Civ 5 Vs. Civ 4 BTS+ RoM:AnD - a final conclusion
- Thread starter poncratias
- Start date
You have to admit Akka does have a point, though. "Sequel" by definition implies a progression or continuance from an earlier work. That's not a matter of opinion or perspective, really.
I look at it this way: if they'd called it "Civilization: Tactics" or something similar, the fans would still love it just as much as they do now, and the people who are disappointed probably wouldn't be. BUT - those folks probably wouldn't have bought it sight unseen, either. Therein lies Firaxis' problem.
It's not that the game sucks or anything; it doesn't. It's a decent game on it's own - not one I personally find very engaging (at this point, hopefully that'll change) - but IMO, you can't simultaneously call something a "sequel" while trying to sell it as a "reboot" or "a new direction."
I look at it this way: if they'd called it "Civilization: Tactics" or something similar, the fans would still love it just as much as they do now, and the people who are disappointed probably wouldn't be. BUT - those folks probably wouldn't have bought it sight unseen, either. Therein lies Firaxis' problem.
It's not that the game sucks or anything; it doesn't. It's a decent game on it's own - not one I personally find very engaging (at this point, hopefully that'll change) - but IMO, you can't simultaneously call something a "sequel" while trying to sell it as a "reboot" or "a new direction."
Psyringe
Scout
Odd, I'm pretty sure he doesn't (at least as long as he's so categorical about seeing his interpretation of "sequel" as the only one possible).
If you look around on the world of games, you see lots of examples that don't match his interpretation (despite his claims that it's the "absolutely right" one). Sequels of games have been all kinds of things:- same game with very few additions, or no additions except new levels (e.g. Doom 2, Heroes of Might & Magic II)
- basically same game with substantial additions (e.g. Civilization IV, Master of Orion II)
- basically same game with some aspects added, others taken away, and an updated database (e.g. FIFA manager series)
- same general type of game in the same setting, but plays totally different (e.g. Fallout 3, Master of Orion III, Lords of Midnight III)
- totally different type of game (e.g. Star Control 2)
- reboot / simplification (e.g. Ultima VIII, Heroes of Might & Magic 4, Quake 3)
This is not even a new phenomenon (as you can see by some of the names listed above). What a number n+1 behind a franchise name actually signifies has been very different in lots of franchises, for as long as video gaming exists. (I can bring examples from the 70s if someone really wants to read them.)
Now, if Akka thinks, there's only one valid interpretation of "sequel", then he's welcome to his opinion. However, if he bases his decisions (i.e. whether or not to buy a game) on this expectation, then he'll make many decisions he'll later regret, because imho his opinion doesn't reflect the reality very well.
Jharii
King
I never once refuted that his expectations were invalid. He is entitled to them. But if semantics want to be discussed, a sequel is defined as:
1. a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.
2. an event or circumstance following something; subsequent course of affairs.
Nowhere is it mentioned in the definition of "sequel" that it is a prerequesite to improve (or attempt to improve) on the previous work. It is merely a continuation and is complete in and of itself.
Strangely enough, that coincides with my viewpoint and expectations, as I judge it on its own merits. Yes, I can still compare it to previous iterations, but that does not necessarily factor in to my ultimate decision on whether Civ5 is a worthy successor or not. I went into Civ5 with a clean scorecard.
It's really not all that hard to understand, wouldn't you agree, SuperJay?
You're wrong. Many of the complaints are not based on the merits or technical aspects of the game but based on subjective factors on what features people like.
It's obvious that many people like the OP aren't comparing Civ 5 to Civ 4. Instead, they're comparing Civ 5 to a version of Civ 4 that they have completely modded to cater completely to their own individual taste down to how they want to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. Obviously, Civ 5 can't even compare until they have modded it completely to their individual taste, either.
Granted, Civ 5 currently has a lot of bugs and balance problems. However, it's still ridiculous for people to compare it to something they have completely modded to fit perfectly with their individual taste.
