Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
That's because there's little point posting moderate optimism. People who don't like things are happier to be more vocal.
In Sid We Trust?
- Thread starter Ben Music
- Start date
-FC-Commando
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 114
If Sid would take a crap, take a picture of it, put the foto in a box named Civ5, i will buy it.
Swashbuckler.
Chieftain
I totaly trust Sid Meier and Jon Shafer. 
ArataWata11
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 54
of course I do, and loved all changes and refinement He made to the game since its inception otherwise I wouldnt be here tirelessly waiting for new infos about ciV.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
It's enough that Sid sometimes occupy the same room as the designers, his aura of awesomeness will then infect them.
johny smith
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,273
I trust him to maximize his profits which means making people happy enough with his game for them to buy it, and that also means do as much as minimally possible to save paying more money to make the game. Just like any other game maker. Or any other CEO.
So I voted no as in trusting that he make a game that I am looking for, but I do trust him to sell his game though. I mean why else would he make it.
So I voted no as in trusting that he make a game that I am looking for, but I do trust him to sell his game though. I mean why else would he make it.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
Right, because every developer hates their job and is only in it for the bling bling.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
If you wanted to make money, there are far better things to be than a game developer.
i respect civ series and SM a lot. however, i picked NO. because SM seems not to control what's going on. i don't trust the other young developers, because i don't know much about them yet. and from the interviews, i didn't get a good impression.
IMO, there are 2 possiblities:
1) the game seems it will be good, yes, but IMO not as good as civ4. still, as it will be a new game by SM, we will play it with passion.
2) the game will be very good even better than all older versions. but the marketing management and public relations are quite poor and they introduce the game very badly
anyway, according to infos there are positive sides of civ5 as well but overall, i am not satisfied yet.
IMO, there are 2 possiblities:
1) the game seems it will be good, yes, but IMO not as good as civ4. still, as it will be a new game by SM, we will play it with passion.
2) the game will be very good even better than all older versions. but the marketing management and public relations are quite poor and they introduce the game very badly
anyway, according to infos there are positive sides of civ5 as well but overall, i am not satisfied yet.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
Disagreeing with game implementations is hardly 'negative'. If it is said that they should not disagree without knowing all the facts, the same goes to those who agree with game implementations, and same goes with those who like what they have heard. That is what forums are for.
I trust Sid, but not necessarily Take Two or the Take Two acquired Firaxsis.
I trust Sid, but not necessarily Take Two or the Take Two acquired Firaxsis.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
I am sure that we need to get readjusted to Civ V and it may have some things we like and some things we dislikewhen compared to previous Civ installements, but Firaxis cannot please everybody in this regard. I think the game will be fun, and that there are quite a few improvements to make the game interesting.
At first I was skeptical about the changes to warfare, but now I feel like it is pretty much what I wanted it to be like. I disliked managing huge stacks because it was so tedious, now they made warfare more engaging, more strategic, and in general hopefully better. I can totally see this being an improvement although it is widely different. Being a peaceful player I can also see where a more solid diplomacy would help.
All in all I am unsure what to expect exactly and if the game will be nice or not, but in general I feel the game will be well worth it once you get used to how different it is.
At first I was skeptical about the changes to warfare, but now I feel like it is pretty much what I wanted it to be like. I disliked managing huge stacks because it was so tedious, now they made warfare more engaging, more strategic, and in general hopefully better. I can totally see this being an improvement although it is widely different. Being a peaceful player I can also see where a more solid diplomacy would help.
All in all I am unsure what to expect exactly and if the game will be nice or not, but in general I feel the game will be well worth it once you get used to how different it is.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
Of course the stakes are ever higher but I personally have never looked back to an older copy of civ yet. I expect Firaxis to succeed with that again based on those statistics.
Shiggs713
Immortal
do I trust Sid?... well maybe. I trust him enough to give him $50 for a game that I want to buy. I assume it will be better than its predecessor because like stated above, I never looked back to older versions. Well except civ3 for a few months, but that was before I was really acquainted with civ4.
i didn't vote though because in the true sense of the word, no I do not trust Sid. But, in Sid I hope.. thats as far as I'll go for now.
i didn't vote though because in the true sense of the word, no I do not trust Sid. But, in Sid I hope.. thats as far as I'll go for now.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
I trust Sid, because I have an idea of his background. Unfortunately, Sid isn't involved really.
I don't know about Shafer. I have to say I do not trust him. He looks awfully young to be heading such a project. This could be a good thing - young people tend to be more genuine when doing what they love, they put more into it and have more enthusiasm, and often have a different way of looking at things. But it could also be bad - young people are sometimes inexperienced or misinformed, and tend to be rigid and unswerving when in error. Plus, well, I think to come to strategy gaming through tabletop games is better, especially for designers, than to come to it through the medium of video gaming. And the era of tabletop strategy games is long-gone, so few young developers have any experience with them.
Trust is earned, and I have to say I just don't know enough about Shafer to extend trust.
But, what I've seen so far has made me very optimistic. Alot of things I wanted, but never had in previous editions, have arrived. Some things shocked me at first glance (1upt, for instance) but after not that long I realized I liked the ideas.
