Reality Check

[Jolly Rogerer]

when civ 4 came out it was the same thing, the difference now is there are more upset people that can post. what this means is, when civ4 came out the amount of people who can access the internet was nowhere to the amount of people who can access and post today.

the negativity will go away and then it's a period of patching, improvements and expansions, and just like civ4, it will turn into a great new game. why people get all flustered because some individuals who have the ability to post "this game sucks" is beyond me. their posts are meaningless and don't help anything in any way whatsoever

Hilarious. Yep, no one had the internets way back in 2005. We all used typewriters (and shift-keys lol!) back in those days and sent letters to one another. It was a simpler time, when people would accept crap software like Civ4 and hardly complain about it at all. Now we can get online and make meaningless posts that don't help anything in any way whatsoever.

 

[AlpsStranger]

when civ 4 came out it was the same thing, the difference now is there are more upset people that can post. what this means is, when civ4 came out the amount of people who can access the internet was nowhere to the amount of people who can access and post today.

Wow. This is, quite possibly, the worst argument I've ever heard. Not just regarding Civ, but in general.

 

[Acronym2]

Has Civ5 really been doing as poorly as some would suggest or am I reading too much into the posts on this thread?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Has Civ5 really been doing as poorly as some would suggest or am I reading too much into the posts on this thread?

This thread was a hypothetical scenario aimed at people that were wishing that Civ5 would fail in the belief that this would lead to a more traditional Civ6. I was discussing the-in my view-likely outcome of such a failure.

To the best of my knowledge Civ5 has generally performed well by objective commercial standards. Granted, a terrible game can still do well financially so I'm not saying that this proves the game isn't awful.

 

[Bandit17]

Eviltypeguy (quote): How can you possibly ask that of people when you start out with such trollworthy flamebait in your first post? You hypothesize an imaginary world that doesn't even begin to match reality, and then ask others to theorize what life might be like in that fantasy realm, but I'll not be a party to it.

So let's look at the reality:

* civilization v according to NPD press releases and other sources sold well, it did more than break even
* civilization v is still in the top 5 sellers on steam
* civilization v in the last 8 weeks of pc games sales remains, outranked only by final fantasy xiv online in the same time period for PC retail sales
* 2kgames has been very forthcoming about upcoming changes weeks before they release each patch (end quote)


+1

I do not see a point to this thread since it's basis, established in the op, is false. Unless the above quote can be refuted than let's move on.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Eviltypeguy (quote): How can you possibly ask that of people when you start out with such trollworthy flamebait in your first post? You hypothesize an imaginary world that doesn't even begin to match reality, and then ask others to theorize what life might be like in that fantasy realm, but I'll not be a party to it.

So let's look at the reality:

* civilization v according to NPD press releases and other sources sold well, it did more than break even
* civilization v is still in the top 5 sellers on steam
* civilization v in the last 8 weeks of pc games sales remains, outranked only by final fantasy xiv online in the same time period for PC retail sales
* 2kgames has been very forthcoming about upcoming changes weeks before they release each patch (end quote)


+1

I do not see a point to this thread since it's basis, established in the op, is false. Unless the above quote can be refuted than let's move on.

This thread was a hypothetical scenario aimed at people that were wishing that Civ5 would fail in the belief that this would lead to a more traditional Civ6. I was discussing the-in my view-likely outcome of such a failure.

To the best of my knowledge Civ5 has generally performed well by objective commercial standards. Granted, a terrible game can still do well financially so I'm not saying that this proves the game isn't awful.

I figured if I did it twice it might sink in. This is about what certain irate fans *want* to see happen, not what actually is/did.

 

[blind biker]

MoO and MoO2 were made by Simtex. MoO3 was made by Quicksilver. Maybe this is relevant.

After MoO3 tanked, the space 4X genre flourished. There have been so many successful space 4x games since then: Galactic Civilizations, Sword of the Stars, Sins of a Solar Empire... (honestly, I couldn't care less for tactical combat, but regardless, you get my point).

My favorite scenario is that some entrepreneuring, lean and agile company will pick up the Civ ideas and make a Civ-like game worth the time, money and dedication of the traditional Civ gamer.


BTW: Good thread.

 

[AlpsStranger]

BTW: Good thread.

Thanks. It was meant to provoke discussion and it definitely did.

After MoO3 tanked, the space 4X genre flourished. There have been so many successful space 4x games since then: Galactic Civilizations, Sword of the Stars, Sins of a Solar Empire... (honestly, I couldn't care less for tactical combat, but regardless, you get my point).

Yes, but consider what this analogy tells us. It could very well result in a lot of very fun Civ-esque games. The one thing it won't result in is a traditional Civ4 type of game.

GalCiv was more like Civ2 in space and was very unlike MOO2. SotS was like a more visceral Total War in space, and Sins was actually an RTS. So yeah, you might see something like a new Rise of Nations, something similar to EU3, and something like a multi-era Total War with random map generation. None of these scenarios lead to a direct upgrade of Civ4. That option was lost in the woods along the way.

 

[sirchexxalot]

PC gaming is becoming more of a niche market as consoles no longer suffer from the negatives that made PC gaming superior. In addition consoles don't suffer from anywhere near the amount of bugs that plague PC releases. The reason for this is simple, coding is done for a specific set of hardware, and it is not necessary to take into account the seemingly infinite hardware/software combinations available to the PC gamer.

