Firaxis pulling a CYA with GOTY?

builer680

eats too much Taco Bell
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
525
Does anyone else feel that getting a portal to declare Civ V "Game of the Year" is just Firaxis pulling a "cover your @#$" routine? Specifically the Gamespy PC GOTY award, which is presumably more under their influence than other portals.

The atmosphere here in this forum really reminds me of the atmosphere that came about on the MOO3 forums several years ago when it was released. The game got so much "bad press" from players and portals alike that it killed any chance the game had of eventually becoming successful, and likely killed any chance of a MOO4. It's pretty common to see references to MOO3 now when a great franchise really messes up.

For this reason, it appears to me that at least getting a GOTY award quite a bit after release (after plenty of time to have played for months and seen all the ins and outs of the game, as opposed to a reviewer who may only have a couple hours or days per game to review) gives a bit of "deniability" to the publisher and developer of this game a few years from now when and if people make the argument that Civ V killed the game.

"Nuh uh! Look! It was Game of the Year!" My foot.

Even if you like this game, I don't believe anyone calling it the best game of 2010 is being completely honest. Blizzard's Starcraft II and the Cataclysm expansion come immediately to mind as obviously better games.

In any case, these points have been brought up before, but they set up the following questions for me. I'm working from the assumption that this award (possibly other accolades, but this one specifically) was a quid pro quo deal, and thus not a true objective award. In all honesty I think that much is quite obvious, but there are other threads for that discussion. Disagree with that assumption if you like, but my real purpose in this post is to ask for your thoughts on the following questions.:

1. I've not heard any major announcements about hitting big sales milestones, so I suspect it's not doing as well as hoped. How likely is it that there will never be a Civ VI, because of any failure of Civ V to meet sales expectations?


On a side note, I still haven't seen hard evidence from those who claim it's moved millions of units and is still climbing. All I see are claims of box units added to assumptions about Steam sales volume, but with no actual data.

2. How likely is it that "awards" such as this one will be used to gloss over the possible future failure of the franchise, then any failure to make Civ VI, and thus avoid being called the "MOO3" of Civ?

P.S.
It can be argued that PC Gaming as a whole is moving in the "Facebook / Internet app" direction... and that making games for a demographic such as mine, that is a bit more hard core won't be as profitable in the future. But no one can really KNOW that. It's just as possible that the kind of gamer who'd prefer lighter games won't bother with a sequel because of having different interests by the time any sequel comes out. It's guesswork. And now that a number of long time fans (not all, but some) are so alienated, their "fallback demographic" of long time players is no longer quite as dependable if that tactic fails.

I for one will be very wary of anything that says Civ on it again, after buying up every Civ title without thought or review checking since Civ 1 in 1991. And I know for a fact that I'm not the only one.
 
the press doesn't actually play games. nobody actually takes GOTY awards seriously

the people who do are usually marketing tools
 
A big problem I am experiencing is that there is no accountability in video game reporting. Sure it's just video games, but at this point it's the same as saying it's just sports or just television. They are what we spend leisure time and money on. Video game news should be real thing, not some sleezy websites that make you feel like you just got a virus for visiting the website. Sports has real reporters. Television and movies have awards ceremonies. I mean these are industries and they get reported on, and awarded things, by professionals.

From a distance video gaming seems so sketchy. Even their websites are sketchy looking, one step up from porn. I don't know if that's what draws people in, but I like less busy sites with more reporting and news than a website with a bunch of ads and clickthroughs and all other stuff.

One question your post made me think about is whether or not I would even want to see a Civ VI. They are saying that V is a big success and everybody wins, well why wouldn't VI be more of the same? After taking so much out, I doubt they are ever going to put more detail and nuance in the game. Who is even left to recommend putting new ideas in? Civ may have run its course.

After V, to put stuff in VI from IV would seem odd to me. Like, "That was from IV, don't they have any new ideas?" Don't get me wrong IV is still light years beyond the fullest potential of V but using IV as a model would be old news at this point. And if Civ VI is built on the latest foundation (V), it's not appealing to me. So it's a wash as far as my personal interest goes. Hopefully I can disengage from the game for a while (2 years or so) and then check back randomly and see what the new news is.

I don't know what the future holds for civ. It's a mixed bag, if FB civ takes off, maybe that will get them some money to make a good game. If FB civ takes off, maybe they won't revisit civ for PC. Maybe Sid's master vision for Civ is to end the series after 5 PC games. There are so many unknown factors to speculate on, it is too much for me. There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unkowns.

