical problems are likely to ask for help there, which will direct their attention to the polls (which were very prominent at that time). Conversely, people who usually don't go to forums, and experience no problems, have no reason to break out of their habit and suddenly become active in forums. Hence, people disappointed about the game because of technical reasons tend to be overrepresented in forum polls.

As you see, the possible reasons for distortions run in both directions. So we can't say that the polls neccesarily overrepresent or underrepresent disappointed customers. Personally, I tend to think that they overrepresent disappointment, but I usually don't take this into the analysis, because it's really just a personal of mine. The best way to deal with this is, imho, to just accept the polls as they are, while realizing that the numbers *will* be distorted, but *can* very well be distorted in *any* direction.

However, nothing of this poses a problem when comparng data from different games. For example, the distortion effects that were relevant for Civ4 will also have been relevant for TES4. So no matter whether the absolute disappointment is over- or underestimated by these polls, we can safely say that Civ4 had a much, much better acceptance among its fans than TES4 (which was my point).
 
As there were many disappointed with CIII. A series like Civilization by necessity has to buck a good deal of continuity with each new installment to remain fresh and appealing as a series because the overall "story" of the game and aim of it remain the same, and that naturally results in a lot of :mad: faces for Firaxis:king:


Yeah..CIV 3 system is quite different from CIV 2 system.. I bet there was a lot of angry and/or dissapointed costumers as well ehn CIV 3 came out..

We just can't compare, can we? I mean, each one is quite different..

I would tell a joke about how opnion is a....But better not, too offensive :crazyeye:
 
Folks, this debate has been going on in some form since the day after Civ IV was released in a playable format for most people. (Note that was different than the day it appeared in the stores.)

The Civ III fans are not going to change their minds, and the Civ IV fans won't either. Fundamentally, whatever format you prefer will be the one you play, and no discussion will change that. Only monumental changes in either game engine will sway people one way or the other.

When I say monumental changes, there are only a few that make my list:
a. Civ III-like complete editor (I know The_Lopez is working on some kind of editor) for Civ IV.
b. Take-Two releasing the base Civ III code to fan coders.
c. Take-Two taking the best ideas of all the Civ IV modders from the past year, and incorporating them into one complete commercial release, and would include streamlined code so larger maps could be played.

So until that day happens, I think we are all wasting energy and bandwidth discussing which is better, and I propose that admins automatically close all threads that discuss Civ III vs Civ IV, in all forums.

The last thing I will say about this is that under current conditions, Civ IV will be the game of choice simply because we see so many talented fans improving the base game.

I think Take-Two could open up a NEW revenue stream that would complement, not compete with Civ IV, if they opened the Civ III code up, but that discussion has been done to death also.
 
Psyringe said:
I do feel sorry for you if you don't enjoy Civ4, and I can relate to what you're describing, but honestly, "killing one's fanbase" is vastly exaggerating. Actually the opposite is true.

In several polls that have been made on these forums, about 15% of users preferred Civ3 over Civ4. This is an amazingly low number considering that this forum had a *huge* fanbase of Civ3 players, and some of them inevitably *had* to be disappointed by the changes


under 15% God what a joke lol. Consider that amount of people who can't even play the game to normal degree cause of massive specs required but who were still deceived into buying and trying anyway for the box flat out lied to them

That right there, least what? Maybe 2 out ten computers players owned didn't meet the real requirements to play out of the box, is that to high of an estimate. So would under 15% dissatified cistumers be considered even close to real? NO IM afraid not. Your truly desprate to deceive man, Why?. I thought the paid posters had all gone home , or cashed their cheques and poped in CIv3 lol

Ok add the guys who just liked to Mod and were lured with the easiest most moddable game ever! But the majority really discovered a disaster in Civ4s no editor approach. You hear about theses guys cuz they came back to make civ3 even better. A small group but they do add up

Next you got the guys who flat out hate the graphics over the 2d version. the 'Sesame Civ' look as some cool member put it aren’t so popular but according to one guy here those players plus the tech trouble guys and the mod disappointments are still only 1 in 10 of total players the rest all loved it or really hated the games before it that’s 90% your talking(sorry 87)

Next the ones who don't mind the graphics but can't hack the new autopilot approach. The new Civ for dummies. complete with tiny confusing pedia for the history disinclined. many didn't appreciate the step to the younger crowd including the younger crowd but apparently only this group is such a small fraction is sum add to a number that portions only to 1 in 10 players after the tech trouble graphics haters and interface and "way to much easiness" laziness complainers

OK then your general type who finally said lets give CIv a try lured by the flashy 3d trend of the day they picked it up never before playing Civ and found it wasn't there cup of tea. Or shot of speed n fast paced action they prefer to inject by means of console games but that fireaxis was trying to imitate losing some of the deeper strategy along the way just for these guys who walked away in the end. Can we add them to the under 15 satisfactory rate or is it getting a lil full already?

