Firaxis pulling a CYA with GOTY?

[cman2010]

An award, yes. They gave it "PC Turn-Based Strategy Game of the Year" for 2010.

A category that includes what, two or three other competitors? I mean hey, Civ 5 beat Elemental... so it must be GOTY! FLAWLESS VICTORY!

and thats pre patch elemental, if you put post patch elemental up against civ 5c civ 5 would lose in the catagory as well.

 

[zonk]

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.

That's the thing, I think -- yes, I know there are exceptions and there are some longtime, really good, hardcore Civ fans that like V... and yes, it's no MOO3 - I mean, it IS playable. But I think the hardcore base is pretty tilted towards feeling it was a disappointment at best -- the basic discussion seems to come down to "Disappointing, but a base that can be built upon" vs. "Disappointing and a developmental dead-end".

I'm firmly in the latter camp.

For a Civ or 4x novice - I can certainly see how it would be well-received... you don't need to obsess over individual city management, which I'm sure can be tedious in hardcore strategy games and micromanagement aren't your thing... it's pretty enough... Sure - if I didn't own every 4x title under the sun, I'd probably say it's a great game, too.

But - for someone that's pretty much exclusively a TBS and RTS gamer (the only exception I personally make is for a bit of sports sim, ala OOTP) - it's big come down.

Do I want a Civ VI?

I do - but not if the architecture is built upon thinking CiV was a success. I know a lot of people who do like CiV wonder why folks like me feel this constant need to stay around the V forums and trash the game rather than just going back to the IV or IV mod forums -- THAT question -- "Do you want a Civ VI" is why.

I don't want IV to be the end of the road. I think there are a lot of things that could be improved from IV BTS. I'd like to see a good and functional espionage system. I'd like to see more complex and deeper diplomacy. I'd like to see the whole "spearman beats tank" issue resolved once and for all. I'd like to see cultural and religious expansion and tensions better modeled. In short - I'd like to see the complexity and historical depth of a Paradox title happen within the realm of a Civilization sandbox. I'd like to not just have an era-appropriate menu within the historical and real-world context, but the opportunity to have those things happen organically on a completely originally generated map.

CiV doesn't move in that direction - it moved away from that direction.

$$$ rule the world, and as much my opinion might be a majority opinion on boards like this - I understand that it's more than likely a minority opinion in the grander scheme of games... Most people prefer a game they can finish in a single sitting. Most people don't want to have to learn to intricately balance economics, industry, science, happiness, and culture at a micro level while at the same time understanding and synthesizing that micro-balancing to a macro level.

BUT - I also know those same people can be easily swayed and are fickle - and if I can do my small part to chase them away from my niche games so that publishers who want to create in the PC realm understand that I and gamers like me are the only ones that won't just buy an xBox and mindlessly punch buttons... well... whatever it takes to keep my little corner of the gaming world filled with games that meet my tastes rather than always lusting after new fans who want a "friendlier" gaming experience.

 

[Frozensky]

An award, yes. They gave it "PC Turn-Based Strategy Game of the Year" for 2010.

A category that includes what, two or three other competitors? I mean hey, Civ 5 beat Elemental... so it must be GOTY! FLAWLESS VICTORY!

http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2010/

The thing to keep in mind is that even though there's a lot of expansions, PC Gamer did give its sim award to an expansion.

They apparently felt Civ5 beat out expanded content for Sins of a Solar Empire, Hearts of Iron 3, and Europa Universalis III, as well as a handful of new releases of notable strategy series.

I'm obviously not counting games that would be put into their own subgenres like Starcraft II and Tropico III.

 

[SuperJay]

Unfortunately I can't see that link as it's part of a Wordpress blog, and my super-hero Justice League internet thingy blocks those.

My point was really about the "subgenres" though. Obviously that publication will only deal in PC games, so there's one subset. Then strategy is another. Then turn-based is yet another. When you narrow down the categories so much, the "GAME OF THE YEAR" title becomes pretty meaningless because there just isn't that much competition within a specialized PC-only sub-sub-sub-genre in a single year.

......

So, you know when you go through a rough breakup with someone you've had a long-term relationship with, and you're feeling angry and hurt and upset and betrayed for months and months... but then one day you realize you forgot to think about her for awhile and that you're really not bothered so much by the breakup anymore?

I think I just finally reached that point with Civ 5.

Just realized that lately I haven't been reading this forum much or getting fed up with the game or being frustrated by Firaxis and 2K and the whole stupid situation... I'm finally beyond really caring much about it anymore. I'm mostly here for the humor, now. And being able to laugh about the whole mess is rather refreshing.

See you later, guys! It's been quite a ride since September. Best of luck to you all.

 

[Eskel]

You may find it a bit off topic, but I'd like to revert to one interesting statement in OP.

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.

To be frank, IMO Civ franchise was targeted at casual audience since its very beginning. It is not so complicated or complex game to call it reality sim or sth like this and pretend it requires a ton of intellect to play.
For vast majority it always was simple, enjoyable game, which allowed human player to feel smarter than he currently is, thus greatly improving his mood and strengthening self-opinion (what mustnt be true, but is nice and pleasant anyway).
The real fail of Civ5 is that it cannot create this illusion. Simplifications, gamey concepts, numerous contradictions to so called "common reason", and finally - last but not least - almost complete lack of any serious challenge, make it impossible.

I am casual player in my own view. I play for entertainment, in sparce time between work, children and some social life. Still I find Civ 5 bland and shallow game, and - pls belive me - not because firmly established self-esteem as highly intelligent individual, but just because I find it boring and tedious.
That said, the image of mythical "casual player" as a dumb sheep which will buy just anything, is nothinog more than wishful thinking and lame excuse for poor design for lazy gaming companies, when something went wrong.
Companies, that blindly believe in power of modern marketing, and paying for reviews and awards "in its own category" forget to put some real interest, passion, and funds into actual game development and quality.

 

[Ciproflox]

the press doesn't actually play games. nobody actually takes GOTY awards seriously

the people who do are usually marketing tools

the press, in this case, is given by a large number of game magazines and game related organisations. Because there's over a 100 of them in the voting process (according to wikipedia), it's likeable for a big, innovative game like Civ V to win.

 

[cman2010]

the press, in this case, is given by a large number of game magazines and game related organisations. Because there's over a 100 of them in the voting process (according to wikipedia), it's likeable for a big, innovative game like Civ V to win.

civ 5 is not innovative.

 

[Ciproflox]

civ 5 is not innovative.

It is.

-new gameplay layout (1 unit/hex etc/believable game world etc.)
-complete ingame-modification with browsing, installation, activation
-overall userfriendly design (savegaming, menus, HUD, overall visual feedback)

I'm not gonna play the devil's advocate, I know there's many losses to claim, but objectively, in comparison, by all the game quality criteria, it's a very good game.

 

[builer680]

You may find it a bit off topic, but I'd like to revert to one interesting statement in OP.


To be frank, IMO Civ franchise was targeted at casual audience since its very beginning. It is not so complicated or complex game to call it reality sim or sth like this and pretend it requires a ton of intellect to play.
For vast majority it always was simple, enjoyable game, which allowed human player to feel smarter than he currently is, thus greatly improving his mood and strengthening self-opinion (what mustnt be true, but is nice and pleasant anyway).
The real fail of Civ5 is that it cannot create this illusion. Simplifications, gamey concepts, numerous contradictions to so called "common reason", and finally - last but not least - almost complete lack of any serious challenge, make it impossible.

I am casual player in my own view. I play for entertainment, in sparce time between work, children and some social life. Still I find Civ 5 bland and shallow game, and - pls belive me - not because firmly established self-esteem as highly intelligent individual, but just because I find it boring and tedious.
That said, the image of mythical "casual player" as a dumb sheep which will buy just anything, is nothinog more than wishful thinking and lame excuse for poor design for lazy gaming companies, when something went wrong.
Companies, that blindly believe in power of modern marketing, and paying for reviews and awards "in its own category" forget to put some real interest, passion, and funds into actual game development and quality.

Eskel, statements such as the one of mine that you quoted deal in relative terms. No, it never took a doctorate to play the game, it has always dwelt in a place that many (including me) liked, an area between Insane Micromanagement and Purble Palace. When comparing that to heading in the direction of Internet app, I for one don't like the implications of it trending drastically downward in terms of brain output requirement. It feels like you think that I'm claiming that you had to be a genius to play. I never said that. I'm merely saying that a trend in that direction would be a direction further away from a bit more "hardcore" audience.

 

[moscaverde]

The great thing about the previous civ games was that it had fun concepts for hardcore AND casual players, it was the balance between strategy and fun/immersive elements that made the franchise great.

 

[jihe]

Failed Game of the Year.

 

[lschnarch]

It is.

-new gameplay layout (1 unit/hex etc/believable game world etc.)
-complete ingame-modification with browsing, installation, activation
-overall userfriendly design (savegaming, menus, HUD, overall visual feedback)

1upt (1 unit/hex) is in no way an "innovative" concept. This has been around since 1984 (at least).

The way in which you can deal with modifications actually is quite a nice way, no doubt about this. And actually, here they have some merits.

