Congratulations Firaxis!

[Venereus]

All opinions are subjective. It's incorrect assumptions that are the problem with your post(s). Stop making statements that imply that those who disagree with you are inferior/undeserving/haven't played Civ.

My only assumption was that old civvers don't find the game as good as newcomers do. It's hardly far-fetched, and in no way downplaying those newcomers. They just, literally, don't know better.

 

[bjbrains]

It is downplaying them, as you made it out to be an absolute statement: "Only those who 'don't know better' like CIv 5'. That is precisely the definition of arguing via absolute negative statements about those who disagree.

 

[Venereus]

It is downplaying them, as you made it out to be an absolute statement: "Only those who 'don't know better' like CIv 5'. That is precisely the definition of arguing via absolute negative statements about those who disagree.

Really? I just think that if a newbie tried Civ IV, they'd find it better than Civ V. I guess you think "ignorant" is an insult.

 

[tm01xx]

I guess all the satisfied people here are newbies and that explains why you are happy with this beta version of Civ 5. I just spent 100$ to buy this game (64$ for the game and 40$ for taxi round trip) and have done some games and here are my thoughts.

1. The developers have tried to blindly change everything so that they can claim this is a "complete" new game as they said. That includes even the mouse button being changed from "left" to "right" button. And the menu system from horizontal to vertical causes confusing every time. It is too much wasted time since we have to learn how to use the game instead of spending excited time to learn how to win it.

2. A good game or good software is one that inherited all the good things from its previous versions. Civ 4 has so many good things that we are all excited playing it but unfortunately they have been all dumped for what is so-called "completely" new game. It makes me think that this serial games will never mature even if already more than 10 years have passed and another 10 year is coming. We spent a lot for Civ 4 to see it closing to its maturity as now but all we can see is it is dumped for a new baby born, an immature product, so likely we will have to spend another huge cash for it to grow again then what? A baby Civ 6 will be coming soon. I feel like being abused really.

3. This game version is for KIDS. The AIs are too easy. People are talking about the game's graphic but I don't think you open the game just to look at its graphic. We need something challenge and that's all the game about. Without it there is no more exciting. And for more info, I am just a Monarch player in Civ 4 but able to win at King and above level in Civ 5 easily.


I'm not criticizing anyone and don't think the developers would visit here anyway but it's just some my thought.

 

[gingerbill]

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

I've played every CIV and AC for ages , i'm loving CIV5 so far , so does everyone else i know.

 

[Venereus]

Man, I replied against a post that said the game's popularity meant it wasn't as bad as some say. Why am I getting all the hate? That's like saying "100 million smokers can't be wrong".

 

[turboraton]

Old civvers also complained about CIV4 and CIV3 AFAIK. Heck if my 60+yo dad can play and enjoy CIV5 I really don't know why you guys can't. Sometimes I feel you need to elaborate some weird and farfetched theory of why we SHOULDNT enjoy CIV5.

It's vainilla and it is better than CIV3 vainilla, and it is a good contender against CIV4 vainilla. The possibilities with mods are incredible, I can see that CIV5 will become fun for everyone and that is the goal of the devs as they plan to help the community on that issue.

We all should be happy for this success on Civilization Development, this could be EXCELLENT news for the series.

PD: Civ Revolutions did NOT sell this well and it was really dumbed down.

 

[Venereus]

Old civvers also complained about CIV4 and CIV3 AFAIK. Heck if my 60+yo dad can play and enjoy CIV5 I really don't know why you guys can't. Sometimes I feel you need to elaborate some weird and farfetched theory of why we SHOULDNT enjoy CIV5.

It's vainilla and it is better than CIV3 vainilla, and it is a good contender against CIV4 vainilla. The possibilities with mods are incredible, I can see that CIV5 will become fun for everyone and that is the goal of the devs as they plan to help the community on that issue.

We all should be happy for this success on Civilization Development, this could be EXCELLENT news for the series.

PD: Civ Revolutions did NOT sell this well and it was really dumbed down.

Firaxis releases a half-baked game, and it sells well because it's designed for mass appeal. How is this good news *for the series*? It's EXCELLENT news for the people making money off it, but not for the costumers, who make up the other half of what "the series" is.

 

[Krall]

I guess I haven't played previous civs then. Or does your condescending attitude fall apart when confronted by actual counter-examples?