By the way, their rebels are just barbarians. How's that weak sauce?
 
I don't know about the title question, so I won't speculate as to motives .

1. I figure that there will be an expansion under the guidance of a new lead designer which will "build on the strengths of V" and be" redesigned with both great new features & loaded with the best of the previous versions." Whether it's known as something like "Civ Reloaded" or "Civ Cash Out" depends on how well they live up to their own hype. Most of us still left on this forum will buy in advance, because we like 5 and see it's potential , or we loved 4 so much we'll give Sid a second chance, or because we're just fanatics after all.

Regardless, I believe the first expansion will determine thhe fate of the Civ series.

2 I guess it's likely that awards, sales and reviews will be used in defense of whatever game concludes any series. Was MOO3 the third incarnation to the predicessor of the Facebook Farming game, or did it stand for something like Massive Online Orks?

WAIT! It must have been Masters of Orion! I've heard the name before.
 
This seems a bit like tinfoil hat activity to me. I mean...
Moderator Action: Please don't troll other people. .

"Does anyone else feel that getting a couple of portals to declare Civ V "game of the year" is just Firaxis pulling a "cover your @#$" routine? Specifically the Gamespy review, which is presumably more under their influence than other portals."

Getting a couple of portals? Getting? Are you implying coercion/bribery/whatever? Aside from the whole premise of this thread as using GOTYs to cover their asses in the face of fan uproar, which is speculation into the future on your part seeing as no-one has actually done it, you seem to be implying that the GOTY awards aren't legitimate, which is again, speculation.

Do you actually have any evidence supporting either of your claims, or is this pure conspiracy theory? And I'm not going to even get into the crystal ball work of yours concerning fans claiming Civ V killed the series years from now.

PS - your inability to believe some people actually thought it was the game of the year really doesn't count as evidence. If you haven't noticed, even a lot of core gamers are still on board with Civ V and enjoying it. It certainly isn't my game of the year, but I could see it being for someone who is quite well informed about the state of contemporary gaming.
 
I don't know about the title question, so I won't speculate as to motives .

1. I figure that there will be an expansion under the guidance of a new lead designer which will "build on the strengths of V" and be" redesigned with both great new features & loaded with the best of the previous versions." Whether it's known as something like "Civ Reloaded" or "Civ Cash Out" depends on how well they live up to their own hype. Most of us still left on this forum will buy in advance, because we like 5 and see it's potential , or we loved 4 so much we'll give Sid a second chance, or because we're just fanatics after all.

Regardless, I believe the first expansion will determine thhe fate of the Civ series.

2 I guess it's likely that awards, sales and reviews will be used in defense of whatever game concludes any series. Was MOO3 the third incarnation to the predicessor of the Facebook Farming game, or did it stand for something like Massive Online Orks?

WAIT! It must have been Masters of Orion! I've heard the name before.

Yeah, sorry about not being clear about that. Master of Orion 3 = MOO3.

Their boards at release were about as polarized as this one. If I remember correctly, there was a good amount more negativity relative to this one, but the idea is that the atmosphere was very similar. I can easily see this game and any future development going that direction, but with the deniability of being able to point to GOTY awards that I flat out think were bought (either for money or any other quid pro quo), in order to say that it wasn't a complete disaster on the scale that game became. It killed that series.

Responding to another's question about "would I even want Civ VI at this point," I've thought about this and I'm not really sure. I'd want to see some gutted elements returned and expanded upon, personally. If that didn't happen, I probably wouldn't be interested.

Who knows though, maybe their new demographic that's taking over the market for this game from gamers like me after 20 years will be a more profitable and loyal one. If that winds up happening, I guess there'll be a Civ VI even if I don't buy it myself. It's kinda like getting divorced for the guy with a nicer car and bigger house, but in the end that's the way the cookie crumbles. There'll be other games for sure :)
 
Are you implying coercion/bribery/whatever?


im pretty sure that most people are aware of the fact that most online reviews paint a "rosy" picture of any AAA title, whether this is some sort of bribery, back scratching or just website policys doesnt reallly make that much difference. I place much more faith in hardcopy media (they are being paid by you, not so much the gamecompanys) to provide a more indepth looks at a game
 
Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Year

it looks as if Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 2 are the consensus winners for 2010. I'm not aware of anything but the silly Gamespy ploy for Civ 5:

where they gave everyone a prize by awarding the AAA titles in the various genres and platforms. It's sort of like handing out self-esteem trophies at summer camp.
 
Well, then you're basically engaging in tinfoil hat action. Have fun.

