Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Shanghai Six, Oct 19, 2010.
But then, you would think that appealing to a large casual audience was the very point of CivRev. Why repeat the "streamlining" with Civ V? Just so more people can gloat that the play a TBS on PC?
Firaxis is only delaying the inevitable, anyway. Games usually add more content and expand their mechanics with each successive iteration, especially on console. CivRev II is almost definitely to add more features, as is Civ VI. So what, in a few of years it's going to be "CivRev II and Civ VI, now with new features such as religion!" even though they already implemented it years ago? Gah...I'm becoming disillusioned with the industry...
They knew if they were honest up front that the hardcore fans would be super pissed off and the game would acquire a bad vibe even before it was released. They likely lose a fair amount of their guaranteed sales. So, they had to wait.
Hopefully though, they will now lose a fair amount of their future guaranteed sales. I don't think their little bribe of a free DLC is going to cut it.
Sorry, my point was not to argument with you. It was also not meant as an insult. I just find that those complementary sentences perfectly illustrate the two positions or viewpoints that people seem to have of Civ5.
No, I'm not ignoring those posts, I simply don't agree with their conclusion.
Removing features from a product does not necessarily make that product worse than an older version.
There are plenty of things to do besides clicking next turn and going to war; see Realms Beyond if you need ideas.
Personally, I've started working on a mod.
You have "streamlining" and "streamlining" . Take for example the new Shogun 2 :TW
That is a streamlined game too, only this time, they sticked with their game-concept; iow; they did NOT re-invented the battle-mechanics, for example. Thank heaven they didn't. They improved the concept of the orginal as a whole, without changing the game-mechanics too much. Take a look at their "spionage/assasin" unit. Instead of scrapping it, they went a step futher and improved the concept. To me, that's a step in the right direction. Strenghten the weak points and improve the proven, good concept.
With CIV 5, they have gone a different route. A route, which i utterly disguise. Infact, they went sofar with their "new idea's"; there's hardly anything left from the old concept.
mupt (multiple units per tile) = dead
square = dead
religion = dead
civics = dead
old type warfare = dead
Are the most important ones. Then you have a new battle-mechanic ala PG-style and City-states.
The warfar type, which in my opion should not be combined with a strategical game which CIV is.
City-states that should not be there, since it ruins the concept of CIV, which is BUILDING up a civilization, NOT Buying/Instant Ally some....think about it, it does not make sence.
Therefor i believe this game does not even deserve the title "Civilization", how dare they !
I though i bought Civilization and ended up with a whole other game, then i expected. And i don't like it a bit. It's not only different then i expected; it is also a poor game. I couldn't care less that there are patches underway and/or mods are made. The game should be good enough to begin with...
Anway, aldo it's too late they could learn a lesson or two from TW.
Just because someone listens to an opinion, but doesn't incorporate what was expressed in that opinion, does not mean the opinion was ignored.
You have to evaluate feedback given in the context of the goals of a product and then decide if it should be incorporated, and if so, in what form.
I agree with you but what they did was fraudulent IMO. (We should file a class action lawsuit, :smile)
Why didnt they just say we are coming out with "civ rev 2" in sept 2010 and the full expansions and the game as many civers know it will be out in Aug 2011. I would have waited instead of buying this piece of garbage where you have gold coming out of your ears, childish ai, 100 turn golden ages and basically no thought provoking decisions.
I was perfectly content playing civ iv and I thought I was going to get civ 5!
I think we can close this discussion now. Everyone's mind is made up. People who hate Civ5 now got confirmation that the game was created for the unwashed masses and those who like it now know that they have to be inferior Civ players for liking the game.
Did the podcast contain anything else of interest?
That could happen, but I would be surprised if we saw Civ Rev develop into a viable franchise for 2K Games. Between the new Civ 5 product line and Sid Meier's up-and-coming Facebook-integrated products, I doubt there will be much market demand for Civ Rev 2. In fact, I'm guessing that the market research that 2K Games conducted has probably shown them that continuing to deploy two different "Civilization" product franchises it is not a financially lucrative business model in the long-term.
Thus, for a more viable profit-driven product line, it is in their best interests to realign these two franchises and merge them together to better leverage their resources going forward. This can help reduce costs and cut down on the unnecessary investments in product development by focusing their efforts on a single product franchise that targets the casual market segment - such as the Civ Rev players that wants a little more depth without too much complexity.
Indeed. The operative word there is industry. But hey, this is just business. Big business. And business is booming!
Blame Dennis for that, he said that the people who plays Civ Rev have difficulties to approach a more hardcore game like Civ IV.
Basically the one you pay for the game is saying that you are not so good to approach a more hardcore game, so he made the new one easier for you...
Maybe a different choice of words was better...
PS i don't think that the fanbase of Civ V is dumb, but i certainly can say that Dennis thinks otherways, like a money dumb cow that need a soft and gentle hand to spill milk...
