Sadly, Grade "F" for Civ IV: Colonization

[obsolete]

I am not familiar with metacritic but I am familiar with a couple things.

First of all, a study years ago proved that ratings given by gaming magazines were in no way reflective off the standard mean from the populace. They were in fact, very heavily correlated with the relationship between the publishers of the magazine, and that of the game itself. Hence, there is a lot of bias depending on who was advertising in who’s magazine.

This is not a psychological effect on the readers. It is a deliberate bias by the magazines because they do not wish to harm relations with companies who pay for advertisements, nor do they wish to see those companies lose profits, which ends up with everyone losing profits.

Contrary to popular belief, magazines (and newspapers) do NOT make their profit selling subscriptions. The primary income derives from the advertisements themselves. Each page is worth thousands. And before anyone tries to shoot that down, I did work for a few magazines myself and have friends in the newspaper business as well.

Second of all, many game reviewers only play an average of 3hours per game before doing a write-up, and this usually doesn’t even involve any sort of on-line play testing. The exceptions tend to be FPS games (e.g. Max Payne) where there is a specific continuous story, etc. Colonization does not fit in with that, nor is it a RolePlaying genre.

 

[Nidgaard]

Dale, any chance in the future Firaxis will fix their broken system by using a common-sense method of simply ramping up the REF due to TIME? This is sort of how Civ IV has generaly worked, and every other game. You are in a time race for lib, or the space race, etc.

I like the idea about time deciding REF growth.

Simply because it gives you a race against the clock, which is much more fun and motivating than "when can I start producing bells"? While I do understand Dale's argument that there should be a negative effect of bell production, I do not agree at all. While there are positive/negative dualities in many aspects of the game, all of those dualities are an actual choice. Making bells is not a choice, it's actually a condition to win the game. The only choice you have to make now, is when to start making bells, unless you build you colonies in a very, VERY defendable manner. If you did build your colonies in a very defendable manner ("coastal cities? what coastal cities?) then you *might* consider making bells to get the awesomely fun +50% production bonus, and the founding fathers.. but the economic advantage I would get is really dwarfed by the increase in REF.

Yes, Dale, there are numerous ways to win, but they can more or less be described in the samme manner as World of Warcraft boss-killing recipes. It's a strict, from a-b, don't produce bells 'till turn 200 / don't have a large army before DoI / do DoI at 50% / forget about killing the MoWs / and so on and so forth recipe. This shouldn't be the case on medium difficulty, and certainly not on pilgrim! Maybe on revolutionary...

Despite of possibly thousands of hours spent on Old Colonization, I never really gave a thought to how or why the soldier force was expanded back then, it just felt natural somehow. Was it based on time? I have no idea, it seemed better back then at least. As mostly an economic colony, making bells was a fun and rewarding way of tweaking/further increasing production and income. I don't really think there should be a question whether or not to produce bells, if it's too easy to produce them, why not make the buildings or statesmen more expensive? If it's a choise whether to produce them or not, make more victory conditions, or at least more stuff you can do with money, or indiands, or cooperation with other colonies

As for things I miss from the old Colonization:
- Buying soldiers from other nations
- French intervention
- Fountain of youth
- Better traderoute system

Though I do understand why they are cut in multiplayer, why can't they be in singleplayer?

 

[dalgo]

I certainly don't like buying an unfinished game then working through various patches, some of which introduce bugs of their own. For the most part I'll wait a year or more to let it settle down (and get cheaper).

There are exceptions though. Colonization is one of my all time favourite games and I've played it regularly for over 10 years now. I pre-ordered Col2 as soon as I heard about it, starting playing it on day 1, and am enjoying it thoroughly. There are many problems to be fixed but hopefully they will be addressed and just for once I don't mind being part of the process.

Then I'll go back to my wait and see approach. I won't buy another game on release maybe for years, unless of course there is a remake of Master of Magic!

 

[fmiracle]

Simply because it gives you a race against the clock, which is much more fun and motivating than "when can I start producing bells"?

Moreover, it makes possible for you to predict how big army you'll need and how to equip it, basing on the current game, not on few previous failed games or studing game sources. Really, it have much more common sense.

Despite of possibly thousands of hours spent on Old Colonization, I never really gave a thought to how or why the soldier force was expanded back then, it just felt natural somehow. Was it based on time? I have no idea, it seemed better back then at least. As mostly an economic colony, making bells was a fun and rewarding way of tweaking/further increasing production and income. I don't really think there should be a question whether or not to produce bells, if it's too easy to produce them, why not make the buildings or statesmen more expensive?

+1
I though exactly the same things when first time encounter REF/Bells dependency in new Col.

 

[Sorceresss]

[...R]atings given by gaming magazines were in no way reflective off the standard mean from the populace. They were in fact, very heavily correlated with the relationship between the publishers of the magazine, and that of the game itself. Hence, there is a lot of bias depending on who was advertising in who’s magazine. This is not a psychological effect on the readers. It is a deliberate bias by the magazines because they do not wish to harm relations with companies who pay for advertisements, nor do they wish to see those companies lose profits, which ends up with everyone losing profits. Contrary to popular belief, magazines (and newspapers) do NOT make their profit selling subscriptions. The primary income derives from the advertisements themselves.

