If future Civ5 expansions add 'layers of complexity,' will you buy them?

[da_Vinci]

I think your yes and no are not the opposite sides of the same coin (which they should be for a poll like this).

I expected no to be "No, I don't want expansions to add complexity, just new cosmetics" (new civs, new leaders, maybe a few new units graphics tweaks, but NO return of religion, espionage, civics, or changes to game mechanics).

You have blended two separate questions here ... 1) are you willing to pay for expansions, or not, and 2) should expansions have complexity or not

If you want both concepts included, then you would want to have options like

I'd buy expansions only if it adds complexity (implies won't buy if not)
I'd buy expansions only if it does not add complexity (implies wont buy if does)
I'd buy expansions in either case
I won't buy in either case
edit: need to add a not sure for completeness

These four independent choices (other than not sure) cover all six options of the 3x2 matrix of (complex, not complex, don't care) cross (buy, won't buy).

dV

 

[SuperJay]

You have blended two separate questions here ... 1) are you willing to pay for expansions, or not, and 2) should expansions have complexity or not

I actually didn't want to ask those two questions simultaneously. Hence the "IF future expansions add more complexity..." part. But yeah, I could have done a much better job.

I was trying (and failing, apparently!) to say that, for the sake of discussion, let's assume an expansion came out that DID add more depth. Would people who feel that there isn't enough depth in vanilla Civ5 feel comfortable paying for it?

But yes, your analysis is spot-on, and you're clearly more knowledgeable about such things than I am. I knew I shouldn't have ventured into Poll-land!

 

[da_Vinci]

I actually didn't want to ask those two questions simultaneously. Hence the "IF future expansions add more complexity..." part. But yeah, I could have done a much better job.

I was trying (and failing, apparently!) to say that, for the sake of discussion, let's assume an expansion came out that DID add more depth. Would people who feel that there isn't enough depth in vanilla Civ5 feel comfortable paying for it?

But yes, your analysis is spot-on, and you're clearly more knowledgeable about such things than I am. I knew I shouldn't have ventured into Poll-land!

Hmm ... now I get you. "Is an expansion that adds depth and complexity worth paying for?" might be the more precise statement of your intended question.

I initially thought your question was more like "Do you want expansions to add complexity or not?" ... since I am still processing Dennis Shirk's revelation that Civ 5 was intended to be an entry level version of PC Civ for the Rev audience.

Yes, I have some stats background. I was trying to be educational more that critical (not sure if I succeeded at that ). And yes, you should venture into poll land, one gets better with practice (and a little guidance ).

dV

 

[Civbra]

Hello guys!
I'm new here in the forum but I play civ a long time ago ... I found you guys a little while ago - I am Brazilian!
well, maybe I voted - I think they should pack a correction of the problems first.
But if the expansions make it so great to get right?!

Now thanks to all the forum!!!

 

[SuperJay]

Hmm ... now I get you. "Is an expansion that adds depth and complexity worth paying for?" might be the more precise statement of your intended question.

That'd definitely be an improvement. Would you believe I'm a technical writer? Precision of language is supposed to be my strong suit.

...I am still processing Dennis Shirk's revelation that Civ 5 was intended to be an entry level version of PC Civ for the Rev audience.

You and me both. That's a big part of the reason I'm a conflicted about paying more money to bring Civ5 closer to the game I thought it was going to be in the first place. Caveat emptor, of course - and I should have been more cautious with Civ5, but... it's called Civilization 5! Silly me, trusting brands that I've loved for 20 years.

Yes, I have some stats background. I was trying to be educational more that critical (not sure if I succeeded at that ). And yes, you should venture into poll land, one gets better with practice (and a little guidance ).

No you were fine - it was helpful, not critical at all. I appreciate the insight, truly.

 

[PickledDictator]

Civ was a no brainer for me, every single time. Civ V has jaded me big time. I didn't think the series would be affected by industry trends...I was wrong.

That said, the initial disappointment is over, the game currently is garbage, I win 80% of my deity games. I win all types of victory conditions, maps and speeds. There is virtually nothing left for me to do....after one month?????

I am all for expansions or DLC as long as the DLC doesn't gouge the player too badly.
However, I don't need more civs right now, I need a worthy game to play. I need this first major patch to be significant so I can see that 2k is making a serious effort to right a wrong turn they have made.

If they neglect me this time, I will not be buying Civ VI or I mean Civ Rev 3. The franchise which was more than just a video game to me has lost its magic at this point. Please do something to entice me back.

I would rather play Modern warfare 2 than this game and that says something b/c TBS is my favorite genre.

I like games with depth, decisions, thinking ahead, and that addictive one more turn feel.

Civ used to be that, it currently is not.