Psyringe
Scout
Actually, no. The question "Which comparisons are legitimate?" is another question that doesn't warrant 10% of the fuzz that's being made about it, because if people weren't so busy shooting each others' opinions down and deriding each other, then they might actually notice that it depends on the question.
If the question is "Which game should I play now, which one will be more fun for me?", then a comparison between highly modded Civ4:BtS, and barely patched Civ5 vanilla, is of course adequate, because that's the current state of the two games.
If the question is "Did the Civ5 devs do a good job?", then it's of course unfair to compare a full-fledged, fine-tuned end product to a work in progress.
Well, obviously, if you're the type of person who is so picky about things, something you modded to your liking will always be better than something you haven't modded to your liking yet. I don't see how that's a valid criticism of the developers of Civ 5, though.
Jharii
King
Well, to be fair, it is the thread topic so it is supposed to be what the discussion is about.
Odd, I'm pretty sure he doesn't (at least as long as he's so categorical about seeing his interpretation of "sequel" as the only one possible).
- same game with very few additions, or no additions except new levels (e.g. Doom 2, Heroes of Might & Magic II)
- basically same game with substantial additions (e.g. Civilization IV, Master of Orion II)
- basically same game with some aspects added, others taken away, and an updated database (e.g. FIFA manager series)
- same general type of game in the same setting, but plays totally different (e.g. Fallout 3, Master of Orion III, Lords of Midnight III)
- totally different type of game (e.g. Star Control 2)
- reboot / simplification (e.g. Ultima VIII, Heroes of Might & Magic 4, Quake 3)
This is not even a new phenomenon (as you can see by some of the names listed above). What a number n+1 behind a franchise name actually signifies has been very different in lots of franchises, for as long as video gaming exists. (I can bring examples from the 70s if someone really wants to read them.)
Now, if Akka thinks, there's only one valid interpretation of "sequel", then he's welcome to his opinion. However, if he bases his decisions (i.e. whether or not to buy a game) on this expectation, then he'll make many decisions he'll later regret, because imho his opinion doesn't reflect the reality very well.
The way I see it, Firaxis had very little choice in how to tackle the post-Civ IV iteration of the series. Civ IV had plenty of mods to accommodate every conceivable play-style: streamlining; balancing; historical flavour; entirely new games (FFH and several other notables). Civ IV could probably live on for another decade or two just by the variety and creativity of its modding community.
Improving upon the template of Civ IV + BTS is the modders' job, not that of the Civ V development team. What they provided instead was groundbreaking changes to the very way the game is played (hexes, 1utp, global happiness, unit maintenance, limited resources, and embarkation being the most notable). So rather than competing directly with a huge community of talented modders, they are providing those modders with a fresh foundation upon which to build the legendary mods of tomorrow.
Jharii
King
The way I see it, Firaxis had very little choice in how to tackle the post-Civ IV iteration of the series. Civ IV had plenty of mods to accommodate every conceivable play-style: streamlining; balancing; historical flavour; entirely new games (FFH and several other notables). Civ IV could probably live on for another decade or two just by the variety and creativity of its modding community.
Improving upon the template of Civ IV + BTS is the modders' job, not that of the Civ V development team. What they provided instead was groundbreaking changes to the very way the game is played (hexes, 1utp, global happiness, unit maintenance, limited resources, and embarkation being the most notable). So rather than competing directly with a huge community of talented modders, they are providing those modders with a fresh foundation upon which to build the legendary mods of tomorrow.
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!
Someone gets what's going on.
Cheesecake. Do you like cheesecake? I bake a MEAN cheesecake.
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,848
Yes I have.
You seriously have to have a hard look at the definitions of sequel. I was going to point out some, but then others came along and did so anyway. Especially Psyringe...
Same thing to say to you (It's not that what you're saying is wrong, but what you are saying is not what Akka is saying). I think about the most basic definition of sequel is "something which follows something else". Putting in qualifiers of "must improve on something else" is entirely a construct of expectations that, to put it frankly, a lot of people have. As I always repeat, there's nothing wrong with having these expectations but it's really narrow-minded to think or argue they're the only ones that make sense, or that people are somehow irrational if they don't think like that. (Again, not suggesting necessarily that you are doing so, but at least 1 or 2 people in this thread, and numerous others in other threads, have been doing so)
Odd, I'm pretty sure he doesn't (at least as long as he's so categorical about seeing his interpretation of "sequel" as the only one possible).
