Blast From the Past: CivFanatics Forums from November 2005

[C~G]

This is utter BS.

I was here long before my joining date and I remember that many were scared that because of 3D etc. game would become more console oriented and would be made/simplied to sunk into larger crowds.

This wasn't true with Civ IV. In other words, many were wrong when they saw the actual game.

But with Civ V it's true and after all, representative of the company told us that, straight and simple.
It's dumbed down and streamlined towards simple click&conquer game which even has bad AI. That is inexcusable.

They wanted to get out of the earlier Civ formula towards Civ revolutions etc.

Sure with Civ IV there were technical difficulties, bugs, flaws, exploits etc.
BUT the CORE was there. In Civ V it's gone.

Question is, will it be forever gone or will they change direction of it example with some kind of "expansion that adds complexity and is geared towards experts" or do we have to wait for Civ VI.
But if there isn't criticism from those who don't like Civ V or some people are comparing it to criticism towards Civ IV when it was launched, we might be witnessing the death of true civ games.

Civ VI will be then like in those screenshots.

 

[Bad Brett]

Civilization V:

Civ5 - General Discussions
12,171 threads

Civ5 - Strategy and Tips
872 threads


Civilization IV:

Civ4 - General Discussions
39,745 threads

Civ4 - Strategy & Tips
16,856 threads


And yeah, before you say anything, I do realise that the Civ5 general discussions forum was created a lot earlier than the rest of them, that Civ4 has been out for years and that these numbers will eventually be more even. But I would very surprised if there ever will be more than 10,000 strategy threads about Civ5.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Civilization V:

Civ5 - General Discussions
12,171 threads

Civ5 - Strategy and Tips
872 threads


Civilization IV:

Civ4 - General Discussions
39,745 threads

Civ4 - Strategy & Tips
16,856 threads


And yeah, before you say anything, I do realise that the Civ5 general discussions forum was created a lot earlier than the rest of them, that Civ4 has been out for years and that these numbers will eventually be more even. But I would very surprised if there ever will be more than 10,000 strategy threads about Civ5.

If you want to take that tack, then consider the Civ IV strategy forum had its first thread posted in Oct. 2005 (from what I see). So that's an average of 3,305 threads per year, or 275 per month (roughly).

Consider that the Civ V forum had its first thread posted in Sep 2010. So roughly 1.5 months of posts (let's be generous, and say two). That means an average of at least 400+ per month. That means in it's first two months alone, Civ 5 has already had nearly twice as many strategy threads posted as Civ IV has on a monthly average.

If you were to naively assume that trend would continue, then over the same 5 year period, Civ V would have twice as many threads as the Civ IV strategy forums.

So what exactly were you trying to prove here?

 

[Thormodr]

Civilization V:

Civ5 - General Discussions
12,171 threads

Civ5 - Strategy and Tips
872 threads


Civilization IV:

Civ4 - General Discussions
39,745 threads

Civ4 - Strategy & Tips
16,856 threads


And yeah, before you say anything, I do realise that the Civ5 general discussions forum was created a lot earlier than the rest of them, that Civ4 has been out for years and that these numbers will eventually be more even. But I would very surprised if there ever will be more than 10,000 strategy threads about Civ5.

Interesting.

So, there are 2.36 times more general discussion threads than Strategy threads for cIV.

Currently there are 13.96 times more general discussion threads than Strategy threads for Shafer 5.

 

[Ayt]

eviltype, ignoring Bad Brett's analysis, you honestly think the number of strategy posts made in the last 1.5 months is indicative of how many strategy posts will be made per month in the future?

 

[eviltypeguy]

eviltype, ignoring Bad Brett's analysis, you honestly think the number of strategy posts made in the last 1.5 months is indicative of how many strategy posts will be made per month in the future?

I doubt it will be 400+ a month, but that's why I wrote:

If you were to naively assume that trend would continue...

My point was that you can't reasonably extrapolate any meaningful analysis at this point. A statistician would slap someone silly for trying to extrapolate future performance with so little data at this point.

A regressive time series analysis would fail due to the lack of data.

 

[Thormodr]

I doubt it will be 400+ a month, but that's why I wrote:

If you were to naively assume that trend would continue...

My point was that you can't reasonably extrapolate any meaningful analysis at this point. A statistician would slap someone silly for trying to extrapolate future performance with so little data at this point.

A regressive time series analysis would fail due to the lack of data.

