The Civilization Franchise- dead?

I know this is probably the wrong forum to post it in, but does anyone else think this is the end of Civilization? I mean, Civ V was a disaster, and they haven't released any expansions or made a real effort to fix it. They might try releasing a better game later on, but is that really likely? If Civ V sells well, they'll just release another game like it, but if it doesn't, they may end the franchise entirely. I'm not sure what to think right now.

Mouthwash said:

I know this is probably the wrong forum to post it in, but does anyone else think this is the end of Civilization? I mean, Civ V was a disaster, and they haven't released any expansions or made a real effort to fix it. They might try releasing a better game later on, but is that really likely? If Civ V sells well, they'll just release another game like it, but if it doesn't, they may end the franchise entirely. I'm not sure what to think right now.

Click to expand...

They won't end it. They might gloss over the disaster that is Civ5 and go to straight to Civ6. That is what F-tards of the Coast did with DnD 4.0. They are looking at making 5 now, unlike the previous editions of DnD, each of which had many, many expansions and a mid-life update (think 3.0 and 3.5, DnD and ADnD, 2nd Ed and specialist packs, etc.). 4.0 just didn't rate.

AJ11 said:

They won't end it. They might gloss over the disaster that is Civ5 and go to straight to Civ6. That is what F-tards of the Coast did with DnD 4.0. They are looking at making 5 now, unlike the previous editions of DnD, each of which had many, many expansions and a mid-life update (think 3.0 and 3.5, DnD and ADnD, 2nd Ed and specialist packs, etc.). 4.0 just didn't rate.

Click to expand...

I can only understand the first two sentences. Not everybody knows these abbreviations.

No. The game certainly sells well. It's popular enough that if they want to, they can make a sequel. But exactly how much they want to just DCL expands the wait(although they aren't exactly doing that right now).

Civ V have predominantly run on DDL which makes Expansions less relevant ... but yes, it haven't been a big succes.

But yeah ... i wouldn't be surprised if they, when they're done with X-com, start fiddling around with making Civ VI, and probably leaning closer to where Civ IV:BTS was than Civ V which would be rated as a mis-evolution

for explaining AJ11's analouge ... Dungeon And Dragons have a usual shelf live of up towards 10 years per edition, expanding each edition regulary (i believe the number of books dedicated to 3.5, not counting settingspecifics, is somewhere around 20, with easily another 40 when adding settings) while 4e aren't anywhere near that number, althrough it got a reputation of throwing tons of semilar books out in a very short time ... and now, barely 4 years after 4'th hits the shelves they're talking about building a new game that's closer to a 5'th edition, than to a 4.5 as the differences between 3.0 and 3.5

No, they just went back to having fun playing civ4.

The obstacle to getting great new Civ games is money. The most recent civilization game is "Civ World" on Facebook. The two arguably greatest designers the series has had, Brian Reynolds and Soren Johnson, now make Facebook games for Zynga and EA.

The only way the series will recover and produce a worthy successor to Civ 4 is by finding a more profitable business model. That means either finding more fans for the turn-based strategy niche, or charging a higher price per fan.

Lack of money is the reason we never got a sequel to SMAC, and I guess that problem has finally caught up with the main Civ series as well.

I hope they trash this DLC business and get back to making proper expansions. Civ IV was the game where they finally got the expansions right, with II and III's packs adding little content and SMAX actually making the game worse. I can't even imagine playing Civ IV without BTS. I used to find the Modern period incredibly boring in every Civ game. Now with BTS it's a heck of a lot of fun to play, and sometimes the previously-established outcome of the game can change.

Adding civs piece-meal is, to me, just not a good way of doing things. It's money-grubbing.

This same exactthing happened to SimCity 4.It had great sales,huge fan base and even an expansion that fixed many bugs.

Then EA took it a step further and thought lets get the younger peeps(8-13) into making cities and they litterally made SimCity into SimSoceities,which isn't a bad idea,but they took out all the fun micro managing stuff like Power,water,sewage.

then they gave us ONLY ROADS....

we had freeways and airports and mono rails and yada yada..it was a huge step back...

EA never looked back...

I hope Civ6 is good...if they even make it...

Mouthwash said:

I can only understand the first two sentences. Not everybody knows these abbreviations.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming they're computer versions of Dungeons & Dragons.

BrokTheFanatic said:

No, they just went back to having fun playing civ4.

Click to expand...

The designers you mean? Haha, that would be poetic justice.

I don't have any reason to believe that Civ 5 is unsuccessful from a profitability standpoint. In fact all that gimmicky DLC seems like printing money, even if I and others perceive it as milking the fan base. My sense is that Civilization will spawn at least one more sequel. The fans are still interested in the game, they just need a non-polarizing sequel to unite them.

sydhe said:

I'm assuming they're computer versions of Dungeons & Dragons.

Click to expand...

Not computer. Actual.

MantaRevan said:

No. The game certainly sells well. It's popular enough that if they want to, they can make a sequel. But exactly how much they want to just DCL expands the wait(although they aren't exactly doing that right now).

Click to expand...

This.

The loyal civ-fans may not like it, but it certainly sells, so ciVI will come.

Akbarthegreat said:

This.

The loyal civ-fans may not like it, but it certainly sells, so ciVI will come.

Click to expand...

Civ V is a travesty though. Games like that will push the franchise into obscurity over time.

If they feel dumbing the game down or graphics priority will sell more, it's their prerogative and others will have to prove otherwise with their own games. However, no matter what game one makes, it should actually work. THAT is the biggest disgrace about civ V and it hangs like a black cloud over firaxis; their flagship title has core features not working for over a year...all the while making serious UI and game-engine (run speed, time between turns) gaffes.

