IGN: CivWorld "will redefine social gaming."

[nokmirt]

That is a complete joke. I truly wish they would have spent the extra wasted resources on fixing or developing CiV correctly from the get go. Civ is not going to fit in a fb game (in social gaming you never win, it goes on finitely, civ is supposed to be a strategy game that you win, it has always been that way.) besides, they'll never tear those folks from farmville and frontierville. I wish some of Sid Meier's advisors would have told him to shelve the whole idea and put all of that energy into CiV it needs it.

It would have been a better idea if he made swamp people into a social game. I cannot believe he'd waste his time on fb anyway!

let's be honest, this game could be the best game ever created and you guys wouldn't like it because it is on facebook and is therefore casual (and we all know that it is impossible to have a good casual game cos only mums play that sort of thing and we are way to hardcore for it right!) . At least give it a try before calling it a "bad joke".

The game will not be good it will be like city of wonder, which is a sad rip off of civ, with a very small following. People on fb do not want wars or civ, they want farms and frontier. Also you will not be able to buy a winning score, because the game will never end. You will have to share with your neighbors to get certain things, get it share? They give you a gift you give them one. No, in civ I conquer, I don't give anyone anything because I want to be friends. I do it for my own ends, TO WIN!!!!

 

[darkedone02]

civ 5 was decent but not as addictive like Civ 4 was, Civ revolution didn't last long, so was the colonization using the same engine as civ 4, and now watch how short this game will be. maybe shorter then Civ revolution.

 

[Oatse]

weird the people who dislike socializing don't like social games i wonder why

 

[vorlon_mi]

OK, let's look at what the preview says. "Unlike most FB games, this will have an end." Which also implies a beginning, and the start of the next game, and so on. Across the entire CivWorld realm, there will be multiple games going on at once. There's no way one could have (say) 1000 players with 1000 cities all starting at the same time, moving thru the Ancient Age, Middle Age, and proceeding to spaceship. If one stops playing for a couple of days, you could miss quite alot.
Think too of the map implications. One giant map (a la WoW) just wouldn't work. There aren't enough tiles. Just to put boundaries on the game in space, and in time, it would not be "massively multiplayer", numbering in the thousands. Maybe 100-200 players or so, starting on 10-20 continent-sized land masses. You choose to join the Roman civ/tribe, or the English, or Spanish, or Chinese, and build/manage your city. You build a unit or two; some city will have to build a boat, to get to other landmasses. As the dozen or so tribes make their way up the tech tree, another game starts. On a different, but similarly sized map, with a different group of civ/tribes and a different cohort of player/cities.
When your game reaches a victory condition, the tribes disband; the achievements are logged, and you (the individual player) get a chance to start again.

I'm going to give it a try, and I have steadfastly avoided FarmVille/YoVille/CafeWorld/MafiaWars.

 

[darkedone02]

The reason why i don't like facebook games very much is cause they are the same, look at these mafia wars, farmville, and other games out there that require people who has the app to actually get far, that is what I don't like very much. If Civilization in facebook contains this or any relationship that I need to have 300 hundred people in my friendlist to get the app to actually get far, then I won't like this at all.

Another reason why i don't like facebook games is that they act like web-browser games with the long ass countdown to make things that takes days, requires energy that regenerate over time, and all that crap. That stuff turns me off and I expected facebook games to be more like games like bejeweled but sadly it's not.

 

[nokmirt]

OK, let's look at what the preview says. "Unlike most FB games, this will have an end." Which also implies a beginning, and the start of the next game, and so on. Across the entire CivWorld realm, there will be multiple games going on at once. There's no way one could have (say) 1000 players with 1000 cities all starting at the same time, moving thru the Ancient Age, Middle Age, and proceeding to spaceship. If one stops playing for a couple of days, you could miss quite alot.
Think too of the map implications. One giant map (a la WoW) just wouldn't work. There aren't enough tiles. Just to put boundaries on the game in space, and in time, it would not be "massively multiplayer", numbering in the thousands. Maybe 100-200 players or so, starting on 10-20 continent-sized land masses. You choose to join the Roman civ/tribe, or the English, or Spanish, or Chinese, and build/manage your city. You build a unit or two; some city will have to build a boat, to get to other landmasses. As the dozen or so tribes make their way up the tech tree, another game starts. On a different, but similarly sized map, with a different group of civ/tribes and a different cohort of player/cities.
When your game reaches a victory condition, the tribes disband; the achievements are logged, and you (the individual player) get a chance to start again.

