Approximate letter to Firaxis

[Naokaukodem]

Dear Firaxian,

I play Civ for the experience. I don't care the exploits nor the maths as someone said, i just play for the feeling and the "whoa" effect, like "whoa, my capital now is so huge, i would never have imagined that at the start".

I play for the former feeling we have to rule a civilization among others. This happened in Civ2, where I realized I was surrounded by other civs. In Civ2, frontiers were not visible, they just set by who take the border cities tiles first. Never ever in that game it was suggested that i had to rule a true civilization (except the tile of the game maybe, but i took it as an hyperbole at the moment), but that hit me when i saw frontiers with other entities formed by several "cities". They were named "England", "Egypt" and the like. I have been blowed by this feeling.

What i love in Civ2 too was the fact that our cities grew infinitely. Never ever it was suggested that my cities would grow so high. When seeing those cities of mine with crop everywhere, 20+ population, overwhelming production, science and gold, I just thought "whoa".

IMO, Civ3, Civ4 and Civ5 should have focalize on those kinds of aspects. Surprise, overwhelming and civilizations. That's what made me a fan of Civ in the first place.

Yes I'm a fan. I bought Civ3, but it didn't give me the half of what Civ2 gave me. I loved, though, the Conquest expansion, because it was so well made and the possible games was numerous and original. (mind you Firaxis, Conquest was special and was not just "another expansion"! you should study it or ask those developers to work for you again!) Then, I bought Civ4, which didn't give me the half of what Civ3 gave me. There was the multiplayer, but when played by experienced players this is not anything other than a slump. What i liked the most was playing against newbies. Then Civ5. Civ5 didn't give me the half of what Civ4 gave to me. The reason? The insane multiplayer. On solo, I forgave. I played some solo games, but really... nothing to report. Firaxis is definitely not on the same tracks than me. I disable barbs, disable city states (so annoying and useless), there is only one unit per tile which is not very strategic (the more units you have, the better, the map ends to be filled up with units that can hardly move strategically, yet move alone!), and the progression of the game is so slow! (workers improve minimally, units and buildings are long to build...).

Firaxis, please, for Civ6, MAKE US DREAM!!!

Nowadays you are content with market niche: the fans (who will buy your products like me, eventhough they were disappointed with your last products -hoping for a renew), and the new commers. Civ 1 and 2 were blowing, you acquired a huge fanbase through them. Now you make games fore fans. On the other hand, you do not spit on new comers. They assure the growth of your market aim and increase revenues.

You are content with them. And you are right to be so, economically: those two publics are the most rewarding, economically speaking.

But come on, Firaxis, are you really happy with this? Fanatics and noobs?

You run better than that!

Please bring us the past glory of Civ, I know you can! You just need to listen a lot less to fanatics (who cares exploits? Exploits are fun BTW even if i use them the less I can, only if they are too obviously on my path, i never look for them)...

 

[maccool]

I appreciate your thoughts on this. I haven't bought CIV 5 yet and probably won't, based on a number of things. I've been poking around on various sites/posts looking to see if I missed something. I like thoughtful, informational posts on both sides. Thanks

 

[Psyringe]

Naokaukodem, I remembered we had quite some discussions when Civ4 was released, and I see you're now complaining about Civ5 as well. You've also been active in several "Ideas for Civ5" threads in the meantime, and now you're writing an open letter to Firaxis.

Honestly, I think you're choosing a fundamentally wrong approach. You assume that your complaints, ideas, and open letters, are actually listened to by Firaxis. And I'm fairly sure that they aren't. Not because your ideas are bad (well, okay, imho some are, but let's not get into that), but because your opinions represent a niche inside a niche. Even on CFC (which is the "hardcore niche" of Civ players), only about 10% of the members prefer Civ2-type gameplay as much as you do. I know you're so convinced that your preferences would create a "great" game that you believe you're representing a bigger portion of players, but I don't think you do. The number of players who share your ideas and preferences is so small that Firaxis simply has no reason to care about them (they have much bigger fish to fry) - and why should they? You even keep buying their games.

I'm sorry, but except for venting your dissatisfaction, I don't think your ideas, suggestions and complaints will have any effect. I guarantee you that Civ6 won't be the game you dream of either. What you could do (and perhaps should) is to take your ideas, perhaps find two or three people who share them, and write a mod, either for Civ5 (if it actually reaches the level of modability it was advertised to provide), or for Civ4. Writing open letters and hoping that Firaxis actually focuses on a niche inside a niche when designing their next game, as harsh as it probably sounds, will just waste your time.

 

[Jharii]

What you could do (and perhaps should) is to take your ideas, perhaps find two or three people who share them, and write a mod, either for Civ5 (if it actually reaches the level of modability it was advertised to provide), or for Civ4. Writing open letters and hoping that Firaxis actually focuses on a niche inside a niche when designing their next game, as harsh as it probably sounds, will just waste your time.

Somehow, I think that this letter is far more interesting than the related mod could ever be.

 

[Lone Wolf]

City states are known for being overpowered, not useless. Maritime city states, at least.

Never ever in that game it was suggested that i had to rule a true civilization (except the tile of the game maybe, but i took it as an hyperbole at the moment), but that hit me when i saw frontiers with other entities formed by several "cities". They were named "England", "Egypt" and the like. I have been blowed by this feeling.

What i love in Civ2 too was the fact that our cities grew infinitely. Never ever it was suggested that my cities would grow so high. When seeing those cities of mine with crop everywhere, 20+ population, overwhelming production, science and gold, I just thought "whoa".