Bad Brett was merely making a prediction. He never claimed he was presenting scientific data or anything.

It's pretty logical that in a game that seems somewhat devoid of any meaningful strategy by game design (get in your swim lane and go!/pink spaceship/blue spaceship etc.) other than perhaps ICS, that there will be a lot less strategy threads. The game has been made simpler as we all know now (thanks to Dennis Shirk for finally admitting it) and what most of us suspected all along.

It easier and more obvious how to win and that was intentional game design to appeal to the mass market.

 

[tupisac]

I've been lurking here since civ III. Never felt like registering - I just needed proper earth maps and an occasional gameplay tip.
Now I'm an active participant in this group therapy going on here.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Bad Brett was merely making a prediction. He never claimed he was presenting scientific data or anything.

It's pretty logical that in a game that seems somewhat devoid of any meaningful strategy by game design (get in your swim lane and go!/pink spaceship/blue spaceship etc.) other than perhaps ICS, that there will be a lot less strategy threads.

Devoid of meaningful strategy in your view perhaps, but not mine. And your conclusions seem speculative at best.

The game has been made simpler as we all know now (thanks to Dennis Shirk for finally admitting it) and what most of us suspected all along.

There you go again with phrases like "most of us". Stop pretending to represent some invisible majority.

It easier and more obvious how to win and that was intentional game design to appeal to the mass market.

Yes, making a game more approachable does tend to make it easier for more people to understand how to play it. <one or more deities> forbid someone should do that.

 

[Thormodr]

Devoid of meaningful strategy in your view perhaps, but not mine. And your conclusions seem speculative at best.



There you go again with phrases like "most of us". Stop pretending to represent some invisible majority.



Yes, making a game more approachable does tend to make it easier for more people to understand how to play it. <one or more deities> forbid someone should do that.

Since you keep stalking me on these forums, I'll show you a handy little trick if you don't like what someone has to say.

Are you sure you want to add eviltypeguy to your ignore list?
Y/N

*Clicks Y*

 

[Bad Brett]

My point was that you can't reasonably extrapolate any meaningful analysis at this point. A statistician would slap someone silly for trying to extrapolate future performance with so little data at this point.

Most statisticians are idiots. They can come to conclusions such as "fat food increases the risk of getting lung cancer", without taking into account that fat people may smoke more or have a generally unhealthy lifestyle.

I've actually studied statistics, and while your right that the numbers I presented aren't enough prove to something, you're happen to mention one of the most common misunderstandings about statistics: A survey with 100,000 respondents does not produce a more reliable result than a survey with 500 respondents. For example, you can never dismiss a poll just because only 500 members have voted, because that population size is mora than big enough (However, you may still argue that unhappy people are more willing to vote in the poll). More time should not be need if you compare the relative numbers to how it looked back in 2005.

In this particular case, I just presented my observations. And I do think it's rather remarkable that there already are almost half as many posts in the general Civ5 discussion, but only 1/20 posts in the strategy Civ5 forum.

 

[dexters]

Most statisticians are idiots. The can come to conclusions such as "fat food increases the risk of getting lung cancer", without taking into account that fat people may smoke more or have a generally unhealthy life style.

Sorry I had to quote it.

Why exactly he posting here and what exactly is Brad's contribution again?

 

[Psyringe]

Brett, as someone who does agree with many of your criticisms about Civ5, let me tell you that your analysis is indeed inherently flawed, to the point of being useless. If you studied statistics, you must see that, so I'm a bit puzzled here.

Most statisticians are idiots. They can come to conclusions such as "fat food increases the risk of getting lung cancer", without taking into account that fat people may smoke more or have a generally unhealthy lifestyle.

First of all, this is a generalized slur against a whole profession. I resent that. A statistician who draws causal conclusions from correlations is simply incompetent and doesn't know his tools - they do exist, but that does not mean that "most" or "all" statisticians work that way. I'd appreciate if you'd take that back.

I've actually studied statistics, and while your right that the numbers I presented aren't enough prove to something, you're happen to mention one of the most common misunderstandings about statistics: A survey with 100,000 respondents does not produce a more reliable result than a survey with 500 respondents. For example, you can never dismiss a poll just because only 500 members have voted, because that population size is mora than big enough

On which basis specifically do you form this hypothesis? You're aware of concepts like confidence intervals and measuring inaccuracy, I guess? How do you think a randomly selected (or self-selected) sample would not blow up its measurement inaccuracy if you generalize from a small sample to a large population? The argument you're presenting (if I understand you correctly) comes from statistics with representatively selected samples. If you select your sample carefully, you can get reliable results even with small samples. But as a general statement it's simply wrong. Any statistician who'd claim that would probably fall into the category that you mentioned in your first paragraph.

