I Want Out

[PieceOfMind]

In your post, you are clearly advocating that the future for PC games will/should be reduced to ports of console games. Following this logic that would of course also include future versions of Civ.

(Noting that you originally referred specifically to CivRev)
No it doesn't. There is no logic there, or you are injecting your own assumptions. You're twisting his words in order to create something to argue against.

Randall, it's been very interesting to read your comments in this thread, as you bring a unique (and uncommon) perspective to the discussion - that of a person employed in the actual industry we're discussing. I'd hate to see you get pulled into this pointless argument that CyberChrist is starting.

By the way, the phrase "following this logic" would usually translate as "so if what you say is true and if I throw in some assumptions of my own, then".

 

[CyberChrist]

(Noting that you originally referred specifically to CivRev)
No it doesn't. There is no logic there, or you are injecting your own assumptions. You're twisting his words in order to create something to argue against.

No and no.

No #1: What I reffered to was an hypothetical "CivRev2" because the topic was about the future of PC-games - which also includes Civilization (unless you are of conviction that the Civ franchise has no future at all?) - and since 2 indicates a 'sequal' it would be next in line for a console production (which was then to be ported to the PC). And yes - that would most certainly be following the logic of his prediction about the future of PC-games.

No #2: I seriously have better things to do than make up thing to argue about - I argue topics where I find that arguments are due - but frankly then I take offense to you saying that I 'twist words to create something to argue against'.

 

[PieceOfMind]

So basicly you are predicting that the next version of Civ on the PC will be a port of CivRev2?

There it is quoted again. No, it is what you are predicting, or at least believing he to be predicting.

Here is an easy scenario:
Civ6 is released on PS3, xbox360 and PC.
This would be consistent with what Randall claimed was "likely" to happen. Because it is not civrev2, it shows you paraphrased his comments incorrectly.

Another scenario:
Civ6 is released on PC only. Every other PC game released in the same year is a port of a console game.
This too is consistent with what Randall said... "most games will be console ports".

So when you say that he is "basically predicting the next version of civ on the PC will be a port of civrev2", you are doing nothing more than twisting his words, or possibly not realising the assumptions you're throwing into the mix. Putting in the qualifier "basically" doesn't mean you can just change the meaning of the argument.

 

[JohnnyW]

I seriously have better things to do than make up thing to argue about

Then why are you doing one and not the other?

 

[CyberChrist]

So basicly you are predicting that the next version of Civ on the PC will be a port of CivRev2?

There it is quoted again. No, it is what you are predicting, or at least believing he to be predicting.

Kindly notice the question mark at the end of what I wrote - meaning it was a question. All he had to do was to say "No, what I meant was ....", but instead he chose to act offended about my 'assumption' and then oddly enough proceeded to confirm in his own words that what I had 'so wrongfully assumed' to be his meaning ... was in fact his position on the matter after all.

And here is Randall Turner's response quoted (again):

I didn't say anything about any particular game, did I. If you think I did, go re-read the post.

That said, if there's a console version of Civ in the works, you should be happy. (I wasn't aware that was the case, but okay.) It means the developers you're beating like a rented mule on these forums have at least a chance of staying in business for a while. It seems like a good idea to me, they can drop a PC front-end on it and take advantage of the platform-agnostic systems (ie, AI).

However, I do agree that this has long since turned into a pointless nitpicking contest that serves no real purpose anymore ... even if it does reveal a seemingly blind willingness to accept any statement - as where it gospel - as long it is uttered by 'someone from the industry'.

 

[PieceOfMind]

but instead he chose to act offended about my 'assumption' and then oddly enough proceeded to confirm in his own words that what I had 'so wrongfully assumed' to be his meaning ... was in fact his position on the matter after all.

No, it wasn't. I'm surprised you still won't concede this. Anyway, you are right - this is nitpicking. I can't be bothered anymore. Please continue your discussion without me. Sorry for interfering.

 

[CyberChrist]

No, it wasn't. I'm surprised you still won't concede this.

Surely you are kidding ... are you somehow unable to read his own words?! Talk about being blinded by the 'someone from the industry' factor - hrmph. Oh well, last post from me on this regardlessly.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Surely you are kidding ... are you somehow unable to read his own words?! Talk about being blinded by the 'someone from the industry' factor - hrmph. Oh well, last post from me on this regardlessly.

Get off it. His being "from the industry" I only noted because it meant he offered an uncommon perspective which I was interested to read, and I'd hate to see him wasting time arguing over pointless details like we are/were. It was irrelevant when discussing the logical implications (you made) of statements he had made.

