GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,024
Nah New World would be the third entry, the so-called... Brave New World... If you will.Surely, any possible sequel to Old World would be called New World?
Nah New World would be the third entry, the so-called... Brave New World... If you will.Surely, any possible sequel to Old World would be called New World?
I work at an online book retailer and my boss out of the blue said he had been playing the same series for 30 years and I nearly swooned when he said it was Civ. Civ players skew towards PhDs (cf Sulla) and librarians. They should not chase snotty teens that would otherwise be playing Fortnite.It's kind of delusional to expect that this game is going to become a sudden success among young people looking for multiplayer experience, even with discounts (something no publisher wants to have to rely on for sales, they want to sell their titles at full price or as close to full price as possible)
I said that in my opinion civ switching will flatten civ/leader unique differences.
That's me. Well, not the librarian part. Nerds enjoying an OCD-like focus on optimization is why we love Civ.Civ players skew towards PhDs (cf Sulla) and librarians.
I work at an online book retailer and my boss out of the blue said he had been playing the same series for 30 years and I nearly swooned when he said it was Civ. Civ players skew towards PhDs (cf Sulla) and librarians. They should not chase snotty teens that would otherwise be playing Fortnite.
Civ 7 feels like its actually geared more towards PhDs imo. Historical city names, obscure leaders, specific traditions… this isn’t stuff the average teen gamer cares aboutI work at an online book retailer and my boss out of the blue said he had been playing the same series for 30 years and I nearly swooned when he said it was Civ. Civ players skew towards PhDs (cf Sulla) and librarians. They should not chase snotty teens that would otherwise be playing Fortnite.
Finland got to get back its king, it's been out for too long, but it's territories are still held by the Kellog.You all got it wrong. Finland is the heir of the Roman Empire.
Civ 7 feels like its actually geared more towards PhDs imo. Historical city names, obscure leaders, specific traditions… this isn’t stuff the average teen gamer cares about
Given the massive success of V and VI and the OK sales of VII, I think that most players disagree with you."The game really isn't about being civilized. The competition is what makes the game fun and the players play their best. At times, you have to make the player uncomfortable for the good of the player."
Sid Meier, writing about the combat and conflict between the player and Civs in Civilization 1.
This combined with the strategic scale of the game has been lost in editions 5-7 leaving the series with a limp noodle of a product. The game is now a small scale snoozefest that plays like a scenario or two that in better days would be tacked on an expansion or provided by a mod. It is impossible to suspend disbelief and become immersed in the game. One more turn has been put in mothballs.
This is only a speculation. The selling numbers of civ games and liking these games better than former versions of the civ series are two very different animals.Given the massive success of V and VI and the OK sales of VII, I think that most players disagree with you.
We were all teenagers once. I played Civ 1 when I was 10. Not even a teen.I work at an online book retailer and my boss out of the blue said he had been playing the same series for 30 years and I nearly swooned when he said it was Civ. Civ players skew towards PhDs (cf Sulla) and librarians. They should not chase snotty teens that would otherwise be playing Fortnite.
I don't think we need to fall back on "kids these days" why civ7 isn't doing as great as it could be, and as we'd like it to. I'm sure there's still young people like we were when we were young people. Some of them may even be here.![]()
Well, this is the speculation thread!This is only a speculation. The selling numbers of civ games and liking these games better than former versions of the civ series are two very different animals.
I mean... That's a little bit of a leap/kinda subjective.Well, this is the speculation thread!
But I'm not actually speculating anything here. The original claim was that newer games didn't have that "one more turn" feeling and given sales numbers, that doesn't seem to be true. It's not about whether players of the older games like the newer ones. That's a different thing.
We were all teenagers once. I played Civ 1 when I was 10. Not even a teen.
Y'all have some interesting takes, to put it mildly.
I am not blaming kids per se, I am blaming the devs' chasing them. My first Civ experience was Call to Power when I was full of snot.I don't think we need to fall back on "kids these days" why civ7 isn't doing as great as it could be, and as we'd like it to. I'm sure there's still young people like we were when we were young people. Some of them may even be here.![]()