That sounds like it was just your first time playing a Civ-type game that hooked you.

 

[Horizons]

City states are known for being overpowered, not useless. Maritime city states, at least.



That sounds like it was just your first time playing a Civ-type game that hooked you.

In my most recent game as the French, I liberated Sidon from the Mongols and kept it as a paid ally. Now the city was only size 3 and had no workers or units of its own, but every 17 turns it spawned a cannon or a rifleman for me (i.e. the most up to date units) ... which was about twice as fast as my biggest production cities, the size 10+ monsters with minimum 20 hammers per turn dedicated to military ....

So I'd say that that was pretty useful in the circumstances, not to mention completely unrealistic!

 

[Naokaukodem]

I appreciate your thoughts on this. I haven't bought CIV 5 yet and probably won't, based on a number of things. I've been poking around on various sites/posts looking to see if I missed something. I like thoughtful, informational posts on both sides. Thanks

Thank you for this part, I really appreciate it. At least, it was not useless for everybody!

Psyringe:

Firstable thanks for your sincere and plainfully honest post. But i don't think this is such a big deal you seem to consider though. Maybe due to the emphase of writed words. Anyway.

your opinions represent a niche inside a niche

I'm really curious what you can advance in order to support this idea, because you brang nothing... yet.

Precisely, I see myself, if you got me, as the in-between of the 2 publics aimed by the new Civs, since Civ2.

I'm saying, ok, those 2 publics can assure good revenues, particularly if i'm also a part of the fan base, but my wish with this letter is to catch the attention of Firaxis that they can choose a new approach, a lot less... mercantile focalized.

I may be wrong, granted, but i am intimely convinced that this part have never been challenged by the Firaxians. If only i could sow the grain in their spirit that this view may limit them (creatively(?) speaking), then I would be fairly happy.

I consider fanatics, as you may guess it by the full spelling I use of it (not just the overused word "fan" which became pretty neutral), not like a noble part. Fanatics are too many times closed inside their own walls. For many reasons, I dislike the products made for fans. Either they are too obscure, or not inventing enough. In the case of the whole Civ series, not enough inventive, way too much conservative.

Too much conservative, but not for the sake of it. Only because I think that Civ feelings needs to be renewed constantly. Myself, have a fair memory of what pleased me in Civ1 & 2. (Civ2 was my first real Civ, played littlely 1 because I didn't own it personnally and the graphics didn't please me) I tried to explain it above.

only about 10% of the members prefer Civ2-type gameplay as much as you do

As you may have already understood, I don't prefer "Civ2 gameplay". I prefer Civ2 because it was my first owned Civ that I could play endlessly home and without repulsive graphics for my time.

If I was a newcomer and played Civ for the first time with 5, I may (but who really knows) love it.

That sounds like it was just your first time playing a Civ-type game that hooked you.

Exactly my point! As I said, I play Civ and, to say all, most of the video games for the experience. I'm not really a score-whore, for example. (eventhough in some not too demanding games i can occasionnally focus on scores, as i did, with Civ3 GOTMs) The thing is, all Civ sequels feel the same at the core. There are differencies, but the core, and what may please to the one or the other, like what I described above, is the exact same. Exact same core = exact same feeling = boreness!

I know you're so convinced that your preferences would create a "great" game that you believe you're representing a bigger portion of players, but I don't think you do. The number of players who share your ideas and preferences is so small that Firaxis simply has no reason to care about them (they have much bigger fish to fry)

I'm not here to represent fanatics in the first place. I'm not here either to represent anyone. I could at the maximum represent the only vector of constant interest: innovation, which is not any precise idea. Nobody should expect, not even myself, a precise idea to be represented in a game. That's why I prevented myself to integrate ideas in that letter, as I previously wanted to. Innovation should be able to surprise, catch up attention and enjoy random, anonimous and numerous people.

and why should they? You even keep buying their games.

I always pirated Civ Series. Except for 5 where multiplayer couldn't be played with pirate version anymore (or I least that's what I believed) I made a (oh, very humble) post in the multiplayer forum where I express my dissatifaction.
Moderator Action: This forum has no tolerance for piracy here, pirates are not welcome.
Support the developers. If you like their work, then buy the games.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

write a mod

I definitely CAN'T be arsed to go into programming languages. And anyway, I couldn't even think of a satisfying way to implement some "revolutionary" idea. Maybe one day. But looking for everything by myself is very slow.

waste your time

Don't worry dude, I don't waste that much time and to say all, I have way too much spare time and have fun writing those letters. Not a big deal.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'm not really a score-whore, for example. (eventhough in some not too demanding games i can occasionnally focus on scores, as i did, with Civ3 GOTMs) The thing is, all Civ sequels feel the same at the core. There are differencies, but the core, and what may please to the one or the other, like what I described above, is the exact same. Exact same core = exact same feeling = boreness!

Many powergamers don't care about score at all, for it always had been a bad evaluator or play quality.

I understand what you're talking about now. Of course, how do you propose to actually change the core?

 

[lschnarch]

I always pirated Civ Series. Except for 5 where multiplayer couldn't be played with pirate version anymore (or I least that's what I believed) I made a (oh, very humble) post in the multiplayer forum where I express my dissatifaction.

Oh, you were dissatisfied that you had to *buy* a game you wanted to play?

You, dear Sir, have disqualified yourself. Honestly, the less fun you have, the better.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Thread closed and spam deleted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889