No, I don't think he is. Big online game portals are funded by advertisers. It need not be a smokey backroom where envelopes of cash are passed...could be as simple as "I see you're planning to review $OUR_NEW_GAME...coincidentally, we're discussing whether we want to keep advertising on $YOUR_PORTAL. Well, I'm sure you'll write the right review..."

Seriously, does anyone take Gamespy, et al. seriously? They're shilling for those paying their bills. They're useful in that they get screenshots and such earlier, but consider how many awful games they rated highly. A truly bad review on one of those portals is very rare, though sadly truly bad games are anything but.

You get honest reviews in forums, individual blogs, etc.
 
No, I don't think he is. Big online game portals are funded by advertisers. It need not be a smokey backroom where envelopes of cash are passed...could be as simple as "I see you're planning to review $OUR_NEW_GAME...coincidentally, we're discussing whether we want to keep advertising on $YOUR_PORTAL. Well, I'm sure you'll write the right review..."

Seriously, does anyone take Gamespy, et al. seriously? They're shilling for those paying their bills. They're useful in that they get screenshots and such earlier, but consider how many awful games they rated highly. A truly bad review on one of those portals is very rare, though sadly truly bad games are anything but.

You get honest reviews in forums, individual blogs, etc.

Well, here's why this (this thread) falls into tinfoil the tinfoil hat realm..
Moderator Action: Please don't troll other people. .

You rag on gamespy, suggest big online portals are funded by advertisers, they're all just catering to the man in order to rack up those advertising dollars, Selous suggested one should only trust "hardcopy media" because they're being paid by you, but...

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/938528-sid-meiers-civilization-v/articles.html

There are 43 reviews there. Some from big publications, some from small publications, some from hardcopy publications, some even from independent publications, some online, some offline... And you know what? All but one - 1UP - gave Civ V 80% or above.

You come in in here raving about conspiracy theories, suggesting bribery etc etc... Do you really believe that Firaxis/2K either went to each and every single one of these magazines, fansites, and publications and bought them off? Because, news for you, not all of them even rely on advertising revenue, so the intimidation factor wouldn't work. That bribe department at 2K must have been working overtime!

Oh, and get this... 1UP? The one that I'm sure you'll all look at and say "They fought the man!"? They DO depend on ad revenue to survive. Guess they'll be going out of business soon since they bucked a major developer on a game I'm sure they were told go give a high rating too :rolleyes:

I'm telling you, tinfoil hat action. You guys speculate and speculate about secret deals and how things are REALLY done, what will happen years in the future and how bought GOTYs now will eventually be defense against railing fans, and you don't have a lick of evidence. Your positions are hardly even consistent when all is said and done (bribed/intimidated the entire reviewing community from magazines to fansites? Come on). It's just empty conspiracy theory to justify the fact that a game you don't like and some do did quite well with the critics.

And don't get me wrong, I have no illusions - what you're saying is a phenomenon that does exist. In fact, I can even think of a case where it happened and the culprits were all but caught, and someone DID get the axe as a result:

http://legendarygamersoapbox.blogspot.com/2007/11/kane-lynch-gamespot-scandal.html

The thing is, this is one case where we KNOW that a major publisher was pushing its weight around, bribing, threatening, etc etc. You know how well that worked though?

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/934403-kane-and-lynch-dead-men/articles.html

The game still got panned. The lot of you are *severely* overestimating the ability of these publishers to push around the entire professional reviewing community. Because you know what? If they had the kind of power that would have been required to get the (you think) garbage Civ V 42/43 scores 80%+, Kane and Lynch would have been able to snag above 66% average. It didn't. And here you guys go with your tinfoil hats...
 
Aftershafter, I am not 'raving' about conspiracy theories. It may not seem like it, but for the most part I try pretty hard not to use sensationalist phrasing or writing styles, and to hold back on hyperbole. This is not to say that I dance around my points, just that I try not to exaggerate. Could you please do the same? :please: You often make lots of good points for your position, but they are frequently surrounded by a thinly concealed desire to break someone's kneecaps. At least that's how I read you sometimes. :lol: If I'm just taking you wrong, then my bad. :)

Also, I specifically talked about Gamespy's GOTY award, and not "normal" reviews in my post. Yes, I know I used the word "review" in my OP (and have since edited to be more clear), but clarified even before my edit that my main object was the GOTY from Gamespy. I expect "normal" reviews to be a bit off sometimes because by nature a reviewer only has a relatively small amount of time to do the review. I accept that, and understand that things that take days or weeks to realize in the game can easily be missed by a "normal" review.

