How is this acceptable?

[NoobEmperor]

Firaxis is interested in making money, and if they make half-games and people buy it up then yeah, they will sell half games.

and yes, fanboys will say "it has potential" and "wait for DLCs". and that is where we are now, BE is essentially an early access game with broken game mechanics that will be potentially fixed with DLCs which you will also have to pay for.

and the argument that because they are selling copies, therefore the game must be good is stupid. you can always dumb a game down and casualise it to get a bigger market but people don't make an account to post on here because they are interested in a casual game. im sure Call of Duty sells buckets of copies too.

the honest truth is, turn based strategy game has always been a small niche and an AAA title would need to be some casual game like civ5 and xcom, they could never survive otherwise. so if you buy a AAA turn based strategy game you ought to know what you're getting.

Moderator Action: Use of the word "Fanboys" is trolling. Please find a more civil way to express your views.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

The game is definitely fun to play, but after playing close to 40 hours, it is clear that it needs two or three patches mainly to get better balancing.

It seems need for patching is something that has become common for all games these days. All the new games that i got recently; Rome 2 total war, Charlemagne expansion for crusader kings 2, stronghold crusader 2 all got patched after release one way or antoher... EU4 had a new DLC released last week (art of war), and already list of bugs are piling up to get fixed in a patch...



BE is not dead. Right now. it is the third most purchased game on steam. i remember when civ5 got released some people were saying the same thing, even some with their great wisdom were suggesting that Firaxis must drop civ 5 immediately and move on to civ6 ... now look what a great success civ5 has become...Some people in here has developed such a hatred for civ 5 and civ:BE that their views and posts basically adds nothing meaningful to the discussions in this forum.

I'm not pronouncing it dead just because I don't like it.

There are other things to consider:
1) its a sci fi game so it has limited appeal vs. regular Civ, so there's less reason to sink money into it like Civ V to make it work
2) it was obviously made on a miserable budget, if they weren't going to put money into it from the start, what makes you think they'll do it now
3) its a spin-off, spin offs don't get as much attention as whatever they're based on
4) its based on old technology (civ V engine), which there isn't much reason to keep afloat
5) half the people who bought it, don't like it. And the game doesn't have critical stability issues or any reason for bad ratings except if the people genuinely don't like it. Firaxis looks at these numbers too and they know that the Civ name (and SMAC legacy) is what's selling the game currently.

I'm pretty sure they planned an expansion for this, but that wholly depends on whether the expansion will make them money or not - and its not a sure thing at this point like with Civ V.

 

[TLHeart]

I'm not pronouncing it dead just because I don't like it.

There are other things to consider:
1) its a sci fi game so it has limited appeal vs. regular Civ, so there's less reason to sink money into it like Civ V to make it work
2) it was obviously made on a miserable budget, if they weren't going to put money into it from the start, what makes you think they'll do it now
3) its a spin-off, spin offs don't get as much attention as whatever they're based on
4) its based on old technology (civ V engine), which there isn't much reason to keep afloat
5) half the people who bought it, don't like it. And the game doesn't have critical stability issues or any reason for bad ratings except if the people genuinely don't like it. Firaxis looks at these numbers too and they know that the Civ name (and SMAC legacy) is what's selling the game currently.

I'm pretty sure they planned an expansion for this, but that wholly depends on whether the expansion will make them money or not - and its not a sure thing at this point like with Civ V.

you have a funny definition of half... 61% like the game, that is way more than 1/2 dislike the game.

only 39% dislike the game.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Its a terrible score for a Firaxis game. Civ IV and Civ V have around 95% positive feedback.

 

[Joch]

Moderator Action: Please report a post that is trolling instead of publicly posting that a poster is trolling. Thanks
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

my apologies, I am new to this forum. Next time I spot a Troll, I will refrain from publicly calling them a Troll.

 

[bhavv]

Its a terrible score for a Firaxis game. Civ IV and Civ V have around 95% positive feedback.

After all their expansions, patches and fixes that is.