That chart, correct me if I'm wrong, just shows how many people logged in to play the game... It doesn't correlate into happy players or players who are going to put more then 10 hours into the game.

 

[Drake L. Dragon]

Firaxis releases a half-baked game, and it sells well because it's designed for mass appeal. How is this good news *for the series*? It's EXCELLENT news for the people making money off it, but not for the costumers, who make up the other half of what "the series" is.

It's a fallacy, however, to look at Civilization V in the narrow spectrum of its predecessors and not in the wide spectrum of totality -- with the other games in the market. Whether or not people like it, we are in a free market economy, and new players, as well as older players who may actually like this game, are real customers with real money, and Firaxis has acknowledged that the greatest happiness for the greatest number matters in Civilization V. Sure, there may be some people who don't like the game, but the vast majority seems to have taken a liking to Civilization V, or else the statistics would be quite the devil, wouldn't they?

 

[Biz_]

those stats should be for hours played

then see how much civ tops the charts

 

[Flavorable]

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

Actually, I'm a pretty hardcore Civ fan that started with the first, and got heavily into it with the second, and I do think its that good. It needs work, but its my second favorite.

 

[Drake L. Dragon]

those stats should be for hours played

then see how much civ tops the charts

Technically, number of hours played would be a weightless statistic. It would have to be number of hours played out of number of hours or days the game has been released. However, for that manner, none of the other games get that statistic as well. Nobody knows long people play Call of Duty or Counterstrike, but what people can do is to see how long the average number of players of Civilization V, around 50000 to 60000 in the daytime, stays constant, and it has stayed pretty constant from what I've seen.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

My only assumption was that old civvers don't find the game as good as newcomers do. It's hardly far-fetched, and in no way downplaying those newcomers. They just, literally, don't know better.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Krall]

Technically, number of hours played would be a weightless statistic. It would have to be number of hours played out of number of hours or days the game has been released. However, for that manner, none of the other games get that statistic as well. Nobody knows long people play Call of Duty or Counterstrike, but what people can do is to see how long the average number of players of Civilization V, around 50000 to 60000 in the daytime, stays constant, and it has stayed pretty constant from what I've seen.

If you look at your friends list you can see how long they played a certain game for so it's trackable.

The reason the current chart for Civ V is useless to say, "Look at all those people playing, they must love it!" is because the game is so new that of course everyone who buys it is going to play it.

 

[Drake L. Dragon]

If you look at your friends list you can see how long they played a certain game for so it's trackable.

The reason the current chart for Civ V is useless to say, "Look at all those people playing, they must love it!" is because the game is so new that of course everyone who buys it is going to play it.

Well, you'd have to assume that your friend's list is an accurate sample of the Civilization population, and I, at least with many other people, probably can't claim that accessory. In terms of your argument about the novelty of Civilization V, it would be true, if it was release day or September 24, 2010. However, September 27, 2010 is now the day, and most people who were going to buy the game, as shown on this forum, have already bought the game, and now they're going back to the game on the merits of the game itself, not just because they want to have a first time test with it. Even if there were still some influences of novelty left, Civilization V nevertheless should get credit for even taking the first place the first day it was out for the rest of the world and after that first day. It's not that easy to defeat CoD.

 

[AdamMorva]

It means Firaxis reached it's primary goal: to get more casuals into it. Those of us who have played previous Civs, know it's not that good.

Amen, brother.

I don't think it's subjective. I don't feel like writing a 5k char thesis to defend my statement, but if you seriously think that Civ5 is less user friendly than Civ4 then look into a mirror and cry liar.

 

[PieceOfMind]

If you look at your friends list you can see how long they played a certain game for so it's trackable.

The reason the current chart for Civ V is useless to say, "Look at all those people playing, they must love it!" is because the game is so new that of course everyone who buys it is going to play it.

And it's exactly the same reason why it's flawed logic to take the number of people logged onto Steam or number of active steam accounts as indication that people like Steam.

It's not difficult to pick stats that confirm a perception bias; marketing people do it all the time. Personally it annoys me when people equate high sales figures of a game to it being a good game. Bad games if marketed well will sell decent numbers, and good games that market poorly will sell fewer copies than they deserve.

 

[raduciu]

*removed*

Moderator Action: Infraction - trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[raduciu]

Venerus i have played all Civ's including the comunity favorites of II and IV complete, i can say that CIV V is the best by far. Just so you know that the small group of ppl that just want to create controversy and call themselves civ veterans are not in the right.