Finally, if you indeed studied statistics, I'm sure you're aware of concepts like comparability of samples and systematic dropout. You're comparing one sample of threads that represents several years of discussion about a game, to another sample that represents some weeks of discussion immediately after the game's release. Doing this without even pointing out this flaw is something that a student of statistics should not do imho, it's the kind of thing that indeed does give the whole profession a bad name. The obvious reply to your approach (which has already been given above) is the claim that, immediately after a game's release, there's a huge desire to discuss it in general, whereas strategic advice takes a bit of time (and playing experience) to kick into gear. This hypothesis doesn't need to be true necessarily, but for a responsible analysis you at least need to address it and give a plausible explanation why you think that your two samples are comparable nevertheless.

Compare the Civ4 threads from the first 4 weeks after release to the Civ5 threads from the first 4 weeks after its release, and you're closer to getting a point (if the analysis still shows the effect you've presented).

 

[eviltypeguy]

Most statisticians are idiots. They can come to conclusions such as "fat food increases the risk of getting lung cancer", without taking into account that fat people may smoke more or have a generally unhealthy lifestyle.

I've actually studied statistics, and while your right that the numbers I presented aren't enough prove to something, you're happen to mention one of the most common misunderstandings about statistics: A survey with 100,000 respondents does not produce a more reliable result than a survey with 500 respondents. For example, you can never dismiss a poll just because only 500 members have voted, because that population size is mora than big enough (However, you may still argue that unhappy people are more willing to vote in the poll). More time should not be need if you compare the relative numbers to how it looked back in 2005.

Except, nowhere did I claim that. Yes, I realise that may be a related concept to present here, but all of the general rules you'd apply to be able to rely on the sample data we have so far haven't been satisfied from what I see.

I admit that I haven't studied statistics, but my better half has an MA in Economics (PhD in progress) and I've written quite a few statistical analysis programs for them.

In this particular case, I just presented my observations. And I do think it's rather remarkable that there already are almost half as many posts in the general Civ5 discussion, but only 1/20 posts in the strategy Civ5 forum.

Which is only representative of the people that post here, and given all the rabble rousing and pointless repetition is hardly surprising.

 

[Ashwind]

I was quite active here at that time and I don't think your assessment is correct. I agree when you say "every aspect was debated" - that's always the case. However, take a look at what aspects the discussions focused on and how the polls of that time ran. I think sgrig made a good comparison.

The vast majority of complaints about Civ4 where:
1. the game doesn't run (technical problems)
2. stupid unnecessary 3d engine doesn't let me run the game on my machine
3. inefficient engine doesn't let me play huge maps

Even the "Civ3 > Civ4" crowd mainly cited these reasons, not any perceived "superiority" of Civ3 mechanisms. I don't recall anyone calling for a reintroduction of Civ3's corruption system. On the contrary, even the Civ3 crowd said that corruption as implemented in Civ3 wasn't enjoyable, usually their position was that corruption could be modded out of Civ3. T.A. Jones advocated a patch which did that in every discussion.

To a lesser degree, there were also gameplay discussions. These focused on 2 main aspects:
4. The game punishes warfare too much
5. Implementation of artillery as kamikaze units makes no sense

Of all these criticisms, only (5) survived for a long time. The technical issues were remedied with patches and/or resolved themselves as users upgraded from old hardware. Issue (4) was resolved by patches which lowered city maintenance, and the Warlords expansion added more options for warmongers.


Yes, but most of these arguments and threads focused on the presentation of the game, not the gameplay.

Of course there were claims that Civ4's gameplay had also been "dumbed down" - a good example is that from time to time, someone came and complained that the reduction of the distinct offense/defense strengths for each unit to a single strength value in Civ4 was a sign of "dumbing down". But, well, that assessment obviously didn't have much merit since the whole promotion system was added to allow units to be fine-tuned, so these discussions died out pretty quickly.

Another example that shows the difference are the AI discussions. At Civ4's release, most discussions regarding the AI revolved around someone claiming that the AI cheated (who was then usually proven wrong). For Civ5, the majority of AI complaints is that the AI can't handle the game's combat at all.

