• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Firaxis's grand conspiracy theory to fool us and rip us off!

Status
Not open for further replies.

lordsurya08

class-A procrastinator
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
547
Location
california
You know how people are bashing Civ V? I think Firaxis made it simple and one-dimensional on purpose- it's part of their grand strategy to make cheap money off us.

In production, Civ V is a much better game than it is now. Before releasing, Firaxis purposefully removes several nice features from this game and dumbs down the AI. Of course, people are unhappy about this. They say "What a crappy game. I'm never getting Civ VI!"

The release date for VI approaches, Firaxis woos us with "new features" that are promised in VI. They tell us, "Yes, we studied customer reaction for Civ V and we've decided to implement so-and-so NEW AND IMPROVED features" (which we secretly removed from Civ V) "so this game will be the best Civ ever released". THis Civ VI is nothing but what Civ V was supposed to be plus a few changes and a different look.

At the same time, they give us patches for Civ 5 restoring some of the AI to butter us up and make us feel less negative about Firaxis. It's all psychological. People think, "Man, Civ VI has got to be good. Firaxis can't screw up on this one!"

And guess what? Civ VI turns out to be an awesome game. People will love it like IV. They think "Man, if Civ VI was so good, imagine how good VII will be! Can't wait to get it!" What people don't know is that it's supposed to be what Civ V was originally like in production. So during the period between V and VI, what does Firaxis do? They've already finished most of VI before releasing V, so Firaxis begins work on what will become VIII. (VII being another scam like V)

And the cycle starts all over again. Proof? Look at Civ III and IV.

So what does Firaxis gain out of this? Think about it: The production for Civ VI actually started since 2005. It will finish a few years later. In the meantime, they grabbed a few cheap bucks off Civ V without severely hurting their customer base. In their heads, there are only four Civ games - I, II, IV, and the upcoming VI. The rest are just cheap money spinners. It's genius. They're making the money of two games from the work of making one game. And that's why they only have 120 employees - they have twice as long to finish a game!

MORAL OF THE STORY: Buy the even-numbered games. And ditch the rest...the odds are against the odd games being any good at all.
 
Not totally insane, since EA has been doing this for over a decade with the Madden franchise :D
 
Not totally insane, since EA has been doing this for over a decade with the Madden franchise :D

AND the Fifa series.

AND Tiger Woods.

(and propably a hole lot more. I only played those two)

Yep, this is a common strategy, but mostly around the yearly publications. (And especially EA)
They will remove something nice, or put in an anoying feature, so you want to buy the next version (which is upped a little on the graphics and updated on the playerlists).

I recently read the thread about EA's possible takeover of TakeTwo a couple of years ago (august 08), and it was scary how all the worst fears of CivFanatics members came true even though EA didnt buy TakeTwo.
 
I suspect it usually has a underlying tone of condescension in that, they can always say: well you don't HAVE to buy and play a computer game.

This is what happens when corporate business types take control of the art form that is computer gaming. Luckily there are still a few companies in which the corporate types do not yet seem to hold sway. Paradox and Matrix are the two I can think of, though even with the, changes seem to be afoot . . .
 
I agree that Firaxis crapped the stuff intentionally, there is no other explanation, at least on planet Earth.
 
Not totally insane, since EA has been doing this for over a decade with the Madden franchise :D

never player madden, but FIFA (I am european :smoke: )
It is true, that the changes from version to next version in EA gmaes are small, however I have to confess that they are actually getting BETTER from release to relase.
I can not state this for Civ as V is completely crap...
 
You are right, it is a conspiracy theory. And a stupid one at that.

They are not making ''bad games'' on purpose, it makes no sense from a marketing perspective, since people who will hate a game are less likely to buy a sequel, even if they promise it will be better. Also, bad reviews and word of mouth will cause sales of the current ''bad game'' to drop, resulting in loss. What the hell kind of sense does that make?

People who run these companies are not evil geniuses who like to mess with people's minds just to turn a profit. Maybe you shouldn't watch so much television, it's putting crazy ideas in your head.
Moderator Action: Trolling is not allowed here.

But the largest flaw is obviously that Civ 5 is not a bad game at all, and a very worthy sequel. Haven't had this much fun in ages.
 
Not a new concept, look at how all major well known companies publishes their products.

A strong perfomance, followed by a weaker performance (notice I didn't say bad performance) then explode with a subsequent next product. This allows social media to push the product higher and create a low anchor for the next product to beat. If used effectively, is *very* effective product and social manipulation and neccessary for any multiple product sustainablity.

The issue I see is that their purchasable downloadable content will not be as popular as expected and cause rifts within the company between management and marketing to the point we may not even see the next generation. It is hard to compete with free.
 
OP is claiming that Civilization 6 has been in development since 2005... where is the evidence for this other than his own imagination?
 
Only play even numbered civs... are you perhaps confusing civ with star trek?
 
Civ III=:( Civ=:D

So he believes that it shows evidence of his theory.
 
Civ V has a lot of potential but it is plenty of bugs and the AI sucks at everything it does beside existing.
 
Civ V has a lot of potential but it is plenty of bugs and the AI sucks at everything it does beside existing.

Sucks at that too.

Oh right. So it's going under the assumption that Civ3 wasn't a very good game. Seems an odd assumption.

Well it takes all kinds, Civ III is the only civ game that I relinquished easily.
 
Sucks at that too.



Well it takes all kinds, Civ III is the only civ game that I relinquished easily.

Did you ever get to Civ3 Conquests? I agree that Civ3, as well as the "Play the World" expansion were lacking. However I felt that "Conquests" (the 3rd Civ3 expansion) made Civ3 into a fun, well-balanced game. I played and replayed Civ3Conquests and mods for that game far more than probably any other game. Nonetheless, I'd agree that Civ3 vanilla was lackluster.

Actually I think the same thing about Civ4. Vanilla = bleh. Warlords = yeah, okay, but really more of a tangent. Beyond the Sword = Yeah. Good game. It felt like BTS was what Civ4 should've been all along.

Which is why I remain hopeful Civ5 expansion #2 or #3 will ameliorate some of the profound "anti-Civ5" and rebalance the distribution of satisfaction in the community (and appeal to me in description as well).
 
IMHO :

Civ I : YEAH!
Civ II : mmm. ok
Civ II Test of Times : YEAH!
Civ III : mmm. ok
Civ IV : YEAH!
Warlords : mmm. ok
Beyond the Sword : YEAH!
Civ Col : mmm. ok'ish
Civ Rev : mmm. not really a civ
Civ V : arrggg!!! This sukz!
C VI : plzplzplzplzplz b good
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom