Do you think Civ V is doomed?

[Aristos]

I don't think it is doomed. It's been received well by everyone except a minority of fanatical Civ IV admirers who will never be satisfied no matter how much a vast majority of gamers enjoy it.

Proof? No support, no argument. I could say the opposite too.

 

[PreLynMax]

I don't think you guys understand the concept of free to play games. None of those games I quoted
Are free to play. You have to buy all of them to play them.

Free to play games are like league of legends or maple story. Basically any game that you can play for free but includes a micro transaction cash store is a free to play game.

What you list is are buy once and play forever games. There is a difference.

Maple Story was utterly crap. The game was so repetitve, that it got boring within a few hours. All the mission are the same, the drops suck, and the class balance is outta whack. Bascially, if you want a good class, try Pirate or any other later installed class.

My ex-girlfriend loved this game, but I kept playing for her... but personally, I couldn't STAND that game.

Is Civ V doomed? No. Not compared to thousands of losers playing this game. As long as there are causal gamers playing this game, this game will become sucessful. Will those causal gamers will soon turn hardcore? No. There lies Fraxis' dillemma. Will they continue to appeal to a dying breed, or go for hardcore gamers that might forgive this abomonation of a Civ game? (Note, I strategiclly said Civ game... as a strategy game, this game is awesome, but as mentioned above, it relys too much on combat, and not enough as a empire building game.)

Civ Rev wasn't a bad game as most players seems. Its simplistic nature makes the game easy to understand, but not a failure due to the fact that it appeals to the causal console player rather than the PC gamers, which appeals to a wider range of ages.

 

[Solo4114]

I find it hard to believe that all reviewers were bought off. It sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.

I'm not suggesting they were. Not in all cases, anyway. But I am suggesting that most reviews of big-name franchises tend to be positive. why? I'm not sure, but I have a few ideas.

Yes, maybe it was some kind of "emperor's new clothes" -phenomena. Civilization has such a reputation that perhaps reviewers had no courage to criticize the newest iteration. Maybe deep inside they thought the game is actually quite boring, but didn't dare to say it out cause they were afraid to be marked as ignorants who don't understand complex and great games like Civ5. This is my theory anyway...

Not quite. More like they're human and fall for the hype. Plus they don't play the game as intensely as folks like us play it, nor do they necessarily know the ins and outs of prior games well enough to compare effectively. So, what they're review represents is more of a "gut reaction" to an initial bit of playing, rather than a well-reasoned, in-depth review.

hit escape key while loading video, if you have a decent computer it should be less than 5 seconds. for me it's usually just 2-3 seconds in fact.

This is accurate. If you hit the ESC key right after the Gamespy logo pops up, it shouldn't be more than about 3-5 seconds.

Proof? No support, no argument. I could say the opposite too.

I tend to find arguments that marginalize the attitudes of the parties to be particularly silly on message boards which are, themselves, a pretty fine sliver of a game's playerbase. Moreover, they seem more oriented around "MY side has MORE people, and YOUR side DOESN'T. So, I'm obviously right."

 

[SKILORD]

If your system is really bad it won't be so easy to end the intro video. My new computer runs it fine and I can escape key out of the intro video pretty much as soon as you can see the old man. On my previous system with not enough RAM and an extremely poor graphics card it usually wouldn't let me end the video until he was talking about building "magnificent wonders, that touched the very fabric of the heavens."

 

[Solo4114]

I will say that I find the narrator intensely annoying, especially given that EVERY TIME I start a game he tells me the same damn story about whoever I'm playing. And I have to keep listening until the loading is done. At least with all the other annoying dialogue I can just click past it.

 

[Ashwind]

I understand what you mean, and with respect to your marketing strategy I will hold my tongue as a "player of video games" in which role I cannot help but violently disagree.