Say what you want, but when the controls are glitchy and weakly designed, the game doesn't run well, and a core feature (multiplayer) has been nearly beyond repair for over a year (I'm not talking about balance either, but simply attempting to play a game start to finish with more than 3 people! You can't do it!), you do not have a product worthy of the lie 9.5 rating gameinformer gave it. Civ isn't dead, but if THIS garbage trend continues firaxis will kill it until someone else gets the IP to it.

People, including those of firaxis, like to hide behind the "they changed it so it sucks" trope excuse. However, intelligent consumers don't buy what that excuse sells. Firaxis acknowledges V as the most polarizing title. Is it because of 1UPT and hexes? People like to pretend that, because it makes them feel better. However, civ V is also the first main-line civ title that:

1. Regresses in terms of total # of decisions required as you play through turns
2. Has MP completely unworkable with anywhere near a decent # of players for so long
3. Forces people who play (even above recommended specs) to wait over 90 minutes total per game between turns, all while nerfing production so things are finished less frequently.
4. Completely ignores unit counters by mixing the requirement of strategic resources selectively

It also copies some serious flaws and trends from previous games that need to go:

1. Patching esoteric things to nerf high level play and ignoring GLARING issues basically forever. Patch priority has been funny-farm worthy at times. With civ V multiplayer connectivity still an issue, they actually introduce UNIT ANIMATIONS to MULTIPLAYER? How about allowing MP to work at all first?!
2. Introduction of new content when giving units an order doesn't work consistently (a civ IV favorite)
3. From civ III (where the game ran pretty well and quickly) trending until this instant, failaxis has consistently slapped the strategy element in the face by FORCIBLY slowing down player decisions through increased priority on graphics. The core aspect of a TBS is the strategy and choices the players make. You need graphics too, but not at the expense of gameplay itself. It would behoove them to remember this.
4. AI that doesn't play and instead chooses deliberate griefing using "sandbox" as an excuse. Sandbox players don't like griefing either! We've seen enough complaint threads proving it.
5. Sloppity slop slop. Slop. Sloppy programming code. Fixed #'s instead of variables in speed scale? Not even bothering to scale things? Leaving a decimal-place error in the core game? Basically all unit pathing? Ninja invisible units on the UI? Checking variables that don't change over and over and over again? Sending POSSIBLE worker actions over the network when workers are used? Animating off-screen (in fog) unit movements?

It also has repeats of horrid glitches with new flavors: the governor switching worked tiles AFTER hitting end turn to STARVE the city is an example.

Even AVGN knows the most important part of a game is being able to play it! Seeing a 2010 title screw up basic controls worse than MUCH lower budget titles from the comparatively early PC gaming days is seriously sour.

What is AI deliberate griefing?

Ah, I see now a reference to this on the other thread - is it about playing uncompetitively with little attention to victory conditions?

Cort Haus said:

Ah, I see now a reference to this on the other thread - is it about playing uncompetitively with little attention to victory conditions?

Click to expand...

Yes. Here are some comparable examples:

- Player in call of duty stands facing the wall and firing at it for 2 minutes per game, leaving his teammates stranded or in FFA feeding someone kills.
- Player in starcraft in a big FFA gets a massive lead, killing virtually everyone and leaving no doubt he is the winner....and then simply won't finish the game. Nobody else will win though...this guy will win eventually, but it will be another 20 minutes if you don't just quit out.
- Player in chess refuses to move anything but pawns, ever, and will simply stop playing and declare you the winner if he loses all of his pawns. You're not allowed to play vs anyone else though. You just keep taking pawns whenever you play chess. Forever.
- Player in madden runs around in circles in the background then throws the ball away every play. He runs only field go block on defense. You go on to "win" 50-0, but you never actually got to play.
- According to the objective in DOTA, you are supposed to kill their world tree, but instead someone is simply using a consumable item to take himself out of the game for long stretches.

I could go on and on. Games are only fun to play when people actually try. IE, when people actually play it.

Civ AI does not play civ IV or civ V. It plays a different game entirely, having almost nothing to do with achieving the very victory conditions the game itself defines.

TheMeInTeam said:

Civ AI does not play civ IV or civ V. It plays a different game entirely, having almost nothing to do with achieving the very victory conditions the game itself defines.

Click to expand...

This might be a problem for very good players, but not so much for relatively crap players like me.

At my level, I don't have a problem picking a difficulty where I find myself in a position where I feel under pressure - at least in the early game, and further if I don't play aggressively and with success. Players whose play-style, experience and ability comfortably roll over all their neighbours might regularly find themselves in a position of power that makes victory tediously predictable.

This may be a characteristic of gaming in general. The best players (top 5% or less), who will likely be the most active and vocal on forums such as this, will require a far higher level of challenge than the rest.

I had a great game recently down on Prince on a standard pangea where a strong AI had picked up 4 vassals. I had to go to war with 5 civs simultaneously to win, and it was great fun. A stronger player wouldn't have sat there in the small parcel of land I claimed peacefully for so long, but for my buildery playstyle it worked out fine.

There's something to be said for not going out and doing the things that will always win you the game, for those of us that play that way. For the best players, it will always be harder to give them a challenge that will be fun.

Would it be fun if a player decides to say "hey I'm gonna give all my land" at the start of the game to another player, while you are isolated? The AI only plays to make sure you lose. In the majority of games Prince and below, the AI simply can't win outside of time and culture. It simply is incapable. It's more about you losing than them playing well.

I once tried via worldbuilder to peacevassal randomly to several different AIs; jump from one and freeload off the other. Then they gave me all their tech, and I unvassaled and killed them all.

In the game above the AI would have won by domination if I hadn't gone to war against it.