 

[tzaari]

Looks like there is lots of conversation here how to deal with different opinions about game quality. This is not answer for anyone in particular, but more like answer for arguments that I see repeated over and over again.

"So many people have bought it, so it must be a good game!"

No. The amount of buyers do not always represent the actual quality of the product. Markets do not work that way, because people don't have all the information available at all times nor are they they interested to have. People are affected by emotions and simple group behavior, that makes them do the same thing that majority of others do.

"The Steam reviews say that.."

39% of 4027 customers is about 1570 people, who think game was not worth it.

So in total numbers, how many people have already bought BE? If steam reviews would be representative and 39% would be statistically correct percentage of total number of buyers, there would be probably tens of thousands of people who are not satisfied for the game.

But, that is not statistically correct. This is because sample of the people is not random among the buyers. People who review the game represent part of the gamers, who like to review games or are used to say their opinion aloud. So I would say that reviews are estimation, but not totally correct when comparing to total number of buyers.

"The game is fun to play."

Sure, why not? It is designed to be fun but then again, there is lots of things that some people think are fun to do while others have totally opposite opinion about. While others find game fun when it is immersive, easy flowing and easy to play, there is people who look in more detail about who the game actually works. I if they find out that game is not actually working but only trying to give player delusion that it is working, then they are disappointed.

So in conclusion, you can have a game that is not very good, but that can still sell millions of copies if it is well known brand and majority of people are content. It doesn't need to be even a working game, because some people buy it simply because many others did so and only ever bothered to read the description that marketing department wrote.

So for those who are having fun playing BE; Good for you! And for those who are disappointed; Make sure that Firaxis gets your feedback.

 

[EsnesNommoc]

Looks like there is lots of conversation here how to deal with different opinions about game quality. This is not answer for anyone in particular, but more like answer for arguments that I see repeated over and over again.

"So many people have bought it, so it must be a good game!"

No. The amount of buyers do not always represent the actual quality of the product. Markets do not work that way, because people don't have all the information available at all times nor are they they interested to have. People are affected by emotions and simple group behavior, that makes them do the same thing that majority of others do.

"The Steam reviews say that.."

39% of 4027 customers is about 1570 people, who think game was not worth it.

So in total numbers, how many people have already bought BE? If steam reviews would be representative and 39% would be statistically correct percentage of total number of buyers, there would be probably tens of thousands of people who are not satisfied for the game.

But, that is not statistically correct. This is because sample of the people is not random among the buyers. People who review the game represent part of the gamers, who like to review games or are used to say their opinion aloud. So I would say that reviews are estimation, but not totally correct when comparing to total number of buyers.

"The game is fun to play."

Sure, why not? It is designed to be fun but then again, there is lots of things that some people think are fun to do while others have totally opposite opinion about. While others find game fun when it is immersive, easy flowing and easy to play, there is people who look in more detail about who the game actually works. I if they find out that game is not actually working but only trying to give player delusion that it is working, then they are disappointed.

So in conclusion, you can have a game that is not very good, but that can still sell millions of copies if it is well known brand and majority of people are content. It doesn't need to be even a working game, because some people buy it simply because many others did so and only ever bothered to read the description that marketing department wrote.

So for those who are having fun playing BE; Good for you! And for those who are disappointed; Make sure that Firaxis gets your feedback.

And in a second conclusion: How good a game is depends on perspectives.

 

[Aldahen]

It's nearly impossible to get people to agree on this kind of topic. Some like apples and some like oranges.

Personally when I bought the game I was expecting a Civ 5 with a twist. And I was positively surprised. Some aspects of the game are the same, some are simplified and some have a fresh approach.

For me the best innovation is the choices. Affinity system gives you 3 different main roads to guide your nations development. Instead of everybody following the same railroad track you had in Civ5.

Note that in addition to the military units, you tend to favor different technologies too.
On top of this you have the choices when you get a new building or upgrade to your unit. This forces you to do tactical decisions: e.g. will your only flying unit be effective against other flyers and allow you to achieve air supremacy or do you concentrate on ground attack? If you are ahead in the technology the last option sounds the best, but when somebody catches up your tech advantage and upgrades air2air capabilities the table might turn.