My more moderate, considered point would be that while it should be accessable, I think that the Settler difficulty setting is plenty easy enough for accessable. If anything the lack of a coherent AI makes the game harder at that level for beginning players because beginning players will readily assume that their peaceful interactions with the AI are meaningful, when in fact they almost never are and can often be followed directly by invasions at random.

But you also have to appreciate the market for players who want a game that requires some skill. You have to be able to make Deity harder at the same time you make Settler easier, so that you can capture both markets. Dumbing down game mechanics like diplomacy, or the AI's war strategies until they don't even have real role in the game is not an effective way to accomplish much with either group.

EDIT: If you really want to lure in casuals... Bring back hotseat!

I'm not stating that as a statement of support (or otherwise). It was merely a simple point of observation. If something as mind-numbing as Farmville and its ilk can become that huge (sorry, Farmville fans), I don't see how Civ5 is 'doomed'.

Yes, perhaps it may be doomed as far as the kind of games the 'minority' (just using words that some people have been throwing out) prefer, but that doesn't mean they aren't making a nice profit.

From a business perspective, would you spend valuable resources catering to a 'minority' when using the same said resources, a business can sell to many times that?

You and I may not like how things are evolving but let's face it, the ones 'doomed' are the demography of players that enjoy relatively 'deep' games. Nintendo and the Wii might just be the nail on the coffin.

 

[Left Foot]

As far as I'm concerned, yes, it is doomed because I simply have no intention of buying any expansions built upon the Civ 5 concept of 1upt, global unhappiness, bribery for diplomacy, etc etc.

The little I managed to play the game, I got the feeling the changes from the previous game were implemented not because the devs thought they were good changes that added to or improved the game, but because they had to change something from Civ 4 to justify sticking a 5 after the Civ name.

Back to playing Civ 4 and thoroughly enjoying it and hoping for an announcement about Civ 6.

 

[Nares]

Maybe deep inside they thought the game is actually quite boring, but didn't dare to say it out cause they were afraid to be marked as ignorants who don't understand complex and great games like Civ5.

The vast majority of reviews I see seem to tow the marketing department's line.

I have to go with the guy who said that if they're not bought off, they're hacks.

Or perhaps it's that if they're not hacks, they're bought off.

 

[m4gill4]

With regard to the positive reviews, it's really very simple. It's all about access. Are you going to get an advance screening of the next game if you were harsh on their last release? No, you won't.

No conspiracy, no buyoffs. Readers want the inside scoop, previews and whatnot. I don't think publishers are exactly falling over themselves to give access to people who have the potential to put a harsh review/preview out there, potentially harming sales. Not gonna happen. Let those bums buy it like everyone else, right?

 

[Nares]

Are you going to get an advance screening of the next game if you were harsh on their last release?

I don't think publishers are exactly falling over themselves to give access to people who have the potential to put a harsh preview out there, potentially harming sales.

That's my whole point. "Critically acclaimed" is meaningless in the context of the quality of the game. It just means that the developer is large enough that they throw some cool parties which the reviewers want to be invited to at the next convention.

 

[Thormodr]

My feelings on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAMLa5ZC-B4

 

[Iranon]

With regard to the positive reviews, it's really very simple. It's all about access. Are you going to get an advance screening of the next game if you were harsh on their last release? No, you won't.

No conspiracy, no buyoffs. Readers want the inside scoop, previews and whatnot. I don't think publishers are exactly falling over themselves to give access to people who have the potential to put a harsh review/preview out there, potentially harming sales. Not gonna happen. Let those bums buy it like everyone else, right?

Inside scoops, previews, avance screenings and whatnot are worthless if getting those means whatever gets written may as well be official PR releases/advertisements. I find it sad to see game journalism degenerate into cheery platitudes, and the readership getting so used to being fed streamlined information about streamlined titles that honesty is interpreted as having a bone to pick.