I agree. The November issue of PC Gamer (USA) displays a review of SPORE which seems to be an overhyped piece of fluff.

The forums dedicated to SPORE are full of very angry campers -- and also, of course, of very happy fanboys.

Those magazine (and online) reviewers are too often in a financial conflict-of-interest situation -- as the above quoted poster has underscored.

On GameSpot, I rarely read the site's official review. Instead, I read the reviews posted by real-world gamers -- the positive ones, and especially, the negative ones.

Also, to take in consideration the second point made by the poster (not quoted), if you match the reviews with many forum posts by real-world gamers, you realize that the reviewers too often write their comments after a few hours of superficial gameplay -- without having taken the time & trouble to read the complaints of many forum posters who have encountered all sorts of issues & shortcomings. Those reviewers seem to live in bubble.

 

[arkham4269]

You lost me right here with the incorrect pluralization.

See what happens when you take to much German? You want to capitalize every noun!

 

[arkham4269]

One thing that I think needs to be brought up, and I see it in a lot of mod discussions for Civ IV, is how many people want a game that is decent simulation and those who seem to just want it to be fun.

Now I'm not saying a game can't be 'real' and fun, but for many people, the 'fun' comes from trying your hand at history. So for people like me, I want to see natives drop dead from disease, European mercenaries desert. Of course we'd also have to see factions among our own cities. I mean about a 1/3 of the colonists were Loyalists.

So a lot of the complaints about Civ games come from people who want a better sim so they can feel they're actually having a chance to do what they did back in the day and maybe do it better. Speaking for myself, I feel bad that you pretty much have to wipe out the Natives, either culturally or militarily. It would be nice if there was another path. Anyway, my point is that from what I've read, I'm disappointed with New Col because they really haven't done much more than take the old game and update it without really adding to much to it.

I mean, I was hoping for a scenario flag where you could up the difficulty level by having things like what would happen if the Vikings settlements had survived (perhaps fleeing Scandinavia as it converts to Christianity) and so the Natives are a lot more advanced. Maybe have Chinese colonies on the West coast. Things that add to the game as well as make the "What if?" factor more fun.

 

[Wodan]

See what happens when you take to much German? You want to capitalize every noun!

And, you want to shove everything into one big word. LIke blitzkriedgottedamnrung.

 

[Ninja2]

This discussion has certainly taken an interesting turn!

To chime into the current bit: the game industry is evolving. The internet allows for more of a community to develop around a game/series. The game companies are tapping into that community for ideas and improvements. Does that make us 'unpaid beta testers'? In a sense, yes.

There's a mantra in the Open Source community: "Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers." This way, you get the community interested/excited in your product, and you get valuable feedback for making further refinements. Games, even though 'Closed Source', are starting to go the same way. They know there's a community here that will buy the game, and provide needed feedback, in anticipation of bug fixes and patches.

Part of this is driven by economics, as mentioned above. A company has only so much money, and so much time, before they must deliver a game. They create the best game they can, given those constraints. But even with beta testers, the number of people who actually play the game before release is quite small.

On release, though, the thousands and thousands in the community will snatch the game up, and start playing it like only we can. Some will like the game, others will rant about how everything was done wrong, and some will come to forums like this, and discuss ways the game can be improved.

The developers read these forums, and occasionally answer (or even ask) questions, and take the feedback and use it to tweak the game to make it 'better'.

I would argue the point that part of the way the industry works is due to economics. It's entirely about economics. It's about striking a balance to not spend more time on a game than absolutely necessary, while at the same time getting enough people to buy the game to initiate the 'service'. And to be the devil's advocate, we're not unpaid beta testers. We're in fact paying beta testers. I fail to understand why companies don't just use more beta testers? Surely, it's not that they lack interested players in helping them out, these gaming communities are proof of that.

Well, even though there's no physical guarantee, I'm pretty damn sure this game will be extensively patched, just like basically every Civ/Civ-like game and expansion since SMAC.

Oh, I was just making a general comment about the gaming industry and the consumers' position, not questioning Firaxis' will to patch Civ4Col.

Just like my post above this is assuming that a game is flawed because it isn't exactly what you wish it was.

No. This is because it is exceedingly rare for a game to released without bugs - and I do mean bugs, where features are broken or way off balance. Not minor balance issues, or "What?!!! How can a spearman defeat a tank!!! BUG!!!!!111"!11!" type whining.

With Civ4, which I myself am modding, I am not complaining that this and that is missing, and I therefore want a patch. I am just adding it in myself. It's so cool that Firaxis has included the tools for us to do so! I would, however, complain about ctd's or decidedly broken features.

 

[man-erg]

I'm disappointed with New Col because they really haven't done much more than take the old game and update it without really adding to much to it.

The graphics and culture boundaries are the best additions that spring to mind.