But in which way the design should be overall "userfriendly" is completely beyond me.
Actually, identifying older savegames is a complete hassle. Even worse it get's with autosaves.
The menus are something of the worst what I've seen in the past 10 years. Information is presented in the most difficult to read way, information are put here and there, but never are available in any consistent way.
What you call HUD is another example for poor design, to say the least. Information is found on top of the screen, on the left side, on the right side and then we have the information lines in the upper middle of the screen. The effect is that you have to constantly look from one edge of the screen to the other and all the way back. Worst example for this is the way in which you get new technologies from an Great Scientist.
And don't get me started about the "overall visual feedback". No information about which tiles are worked on the main screen. Units are so unidentifiable that they have to have special icons for this.
Roads are hard to identify in farms and trading posts. Unfinished farms are hard to identify on certain ground. River display is the poorest thing since Civ1.
Even the information bubbles on the right side are very poor, as in some cases not coloured by priority.

I'm not gonna play the devil's advocate, I know there's many losses to claim, but objectively, in comparison, by all the game quality criteria, it's a very good game.

If the above are your "game quality criteria" then sorry, but you completely failed. As did the game.

 

[builer680]

See you later, guys! It's been quite a ride since September. Best of luck to you all.

From the short amount of time I've been posting here (though I've been lurking for several years), I find that you have a pretty good way with words. It's always interesting to read what you contribute.

Hope to still see ya around occasionally.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

You're making some rather strong accusations.

Given the sheer number of things that were, on release, objectively wrong with the game and the fact that many remain now it is *very* hard to make an objective cause for GOTY awards for civ V. When the controls don't work 100%, the MP experience is a joke (for the entire year any serious MP player would have to wait until right at the end of the turn timer EVERY turn or risk being double-moved), DLC doesn't sync up with all game modes, etc etc etc...you don't win GOTY.

Unless you have some sort of behind-scenes marriage with people giving you reviews. GOTY awards for this game are only possible IF:

1. There is a severe amount of influence between Firaxis/2k and gamespy that would lead gamespy to give the reward or risk future trouble

OR

2. Reviewers are so flagrantly incompetent that if they were in say, medicine, their idea of brain surgery would be to fire a shotgun at someone's skull. Job well done.

I seriously saw droves of major publications give this game > 9/10 ratings. How many of those high ratings mentioned bugs? How many mentioned units doing something other than ordered? How many mentioned that you can't move after ending turn in MP? How many mentioned the game requiring higher than recommended specs to actually use all of its features? I cold go on, but I will tell you that I saw more than one "review" of this game that mentioned NONE OF THOSE THINGS.

That's disgusting. The reviewers are literally reviewing a major game in a long-standing and high-selling series and flagrantly not doing their job.

So...conspiracy/influence...or such gross incompetence that over half of the profession is a joke that can't simply do their job requirements? It's one of those things. Reviewers have essentially lied to us by omission, but gamespy took it a step further and later and that is VERY suspicious.

 

[builer680]

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.

I'll do even better than vague "crystal ball" and attempt to predict an actual conversation (nearly verbatim!) years from now. Assuming Civ VI isn't made, I'm sure it'll still be discussed somewhere, and the topic of why Civ finally failed will come up in such a conversation. I'll name these conversationalists Gamer A and Gamer B. As fate would have it, those just happen to be your and my avatar initials. How cute! Sure, it's silly, but fun. And I don't think it's all that unlikely. Just this once, I'll indulge in a bit of hyperbole just to spice up the convo a bit

Gamer A: Man, I wish they had made Civ VI.

Gamer B: Me too dude! Wanna argue about why they didn't?

Gamer A: Sure!

Gamer B: Awesome! My guess is that the game didn't meet their sales expectations, and in the face of the rollout of Facebook Civ, it just wasn't all that cost effective to keep working heavily on patches for Civ V, start up a design team for Civ VI , and work on Facebook Civ. For one thing, if they were ever going to make any Civ sequel at all, it probably would have been to Civ Rev on a console. Console games generally sell better, and you have less PC configurations to worry about to boot. Why bother making a sequel for a relatively complex PC game with so many multiple spec requirements and a large portion of the player base now alienated by Civ V, so that there was now no guarantee of a return to pre Civ V sales levels? Skipping any expacs and just sticking to DLC's for Civ V was easier money for minimal investment... and Facebook Civ was cheaper, was easier to optimize for a browser instead of worrying about all the PC configurations, and was less complex to code because it's a simpler game.

Gamer A: I think you're way off base and I wanna break your kneecaps! No, seriously, Civ V got GAME OF THE YEAR in 2010 MAN! Don't you remember? Their ideas were great! It's almost like you think it killed the series like MOO3 did or something. It sold great, the only ones "alienated by Civ V" just wanted BTS Civ 4.5.

Gamer B: Where's your proof that it sold great? I never saw any milestone sales announcements from the company at all.