- same game with very few additions, or no additions except new levels (e.g. Doom 2, Heroes of Might & Magic II)
- basically same game with substantial additions (e.g. Civilization IV, Master of Orion II)
- basically same game with some aspects added, others taken away, and an updated database (e.g. FIFA manager series)
/- same general type of game in the same setting, but plays totally different (e.g. Fallout 3, Master of Orion III, Lords of Midnight III)
- totally different type of game (e.g. Star Control 2)
- reboot / simplification (e.g. Ultima VIII, Heroes of Might & Magic 4, Quake 3)
This is not even a new phenomenon (as you can see by some of the names listed above). What a number n+1 behind a franchise name actually signifies has been very different in lots of franchises, for as long as video gaming exists. (I can bring examples from the 70s if someone really wants to read them.)
Now, if Akka thinks, there's only one valid interpretation of "sequel", then he's welcome to his opinion. However, if he bases his decisions (i.e. whether or not to buy a game) on this expectation, then he'll make many decisions he'll later regret, because imho his opinion doesn't reflect the reality very well.
Spot on.
Perhaps it is even somehow the result of constant marketing hype that gamers adopt this mentality that video games are constantly improving. I'm sure a lot of people on this forum can relate to thought of one of their favourite video games (or any entertainment experience) happening 10 years or more ago. Marketing is always focusing on the 'better', that eventually when a sequel comes along that doesn't try to boast that it's better than what came before, instead it is just the assumption that gets applied by the fans that it's supposed to be 'better'.
Speaking only for myself, I know that I don't particularly enjoy getting angry or upset about a video game. That's why I approach most video games with low expectations (and it's also why I don't buy games until they've reached about $10 or less - the civ series being about the only exception because I actually feel I owe Firaxis/2K more than what I've paid them so far
). Then it's really special when I find a game that I enjoy immensely more than I expected I would, and all the other games eventually get sold or shelved (sadly, steam prevents on of those
).Psyringe
Scout
In that case you seem to have a very low esteem of the newspapers' ability to find a true and fitting headline for an event.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Seems like you quite a bit misunderstand my point - considering the back-and-forth bickering, it's not really surprising that it becomes muddied, though.
Let's clear it a bit :
- The concept of "sequel" itself isn't up to discussion - it's a definition after all. It's a continuation of a previous work, be it a narrative follow-up, a consequence of the like.
- The acceptable expectations that people get are a direct logical consequence of this definition. If A is a follow-up of B, then it's normal to expects it to be at least an attempt at improving B and to be somehow similar.
Now, of course, variations can (and do) exists. But the above basic expectations are simply logical and normal, and as such it's pretty absurd to argue against them.
At the very least, one should never pretend that we can't compare the game with the sum of what was made before it. The root of this debate was that someone pretended we shouldn't compare Civ4+BtS to Civ5, but only Civ4 vanilla. It was just pointed that developpers didn't forget the existence of BtS in the meantime, and that a sequel couldn't just pretend that the parts added in extensions never existed in the first place.
Hello, that was exaclty the POINT : I was not saying "a sequel is something that improve on something previously made", but "it's logical to EXPECT a sequel to improve on the previous iteration".
So if you answer "hey, saying that a sequel should improve on the previous is just a common construct expectation" is not really surprising... that was rather nearly exactly what we were saying before (with the added point : "it's what people LOGICALLY expect").
Hu, why improving in Civ4+BtS should not be the work of the dev ?
That just doesn't make sense...
(unless you said "Civ4 + BtS" when you were thinking "Civ4 BtS + RoM", in this case you COULD make a point)
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,848
In that case you seem to have a very low esteem of the newspapers' ability to find a true and fitting headline for an event.
