Reality Check

[AlpsStranger]

I have something to say that I think is important. I don't want this to be a discussion of Civ5's quality as we have the entire rest of the forum for that.

Imagine that you are holding the purse strings at Firaxis/2K and you are looking at the proposition of a Civ6 after Civ5. All of the worst forecasts made gleefully on this forum came true. The game barely broke even, it's $5 on Steam every other weekend, patching stopped after the first few months, the SDK was never released and they just crapped out a few minor DLCs in a bid to break even. Now, you're not a big gamer, you don't really understand most of the community complaints about Civ5 and don't really care to. You're more interested in keeping your Ferrari/trophy wife/summer home by prudently deciding what projects to allow. All you really know is that Civ5 was a flop. Everything else is a detail below the level you work at.

So my honest question to people that claim that Civ5 needs to tank so Civ6 can come out is: do you really think that is the most likely outcome? Or do you admit this has a touch of wish-thinking?

I honestly don't see how anyone thinks that the suits will OK a Civ6 months after getting taken to the woodshed on Civ5. For my part I think we'd see something like a PS3/360/PC Railroads or a PS3/WII/360/DS/PSP/PC Pirates! sequel. I don't think we'd see Civ6 this side of 2020, frankly.

Please don't use this thread to argue about whether Civ5 is good or not and discuss the premise as stated.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For the health of the franchise, civ V needs its problems fixed. Tanking won't solve anything at all. It won't put more resources into VI, it won't make the staff focus on more intelligent priorities, it won't do anything good for future games.

The more improvements they can actually fit into V that make it a good game, the better the outcome/financial outlook (and thus probability of production) of civ VI. This is precisely why so many being happy with this product as-is pisses me off; they're going out of their way to undermine the series.

 

[AlpsStranger]

This is precisely why so many being happy with this product as-is pisses me off; they're going out of their way to undermine the series.

I appreciate and can even say I agree with what you are saying. I beg you, though, please don't word things in a way that will ruin this thread's chances of staying on topic.

 

[Sonereal]

I'm glad this was finally said. I don't get what is up with the people hoping for Civ5 to tank. I'm pretty sure if Civ4 had tanked, there wouldn't have been a CiV in a long time.

It doesn't even make sense. If CiV tanks, would any of the people hoping it tanks buy Civ6? Hopefully someone not already on my constantly doubling ignore list can answer this because if anyone would buy Civ6 after their hopes for Civ5 tanking comes true, then there are a number of people on this forum who make poor economic decisions.

 

[Jimbo30]

Oh come on it should be obvious.

Civ 5 will be a great game. Empire:Total War ended up a great game too. A year after release.

Maybe it is time one of these games tank. The last one was MOO3. You know, that didn't just kill the franchise it practically killed space 4x stone dead.

I'm torn tbh. Releasing half finished games is a terrible cancer on pc gaming and for that alone I'd love to see Civ 5 die horribly, just like MOO3 (Civ 5 is a *massively* better game, please don't think i'm suggesting otherwise).

But yeah. Maybe Firaxis needs to realise who is buttering their bread. I've already paid for Civ 5, they gonna give me Civ 6 free?

 

[AlpsStranger]

But yeah. Maybe Firaxis needs to realise who is buttering their bread.

This is an acceptable attitude so long as one acknowledges that teaching them that lesson will practically cost us the series, if not the genre.

 

[Jimbo30]

This is an acceptable attitude so long as one acknowledges that teaching them that lesson will practically cost us the series, if not the genre.

Cost *them* the series. MOO was so awesome, I dunno if you ever played 1 and 2 but it was. I got over it, we will all miss and get over Civ if Civ5 is the end.

There's always something new to take over.

 

[Jimbo30]

Just as an example.

If Atari hadn't killed MOO stone dead with #3, they'd probably be raking in $100's millions on it now. Short sightedness on their part cost them a fortune. Sure they could try to resurrect it, but sadly most people now remember the MOO series for how it died horribly instead of how great it was.

The same could happen with Civ, and if it does it's their doing. We will find something else, they will struggle to find another game capable of instant cash.

 

[rat_brains]

Maybe im just not as good as you guys or something, but i really dont understand all the civ5 bashing. I love the game and play it often.

I feel like the biggest mistake that civ5 made was giving too much credit to the fans regarding their feedback.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Maybe im just not as good as you guys or something, but i really dont understand all the civ5 bashing. I love the game and play it often.