 

[Anthropoid]

I have never bought a game based on a professional review. If I am really skeptical about buying a game, and want additional information, I go to the fan forums and see what they have to say about it. For the myriad reasons pointed out in this thread, relying on the professional reviewer's as a basis to choose good games is bound to lead to mistakes.

But in fact, you can learn a lot just from looking at the advertising for a game too. Look at the images, read the text, read between the lines; often just based on that stuff you can get a spidersense tingle of 'risk' and avoid games that you might not like.

There are just too many games available to put up with mediocre games (let alone bad games), either by defending them in forums, or buying them by anything other than a sheer mistake.

This is fundamentally why there are so many mediocre if not bad games, and why their anecdotally seems to be increasing prevalence of them: there are a lot of us gamers who do not take the time to be careful consumers. Its convenient to blame the corporations, but at the end of the day, they just give us what they can get away with giving us. If even 10% of us insisted on better, it might change things. Problem there is, the computer game market segment is likely growing like gangbusters if for no other reason than the maturing under 12s globally who have grown up wired. That suggests to me that, no matter how many of us serious computer gamers become more hardball consumer, it may not have any impact on the incidence of these crap games, and intrusive/exploitative consumer relations policies (e.g., read Steamworks EULA and ponder that that is mandatory to gain a license to plain Civ5) that seem to be becoming more common.

With companies like Matrix, Paradox, Ageod, and it seems a few others too, these trends may not spell the 'end' of the true quality and detail in computer games, but it certainly doesn't bode well in that respect. I see great potential in computer games from a societal standpoint, much the way certain folks saw great potential in TV when it was young. Computer games have the potential to far exceed the artistic achievements of paper and ink literature, if only the proper synergy between market and producers could gel. At this rate, I dont' see that happening for quite a while. Apart from some of the exceptional modders for various games who really try to bring out each gmes full potential, I see little motivation in general by either the publishers or the consumers to add momentum to the ascendancy of computer gaming to a true artform.

I figure if it just continues to degenerate, there is nothing forcing me to continue to play.

 

[Solo4114]

With regard to the positive reviews, it's really very simple. It's all about access. Are you going to get an advance screening of the next game if you were harsh on their last release? No, you won't.

No conspiracy, no buyoffs. Readers want the inside scoop, previews and whatnot. I don't think publishers are exactly falling over themselves to give access to people who have the potential to put a harsh review/preview out there, potentially harming sales. Not gonna happen. Let those bums buy it like everyone else, right?

Right. Which is a big part of why I (A) don't bother with "previews," and (B) which is why I tend to read reviews from "professional" gaming sites with rather a jaundiced eye and try to read between the lines. Although I'm increasingly thinking that I should just skip them altogether.

Inside scoops, previews, avance screenings and whatnot are worthless if getting those means whatever gets written may as well be official PR releases/advertisements. I find it sad to see game journalism degenerate into cheery platitudes, and the readership getting so used to being fed streamlined information about streamlined titles that honesty is interpreted as having a bone to pick.

Yep. Previews are always "The game's looking fantastic! Look at all these cool features which may or may not end up appearing in the final product in the form we saw them!"

I have never bought a game based on a professional review. If I am really skeptical about buying a game, and want additional information, I go to the fan forums and see what they have to say about it. For the myriad reasons pointed out in this thread, relying on the professional reviewer's as a basis to choose good games is bound to lead to mistakes.

My advice, even with fan forums, is to take two additional steps:

(1) wait about 3-6 months before you start looking at people's comments. By that point, the "ZOMG!!! SO SHINY AND NEEEEWWWWW!!" element of the game will have worn off, and people will start looking at the game on its merits. Fans of a series are notoriously positive when the game is initially released, only to have the honeymoon come to a screeching halt somewhere between 2-6 months after release. You may be able to discern a downward trend earlier, but you'll definitely know the flaws of the game by about 6 months out.