Then those who generally loved Civ3 so much the (loyalists!)they couldn't do with a game that deleted all its great concepts to start fresh with crapy trade systems he stole a freedoms and diplo style (red out)

These players never rammed a few exploits for GOTM contest bragging rights. They never spoiled the game for themselves and they are very numerous compared to the online vocal group who whined they had to build a gazillion artillery to beat Sid in order appease their fan boy club.
These guys know CIv4 is unequal, can we add them to, as one member just said, and less than 1.5 in 10 dissatisfied customers?


Hey! How bout the guys who like to play on huge maps! Their different then the " Got gypped on the tech specs n threw in away dept", cause even on a awesome computer you can't enjoy a megahuge,map nope!, not with max civs into the modern ages you can't
Funny I heard a few say otherwise but their the same guys who love CIv4 so much that say they get 15 minute waits in-betweens playing CIv3
No I would put players who wanted freedom of world size down as another 'minuscule' fraction of the disappointed players as well


Ok add up those with the reasons I missed and you still think 90-86% of buyers say its better then CIv3!!?? Yes all 90 % of us think this game is better then CIv3 that’s why where being out sold by desperate housewives and CIv3 beat Civ4 in the sales standing with expansions hands down.

The biggest proof is in sales my friends. after the Civ3 players stoped buying, Warlords sales is what you got to show the real support for whats there and not what was expected to be there. Now Civ4 losing to a ladies TV show (desprate indeed) :goodjob:
 
I do feel sorry for you if you don't enjoy Civ4, and I can relate to what you're describing, but honestly, "killing one's fanbase" is vastly exaggerating. Actually the opposite is true.

In several polls that have been made on these forums, about 15% of users preferred Civ3 over Civ4. This is an amazingly low number considering that this forum had a *huge* fanbase of Civ3 players, and some of them inevitably *had* to be disappointed by the changes made.

Actually, Civ4 is a very good example for a game series that develops and changes *while keeping* (or even increasing) its fanbase. To put the 15% of people who still prefer Civ3 into perspective, have a look at another very successful game, TES4: Oblivion. It's raking in massive sales, but in its froums, *half* of its fans still prefer to play TES3: Morrowind when asked. That's a very good example of a game series that did *not* manage to keep its fans while developing new game features.

So, as much as I feel for those that were disappointed in Civ4, there was really nothing at all going on that could be described as "killing its fanbase". Every game in a series will leave some fans of the previous installments disappointed, that's inevitable. And the rate of disappointed fans for Civ4 was amazingly low.

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you here! Have you actually been around in late 2005? I don't exaggerate if I say that for some time every day a thread about how bad Civ4 was was started. I remember even reading somewhere in a post in December or January (last year): One thing I dislike about new games released: the huge amount of trolling and unhappy members. And this was happening in both civ4 and civ3 forums!!!!



Oh, and only 15% of disappointed members is probably some kind of joke. :hmm:
 
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you here! Have you actually been around in late 2005? I don't exaggerate if I say that for some time every day a thread about how bad Civ4 was was started. I remember even reading somewhere in a post in December or January (last year): One thing I dislike about new games released: the huge amount of trolling and unhappy members. And this was happening in both civ4 and civ3 forums!!!!

Well, but if you take this amount of troll threads and "new game bashing threads" as an indication of a game "killing its fanbase" (which was the claim here), then *every* new game is killing its fanbase. Because, as you say, *every* new game in a popular series has this problem.

This is why I don't base any analysis on the fact that "bahing threads" exist - these always exist, so they can't help us to determine how a game was really received among its fans. Polls, with hundreds of voters, are a far better basis for analysis.