At minimum, I think the mods should stop forcing people made uncomfortable by the game producer's statement to visit the thread...
Not at all.
It has indeed been confirmed that the game was created for the mass market. It has been watered down to appeal to Civ Rev players. It's a shame but people who loved complex, rich and deep gameplay will have to look elsewhere sadly.
Liking it doesn't make anyone an inferior Civ player. After all, we all love Civ here on these forums. We wouldn't be here if we didn't. Therefore, I would never look down upon anyone for liking it.
However, all it does though, is encourage Firaxis to do more of the same. The more people support this product and buy future content, the more likely it becomes that we are going to get more of the same in Civ VI. It will just vindicate that what they did was right and they'll keep doing it.
If you truly love complex, deep rich game play then you won't buy any of the DLC or expansions. Consider it a service to this community. We all deserve much, much better in Civ VI.
Actually those people are not inferior players...why does it have to be so harsh. The game is inferior to a real strategy game on PC and feels more like an admitted dumbed down version you would play on a console.
Its appeal is to a mass market to encourage casual games....no problem with that. Those gamers are not inferior, they are just not strategy game buffs. Major difference.
Many strategy game buffs may not be first person shooter die hards either. Doesn't make them inferior for preferring medal of honor to Modern Warfare 2
Isn't that in turn a bit harsh? Civ5 is much closer to Civ4 than CivRev in my opinion (I have never played the full version of CivRev though, only the demo). Civ5 It is still a PC strategy game, it is still a Civlization game, it still has the spirit of its predecessors. It is less complex than Civ4 in terms of variables that you can influence but it is in itself still a complex game.
I enjoy complex, rich, deep gameplay, and clearly, after having logged somewhere over 40 hours, I think it's rich and deep enough for me. I respect that it isn't for you, but please don't imply that all of us that are long time civilization players or that enjoy rich, deep gameplay hold the same view you do.
I might add that Civ Rev actually had spies but Civ V doesn't.
Yes, shame on Firaxis for listening to their potential customers and trying to make a better game!
Who are these people that loved Civ Rev? Everyone I know (casual & hardcore gamers) hate it. It's practically dead.
Unless they want to finish civ series with ciV. A lot of people preordered ciV. Why? Because it's civ. Now how many people do you think will preorder if they announce right now that Firaxis accepts preorder for civ 6, with lead designer Jon Shafer?
Sure, streamlined and civ became easier. But will people still be FANATIC to a game that is easy to master and now mediocre? Civ 5 is not a bad game, but there are too many good games around as well. Don't forget that other computer games than civ. If there were no competitors, then civ 5 made a right decision, but the assumption is obviously false.
What is surprising is that when they say it's hard to come up with something better than BtS, how about thinking, is there civ-like game that makes more money than civ?
It is contradictory. No one forces Firaxis to make only civs. If they really throught civ was too complicated for many potential gamers, then they could also expect that the title of civilization could keep away people from ciV. Instead, they could start a new series, say Sid Meier Bros 1.
But they didn't. They made screenshots that looked like it's refined version of cIV. They've never spoken of streamlining. And they gave the title of civilization V, because they know CIV DOES ALREADY HAVE LARGE AUDIENCE AND NO CIV-LIKE GAME DOES BETTER!!!!!
It will get better? Certainly patches won't do it. An expansion pack or two? And how long will that take? A year or two? And think of that other causal gamers who would try and go away from ciV in the meantime and say "I tried civ series, and it was a mediocre causal game just like everything else. That civ fanatics must be pathetic fanboys." How could one keep that gamers to civ? Not only Firaxis can make great stuff.
It is hard to earn trust, and it gets away easily in no time.
Some other points of interest --
Dennis bought into the "people said the same thing about IV" myth when responding to complaints... that's just. not. true. Read the content of the threads - there's a difference in the complaints. You can tell when he lauds the "mods already available" - these are all gameplay fix mods.
The Social Policies vs. Civics discussion...
First - it's worth noting that even Dennis didn't seem well versed in the SP names (there's a question where Shanghai struggles to come up with the policy "name" - and Dennis doesn't really know).
He pawns a lot of this off on Jon (some of that I'll have to leave to Jon) -- but he brought up that Jon wanted to make civics an "investment"... a lot of "he wanted to see how it would play out".... "you've got to hold your breath"... "leap of faith"... "we "hope" it works"...
that speaks to poor/inadequate balance testing -- you hold your breath that the players find the same balance you found in development... you shouldn't be holding your breath about it working or it growing stale.
Another point of contention --
He discussed City State roles in diplomacy --
Can someone explain exactly WHAT role CS have in diplomacy? You don't parlay with them - you give them money, you declare war, or fulfill quests. That's not diplomacy.
Separate names with a comma.