 

[Soro]

You and me both. That's a big part of the reason I'm a conflicted about paying more money to bring Civ5 closer to the game I thought it was going to be in the first place. Caveat emptor, of course - and I should have been more cautious with Civ5, but... it's called Civilization 5! Silly me, trusting brands that I've loved for 20 years.

This is unfortunately a very popular marketing ploy: rely on branding to sell market XYZ as though it's ABC. Target a different audience with different demographics, and figure you can convince at least a portion of the audience for your older product into keeping what they've recently purchased after they discover it no longer is ABC.

It pays to try demos. I wasn't impressed with the one for Civ V, and I remain unconvinced about buying it. I'll certainly revisit that decision in the future, perhaps a year from now, depending on whether the major issues are dealt with, and complexity is added back in--either through patches, or mods. But to buy DLC I'd have to see something substantial that raised the features bar beyond Civ IV's two expansions.

Of course, I can't speak for anybody else, and everyone has their own, equally valid opinions on this. Still, the sheer number of complaints focusing on the same Civ V issues would seem to indicate that are major concerns about both a change of direction the series' development, and a 1.0 release that was considerably before its time.

 

[da_Vinci]

That said, the initial disappointment is over, the game currently is garbage, I win 80% of my deity games. I win all types of victory conditions, maps and speeds. There is virtually nothing left for me to do....after one month?????

If the really good players all get to this point in short order, then the game will be an artistic failure, regardless of financial results.

What is left to do?

1. Play multiplayer death matches online ... oh wait, that is broken, I hear.

2. Play multiplayer pitboss ... oh wait, does that even exist for V?

3. Play Game of the Month, see if you can win the same map faster than other humans. Winning may be guaranteed, but who can win best? Oh wait, we need a stable version and an appropriate mod to run a proper GOTM on V.

dV

 

[SuperJay]

This is unfortunately a very popular marketing ploy: rely on branding to sell market XYZ as though it's ABC. Target a different audience with different demographics, and figure you can convince at least a portion of the audience for your older product into keeping what they've recently purchased after they discover it no longer is ABC.

Yeah, exactly. Bait and switch... this time the bait was the "Civilization" name. And hey, I went for it; 2K Games got me hook, line and sinker. It's no wonder that's a popular tactic, it seems to work pretty well. I'm not raging at them, but I do feel a little manipulated, especially after listening to that Dennis Shirk interview about targeting Civ Rev players. So I'm not so much angry about the game itself, but really disappointed in Firaxis for abusing the trust they'd built. That took years to earn, and days to lose. Business is business, though.

It pays to try demos. I wasn't impressed with the one for Civ V, and I remain unconvinced about buying it. I'll certainly revisit that decision in the future, perhaps a year from now, depending on whether the major issues are dealt with, and complexity is added back in--either through patches, or mods. But to buy DLC I'd have to see something substantial that raised the features bar beyond Civ IV's two expansions.

I actually DID play the demo - it was enough to whet my appetite and get me excited. I only played it for 2 days, though. And I didn't follow the pre-release hype or interviews or marketing schmaltz, which might have clued me given their tricksy language like "streamlined and organic."

But you're right, from now on, I won't make that mistake again. This bait & switch thing only really works once; I just hope it was worth it for Firaxis and 2K Games. I'm sure it will be, in the end - the financial viability of consolidating their franchise assets to leverage resources for better market penetration going forward, and all that.

 

[Ikael]

This game do not need to be expanded, it needs to be completed and designed.

Still, as people have pointed out, the problem has to do with some of its very core basic game design decisions. In the same way that no amount of new units and promotions couldn't save Civlization IV's combat from suckage, there is really little that can be done in order to fix this game:

- The happiness mechanic just doesn't cut it in order to limitate big empires.

- Culture is freaking useless, social policies or not.

- Lack of goverments implies lack of adaptability or strategy changing on the fly for the player.

- The way too similar terrain makes every game invariably similar to each other, a cardinal sin in a game that it is suppoused to be replayed several times over. If they were taking boardgames as their role modlel, they could have learn a thing or two from Settlers of Catan in that regard.

- And most importantly, there's really no such a thing as a "playstyle". You will always make a big empire, enter in war against freaking everyone, and you are going to submit your rivals trought sheer military force and you will abuse maritime CS because well, there are no other mechanisms avaible.

So in short: an expansion shouldn't offer more units / social policies / civilizations per se. What it should offer is a completely redesigned game that offers new gameplay possibilities in order to stop all the playtroughts from being carbon copies of each other.

 

[SuperJay]

So in short: an expansion shouldn't offer more units / social policies / civilizations per se. What it should offer is a completely redesigned game that offers new gameplay possibilities in order to stop all the games with you having a generic big empire.