I feel like the biggest mistake that civ5 made was giving too much credit to the fans regarding their feedback.

Please, not in this thread.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Cost *them* the series. MOO was so awesome, I dunno if you ever played 1 and 2 but it was. I got over it, we will all miss and get over Civ if Civ5 is the end.

There's always something new to take over.

Really. Then point me at my high quality replacement for Sim City.

Granted, SotS is a pretty good MOO3. In my heart of hearts I consider SotS to *be* MOO3

But anyhow, it will cost us the series as well. We are not going to have a game like Civ for a long time if they tank the franchise.

 

[ezwip]

If I were holding the purse strings I would promptly call the lead designer into the office and explain to him that I was putting the flagship back on course. I would hire a new lead and choose a team to go into the forums both here and on 2k to apologize and do damage control. They would announce that the game was going back to its roots and that the bugs, wonders, and tech tree would all be fixed by the end of the month. If that was not possible then we would add some of this asap. Once the dust had settled and the company had earned back the trust I'd bring back the team that was let go if they are still around, and have them work on the expansion.

 

[Sonereal]

Empire Earth 3 is another game that utterly destroyed a promisingly series. Unlike Civ5, it received little support after it was released and was covered up by Sierra Entertainment and MadDoc. That game tanking actually lead me to Civ4. So if Civ5 tanks, either some other game will rise to fill the void or the genre takes a step back and a while to recover. Probably the latter in this case. After all, this isn't like the FPS genre that's over saturated with similar games. Civilization is pretty unique.

 

[AlpsStranger]

If I were holding the purse strings I would promptly call the lead designer into the office and explain to him that I was putting the flagship back on course. I would hire a new lead and choose a team to go into the forums both here and on 2k to apologize and do damage control. They would announce that the game was going back to its roots and that the bugs, wonders, and tech tree would all be fixed by the end of the month. If that was not possible then we would add some of this asap. Once the dust had settled and the company had earned back the trust I'd bring back the team that was let go if they are still around, and have them work on the expansion.

I don't want to be dealing with Civ4 mechanics in Civ16 thank you very much. Even if Civ5 didn't turn out the way many people wanted they need to look forward, not simply make it more like the older game to calm reactionary fans. Yes, the game needs to get better, but it shouldn't do so by turtling up and making Paradox style simple addition sequels until the sun burns out.

The mesage from the fans needs to be 'We want a better game.' Not 'we want the same game.'

A stand alone expansion to Civ4 sold as Civ5 would have been infinitely more offensive than even the worst aspects of Civ5. Everything about the wording of your post screams Civ4.5, sorry if that isn't what you meant.

 

[rat_brains]

Please, not in this thread.

All im saying is if this community really wants a better game, they need to take a positive attitude towards working together rather than the constant spewing of doomsday topics such as this. But at the same time, our opinions arent as meaningful as we think they are.

 

[ezwip]

I don't want to be dealing with Civ4 mechanics in Civ16 thank you very much. Even if Civ5 didn't turn out the way many people wanted they need to look forward, not simply make it more like the older game to calm reactionary fans.

I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion out of what I posted. I'd simply have them complete the game and replace the lead designer. I did not say that I would fire him either, but his name has been tarnished and it's a liability in my book. After all I'm the one with the cash.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion out of what I posted. I'd simply have them complete the game and replace the lead designer. I did not say that I would fire him either, but his name has been tarnished and it's a liability in my book. After all I'm the one with the cash.

If that's not what you meant then I apologize. Let's allow the thread stray back to track then

 

[ezwip]

I'm sorry to troll your thread but let me say this... just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean that I hijacked it. Financially I see more money in a successful expansion than I do in leader heads.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm sorry to troll your thread but let me say this... just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean that I hijacked it.

Not at all. I was actually accusing myself of derailing the thread. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

A lot of people skipped Civ3, and Civ4 came next. So I'm not sure that I agree with the premise that by killing Civ5 the series ends. I agree with those who say that Fireaxis needs to be punished for releasing a game in this state. And in my opinion this game suffers from myriad silly design decisions regardless of the execution in terms of bugs and polish. If the game is successful it is likely that a lot of these design choices will remain, making the series dead to me anyway. So I've got nothing to lose and perhaps something to gain.