Still, I don't know enough about it yet, and there are a few things I'm skeptical about - one or two things I'm praying they won't do. But if they do, I'll probably be able to live with it. I have with every previous new edition, so ...
I don't know about Shafer. I have to say I do not trust him. He looks awfully young to be heading such a project. This could be a good thing - young people tend to be more genuine when doing what they love, they put more into it and have more enthusiasm, and often have a different way of looking at things. But it could also be bad - young people are sometimes inexperienced or misinformed, and tend to be rigid and unswerving when in error. Plus, well, I think to come to strategy gaming through tabletop games is better, especially for designers, than to come to it through the medium of video gaming. And the era of tabletop strategy games is long-gone, so few young developers have any experience with them.
Trust is earned, and I have to say I just don't know enough about Shafer to extend trust.
But, what I've seen so far has made me very optimistic. Alot of things I wanted, but never had in previous editions, have arrived. Some things shocked me at first glance (1upt, for instance) but after not that long I realized I liked the ideas.
Still, I don't know enough about it yet, and there are a few things I'm skeptical about - one or two things I'm praying they won't do. But if they do, I'll probably be able to live with it. I have with every previous new edition, so ...
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
Why is it better to come to computer strategy games from tabletop gaming? A computer can do much more than a tabletop ruleset could feasibly demand.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Yes, and that's something you appreciate more coming from tabletop games. I'm not talking about Risk or Axis and Allies or anything simple like that here ... I mean the really hardcore strategy games.
In tabletop games, you are the computer. You have to know all the mechanics of the game just to play. It isn't just a passive, "immersive experience" where all you really do is interact with the game. Every player is very familiar with the precise mechanics of the game. That created a different sort of culture than the video gamer culture, where it's not really necessary to understand the exact mechanics or the rationales behind them in order to play.
In fact, in the really in-depth strategy games - the hex-and-counter ones - there was absolutely no immersive experience at all. It was 100% strategy and game mechanics. There's a purity to that. Computers offer more - they are not pure strategy. Representation is important, especially to deliver that immersive experience. There's nothing wrong with the immersive experience, of course. It's perfectly valid, and I expect a computer game to look and feel nice. On the other hand, I want the strategy experience too. I'm looking for a balance that probably falls more heavily towards strategy than among younger generations. If the underlying game doesn't meet my expectations, which are probably a bit demanding, I won't enjoy the immersion.
This is all a matter of personal preference. I can't say whether I trust them to deliver a game that will appeal to others, only to me.
Of course, it's possible for any individual to transcend the general cultural background, and many do. To some degree, I think everyone does, in some way.
Alot about this game looks really promising. I don't distrust the developer anymore than I trust him. It's totally possible that I will be really pleased with the game. In fact, its looking like I will. But I don't entirely want to count on it. I'm looking at Shafer and mustering some skepticism so I don't get too hopeful. Civ5 is probably going to be a big part of my life, you know! This is serious business.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
Well I see your point if your argument is that preserving the tabletop mentality so to speak will prevent the developer from dumbing down their game excessively and relying on a computer to do everything for the player.
I say that because I'm a hardcore gamer but I'm sure not everyone would agree.
OTOH with cIV I've learned a ton about under the hood mechanics from reading posts and discussions about it and implemented them in my game. Exploiting the AI to the max if you will, and the same thing is likely to happen with ciV once the hardcore players attempt to break down the mechanics in order to master the highest levels. As long as the code is accessible. Not much Firaxis can do there unless they design the game with alot more randomness than cIV has (which could be a good idea).
I say that because I'm a hardcore gamer but I'm sure not everyone would agree.
OTOH with cIV I've learned a ton about under the hood mechanics from reading posts and discussions about it and implemented them in my game. Exploiting the AI to the max if you will, and the same thing is likely to happen with ciV once the hardcore players attempt to break down the mechanics in order to master the highest levels. As long as the code is accessible. Not much Firaxis can do there unless they design the game with alot more randomness than cIV has (which could be a good idea).
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Yeah, it's like the balance between the underlying strategy and the immersive experience. Too much pure strategy is bad. You can get freeware hex-and-counter versions of some of the old games, but I expect a bit more from computers than merely making the chores a bit easier and doing all the accounting, rolling dice, and physically moving the units/counters around without me having to actually physically pick them up and move them. Because there's more to tabletop than just the game, there's the company as well, which a computer can never provide.
It does, however, have immersion to make up for it, and some immersion is a good thing. It's one of the best things about computer gaming. I just don't enjoy it when it comes at the expense of the game itself. Too much of a focus on immersion is bad, too.
Hmm, yeah there is that. During the golden age of tabletop games, or even during its twilight, there was no internet, and the 'community' pretty much consisted of a few magazines (few of which were even monthly). Sometimes there was a local club or something at the university, that's about all. So .. not much of a 'group mind' to dissect the game, brainstorm how it could be improved, and so on.
Also you tended to only face the same opponents, unless you happened to be in a club. After a while, they got to be predictable. Alot of people play civ competitively with complete strangers who aren't at all predictable, and then share their experiences and strategy tips with everyone else.
Similar threads