I am talking specifically about GOTY type awards, because presumably such an award would entail a longer period of time with the game. In my mind (yes, my opinion) there are two scenarios possible.

  • The game portal genuinely believes it's the best game of 2010
  • The game portal received a quid pro quo of some sort for the GOTY award, so that some face could be saved in what Firaxis may be realizing is not going to be as successful of a game as they'd hoped.
Maybe it's 'tinfoil hat' to you, but the second scenario just seems more likely in light of what seem like obviously better PC games in every aspect for the year 2010.

The first scenario just doesn't fit for me, there are games that are (in my opinion of course, but it just seems so self evident) demonstrably better done. Sure, lots of GOTY's from other places went to other games, but Gamespy didn't. Why not? Well, this, among other things. By definition, they have shared interests, and as such really have no business handing out awards to a company it has a vested interest with. Yes, I know they work with other games too, but that just makes my point even more. What business do they have reviewing and giving awards (however 'unseriously' they are taken by most) to ANYONE with whom they are partnered and share a direct financial interest (however relatively small it may be)?

Advertising on other review sites from other games, and the indirect relationship of advertising dollars to reviews is a whole other (though related) ball of wax.

Most of us may find it silly, but there are many who will see something like this and, not knowing they have direct ties with each other, think it's genuinely objective writing. When you and I KNOW that it can't possibly be, when it's in Gamespy's interest to see 2k/Firaxis/Civ V succeed. Anything other than glowing praise has potential for conflict of interest written all over it.

But... it is still something that can be pointed to down the line to say that the game wasn't so bad after all ("Hey we got Game of the Year!") even if the franchise eventually fails because of it (MOO3 style). It feels like a ready made case for the future when (and if) the topic of the game not doing well comes up. To say the same a bit differently, it seems like an expressly made way to mitigate any criticism it receives in the future, and thus save face and inhibit discussions of change based on poor decisions. If another game is even made at all. I find all of this very cynical... but also the most likely of the two scenarios I listed.

P.S. I didn't call Civ V "garbage" (at least in this post! :lol:), my primary assertion here has been that it isn't Game of the Year to anyone who has seen any other games from 2010. There's a big difference. And all of this is a bit off topic anyway, as the purpose of this post is more to find what people think of the questions I'm asking in the OP, though I admit they are a bit loaded. They're still something to think about and discuss. Discussing whether or not Civ V deserved the awards in the first place, or if they were a "suggestion," has been and still is being done in other threads.
 
There is no way that Civ 5 can be compared to MOO3.

Civ 5 is a fun little game. A bit disappointing, dull, and mediocre, yes, not worthy of the Civ name, certainly, but it was playable and for a limited period enjoyable.

MOO3 was not even playable. It was epic fail. It became a byword for disaster. It was like having carnal knowledge of a dead sheep.
 
It's weird that so many of the people that don't like Civ 5 find it so hard to believe that many others do in fact like it.

"It must be a conspiracy... if I don't like this game, nobody does !"

Yeah, very convincing.

I myself am somewhat disappointed with Civ5. But a friend of mine that never played Civ before, got it and is enjoying it a lot. Even got me into playing a few more games recently.
 
It's weird that so many of the people that don't like Civ 5 find it so hard to believe that many others do in fact like it.

I don't find it hard to believe that others like it. There are parts of it that are decent, even approaching "pretty good."

What I have a hard time believing is the objectivity of an award from a portal with direct ties to the publisher, and that it genuinely thinks it's better than any other PC game out there from 2010. There is a big difference between "I like this game" and "This is the best thing that came out for PC all year!"

I think it's pretty clear that the "award" was given to be a face saving "buffer" (something they can point to later as 'proof' that it wasn't THAT bad an idea) for what I'm guessing is disappointing numbers. Of course I can't prove it, but given the facts it certainly seems possible.
 
There is no way that Civ 5 can be compared to MOO3.

Civ 5 is a fun little game. A bit disappointing, dull, and mediocre, yes, not worthy of the Civ name, certainly, but it was playable and for a limited period enjoyable.

MOO3 was not even playable. It was epic fail. It became a byword for disaster. It was like having carnal knowledge of a dead sheep.

Yeah, I remember. Believe me... I was very sad :(

My comparison isn't necessarily direct quality to quality. It's more of a comparison of the effect it may have... that this game's possible disappointing sales (including DLC"s and future Xpacs) may become the death of development for future "serious" Civs (I presume console and Facebook type stuff is here for a while) like Civ VI... much as MOO3 killed its series.
 
Top Bottom