Pack of bears. With gnomes riding them.
An Evaluation: Why CIV 5 is an absolute atrocity.
- Thread starter devilhunterred
- Start date
- Status
Pack of bears. With gnomes riding them.
Starcraft 2 did in fact have a public beta. I was in it. I obtained entry simply by preordering the game.
Furthermore, Blizzard has a well-known policy of not releasing buggy content simply to get something out the door. Civilization V, for all its many positive attributes, shouldn't have been released in its current state in my opinion. Public betas prevent paying customers having to test what they've paid for.
Yes, yes it is.
Most game developers insist that games are no longer than 24 hours. I expect that with console games. I always felt that this was the key element that made PC gaming unique; longevity.
Apparently 3 of those "100" people live here in Louisville then...
Yes, yes it is.
Most game developers insist that games are no longer than 24 hours. I expect that with console games. I always felt that this was the key element that made PC gaming unique; longevity.
Apparently 3 of those "100" people live here in Louisville then...
I can't imagine a 100 hour Civ game. I would be so out of it that I wouldn't be able to keep playing it.
Yes, yes it is.
Most game developers insist that games are no longer than 24 hours. I expect that with console games. I always felt that this was the key element that made PC gaming unique; longevity.
Apparently 3 of those "100" people live here in Louisville then...
Seriously. 40-50 hours per game is the zone that all the classic games I've loved have shot for.
Flavorable
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 165
To all those talking about how V should have taken a note from SC2. Think about that for a second.
Starcraft 2 had taken an entire 12 years to make. What did it add? Really, how did it push the series forward?
Really, it was an overly polished Starcraft HD.
That is not the route I want Civilization to go.
Starcraft 2 had taken an entire 12 years to make. What did it add? Really, how did it push the series forward?
Really, it was an overly polished Starcraft HD.
That is not the route I want Civilization to go.
I don't think they should have taken game design cues from the developers of SC 2. The key to what you've said here is polished. We are loyal fans who paid money for a product. We shouldn't be spending our time posting bug reports about that product here on this (awesome) fansite. We should be playing. Releasing products before they are as bug free as possible is bad business and as much as I like Civ V I can't support the decision to release the game with so many bugs.
Flavorable
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 165
Blizzard spent 3 times longer, and many many times more money on a game not nearly as ambitious. Civ V can't compete like that, but it does some clever things. It'll use modding to lay the foundation for its fixes and future. I know that sounds greedy right now, but its really not, its a method of rapid improvement that allows more time and energy and money to be spent on more important things in the development cycle.
devilhunterred
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2006
- Messages
- 511
Oh trust me blizzarded up on a lot of stuff.
As much as Firaxis has done with CIV 5? I don't know........kinda hard to grasp the possibility.
I do not care for Civ 5 vanilla at all, it feels...Mass marketed for everyone imo and a money grab, like a console version buuuut that being said. Civ 4 I dont think was good until warlords and BTS, so I am giving it time. I can never go back to Vanilla BTS anyway after playing RoM A new dawn. So all I have to say is give Firaxis a chance they tend to listen to thier critics and just wait until the Modders start Modding, Im sure it will improve. Also, think of Civ 5 as a test run for a new model of civ.
Mike
Mike
Flavorable
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 165
Once again:
Blizzard developed a ridiculously unoriginal, unambitious game, using bucketloads of cash, over 12 years. 2K developed a very ambitious game, using nowhere near as much cash, over 4 years.
The content issue will remedy itself considering modding will be so much more important. In that respect, 2k did pretty damn well.
I'm beginning to feel mod is a cop-out. Look, there will be mods, but I'm one of those people that doesn't like fishing around for mods. Fallout 3 has a huge treasure trove of mods but they dont all play nice together, and it's a pain managing them. I dont want a piecemeal solution to bring this game up to snuff.
Flavorable
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 165
Kay, but the mod browser will make it pretty easy to search for tons of custom scenarios and maps at least, don't tell me that doesn't appeal to you.
devilhunterred
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2006
- Messages
- 511
You can't compare the two in that particular aspect.
SC2 was designed and programmed to be a competitive game since day 1. Race, unit, map balance were the key they had to think about to ensure that the game fits the criteria of a game in the international competitive gaming standard.
To reinforce that focus Bliz redeveloped and redesigned the whole Battle.net infrastructure to accommodate with SC2, and the majority of the budget went into that.
The purpose of SC2 wasn't to reinvent the genre, it was simply to create a more balanced and an updated version of SC1. South Koreans were sick of playing a game built on an engine that's 11 years old, and major gaming tournaments are also getting embarrassed hosting such an ancient game in the midst of 2010 titles.
But anyways, the main point is that if there is one thing Firaxis can learn from Bliz, it's the amount of polish Bliz's games always have and Firaxis' games always lack at launch.
I call BS on embarrassment. What are they going to do? Cancel them because they're too embarrassed? Even if they're profitable?
- Status