(2) Look at the negatives first, and determine whether they -- in and of themselves -- would irritate you. THEN look at the positives. In my experience, it's easy to look at positive reviews and say "Wow! This sounds great!" and then look at the negatives and say "Well, that sounds annoying, but with all those positives, maybe I won't mind!" Most of the time I end up having just BSed myself into wasting money on an unsatisfactory product. Now, I freely admit that I'm a notoriously picky consumer, but knowing this about myself, I know look primarily at negative reviews to see if anything in there would actually bug me.

But in fact, you can learn a lot just from looking at the advertising for a game too. Look at the images, read the text, read between the lines; often just based on that stuff you can get a spidersense tingle of 'risk' and avoid games that you might not like.

There are just too many games available to put up with mediocre games (let alone bad games), either by defending them in forums, or buying them by anything other than a sheer mistake.

This is fundamentally why there are so many mediocre if not bad games, and why their anecdotally seems to be increasing prevalence of them: there are a lot of us gamers who do not take the time to be careful consumers. Its convenient to blame the corporations, but at the end of the day, they just give us what they can get away with giving us. If even 10% of us insisted on better, it might change things. Problem there is, the computer game market segment is likely growing like gangbusters if for no other reason than the maturing under 12s globally who have grown up wired. That suggests to me that, no matter how many of us serious computer gamers become more hardball consumer, it may not have any impact on the incidence of these crap games, and intrusive/exploitative consumer relations policies (e.g., read Steamworks EULA and ponder that that is mandatory to gain a license to plain Civ5) that seem to be becoming more common.

Two things.

1.) The Steam delivery model is the wave of the future. It's how piracy will be fought in the coming years. That and "the cloud," I think, are going to be the next big thing in the delivery of entertainment media of all kinds. For years, the entertainment industry has had to deal with a hybrid system of "ownership" and "licensing" which has created a belief in the consumer's mind that they "own" songs, movies, books, games, etc. They don't. They have licenses to the content, and ownership of the physical medium on which the content resides. With the "cloud" or "Kindle" or "Steam" approach to content delivery, that notion gradually erodes to simple licensing. Once price points are established and the consumers get used to it, it'll be the dominant model for a while.

2.) I came of age with gaming in the early 90s. I was a teenager then, and remember walking into Electronics Boutique or other similar stores to see what titles were available. Back then, there seemed to be more variety of genres, but there were also PLENTY of crap games. What was different, however, was the marketing elements. You didn't have as much internet access back then, nor did you have as many gaming review sites at the time. Mostly it was copies of PC Gamer or PC Magazine that held reviews. I gave up on PC Gamer around 1997 or so when they gave Star Control 3 a 90-something score. That was my first encounter with shills/hacks as reviewers. I still read game reviews, but I'm a LOT more careful about what I believe anymore, and half the time I read them purely for my own entertainment, rather than to determine my purchases. Still, there have always been an abundance of crap games. You just didn't know about 'em unless you happened to pick one up at Einstein Software or whatever. There also wasn't as much centralized publishing (IE: EA back then wasn't the EA of today), which means there was more opportunity for variety.

With companies like Matrix, Paradox, Ageod, and it seems a few others too, these trends may not spell the 'end' of the true quality and detail in computer games, but it certainly doesn't bode well in that respect. I see great potential in computer games from a societal standpoint, much the way certain folks saw great potential in TV when it was young. Computer games have the potential to far exceed the artistic achievements of paper and ink literature, if only the proper synergy between market and producers could gel. At this rate, I dont' see that happening for quite a while. Apart from some of the exceptional modders for various games who really try to bring out each gmes full potential, I see little motivation in general by either the publishers or the consumers to add momentum to the ascendancy of computer gaming to a true artform.

I figure if it just continues to degenerate, there is nothing forcing me to continue to play.

Also true. There's no need to buy crap just because it's heavily advertised.

 

[Minmaster]

it's not salvageable
its too bad because many of us have been burned by civ5 and we might not give civ6 a chance.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

You and I may not like how things are evolving but let's face it, the ones 'doomed' are the demography of players that enjoy relatively 'deep' games. Nintendo and the Wii might just be the nail on the coffin.

Hey, cheer up The internet is still a colossal tool for niche marketing. And small smart software startups that are able to identify those niche markets will make enough profit to keep minority games going. (Profit is profit, you may not become a billionaire, but it will pay the rent, maybe even get you a new house.) And of course startups are frequently doing stuff for the sheer love of it - as long as they're not starving and homeless (and broadbandless), people will still be hacking away at 'deep' games and coming up with new concepts.

Of course, it all goes wrong when the borrowing starts - overexpansion, massive burn rate and to avoid bankruptcy (personal and corporate) you end up being peons wholly owned by a bunch of bean counters like 2K. But then someone else comes along and the cycle starts again. It was just the same back in the 1980s, I was more personally involved back then.

Incidentally, Paradox seems to be holding up, though I suppose it in turn may go the Firaxis route in time (I took Thormodr and other's advice and investigated EUIII, brilliant product and the massive enthusiasm that went into its development is clearly evident.)

 

[blind biker]

1.) The Steam delivery model is the wave of the future. It's how piracy will be fought in the coming years.

Yeah, maybe in the coming years. Because as of right now, in that regard it's a colossal failure. I can find Civ V and the latest patches all available via Torrent. Of course, that "version" needs no Steam to work, and in that sense it's slightly bit more convenient. And methinks (of course, I could be way off) the more they tighten the screws, the less will pirates feel moral reprehension about pirating, and pirating will become more and more a folks-movement rather than a black-hat scene. Already I see people saying "I now feel the pirates are the good guys" (on Slashdot, at least). Put more draconian DRM in your software, and I think (I may be way off, of course, as I said) more people will pirate and feel OK about it.

 

[Zavior]

Civ4 got from decent to really good with expansions... Maybe civ5 will get from bad to decent with expansions...

 

[Solo4114]

I was unaware such versions existed. I figured that you had to be logged into Steam to run it. Even if it doesn't stop piracy, though, it's a better business model for distribution. I'm not saying I like it. Hell, I refuse to buy a Kindle because I don't want MY book "yoinked" because of a license dispute. But I do see where, if you're a distributor, that's the way to go.

 

[Anthropoid]

I am certainly no pirate, and I damn all pirates of any intellectual property. I would never make use of a copy of a game, music, etc., that I did not buy. I believe the makers deserve to get paid if I'm going to have access to a copy of it.

However, I too have heard and read far too much about how easy it is to crack Steam. Retired IT security firm guys who are cyber-buddies of mine have told me straightup that "Steam is a joke" as far as preventing piracy.

What Steam obviously does effectively? Branding and the cyber-equivalent of 'point of sale' marketing and advertising.

In sum, the putative benefits to the industry by preventing shrinkage due to intellectual property theft are illusory it seems. In reality, Steam succeeds because of volume, aggressive pricing and aggressive distributing, i.e., I bet they seek to get exclusive distribution whenever possible (and yes, I know that they say in their FAQ that "they do not require it;" requiring it does not = pushing for it whenever it behooves their profit margins to do so).

If I really perceived that Steam was a true boon to the gaming community, I'd support it. But I do not perceive that.

I do not perceive that pirates, or a complete lack of deterrence of pirates are a boon to the gaming industry either, but the real deterrence of pirates comes from: pricing, dev/publisher relations with fans, fan community. Ask Brad Wardell. The key to reducing piracy is not likely to be putting locks on things but being a well-loved, nice and accomplished maker of games, a publisher/developer that gamers respect and admire and WANT to give their money too because they want to support them and look forward to more such products.

Making crap games, falsely advertised as being something they weren't based on the hype of a series legacy, and then failing to acknowledge mistakes but using an intrusive network-mandatory distribution system is not likely to prevent piracy. If anything, I would bet it promotes it.