In that case you seem to have never read a newspaper owned by Murdoch.
Jharii
King
Nobody... I repeat... NOBODY, was arguing against your expectations. No one said that your expectations were illogical.
You were arguing... scratch that... being beligerant, condescending, attacking... that other people's expectations were illogical/absurd/abnormal/insult/insult/insult because they did not coincide with your expectations.
But I will requote a portion of above.
That is all I was saying all along. Glad you finally realized this.
Psyringe
Scout
Yes. Part of the problem is that video games, being tied to rapidly developing hardware, actually did give designers a chance to continually improve their work by making each sequel bigger and/or better. Not every developer did it, but enough did to plant the expectation into players that this would always be the case. Marketing, of course, exacerbated the problem by focusing on the new and "better" aspects of the game they want to sell.
Contrast this to books, a medium where no noticeable technical progress has taken place for decades (perhaps centennials). No one expects the fifth Harry Potter book to be "better" or "trying to improve" over the fourth. No marketing agency would start a campaign that's based on telling how much of an "improvement" the one might be over the other.
Then why did you bring it into the discussion? It was you who threw it in, as a supposed proof of why any other expectation of a sequel than being an improvement was, by definition, unacceptable.
The point is that no one does argue against the fact that "expecting improvement" is one valid way of approaching a sequel. Actually, the only person in this whole discussion who continually tries to tell people that their approach to sequels is "false" and unreasonable, is you.
But since you're now acknowledging that variations do exist, wouldn't it be reasonable to let that influence one's expectations, and to accept the possibility (or even expect) that a sequel of a computer game might in fact be such a "variation"? I don't think that's at all unreasonable, as you can see by one of my previous posts, where I listed several valid arguments for three totally different expectations (which are all reasonable).
Edit: Btw, if you quote several people in one post, please make apparent who said what. You didn't in your previous post, which makes it harder to follow the discussion.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I never said variations didn't exist. I said that it's expected and normal to compare Civ5 against Civ4 plus expansions, and that no case can be made about comparing Civ4 vanilla to Civ5 vanilla.
Now, there was most probably lot of noises jamming the debate. Guess it's the problem with the very polarized situation of the forum, and the constant use of strawmen ; tends to make people react hotly quickly.
I know I certainly can't read yet again "you have to compare Civ4 vanilla, not with expansions, to Civ5" or "people just complain it's not Civ4.5 and cry about changes" or "Civ4 was just as vilified when it came out than Civ5" and the like without seeing red, and sometimes going overboard.
I had the same experience. I sat down to do make a new civilization (along the lines of one I did for Civ IV) but realized that I don't enjoy playing the game enough to justify doing the work. Frankly, different civilizations don't feel all that different from each other, and the overall breadth of modding options seems much more restrictive here. I'll be curious to see how the mods progress too - perhaps the surest sig of how the community feels about the game overall.
The way I see it, Firaxis had very little choice in how to tackle the post-Civ IV iteration of the series. Civ IV had plenty of mods to accommodate every conceivable play-style: streamlining; balancing; historical flavour; entirely new games (FFH and several other notables). Civ IV could probably live on for another decade or two just by the variety and creativity of its modding community.
Improving upon the template of Civ IV + BTS is the modders' job, not that of the Civ V development team. What they provided instead was groundbreaking changes to the very way the game is played (hexes, 1utp, global happiness, unit maintenance, limited resources, and embarkation being the most notable). So rather than competing directly with a huge community of talented modders, they are providing those modders with a fresh foundation upon which to build the legendary mods of tomorrow.
I agree with this analysis of why Fraxis did what it did with Civ V. My guess is they concluded that Civ IV had taken the game about as far as it could go in that direction, that they needed to strike out on a new path for Civ V. That makes sense, and it will take some time to refine the new game.
But, I do believe that to make Civ V work, they are going to have to make some fundamental changes. I don't think it's just a matter of tweaking here and there. Civ V will die if they don't inject more variety and strategic depth. It is far too shallow and formulaic at present.