Really - I've seen game launches since the industry exists, and as far as forum discussions go, Civ4 was - as far as its game design was concerned - one of the most widely accepted evolutions of a franchise that I've ever seen. Civ5 is seeing a pretty divided fanbase, comparable to the release of Oblivion (another game that diverged from core gameplay elements of its predecessor, was harshly criticized by many, but also had a substantial number of players who liked it). The fan reaction to Civ5 is not as bad as the fan reaction to MoO3 or HoMM4 was though.

I really don't see where the claims that Civ4 had a similar forum reaction than Civ5 are coming from. It looks like an attempt to rewrite history, but it might just be selective memory as well. In any case, the whole premise doesn't make sense - Civ4 was a clear attempt of an evolution from Civ3, while Civ5 is a clear attempt to produce a very different game that's still Civ. It was absolutely predictable that Civ5 would have a worse reception among the fans than Civ4 had (this was then exacerbated by the fact that the game doesn't work very well right now, but patches may be able to remedy this).

Agree with this. Been lurking for years; checked back once in a while for interesting strats and posts.

Had tech issues for Civ4 and other than feeling the AI 'cheats' too much, vanilla 4 played well.

Civ5, still trying to get into 'fun' mode.

Slightly off-topic. Yes Oblivion kinda blows in the same sense it lost the 'fun' from Morrowind. But it still won Game of the Year IIRC. Never bothered with it past the hours needed to complete it once.

 

[C~G]

Sorry I had to quote it.

Why exactly he posting here and what exactly is Brad's contribution again?

And yours?

Ranting about others criticism of the game?

 

[Bad Brett]

The argument you're presenting (if I understand you correctly) comes from statistics with representatively selected samples. If you select your sample carefully, you can get reliable results even with small samples. But as a general statement it's simply wrong. Any statistician who'd claim that would probably fall into the category that you mentioned in your first paragraph.

It just depends on what you're trying to prove. Sure, 500 samples from the civfanatics forum is not enough to show how people in general feel about Civilzation V. However, the results would not be much more accurate if you took 10,000 samples from the civfanatics forums.

It's a very common mistake that people dismiss statistics just because "only 1,000 people did the survey". What really matters is how the samples were chosen. And one may assume that there are pretty much the same kind of people that write in the Civ4 and the Civ5 forum. Therefore a direct comparison of the relative number of threads now and back in 2005 would actually be a quite trustworthy method.

But the numbers I actually presented was just an observation and not a "proof" of any kind. However, if one wanted to do a real analysis of the this, the sample size would be no problem.

 

[dexters]

And yours?

Ranting about others criticism of the game?

The hivemind of defending people running interferance for your 'position' aside

The irony of the situation was why I quoted it. He tried to prove some vague point by trying to do a really bad bit of statistical analysis. When another poster pointed out he was doing it wrong, he launches into a tirade against statistics and statiscians. Typical of how he operates of course. Wall of text of nothing.

 

[Mathochism]

Most statisticians are idiots. They can come to conclusions such as "fat food increases the risk of getting lung cancer", without taking into account that fat people may smoke more or have a generally unhealthy lifestyle.

I don't think you've actually ever met a statistician in your life if you actually believe that's how statisticians operate. What's you're talking about is the media not having an inkling of understanding as to how statistics works and therefore portraying it inaccurately to the general public, as the cardinal rule of the statistician is "correlation does not imply causation."

Even though I don't particularly enjoy statistics, as a mathematician, I feel that it is important to make sure that statisticians are not portrayed inaccurately.

EDIT: Even though you claim to have studied statistics, I find it highly unlikely based on your posts that you've actually studied it in-depth.

 

[Thormodr]

The hivemind of defending people running interferance for your 'position' aside

The irony of the situation was why I quoted it. He tried to prove some vague point by trying to do a really bad bit of statistical analysis. When another poster pointed out he was doing it wrong, he launches into a tirade against statistics and statiscians. Typical of how he operates of course. Wall of text of nothing.

Like the hivemind for the apologists?

Please, the pot is equally if not more black.

He was making a prediction for the future and I think it'll turn out the way he said it would. Shafer 5 involves less strategy precisely because it was designed that way. It was designed for the masses and the Civ Rev crowd and they wouldn't want to tax their minds too much would they?

Would you not agree that this current iteration is much easier to figure out how to win at than cIV?