Civ 5 expansion and latter games = way less sales

[MasterDinadan]

Ummm...more people on Civ Fanatics think the game has been dumbed down than not. That "small minority" is actually 45.5% and rising by the day.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=381961

A biased thread title leads to biased participants.

 

[Stalingrad]

So, everyone who actually liked the game got paid off?

I confirm and understand that you believe in outlandish conspiracy theories.

obviously you need to reread the quote that you put up, in NO WAY did i say everyone who liked the game got paid off, that is you taking my words and blowing them out of proportion to say everyone who like the game was paid off. I merely was pointing out some of the main gaming sites regularly get paid off by big corporations to give decent reviews for games that dont deserve such a high credibility rating. Do i have proof of this? DOes anyone have proof except the high up people at 2k or at the other large reviewer sites, of course, but can we or anyone else obtain this info? oF course not, your missing my point, review sites gotta make money somehow, ads dont pay for it all, obviously you dont understand simple common sense knowledge that everyone in almost every industry is out to make a buck.

And i never said all the sites that liked it were paid off, maybe you should reread your assertions before making yourself look like a fool (sorry for the typos i was in a rush gotta get to class )

 

[Jerrymander]

<snip>

 

[evrett37]

Part of the problem is the pain of transition from civ 4 to 5..I went through it..its takes a while to appreciate the differences. That said where were you when I was shouting the very same message before release and getting absolutely no support.

The only truth in the world is that which YOU make. If this community wants a better civ then we are going to have to stop being spectators and organize what resources we have - no matter how true ranting about problems arnt going to fix them. Its the difference between being pro-active and re-active.

Here is a thread in which I list a plan of action to make those needed changes

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=389148

 

[Doctor Phibes]

obviously you need to reread the quote that you put up, in NO WAY did i say everyone who liked the game got paid off, that is you taking my words and blowing them out of proportion to say everyone who like the game was paid off. I merely was pointing out some of the main gaming sites regularly get paid off by big corporations to give decent reviews for games that dont deserve such a high credibility rating. Do i have proof of this? DOes anyone have proof except the high up people at 2k or at the other large reviewer sites, of course, but can we or anyone else obtain this info? oF course not, your missing my point, review sites gotta make money somehow, ads dont pay for it all, obviously you dont understand simple common sense knowledge that everyone in almost every industry is out to make a buck.

And i never said all the sites that liked it were paid off, maybe you should reread your assertions before making yourself look like a fool (sorry for the typos i was in a rush gotta get to class )

If it's anything like my past experience, which was on dead tree computer magazines, then no-one gets directly paid off (except maybe a few free sandwiches and the odd pint down the pub). That's not the dynamic. But - there is often a background culture that militates towards favourable reviews - sometimes it's subtle, sometimes quite crude. And the key is advertising. Editorial is at the mercy of the ad sales department and they are at the mercy of the advertisers. Now, and especially if you are a freelance journalist, if there is some implication that your hatchet job has cost the mag $$$s because prominent and lucrative companies have withdrawn their ads in a fit of pique, no-one's likely to give you a hard time directly. No, they simply won't ask you to fill any of their review slots again. Happened to me, at least once.

Anyway, it's a kind of evolutionary selection. I can't speak for web - as opposed to dead tree - reviewers, of course, I haven't been in that line of work for a good long while...

 

[Thormodr]

A biased thread title leads to biased participants.

A crappy game leads to people saying it's crappy. Many people don't like the new watered down Civ and are voting accordingly.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Sorry, you have a selection bias for that thread. It was hyperbolic to the point that I almost ignored it. If I didn't know it was a poll, I wouldn't even have clicked on the link. Also, CFC isn't the majority of Civ users.

 

[YoHo]

Although I am biased - yes I think Civ V falls short - it seems the posts saying the Civ IV release had the same problems are not correct.

I went back and went through the Civ IV CFC forums posted post-release, and yes there were issues. But they were fundamentally different in that they were about bugs (not that many really) or specific balance issues.

There wasn't the generalized disappointment that Civ V has generated.