Also the orbital layer offers a new "dimension" that you can/must handle. I have mostly used this inside the nation to choose the benefits for each area, but if you have a competitive game/war with your neighbor it will have tactical possibilities. E.g. supermacy affinity being able to deploy orbitals near firaxite will offer a new way to make quick surprise offensive.

Also the Sci-Fi theme will allow more options when expanding the game. New techs, new "natives", even new affinities etc..

There might be some balance issues, but for me the fundamentals are right and that is the most important thing. Balance can always be tweaked.

I'm loving the game and expect great things from the future.
The biggest drawback for me is - supprise, supprise - the AI. With many strategies and options available the AI would need to step up it's game even more than in Civ5.

 

[Drakarska]

The game has massive issues, network stability is a joke still and many things really need the nerfhammer.

However, it boils down to this:
There's nothing else to play.

Ermm, has no one been paying attention to GalCiv III ? Granted, it's still in beta, but Kael and Co have been doing a wizzer job of continuous updates and listening to all the feedback from the fans ( I'll even toss in a respectful nod to Frogboy for letting Kael take the reins).

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

After all their expansions, patches and fixes that is.

No, there are far too many positive scores for Civ V and people usually don't bother changing their original review. Many people were obviously satisfied with Civ V from the start.

Civ IV was a 9/10 game out of the door.

Whether a game is fun is a subjective opinion, whether its good or not is quantifiable based on previous games of the same type and what is expected of the genre, the game in question and the company making it.

Civ BE is an above average game at best. The few good ideas in it are dragged down by many gameplay flaws inherited from its predecessor. The lack of substance and flavor can't be fixed by an expansion. With SMAC the inverse was true, there was nothing to add to the game so everything in the expansion was superfluous.

Civ BE could have been given a free pass if it was an expansion for Civ V since, content and gameplay wise, it doesn't change much more than what a good mod would do.

 

[Lord Tirian]

No, there are far too many positive scores for Civ V and people usually don't bother changing their original review. Many people were obviously satisfied with Civ V from the start.

If you're talking about Steam reviews, they're all for the patched Civ5. Steam reviews were introduced about a year ago, so they usually have the benefit of the fully patched vanilla (and probably the expansions as well as they're often bundled).

 

[FangFur]

Op is right. Im a complete idiot for buying BE and I should have known better after the farce of CIV5. Never again will I preorder or buy upon release a game from Firaxis. They have once again treated their fans with utter contempt releasing a half finished, sub par product. They deserve no more money from me or anyone else and its time to stand up to this horrible bastard company who think its fine to rip off their massive fan base and slowly destroy the name of Civ.

 

[Rellin]

Anyone who bought this at release deserved what they got. You should have known this game was going to be garbage at release, as possibly forever. We can hope they fix it, but who knows.

 

[Civking5]

I'm not pronouncing it dead just because I don't like it.

There are other things to consider:
1) its a sci fi game so it has limited appeal vs. regular Civ, so there's less reason to sink money into it like Civ V to make it work
2) it was obviously made on a miserable budget, if they weren't going to put money into it from the start, what makes you think they'll do it now
3) its a spin-off, spin offs don't get as much attention as whatever they're based on
4) its based on old technology (civ V engine), which there isn't much reason to keep afloat
5) half the people who bought it, don't like it. And the game doesn't have critical stability issues or any reason for bad ratings except if the people genuinely don't like it. Firaxis looks at these numbers too and they know that the Civ name (and SMAC legacy) is what's selling the game currently.

I'm pretty sure they planned an expansion for this, but that wholly depends on whether the expansion will make them money or not - and its not a sure thing at this point like with Civ V.

I don't get it. In what world 39% is half? You realize that exaggerating like this only discredits your whole argument?
From what I see in the picture, 61% like the game, and that makes it a majority of the people who got the game...

 

[Beaver79]

They put enough new whistles and bells in this game that it is fun to try those out. It took me all of 47 hours to get the majority of the achievements though. If I do a duel map, domination victory on the 3rd difficulty level I will have seen all that this game has to offer.

I played BioShock for about that many hours and I only paid 10 bucks for it. People expect that out of a game like that. Play it through once and then likely never pick it back up again. That's ok for that type of game. Every Civ game I've played though I've logged at least 500 hours on. I seriously doubt I'll even get to 100 hours in BE. The strategy is completely gone. Build as many cities as possible, make trade routes, and go prosperity if you want to keep your health up. Get 1 of the 4 science victories, or just coup everyone's capitals and win domination.

I think most of those positive reviews are from casual gamers that were in their first 40 hours of gameplay. That first 40 hours were probably fun for most hardcore Civ players as well, but does anyone have even 200 hours logged yet? What's keeping you playing?

 

[civictor]

Civ BE is the best full-conversion mod ever! And fifty bucks is not that much from the Pizza budget.

People need to keep in mind that Firaxis is a corporation that must make a profit. They are mining their investment in the new hexagonal tile system to recoup development costs.

People are asking for an icosahedral spherical game map, but that will be really expensive to develop since it will need huge changes to the game system (as you can see by looking at the lua and C++ code they have graciously exposed to our view). You get what you pay for, and games cost millions to develop nowadays.

 

[Aeson]

The Steam achievements arent a very good representation of a game's depth or replayability. Some of them are even anti-depth. Like any of the lower difficulty ones. If you can beat Apollo, what are you even doing playing a lower difficuly level for? And if suddenly Firaxis added 300 grinding achievements like finish out the tech web 1000 times would that actually change the depth or replayability of the game?

As for people with 200+ hours in the game, youre unlikely to hear from any since theyd currently be doing what they had been doing every waking minute for the last 11 days.

 

[Greasy Dave]

How is this thread acceptable?

Given that the OP is centred around an insult to anyone who likes the game- I would like to ask a mod to close it.

On a similar note, I've noticed that a lot of the negative criticism towards the game both in this thread and elsewhere (not all - but a signifcant amount) seems to be built upon a system of strong words and opinion being considered as fact.

I'd like to ask the OP and everyone who writes a critique in that form. is that behaviour acceptable?

Thank you.

Moderator Action: If you have a problem with a thread, please report it. Moderators will then decide whether to close it or leave it open. If you don't like the decision, feel free to send a moderator a PM seeking an explanation. Please don't discuss the lack of moderator action in the thread, though, or that you've reported a thread. Doing so will not improve the tone of the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Op is right. Im a complete idiot for buying BE and I should have known better after the farce of CIV5. Never again will I preorder or buy upon release a game from Firaxis. They have once again treated their fans with utter contempt releasing a half finished, sub par product. They deserve no more money from me or anyone else and its time to stand up to this horrible bastard company who think its fine to rip off their massive fan base and slowly destroy the name of Civ.

I never said "complete idiocy". Complete idiocy is a heavily laden accusation, which goes toward one's fundamental moral appraisal of other Humans, as to think either that other people have the gem of self-improvement, or not, is a foundational sort of belief. I hold the principle that no one is a complete idiot. That is at least what is meant by the principle of Love.

Oddly, this post is the closest to what I was indeed saying, although I am skeptical you are being sincere.
Neither do I think Firaxis is a bastard company; but if they just go where the money leads them, then this loss of quality will be the result. Indeed, there's nothing bastardy about making something people will buy, that's the free market at work. But I have values that tell me I wish Civ could be better than this, so I yearn for (at least a significant) a community that shares that value with me.

I disagree with this forum's definition of trolling, but this is not the... forum to argue that. Talking about what is worth doing is perhaps the most important kind of talking and questioning that there is, and the answers to that question have the most fundamental consequences in the appraisal of ourselves.

Moderator Action: Please be aware of our site's policy regarding public discussion of moderator action - you're correct that this isn't the right place to express your disagreement with an action. Please keep discussion about a moderator action to PM discussion with moderators.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889