Civilization: Beyond Earth's creators are fixing their biggest mistakes

[GenyaArikado]

Winning a Transcendence victory with Yang after killing Deirdre in the early game certainly didnt bother me. And Frankly i dont think that it would break inmersion any more than Kavitha and Barry being anything else but Harmony does.

Another thing the leaders lack is clearly defined agendas. What is Elodie trying to do, what is Kavitha, what is Kozlov? The affinity system gives 3 ways to solve a problem but leaving not omly the solution but also THE PROBLEM up to players choice is too much.

With that said id rather have canon affinities for each leader


I like to think that Kavitha won by Transcendence and Daoming by Emancipation since the planets related to Harmony and Supremacy are called Nirvana and Xanadu.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

That gets me thinking:
What if we would have multiple leaders per sponsor?

That way you could assign a small secondary bonus to each leader, giving the player a bit more choise to select a unique faction. Like: Polystralia (+2 energy per scecialist) and then you can select between Mr. X (+2 Trade Routes in the capital), Mrs. Y (-10% virtue cost) and Mr. Z (+25% combat power for naval units).

You could also assign each of them to one of the affinity (Mr. X likes Purity, Mrs. Y likes Harmony, Mr. Z swears by Supremacy).

Would that create more memorable characters?
Guess we might end up with a few too many to avoid repetitveness...

Hm.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I'd rather have the canon affinities. Frankly it's not worse than getting quotes of someone who doesnt exist at X point of the game or building the Pyramids as as the Japanese

 

[shaglio]

Google is your friend.

It would have been so much easier when writing my term papers if, rather than providing footnotes, I could have just told the teacher to look up things on his own.

 

[sherbz]

You're free to accept whatever you want. Put forward counterarguments, though, instead of just saying "I refuse to accept reality". Firaxis is only an AAA developer by dint of the success of the product they put out. AAA doesn't actually mean "they invest X amount of cash". The term "AAA" actually stands for something.

(source - http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-739231.html)

Bioware creates RPGs. Warcraft had a huge single-player component and only really had an active MP that endured due to it's modding scene.

Firaxis has Civilisation. The game series isn't known for it's huge swathes of recorded voicework.

Now I don’t know exactly how much money Firaxis poured into BE. But it was priced as a triple A title (£30 in the UK) and received a large amount of press and advertising before release. This very website decided to change the skin of its forums in anticipation of it. I know that doesn’t make a game triple A in itself, but it certainly betrays that many of BEs followers were expecting it to be just that. And I think it fell flat, as most of the community and steam charts suggest. That is clear and empirical evidence and I am afraid that all I have heard from you is conjecture and subjectivity, even though you throw that same accusation back at me. I have to say that I respectfully disagree with your view. It seems as though you are an apologist for the title. Either that or you are playing devils advocate for the sake of it. Your line of XYZ excludes ABC does not stack up. Addressing XYZ might actually enhance ABCs interpretation of the game. It doesn’t just exclude it, which is what you seem to suggest. That’s a bit like saying that Gods & Kings and BNW would exclude a part of the community, therefore there is no point in trying to release an expansion, because whilst you would satisfy XYZ, you would alienate ABC. This to me is a nonsensical argument.

In the video game industry, AAA (pronounced "triple A") is a classification term used for games with the highest development budgets and levels of promotion. A title considered to be AAA is therefore expected to be a high quality game and to be among the year's bestsellers

 

[Acken]

The problem with AAA denomination is that it kind of lost its original sense for people. It was supposed to underline quality, not the price of the game or its budget. For success, innovation and financial success (according to wiki).

The first problem is that success is a very flawed definition to begin with. Does it mean good scores ? If it's sales what is the threshold ? Same for financial success, does it have to be just positive or bring in billions ?

But nowadays it usually simply refers to game with big budget, by big developers and sold at a high price. Even if it is bad. A bit as if we would consider India's credit Aaa over Sweden's just because India is bigger

To be fair, it's easier to judge the cost of a game than its quality or success so it's no surprise that the definition is kind of evolving this way for consumers.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Meh, AAA or not, it is a 50€ game, so people will expect 50€ quality.

 

[sherbz]

Triple A games (even though, in general, they kind of suck):

Destiny
Aliens colonial marines
Evolve
Beyond Earth
Rome II

There are obviously more, but that will do to try and prove what i consider them to be.

 

[Gort]

Google is your friend.

It should be yours, as the burden of proof is on you to back up your statements. As you won't back them up with facts, we can assume you can't.

 

[thecrazyscot]

To be honest, my biggest frustration right now is Firaxis' insistence on NOT being consistent in terms of their coding, but maybe that's just the modder in me.

As an example - if they had integrated Affinities and Health as normal yields, they would be so much easier to work with and tweak. We shouldn't have to use mods that fix the code so we can mod
-----
Off-topic...am I the only one who confuses Gort and Gorb?

 

[shaglio]

Off-topic...am I the only one who confuses Gort and Gorb?

No, I do that all the time. And they often disagree with each other. And I can never remember which one I am agreeing with on a particular subject.

 

[Paszczak]

This game is dead, dead I say!

They done fizzled it up and now they aren't going to make any more money with it. And that is that. Who cares if Ryika and 3 other active players are unhappy with wonder yields. Despite all those sales, free weekends and patches people aren't exactly storming the Steam servers to get their copy of Civ BE.

Now that we know Civ 6 will at least have a beta-test, there is some hope on the horizon.

 

[GenyaArikado]

what part of 2.0 you didnt get?

 

[x2Madda]

A lot of varied opinions in this thread. While I enjoyed BE, it lacked the 'one more turn factor'. The promise of aliens being something more interactive wasn't fulfilled and in general my interactions with the world around me were much more sandbox in nature.

I look forward to this 2.0 but I think the base game has some serious flaws to overcome and maybe only an expansion can add enough content to fix it. Time will tell.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I just realised what is really missing due to the lack of leader backgrounds: we never, ever get to see what the planet looks like.

In Civ5, you get the diplo screen and the wonder paintings. In Civ:BE, the only shot of how the world looks like is the victory screen and nothing else. You spend the entire game without seeing how the planet looks like up close - even the intro video ends with an orbital view.

Whereas SMAC had lots of small "close-ups" in the various event pop-ups, Civ had wonder videos/splashes (era splashes!) and XCOM has the mission transitions (and action cam). And while Civ5 and Civ:BE have gorgeous maps, it's hard to make the connect to what it's like without a reference frame (like, of course, reality, in Civ5's case).

It goes beyond leaders, it's a systemic problem the game has, it never gives you an idea of what the world is like.

omg this.
This is an absolute necessity.

 

[Gokudo01]

what part of 2.0 you didnt get?

I kind of didn't get it. May you explain it ? Is it a restart as Squaresoft did with FFXIV ?

 

[Gort]

No, I do that all the time. And they often disagree with each other. And I can never remember which one I am agreeing with on a particular subject.

<- That should do the trick.

 

[Acken]

I kind of didn't get it. May you explain it ? Is it a restart as Squaresoft did with FFXIV ?

There are 0 information about it.

 

[Gokudo01]

There are 0 information about it.

ok, I'll come back in three months

 

[Hail]

what part of 2.0 you didnt get?

the devs identified wonders and the lore as the top "to fix" priorities.

civ:be is boring, tedious and lacks replayability. the devs do not understand what creates the "one more turn" addiction.