Unfortunately, they've left much more OUT than I initially realised. I fired up Col1 for the first time in years last night. First thing, on turn 1 the REF is much, much higher than col2, which is how it should be. If on standard diff, you started with a REF of 25 inf, 20 dragoons, 15 cannon etc, and a slower lib bell increase (like col1), this single change would possibly fix 50% of the complaints!

There are other things missing. Col1 has more turns when the seasons kick in as time progresses. The end game really should have seasonal turns, not years.

On reviews, it's always been like this. Clearly none of the reviewers played the game more than once or twice. I believe sometimes reviewers are given 'walkthrough scripts' to follow. I've bought 2 games in the past month: Spore and Col1. While both are *potentially* great games, they are also nowhere near as good on release as the reviewers are saying. I'd say both have also been clearly released with completely finished graphics, but unfinished gameplay. And focussing on the gloss is probably enough to get a good review.

Col1 has more tree types eg "Rain forest", etc. I also think the native interaction is far more involved and believable in col1. The tribes do have there own personalities that are lacking in col2.

I noticed this after just a few turns playing col1. I may well finish a game as once you get over the chunky graphics and UI, it's actually as addictive as I remember! The bit I remember hating, that has been cured in col2, is the way the other countries would 'park' a soldier next to your colony to prevent resource gathering, even when not at war.

Still hoping that there is nothing so far that can't be patched. It's gonna be a BIG patch though.

 

[Krupo]

Well, even though there's no physical guarantee, I'm pretty damn sure this game will be extensively patched, just like basically every Civ/Civ-like game and expansion since SMAC.

Company reputation is a very solid guarantee, in my opinion: if Firaxis didn't have a history of servicing its games to perfection, I would've already returned my game, as I would Civ4, Civ3 and all the expansions shortly after their release. Hell, I seriously doubt I would've bought any further games from them after the third or so screw-up.

In my eyes, their reputation won't be tarnished till they abandon this extensive, post-release patching routine.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA

No offense, I really love these games and have so much respect for the Firaxis crew, but I had to essentially abandon Alpha Centauri because of the Alien Crossfire crash-bug when interceptors scrambled. That irritated me, like I said, to the point of abandoning the game.

 

[Krupo]

I agree. The November issue of PC Gamer (USA) displays a review of SPORE which seems to be an overhyped piece of fluff.

The forums dedicated to SPORE are full of very angry campers -- and also, of course, of very happy fanboys.

Those magazine (and online) reviewers are too often in a financial conflict-of-interest situation -- as the above quoted poster has underscored.

On GameSpot, I rarely read the site's official review. Instead, I read the reviews posted by real-world gamers -- the positive ones, and especially, the negative ones.

Also, to take in consideration the second point made by the poster (not quoted), if you match the reviews with many forum posts by real-world gamers, you realize that the reviewers too often write their comments after a few hours of superficial gameplay -- without having taken the time & trouble to read the complaints of many forum posters who have encountered all sorts of issues & shortcomings. Those reviewers seem to live in bubble.

Hold on now there. I think PCG was pretty fair about the failings of Col - end-game ridiculousness (they hammer it hard on this) and the rapid scaling up of the school system. Some would argue the 84 they give the game is too high, but for a Sid game, that's a really hard slap in the face.

They also point need to avoid micromanagement hell, which develops later in the game, and the fact that diplomacy/military is not well fleshed out either.

And I mean the initial fun is still there - after the rude shock of the game's faults, I disabled "Europe" and "Time" victories and am having a better time too.

Going back to Spore for a moment, they gave it an Ed's Choice, but they are totally upfront about its faults, in the "Lows" from the article, let alone the article itself. They point out the fact that gameplay is "rudimentary" and question whether it's really a game, or a toy.

I definitely have had lots of fun with it and for a way to get your non-hardcore gamer girlfriend intrigued by gaming, this is DEFINITELY a great opening.

Finally, remember that for PCG anyway, the numerical scores have some value, but the nuance from the reviews themselves is key.

 

[Lord Shadow]

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA

No offense, I really love these games and have so much respect for the Firaxis crew, but I had to essentially abandon Alpha Centauri because of the Alien Crossfire crash-bug when interceptors scrambled. That irritated me, like I said, to the point of abandoning the game.

Seems I got Alien Crossfire after that bug was fixed.

 

[Sorceresss]

Hold on now there. I think PCG was pretty fair about the failings of Col

My post was only attacking PCG's too generous review of Spore. But I get your point : you refer to PCG's review of Col 2 as an example of a competent review.

I did not mean to imply that all PCG reviews are as « fluffy » as the one its editor-in-chief recently wrote for Spore.

But still, as a previous poster has indicated, there is a potential conflict of interest. PCG does make most of its revenues from advertising originating from powerful game-publishing corporations (such as Spore's EA), and also, its editors & reviewers cherish their special access to pre-release builds and to game-industry stars (and parties!).

I would not declare that PCG's game-review process is incompetent, in general. I would rather state that it is incoherent, inconsistent, and too often, incomplete.

As she has revealed by her very superficial & artificial review of Spore, PCG's editor-in-chief should stick to her usual job : being the editor-in-chief. As a reviewer, she has recently illustrated that she can be ... incompetent !