Gamer A: Well you can look at vgchartz and it almost hit a million there by the end of 2011, and you gotta guess Steam sold a million more.

Gamer B: Ugh, that's not proof...

Gamer A: Bah, let's play Facebook Checkers. It's only $19.99 on Steam, and you can get the blue checkers DLC for only $9.99! And since the last patch, your very first move will sometimes randomly discover the "SQUARE OF SKILL" (with Civ V's old El Dorado graphic!) that will instantly kill all of your opponents' checkers!

Gamer B: That's awesome, I love pwning n00bz! Sure let's play, I just hope Steam never goes out of business. I got 50 games on there now...

On a more serious note... it's really not "crystal ball" as much as it is simple recognition of human nature, and pattern recognition from other real life lessons. It's akin to the guy at the office who makes sure to involve himself with all the good ideas... so he gets at least some of the credit in the future. Combine that guy with a mentality to make sure that he always has some kind of defenses and deflection ready, if someone ever finds ammunition to use against him when those ideas don't work out as planned. "Look, we got a trophy, it wasn't THAT bad!"

It's something that a developer can point to for future sales of other games. "Look at our unblemished history of excellence!" I doubt that most 'Average Joe' game buyers know that the sites giving out awards are sometimes partnered with the games they're awarding. So they make a good, but unbeknownst to the customer, also very self serving sales pitch. You can't go wrong with a new game from a developer with multiple previous Games of the Year, right?

Presumably, the guys who wrote this game will want jobs of some kind (new games to make) years from now. It behooves them to make sure they surround themselves as best they can with praise now... against the possible day when their design decisions, and subsequent sales performance, may be put into question (either by customers or a potential publisher). It's much easier to dodge any questions or criticism when you can point to a trophy, even if everyone knows it's bogus. It's weird, I know, but it's the truth. By that time, no one will really remember all the details, only that they got an award. If it was really meaningless, I doubt anyone would bother making Game of the Year Editions because of them.

 

[Gatsby]

The same will be true with Civ 4 and Civ5; the average player will maybe complete 2-3 full games and then he'll loose interest and buy another game - that's just they way it is.

<snip>

the average consumer does not really care, which is why Civ 5 got quite good reviews; if you only play for a very limited time you won't even notice most of the bugs (and Civ 5 has quite a few, even now) and Civ 5 will feel quite fresh.

Following that line of reasoning, a game company wouldn't be bothered about ensuring replayability value in their games, even for games belonging to sub-genres which only really make sense if they have replayability value (such as turn-based strategy). A very cynical business strategy indeed! But when a gaming company follows up on that sort of approach by pulling strings so that there game receives dodgy awards....well imo that goes beyond cynical and into the realm of unmitigated gall and outright contempt for the customer base (especially the long-time fans of the series).

 

[Nares]

the only ones "alienated by Civ V" just wanted BTS Civ 4.5.

Hardly.

 

[builer680]

Hardly.

Hey you're taking my quote out of context buddy

 

[Horizons]

Firaxis can redeem themselves by releasing the Zulu civilization as a new, FREE DLC.

I miss Shaka, that cheeky old rascal

 

[Fabien]

Following that line of reasoning, a game company wouldn't be bothered about ensuring replayability value in their games, even for games belonging to sub-genres which only really make sense if they have replayability value (such as turn-based strategy). A very cynical business strategy indeed! But when a gaming company follows up on that sort of approach by pulling strings so that there game receives dodgy awards....well imo that goes beyond cynical and into the realm of unmitigated gall and outright contempt for the customer base (especially the long-time fans of the series).

Yes, but that is not the fault of the company in this case. Most Shooters don't have much replay value; I'm not arguing that Firaxis did this is purpose, I just wanted to voice why in my opinion casual gamers are quite happy with the game. Since Editors of Game Magazines don't have that much time to test a game (to be frank, they simply don't have enough time and on top of that they get a pre release Version which may be riddled with bugs) its quite easy to explain why some magazines liked Civ5, because if you only ever play it 2-3 times in your entire life, you won't notice 95% of the "problems" the normal Civ 5 game has. Again, I don't think Firaxis has anything to do with this rating mechanism ; it just works that way.

You just have to keep in mind that atleast 95% of the playerbase of Civ5 will never even wonder wether local happiness is a superior compared to global happiness because by the time they would start to furmulate such ideas in their minds, they're already playing another title. Again, this has nothing to do with Firaxis anyway.

I didn't think it was that way either, I always thought people would stick with some games and play them a long time, but the statistics on online game portals tell you the truth - it's very unlikely that someone spends over 20 hours on a single game. (Even when the game is something like Napoleon TW / Empire where a complete campaign takes longer than that and would potential offer much more replay value).