I'm going to give it a try, and I have steadfastly avoided FarmVille/YoVille/CafeWorld/MafiaWars.

Well let me know what you think of it. At least theres an end. I still remain skeptical on who will actually play, but we'll see. I really don't care as long as they continue to work on 5.

 

[paraszgyerek]

let's be honest, this game could be the best game ever created and you guys wouldn't like it because it is on facebook and is therefore casual (and we all know that it is impossible to have a good casual game cos only mums play that sort of thing and we are way to hardcore for it right!) . At least give it a try before calling it a "bad joke".

From my side, I got no problem with FB-style Civ.

But I have really very big problem with the "buying the queen" effect or anything that affect the gameplay mechanic with money. They had better give optional eyecandys etc. for money, but not the gameplay mech - and I think this is behind the negative feelings and fears here.

 

[Don Promillo]

weird the people who dislike socializing don't like social games i wonder why

No, I wouldn't say that, only that with a job and family I simply don't have the time for "real time social strategy" , it's hard enough to carve out a 2 hours time slot for a settlers of catan online game (which is way more interesting than to play against a "AI" ). But I would never play a strategy game where you need to be online regularily in order to check your progress, initiate common raids and so on ... (Would have been fun 10 years ago while I was at an university )

 

[Leif Roar]

But I would never play a strategy game where you need to be online regularily in order to check your progress, initiate common raids and so on ... (Would have been fun 10 years ago while I was at an university )

The trouble with all "social strategy games" I've seen so far (starting with "Planetarions" ten years ago) is that in practice they all end up being played entirely on the meta-game level: it doesn't matter one whit how good you are at the game, what matters is how good you are at gathering and organizing a well-functioning alliance / clan / guild / posse / gang / whatever.

 

[Le Sage]

Why ever in the world would I even consider playing a game where the greatest strategy element is whether you can afford to push in needed amount of RL Dollars or not? A game based around the players being able to buy advantages, is no game at all - it's just a bleedin' rip-off.

I really hope it becomes a real success though. So all those tired, desperate stay-at-home hockey moms who play this kind of drivel can finance Civilization 6 for us and thus make their useless existences a tad more worthwhile.

Geezus! Whatever happened to Civilization's good name.

 

[vorlon_mi]

The trouble with all "social strategy games" I've seen so far (starting with "Planetarions" ten years ago) is that in practice they all end up being played entirely on the meta-game level: it doesn't matter one whit how good you are at the game, what matters is how good you are at gathering and organizing a well-functioning alliance / clan / guild / posse / gang / whatever.

Afraid you may have a valid point there ... if the enrollment process for players, Abel, Baker, and Charlie to join the Roman tribe and start building their cities is not handled well, it will be a lot of stumbling/bumbling around. Or, a group of highly coordinated CivWorld veterans will keep joining the same tribes, and clean up on the leaderboards.

Hope they've given some thought to what rewards (if any) will be available for real-world currency. If those affect the meta-game more than the actual in-game mechanics, it would not be so bad.

 

[Rupe]

I'm going to stick to my guns on this one.

I thought Civ 5 was more then disappointing. I felt it to be a slap in the face. I said then I was done with any new Civ games. Maybe in a few years my mind will change. But for now I will not even bother to look at this one. Sorry no sale. Even if its free its not worth my time. Nothing but a near unanimous set of reviews from other like minded people will get me to budge on this one.

For those of you that like Facebook and Civ 5 congratulations. This really is a good thing you you guys.

 

[Watiggi]

Wow, 2K is working hard on dilluting the Civ franchise... I wont be touching it.

 

[Moosezilla]

Yes, it looks bad from here, but even corporate entities learn. After all there is a Civ board game, Perhaps a revised (2.0) Civ3 could be seen as a possible profit maker. Sid only knows.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Well, milk them like the sheep that facebook-users are but plz spend the money to develop a "real" Civ 6 (One Unit per Tile & Hexa & Civ IV diversity & & & )

Of course if this is successful (read profitable) there won't be a civ 6 (and for that to be successful as a game 1UPT has to go, basically because it breaks the strategic game with no tactical game to play on), unless of course they call Civ:Facebook 2, Civ 6.

 

[Don Promillo]

Of course if this is successful (read profitable) there won't be a civ 6 ...

Yup! That's what I fear!

The Idea is per se great; to "civilize" with other human players and even more so on a more micro-layer, but not real-time! More like the sort of the gameplays from Yahzuk (? to lazy to search the forum ) where each player was mayor of "his" city for a couple of turns but one guy manages the overall strategy and can take over your cities if you are afk. Combined with the "technical" possibilities of facebook (aside the data-robbing & publishing over the whole net) it could really be cool

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Something similar has been done 10 years ago: www.kamikazegames.com

It's real-time but most meaningful actions are in cycles of 12 hours, synchronising with daily Facebook checking. I have a feeling CivWorld will be just as mathematical: you can tell if that player is modelling with calculus or not (no, Excel goal seek won't do)

 

[.Shane.]

agree. its expected from zynga but not from 2k. Who the hell would buy 'civ cash' when you could spend the same money on civ v dlc.

this disaster in waiting will flop. defiantly.

Interesting.

So, users can ONLY buy C5 DLC or this? They can ONLY do one or the other? I somehow managed to play Civ 4, Civ 5, Portal, and any other game I choose. They are not mutually exclusive.

So, you can be free to love/hate Civ 5 and love/hate this game. I wouldn't inherently dismiss it.

While I use fb, I don't play any Fb games and have them all blocked. But, I'm willing to try this w/ some healthy skepticism. If its not for me, then, so what? I'll just play something else.

 

[Hail]

The trouble with all "social strategy games" I've seen so far (starting with "Planetarions" ten years ago) is that in practice they all end up being played entirely on the meta-game level: it doesn't matter one whit how good you are at the game, what matters is how good you are at gathering and organizing a well-functioning alliance / clan / guild / posse / gang / whatever.

exactly

i think your statement holds for any MMORG as well


one a side note all this hype surrounding civworld may mean that civ5/firaxis is not doing too well in 2k's view

and frankly i think that CivWorld "will redefine social gaming." is no more true than civ5 redefined the tbs genre

 

[Aneurism]

I'm glad to see it. If 2K games can prove another successful avenue of gaming, it will help support the continued development of the primary PC Civilization franchise. I have never played Facebook games before nor have I ever wanted to but I tried out the beta last night because it is a Civ game. My impression was of a very basic 'Rise of Nations' gameplay with a civ style and team civ nations interface on top. I need to play the thing a bit more before I pass judgment on it.
Its a different genre, it doesn't compare to or compete with the main PC franchise. Social games are for goofing around when you have 10 minutes, and strategy games are for well hours of strategy gaming.. So people relax about it, and who knows you may even like it. I thought it was pretty cool that they gave the beta to everyone associated with civfanatics.com

The way I see it Sid trying out this different social gaming format may give some useful ideas for future multiplayer in the primary PC franchise, such as team play and team government structure, kind of like those team Democracy games but its an actual built in game function. This doesn't mean that Civ6 is going to turn into a Facebook app. Trust in Sid. I do. I've played and enjoyed every version of the game Civ1-5 (including CivNet) and I didn't mind CivRev even though I didn't play it a whole lot more because console gaming is not really my thing than due to the game itself.