Without doing a numerical survey I can't be 100% certain of this, but it definitely seems to me that Civ V has been received much less positively by CFC members.

I'd be curious to see how it compares to the Civ3 reception as well.

I feel that it compares more to the Civ3 launch, because Civ3 and 5 introduced a larger variety of completely new concepts compared to 4. In my admittedly imperfect memory, 3 is much different from 2 where 4 is really very much like 3. They're different but not vastly so.

V is again a big change from 4.
So, I'm curious, how the Hardcore Civ2 fans accepted 3.
Admittedly, that question is more about gameplay than the quality of the software at launch, but based on everything I've read here, I can honestly say the gripes are an amalgam of both issues.

 

[DavidPBacon]

Well, I liked Civ 3 at first. It took me a while to access that it was the worst Civ in the series. Especially 5 years later, when I got Civ IV. It's unbalanced. Bigger is better, much more than in Civ4 and many new features didn't work, like colonies, for example. But I still liked it then. I've also played it for countless hours, since although a 8/10 game for me, it was better than many other Strategy games back then, including CTP and CTP2.

 

[Stalingrad]

what sad is i havent been playing civ for about a week or so and wont play until december 13th or so cuz i have classes im getting ready for, sad thing is im looking more foward to buying Halo Reach (and im not a FPS fan) rather than pulling out Civ5 (in general i typtically favor strategy games more) just comes to show how much the civ series has dropped since this release in my opinion and whati can tell in most people's opinions that ihave read across this site that are dissatisfied with the game which is is in pretty high numbers

 

[devilhunterred]

I'm beginning to trust major video game media less and less with their reviews and opinions towards games, especially when it comes to the so-called AAA titles.

Look at the score IGN and Gamespot gave to COD:MW3 and Assassin's Creed 2. They both get 9+ simply because of their massive brand name and fanbase.

The score they gave to CIV V was no different. CIV V is only worth a 7 at most in my opinion, vastly inferior to CIV IV.

 

[PhilBowles]

can you say, told you so? hehehe check out this link peepz http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540&p=1

That probably depends what you told us. Because the review is thoughtful, balanced and supports nothing in either your title or your post, while you rant about random unconnected things that aren't so much as mentioned in it, such as sales.

Including this civ 5, it was either dumbed down intentionally to increase the fan base

How do you possibly derive this from a review which lauds the more developed tactical combat system and the greater potential for diplomacy allowed by the city state mechanic? If anything the reviewer oversells the strategic and tactical decision-making required by this game in comparison to its predecessors. He even points specifically to aspects that are more realistic than in previous Civ games, which as any Civ V gamer can tell you, are few and far between.

Did you read the review or just notice that "fall of Civilization V" was in the title? He praises the game design very highly, he just feels the AI and opaque diplomacy let it down - exactly the feeling (minus the praise) of many here. And he doesn't like the fact that social policies are permanent - again, another common complaint, but not one fatal to the game (even in his opinion, where he describes the AI and diplomacy as the serious issues). I'm really not sure how "good game design that has serious flaws, including an AI that isn't up to the task of playing a game more complex than its predecessors" equates to describing the game as "intentionally dumbed down".

 

[PhilBowles]

I'd be curious to see how it compares to the Civ3 reception as well.

I feel that it compares more to the Civ3 launch, because Civ3 and 5 introduced a larger variety of completely new concepts compared to 4. In my admittedly imperfect memory, 3 is much different from 2 where 4 is really very much like 3. They're different but not vastly so.

V is again a big change from 4.
So, I'm curious, how the Hardcore Civ2 fans accepted 3.
Admittedly, that question is more about gameplay than the quality of the software at launch, but based on everything I've read here, I can honestly say the gripes are an amalgam of both issues.

I didn't get on well with Civ 3, though did eventually get into it. Not too different from my reaction to Civ V, in fact; I was very sceptical about it and waited a year before buying it on offer.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Do we really need an offtopic necro in a thread which is older than a year?
No, we don't.
Thread closed.