Please, just agree to disagree without needlessly attacking my sensibility. My lack of desire to argue your other points is only because I think it will be pointless because you and I will not come to an agreement, not because I'm conceding that I'm blind and you are not. It's annoying when someone takes a cheap shot when they get the last word. Had it not been for that I would have just left it.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Moderator Action: Discuss the topic and not eachother or eachother's posting style.

 

[Clement]

Whatever happens in the long run i won't be too sorry to see the "industry" leave pc gaming should it choose to do so, who knows maybe once they are gone some more innovative developers will take their place, like the guy who made minecraft, or the chap that makes dwarf fortress, or the people who made mount and blade, all games which are far more interesting in my opinion than a lot of the bigger "industry" games, and for once they won't be so eclipsed by big budget advertising.

Having said that, if consoles is where the money is at, then they really need better hardware, especially RAM, because from what i've read here, it seems they are holding developers back and limiting what could be possible with their overly low specifications.

 

[vandyr]

You guys are forgetting mmos. Mmos can carry the pc gaming industry all by themselves. They also don't port to consoles very well at all.

 

[Mavfin]

And MMOs don't have to worry about the piracy issue. You can run the WoW client on as many machines as you want, but you still have to have an account in Blizzard's control to play it, and can only play one instance of the game at a time per account.

Basically, they did the same thing with Starcraft II. You can play in 'Guest' mode for a while if you pirate something, and people even find ways around ET phoning home, but, you're still stuck with a single-player game you'll run out of content for if you don't connect to the internet with it.

I foresee many more computer games that are *not* MMOs going in the SC 2 direction where you have to connect into the company's servers to get to the stuff worth pirating the game for. Steam is basically this, too. You have to phone home occasionally, or the client locks you out. I can play Civ 5 on two different computers...but not at the same time.

(I mean, oh, sure, there's ways around some of the stuff I said, but, for me, none of those methods are worth the money I wouldn't be spending. I'm not going to spend X hours getting around the restrictions for a game that costs [less than X] hours of my time to earn the money to buy it.)

As far as the OP: I never understood spending so much effort to denounce a game. If you don't like it, put it away, cut your losses, and play something you find fun. Just don't expect everyone else to find it fun or not fun in the same way you do. Millions of people play computer games. They don't all like the same things. No one reading this, including me, can speak for the whole community about what is fun or not fun about Civ 5. You can only speak for yourself. As far as the cost? I have 4 kids. A $50 game is not even enough to take them all out to a 'family' restaurant for a meal, so I'm not going to sweat $50 for a game I end up not liking. I'm just going to delete it, move on, and play something I *do* like. (I do like Civ 5 by the way. I won't miss SoDs at all. However, I don't claim to speak for you or anyone else.)

 

[Solo4114]

MMOs have their own problems, though.

They're pretty expensive to maintain, I'd figure. Plus, they require a lot of content to keep players occupied. And players are NEVER satisfied. You always end up with people complaining about this or that balance issue, or how they've burned through all the quests and now they're bored and max level, etc.

Let's also not forget that MMOs have a problem of sameness. There really isn't all that much variety in MMO design. There are some differences, but on the whole, MMO design is pretty cookie-cutter and tends to just follow whatever the dominant game's design theme is for a while. It used to be EverQuest's design, but now it's WoW. And the problem (to my perception) is that everyone tries to be a "WoW-killer" by replicating what WoW does. Thing is, if you do that, people will initially flock to your game, get bored, and just go back to WoW. If you want to be a true WoW-killer, you need to innovate and do things differently. But then we're right back in the entertainment industry (it's not just gaming, mind you) dilemma of innovation vs. safe return on investment.

 

[Rooftrellen]

A few things, Randall Turner, it has been a joy to read your posts the last several days on this subject. I keep coming back, in spite of a busy schedule, just to see what has come up on this thread.

MMOs are logical to make. You get long term money in subscriptions, and you also get to cut out the pirates just by requiring subscriptions. My big problems with MMOs right now is that they are too expensive and too combat oriented. I'm not paying money up front AND every month (and $15 every month is quite a bit around these parts, anyway) to run around and kill monsters...and practice non-combat skills that do nothing except make me better at killing monsters.

In this respect, two MMOs I have liked were Runescape and ATITD.

A move to consoles would not bother me at all.

In fact, most of my favorite games over the last few years have been on my Wii... unfortunately...most were actually made by Nintendo. It seems few companies are willing to try something very different.

Civ has changed a lot with CiV...and look how people have reacted. If there is blame to be put somewhere for the sea of sequels and sameness, it certainly goes to the consumers that will cry foul at anything different.

CiV has problems (Steam, crashing...) but the diplo and one unit per tile changes were (overall) good and just need some tweaks here and there. Heaven help the company that takes their game based on building empires, and makes the emphasis on empire building, empire happiness, and inter-imperial relationships, as opposed to managing 10 individual cities, as was the case before.

I think that is a big problem, and you don't need to look far to see how a company doing something different makes people mad.

It's too bad that companies are slowly becoming scared of anything new because the vocal "hardcore" gamers (though this could be said for movie-goers, music listeners, etc. as well) don't want anything different.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

A few things, Randall Turner, it has been a joy to read your posts the last several days on this subject. I keep coming back, in spite of a busy schedule, just to see what has come up on this thread.

MMOs are logical to make. You get long term money in subscriptions, and you also get to cut out the pirates just by requiring subscriptions. My big problems with MMOs right now is that they are too expensive and too combat oriented. I'm not paying money up front AND every month (and $15 every month is quite a bit around these parts, anyway) to run around and kill monsters...and practice non-combat skills that do nothing except make me better at killing monsters.

In this respect, two MMOs I have liked were Runescape and ATITD.

A move to consoles would not bother me at all.

In fact, most of my favorite games over the last few years have been on my Wii... unfortunately...most were actually made by Nintendo. It seems few companies are willing to try something very different.

Civ has changed a lot with CiV...and look how people have reacted. If there is blame to be put somewhere for the sea of sequels and sameness, it certainly goes to the consumers that will cry foul at anything different.

CiV has problems (Steam, crashing...) but the diplo and one unit per tile changes were (overall) good and just need some tweaks here and there. Heaven help the company that takes their game based on building empires, and makes the emphasis on empire building, empire happiness, and inter-imperial relationships, as opposed to managing 10 individual cities, as was the case before.

I think that is a big problem, and you don't need to look far to see how a company doing something different makes people mad.

It's too bad that companies are slowly becoming scared of anything new because the vocal "hardcore" gamers (though this could be said for movie-goers, music listeners, etc. as well) don't want anything different.

You make the assumption that people don't like Civ5 because it changed things. I don't see that at all. People weren't afraid of change, they were disappointed by the gameplay. If they were just too conservative to accept changes they would have complained much more loudly from day 1. What we've seen instead is a growing dissatisfaction with the game. If anything those who are the most dissatisfied seem to be (on average) more open to changes in general than those who like the game.

The complaints are largely not "why did they change x?", they are more "why did they make x worse?". If people really wanted Civ4 then why would they ever have purchased Civ5 at all?

 

[Rooftrellen]

You make the assumption that people don't like Civ5 because it changed things. I don't see that at all. ...

The complaints are largely not "why did they change x?", they are more "why did they make x worse?". If people really wanted Civ4 then why would they ever have purchased Civ5 at all?

How did they "make x worse" if there is not a complaint about a change from Civ4?

If the complaints are about gameplay in and of itself, there can be no "made x worse" because that would be pointing out a change.

Outside of the crashing and the Steam requirement, I have seen few complaints that stand alone. People are comparing.

They say there is no religion, which they want. When has lack of religion ever hurt Pac-Man, which has been lacking religion for 30+ years.

They say there is one unit per tile, but this has never seemed to hurt chess games, which don't allow stacking, either.

How can this be a problem for CiV and not any other game if they are not looking back to past games?

 

[lschnarch]

They say there is no religion, which they want. When has lack of religion ever hurt Pac-Man, which has been lacking religion for 30+ years.

They say there is one unit per tile, but this has never seemed to hurt chess games, which don't allow stacking, either.

How can this be a problem for CiV and not any other game if they are not looking back to past games?

Religion as being a major factor in human history would belong into a game about re-writing human history, no?
There are games in which 1upt works, because the scale and the game rules are set up properly for such a system. This is not the case for Civ5.

In both cases I don't have to compare it to previous games.
The fact that previous games are available as reference doesn't mean that somebody wants exactly that other game back. Even less, as that other game still is available.

So, I don't see your point?

 

[Guardian_PL]

How did they "make x worse" if there is not a complaint about a change from Civ4?

If the complaints are about gameplay in and of itself, there can be no "made x worse" because that would be pointing out a change.

Outside of the crashing and the Steam requirement, I have seen few complaints that stand alone. People are comparing.

They say there is no religion, which they want. When has lack of religion ever hurt Pac-Man, which has been lacking religion for 30+ years.

They say there is one unit per tile, but this has never seemed to hurt chess games, which don't allow stacking, either.

How can this be a problem for CiV and not any other game if they are not looking back to past games?

Yeah, people are comparing. In your case, Pacman to Civilization series - well done indeed

So which is better, compare say Fallout 3 to Fallout 2, Civ 5 to Civ 4, or Civ 4 to Pacman?

I just love when someone argues that a failgame should be rated on its own. Why? Because it looks abysmally ugly when put next to its predecessor?


Lastly, to even hint that chess and Civ5 have anything in common is a sin, it's like to say that horses and tables have four legs so they both can be used for riding

Boy, those folks that compare, what an annoying lot...

 

[r_rolo1]

How did they "make x worse" if there is not a complaint about a change from Civ4?

If the complaints are about gameplay in and of itself, there can be no "made x worse" because that would be pointing out a change.

Outside of the crashing and the Steam requirement, I have seen few complaints that stand alone. People are comparing.

They say there is no religion, which they want. When has lack of religion ever hurt Pac-Man, which has been lacking religion for 30+ years.

They say there is one unit per tile, but this has never seemed to hurt chess games, which don't allow stacking, either.

How can this be a problem for CiV and not any other game if they are not looking back to past games?

So, let me see ... you have a game called Civilization V and you are cringing because people are comparing it to other games called Civilization ? Yup ,what a wierd thing to do ...

If you don't want that people compare a certain game with previous games, the first ( not only , though ) thing to do is not call it like a previous game. People may presume consistency, you know

For a Firaxian example, when they wanted to make a Ceasar wanna-be, they didn't called it Civilization V, but they called it CivCity: Rome and the clients did not presumed that it was a Civilization game ( and btw , it doesn't have neither religions ( just temples ) or stacking ) and asked for changes to move in that direction. But by some reason, they decided to inspire themselfes in PG to make a game and, unlike the previous example, called it Civilization V and not "PG Civ" or similar ... so people assumed that the game had more in common with Civilization IV ( and previous titles of the same series ) than with PG, chess or Pac-man. What a odd thing to do ...

 

[Windsor]

How did they "make x worse" if there is not a complaint about a change from Civ4?

If the complaints are about gameplay in and of itself, there can be no "made x worse" because that would be pointing out a change.

That's a gameplay complaint. "make x worse" is telling you that the new mechanic is worse than it could have been. The old version is used as proof.

We using comparisons to prove that the gameplay criticism is reasonable. After all, we can't expect SkyNet-AI, but if we can point to similar games that have better AI, then the complaint is suddenly a lot more legit.

Outside of the crashing and the Steam requirement, I have seen few complaints that stand alone. People are comparing.

They say there is no religion, which they want. When has lack of religion ever hurt Pac-Man, which has been lacking religion for 30+ years.

They say there is one unit per tile, but this has never seemed to hurt chess games, which don't allow stacking, either.

How can this be a problem for CiV and not any other game if they are not looking back to past games?

Of course people are comparing. It's much easier to write "CTP2 public works system is better than Civ-style workers as it cuts micro and removes worker-steals" and that gives everyone familiar with CTP2 a good understanding of what I propose. If I where to describe the PW system I would need to write a lot more and other members would have a harder time to understand what I was suggesting.

Civ4 is the most common reference when debating Civ5. That's because the games are similar and most CFC-members are familiar with both games. No point in comparing Civ5 to Flood(1989 Amiga game).

When comparing you can also point out why certain features or concepts are problematic in some games and works well in others. For example, 1upt in chess isn't a problem because there are enough free tiles. Civ5 and chess also have other differences.

If you add 100 times as many tiles in Civ5 then 1upt wouldn't be that problematic at all. So when people write "1upt doesn't work in Civ5" they are really writing "1upt doesn't work in Civ5 assuming map size stays about the same as now".

Finally, most complaints have gotten (stand alone) explanations of why they doesn't work and often suggestions on how to improve the feature. You can't expect members to repost the full reason in every post. Not only does it take time, but it's not always needed in the thread. If you wonder why people dislike features, ask and they will probably write or link to a longer explanation.

Comparing is really only there to make it easier for us to debate.