So, hypothetically, say they developed that expansion and sold it for the equivalent of $30.00 USD.

Would you buy it?

 

[Jaguar]

I voted no. I'm still hanging around the forums because I do want to accomplish a few more things in Civ5, but I think that the game's underlying mechanics are poorly chosen. It's not about what features are in, or whether horsemen are balanced. It's about the economic engine itself.

The biggest of the poor choices is that it's simply not worthwhile to build most of the stuff. Maintenance costs are simply absurdly prohibitive. Some buildings could be worth it if you had a large city, but large cities cost so much in terms of happiness that they aren't worth it. If I want to maximize my success on the highest difficulty levels, you'll rarely see me build more than four different sorts of buildings - total.

The second biggest problem is that you're forced into edge cases. Optimal empires come in a handful of different shapes:

* 1-2 self-built cities plus possible puppets. Tradition tree. Ridiculously many social policies. If lots of puppets, avoid Bronze Working like the plague, because it and the techs that follow allow your puppets to build military buildings.
* Massive number of cities, liberty tree. Massive amounts of science, hitting the industrial age at 500 AD or earlier.
* Mad slingshot setup to get a couple of really advanced, unstoppable units to take over the world.

Maybe a few others. But "strong, balanced empire of 12 excellent cities" is an inferior strategy. The historical immersion factor in Civ games is incredibly important, and Civ5 rewards mostly bizarre styles of play that don't resemble building an empire at all.

 

[Bluetooth]

For the first time in the series - I have to say "maybe".

Same here.

 

[PibbZ]

I'll buy them regardless, like a true fanboy.

 

[DiabolicX]

I think I am pretty much done with civ series after this unless 6 comes with some head from a vegas stripper. Think I will head back into the woodwork for a few more years too until that comes out. I really dont think they can get 5 to where I would find it interesting (because 5 is not really 5, its something else.)

 

[kuukkeli]

I replied maybe. It all depends on the state of the game at the time and exact contents of the expansion. Currently it seems that there are serious flaws in core design so either they need to be fixed or I need to get convinced that it's just a matter of balancing out few numbers and fixing the AI.

So basically I'm still potential customer but far from guaranteed.

 

[Soro]

I actually DID play the demo - it was enough to whet my appetite and get me excited. I only played it for 2 days, though. And I didn't follow the pre-release hype or interviews or marketing schmaltz, which might have clued me given their tricksy language like "streamlined and organic."

My apologies for giving the impression that I'd thought you hadn't tried it. I did check out a few interviews, though, and weasel words such as "streamlined" immediately lit a red light for me. It's the same reaction I get when I read a developer state (as some have) that "nobody wants the boredom of playing through a long game." Translated, this actually means "We're not going to put in the time to create anything you can enjoy for long," just as "streamlined" of course means "loss of features you had before, with no replacements."

But you're right, from now on, I won't make that mistake again. This bait & switch thing only really works once; I just hope it was worth it for Firaxis and 2K Games. I'm sure it will be, in the end - the financial viability of consolidating their franchise assets to leverage resources for better market penetration going forward, and all that.

Well put. There's a promising career for you in either international diplomacy, or game marketing.

 

[Polish]

Well, based on experience, I had to say yes. After all, I bought all the expansions to CIV III and IV. It is sort of their business model, growing the game as we go--isn't it? Developers and programmers do have to eat too;-)

 

[SuperJay]

My apologies for giving the impression that I'd thought you hadn't tried it. I did check out a few interviews, though, and weasel words such as "streamlined" immediately lit a red light for me. It's the same reaction I get when I read a developer state (as some have) that "nobody wants the boredom of playing through a long game." Translated, this actually means "We're not going to put in the time to create anything you can enjoy for long," just as "streamlined" of course means "loss of features you had before, with no replacements."

Right, exactly. And no apologies necessary - I'm still just incredulous that I did play the demo and did enjoy it, but was so quickly disappointed in the full game. Civ5 played on all the expectations and assumptions from previous Civ titles, so it was easy to believe that I was only scratching the surface in those couple demo games... but then it turned out that "surface" was really the bulk of the gameplay. So I allowed myself to be fooled, no question. But like I said earlier - it only happens once.

That's the funny thing about trust; it takes so long to build up, but when abused, it disappears in the blink of an eye.

Well put. There's a promising career for you in either international diplomacy, or game marketing.

I do work as a writer in a large software and information services company, but thankfully not in marketing. So I'm exposed to that slimey corp-speak all the time, but fortunately I don't have to write it. Doing so routinely would make me nauseous.

 

[cdcuase]

To be quite honest my biggest gripe right now is the dumb AI. Adding more and more layers of complexity isn't going to help the game for me if there simply is no challenge.