Btw, I wasn't only around, I was quite active at that time. :)

Oh, and only 15% of disappointed members is probably some kind of joke. :hmm:

Well, it has to be a collective joke of hundreds of forum members then. :)

Don't let vocal minorities distort your view. :)
 
Well, I wouldn't call us a vocal minority. :) There was a thread in the Civ3 C&C called "The Civ3's Golden Age Has Begun", which showed a lot of interesting statistics (I actually provided a screenshot for that), and even today, around 8-9 PM my time (GMT+02:00) there are more people viewing the Civ3 C&C than the Civ4 C&C. :)
 
When I say monumental changes, there are only a few that make my list:
a. Civ III-like complete editor (I know The_Lopez is working on some kind of editor) for Civ IV.
b. Take-Two releasing the base Civ III code to fan coders.
c. Take-Two taking the best ideas of all the Civ IV modders from the past year, and incorporating them into one complete commercial release, and would include streamlined code so larger maps could be played.
Hear hear. I agree with that - but one of the problems could be that the civ III source is not the possession of a single company. But I do hope that the code can be streamlined and a proper editor program created.
So until that day happens, I think we are all wasting energy and bandwidth discussing which is better, and I propose that admins automatically close all threads that discuss Civ III vs Civ IV, in all forums.
Disagree with that. I find it interesting hearing about other people's opinions on this.
 
TA Jones, you sure you dont have the game?(dont need to answer, you already did. just a observation) :p


Anyway just 1 point, are you "loyalists"? And all the players that stayed playing CIV3??? Who arew then the players who kept playing CIV2 and find CIV3 really bad? Kinda strange point hehe

By thew way, why so many really famous magazines/sites about games rated CIV4 as the best strategy game of the year, and even the best general game of the year? And the grades were mostly aboce the grades given for CIV3(that were already mostly high) in its time..

But I played CIV3 A LOT! Installed, untalled and installed again! But I just think that CIV4 is a better game for ME, less exploits to use, you can actually win without going to war or being the first in score, war got to play a smaller roll(YEAH! :D ) and etc(already said by me or others). But I dont have anything with you guys dont likeing CIV4 and playing CIV3, after all they came from the same base but they are Really different! Dont take me bad please. I'm OK with anything you say, it Really doesent chaange naything on my mind or annoys me, but your comments against CIV4 really look so hatefull..

But enjoy your time with CIV3 all of you while you can :)
I really hope CIV5 can get you guys back along with the fans of CIV4.
 
even today, around 8-9 PM my time (GMT+02:00) there are more people viewing the Civ3 C&C than the Civ4 C&C. :)

While one data point isn't really enough for a good analysis, I think you're right on this one. I think this reflects the (sad) fact that Civ3 was far more accessible than Civ4 for modding.

But why did you cut the statistics for General Discussion? Obviously, since moddability was much easier in Civ3 than it was in Civ4, and Civ3 is the older game, I'd expect a shift in interest from GD to C&C for Civ3, which should not have taken place for Civ4. Nevertheless, interesting find. Although it actually helps to debunk T.A.Jones' theory the Civ4 had "killed the fanbase". :)

I'll try to search this thread you mentioned, I'm always interested in statistics about game reception. :)
 
@Psyringe: There are a lot more of these polls. :) Try searching the Civ3 forums, see how many people prefer Civ4 there.

I already addressed this, this is also the same for every new game in a popular series. The forums of the previous installment will have extremely high percentages of people who prefer the version, because the others have little reason to be there.
 
No, you got me wrong, seriously, I did not cut General Discussions, I am using 1280x1024 resoultion and mozilla. With more than one tab open, it's the most I could get in one screen! :)
 
Hi Jones,

apart from the "paid posters" part, which really wasn't necessary imho, you're listing valid reasons why people could be, and in fact are, disappointed by Civ4.

However, you don't give any proof why these people should make up such a large portion of the Civ fanbase that Civ4, as you claimed, killed this fanbase. So I regard your post as a good list of possible reasons to be disappointed by Civ4, but unfortunately I still don't see any proof for your claim.

The biggest proof is in sales my friends. after the Civ3 players stoped buying, Warlords sales is what you got to show the real support for whats there and not what was expected to be there.

Do you have any numbers to back that up? That would be an interesting analysis indeed, especially comparisons of PTW/C3C sales with C4W sales.
 
Just found another example: this thread. There were about 190 voters (edit: sorry 150 voters), and from them only 44 did not say Civ4 is worse, while they were certainly not saying Civ4 is better, but that they (40 of those 44) couldn't play Civ4 because of the requirements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom