Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Shmike, Jan 5, 2011.
It'll count time in the menus, etc., as well. Any time the program is open it's ticking.
Don't think it's doomed but I think there is/will be a change of audience. So a lot of the older players will go elsewhere and newer players who like the er...streamlined gameplay will move in.
Trying to think of a comparison but struggling...maybe Star Wars? I loved the first three but not the newest one whereas friend's children are the opposite.
You're being silly, bud. Jon's not solely responsible for the things we don't like in 5, you know this!
Also, as your attorney I suggest listening to this for perspective on super serious issues:
Link to video.
For me personally, it is doomed, and it's not so much because it's a bad game. It has its problems, certainly. Though, in the past where a Civ game would hold my attention and be my #1 game for a long time, it's not happening with Civ5. Here's why:
Dragon Age 2
Mass Effect 3
Batman: Arkham City
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Duke Nukem Forever
naaa... you know I'm not. I don't remember who said it, but it was a great personality of the last 10 years who said that "the lack of individual responsibility is a virus that may kill Western Civilization"... that, and political correctness together.
Of course he is to be held responsible. That is what LEADER used to mean. I don't care what many people try to make it mean now, but HE is responsible for the final product.
I have presented my resignation more than once during my professional life for not being in agreement with a completely different vision for a given product or project. If you are in such a situation, and do not resign, you are not HONEST. If he was being pressed to add "features" that were not in agreement with what his vision was for Civ5, as many try to claim to defend him, then his professional duty was to resign.
If he was in agreement, or if it was his own vision, which is what I think, then he could stay and deliver what he delivered.
Either way, poor, very poor professionalism.
I'm not for or against Civ 5, and I don't think it's doomed, but I thought Civ Revolution was supposed to be for the new players? Anyone who likes the complexity still has Civ 4, warts and allbut that's the only other game of this type that's fairly current - other 4x games don't have the scope of human history. Simcity suffers similarly
The problem is that we don't know what really happened that made Civ V what it is. It's a creative project shaped by a variety of people. Those tend to evolve beyond what one person's original vision was. It's also very possible that there are cases of executive meddling by the suits at 2k. I'm not going to begrudge Shafer for trying to keep a job. Maybe you are right, and Jon bullishly pushed a bunch of cockamamie designs through. Maybe there was a mix of several factors. The point is we don't know. In essence, you are doing the same thing that you are criticizing the Stardock fans of...taking an absolutist position.
FWIW, I agree with you in principle. Had Civ V been a resounding success, everyone would be praising Jon for a job well done, the way people talk about Soren Johnson perhaps. Had Civ V actually been popular, if I posted something similar to the above paragraph in a "Thank You Jon Shafer!" thread, I would be accused of raining on his parade. It should work the other way, too. For that reason alone, my respect would go way up if he actually engaged Civilization fans and owned up to what happened with Civ V. I don't care whose fault it was really, I'd just like some kind of closure. It's probably never going to happen, since he is likely forbidden to talk to us about it by contract. Damned corporations...
I never finished a game. Civ 5 is flat out awful.
There has been much talk in this thread about Civ 5 being rescued by an expansion.
I will never pay for an "expansion" that does not expand an already good game. Warlords and BTS were expansions, indeed BTS.
Putting out a paypatch and calling it an expansion would be a travesty of ethics, that may make short term money, but it will alienate fans who have been Civving for the last twenty years.
I really hope that Firaxis do decide to rescue the game, and then expand on the rescued game.
Maybe it will be just a change of audience. My opinion differs however. As you recalled Star Wars as example here, please notice that this new popularity is far behind the old one in respect of stability and longevity. Though it was success, it is unlikely we will see a new SW saga extension in the nearest future. For me it looks like someone decided to trade total value of franchise for instant profit.
It seems to me the same thing happened with Civ 5. The game (probably) brought profit to its makers, attracted new fanbase, in spite of it I doubt if subsequent Civ title will repeat this success. I dont think new fans will buy this game during next 20 years as the old ones, becuse the game itself has very poor replayability value in its current state, compared to civ 1-4.
On video games market you are worth as much as your last title. Civ 4 was an outstanding sucess. Civ 5, supported by the good opinion of its predecessors, isn't selling bad, either. However, notes the game received from players on metacritic or amazon, should be considered as seriuos warning. If devs will continue their current practice with expansion packs and Civ 6, we might see a decline of the franchise. Credit of reliance has petered out already. That means the whole series is not doomed yet, but is quite close to be, actually.
I havent even bought it. I have bought 1-4, but this I cannot bring myself to try. I have read the CIV forums here and at Apolyton for countless hours (when bored I read on my Iphone).
I think it's way better than civ 4.
I was so sick of the stacks of doom, i'd be maybe 5 turns away from victory and then out of nowhere a legion of 40 helicopters would appear.
Poor defense maybe?
I dunno, but that's the main reason I prefer 5 to 4.
This. Look at CivRev section of this forum. It's now virtually dead because almost no one is interested in that game anymore, not even those who initially liked it. Civ4 section is instead is still alive and well. The life cycle of Civ5 will probably fall in somewhere between but will be closer to CivRev than Civ4.
I dont think its doomed at all, right now it has 30k players online. How is that a sign of doom?
Because people are ignorant and like to think a game is doomed when they don't like it.
*Whine* Buuuut the game is soooo different! I wanted Civ4+! Why would I pay full price for a new game when I could pay full price for a standalone expansion pack to a game that came out five years ago!? *Whine*
Seriously. 30k players and the game came out in September? The game is hardly dead but this forum thinks its representative of all the players of CivV because few want to admit that less than 5% of all players come to this forum.
CivIV would've fallen into the same obscurity CivRev did on this board if it wasn't for the modding community because frankly, CivIV and V were garbage without mods. As long as the modding community is not on life support, things will be fine.
And hopefully the diehards will go back to their respective boards instead of coming here and chastising people who like CivV. I don't even play CivIV anymore unless I have RAND or RiFE as well.
We want to think its doomed because we really don't want Civ6 to have the problems Civ5 has.
My problem with the game is that the very first thing the developers showed us was 1UPT and strategic combat. That got a buch of people hyped, even me. What we didn't realize was that half the game was built around strategic combat. Whenever I see someone praise the game, the thing praised most often is strategic combat.
I can't help but be angry at the fact that this ONE THING seems to be the only reason why the majority of the community base prefer Civ5 over Civ4. Hell, combat has nothing to do with building a Civ. Its just an overly complicated feature that places restrictions on the rest of the game.
To summarize my point: I don't want Fraxis to think that they can sacrifice half the game, for one little fun feature that wasn't needed in the first place. There were plenty of other things to improve on, like Diplomacy, which has been the games weakest point in 1-4, and once again, is its weakest point.
There was so much that could have been done, but that didn't happen because of 1 feature.
Only if they are sitting on top of kittens.
well as long as they remove 1UPT in the next expansion (which is garunteed to be released within the next year or so), i think this game still has a chance
It's totally rational to believe that they would remove the most hyped feature of the game. You know, the feature the combat mechanics had been completely built around to the point the UI doesn't support stacks above a certain size because they can't be seen on screen without constant clicking. The feature that they have had two chances now to patch out since it looks like it would be a trivial thing to mod in with DLL yet they haven't. Remember how in CivIV: BTS, they removed espionage because it sucked in the base game?
A lot of people bought it during christmas holydays, so after that is normal that the number rises, i want to remember you that on early December were only 15k people playing it.
Sadly Shafer added expionage with BTS, so we can say that an expansion could worse the game on an godlike level...
Separate names with a comma.