Sad to say if I had to make the choice offered as the premise for this thread, Civ6 would only find itself in the console world and only if the company number crunchers said there was money to be made. I don't see too much profit left in the PC gaming industry as compared to the consoles. Personally I don't care much for console gaming but looking at the cold hard facts, I don't see Civ 6 on PC unless its a port from console.

 

[Maniacal]

PC gaming is becoming more of a niche market as consoles no longer suffer from the negatives that made PC gaming superior. In addition consoles don't suffer from anywhere near the amount of bugs that plague PC releases. The reason for this is simple, coding is done for a specific set of hardware, and it is not necessary to take into account the seemingly infinite hardware/software combinations available to the PC gamer.

Sad to say if I had to make the choice offered as the premise for this thread, Civ6 would only find itself in the console world and only if the company number crunchers said there was money to be made. I don't see too much profit left in the PC gaming industry as compared to the consoles. Personally I don't care much for console gaming but looking at the cold hard facts, I don't see Civ 6 on PC unless its a port from console.

There are still plenty of PC games, as well as many multi-platform titles, not all of which are lousy ports. Strategy games have so far not transferred to the consoles very well and/or successfully. Considering how much they simplified CivRev I doubt Civ6 will be on the console, and neither will Civ5. If there is another console Civ it will likely get a surname like CivRev did.

 

[jam3]

This thread is pointless unless anyone here is dumb enough to go and buy DLC or expansions for a game they hate. They got me for the initial purchase and maybe some far off day in the future ill pick up civ 5 complete with 2 expansions for $5-10 off a steam sale. But there's no chance I'll spend full price for this catastrophe.

Thats how capitalism works, if people run around and buy or not buy things for any other reason than its something they want to consume the whole thing kinda breaks down. To all the people saying if it ins't a success it will fail, whoa logic bomb, if it is a success the civ 6 will be just as bad of a product. Those are both pretty bad arguments just let the consumer do what the consumer does.

 

[sirchexxalot]

There are still plenty of PC games, as well as many multi-platform titles, not all of which are lousy ports.

1. Note I used the word mostly.

2. Back in 85 the games I was playing on my C64 kicked the butt of any console version. This is no longer true. Any game that can be played on a PC at this point can be put on a console with very little, if any loss at all, to graphics/gameplay.

I am a PC gamer from way back, so I have no desire to see it's demise, but being realistic the arguments I used to be able to make for going with a PC version no longer hold water(better graphics/smoother gameplay/multiplay/modability).

Your point about strategy games not porting well is certainly a valid one. I remember buying Panzer General for the PS1 which I might have played for 10 minutes. Panzer General on the PC however, has probably consumed entire months of my life.

 

[Smakemupagus]

Any game that can be played on a PC at this point can be put on a console with very little, if any loss at all, to graphics/gameplay.

starcraft?

 

[jabberwalkee_]

starcraft?

WOW. Total War.

 

[sirchexxalot]

starcraft?

I've never played it so I can't comment.

 

[Bandit17]

Sirchexxalot (quote): 2. Back in 85 the games I was playing on my C64 kicked the butt of any console version. This is no longer true. Any game that can be played on a PC at this point can be put on a console with very little, if any loss at all, to graphics/gameplay. (endquote)

Please do not mistake the fact that publishers are pushing watered down games so they can be played on a PC & console for a larger piece of the pie. Most hardcore PC games still do not port well over to consoles. MMO's and more complex rts/tbs's are great examples of this. Or if you want to push the hardware barriers as Far Cry did.

To the OP: I was mistaken with my previous post as I mistook your hypotheticals for facts (lazy reading on my part). So please continue on with the hypothetical discussion based on hypothetical facts.

 

[/solar/]

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.

Unfortunately this pretty much breaks the second big law of software engineering. That is that throwing more people at a project in the late stages of development actually slows down the development cycle.

The first law is hofstaeders (spelling?) law. Any software engineering project will take longer than you think, even if you take into account hofstaeders law.

 

[blind biker]

Yes, but consider what this analogy tells us. It could very well result in a lot of very fun Civ-esque games. The one thing it won't result in is a traditional Civ4 type of game.

GalCiv was more like Civ2 in space and was very unlike MOO2. SotS was like a more visceral Total War in space, and Sins was actually an RTS. So yeah, you might see something like a new Rise of Nations, something similar to EU3, and something like a multi-era Total War with random map generation. None of these scenarios lead to a direct upgrade of Civ4. That option was lost in the woods along the way.

I can't argue with any of that, except for hoping that the vacuum left in the wake of Civ V will lead to more permutations and experiments by other companies, other than the ones you listed, and MAYBE there will be something interesting for me. Yes, I am an egoist and I think of myself.

For me, Civ IV is still king, even in the vanilla form. And some of the mods (Sevomod is the one I'm running usually, but I started a Rhye and Fall the other night, and the Persians are kicking my ass....) allow for many times the original (almost endless) replayability. So I'm peachy, either way.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I can't argue with any of that, except for hoping that the vacuum left in the wake of Civ V will lead to more permutations and experiments by other companies, other than the ones you listed, and MAYBE there will be something interesting for me. Yes, I am an egoist and I think of myself.

For me, Civ IV is still king, even in the vanilla form. And some of the mods (Sevomod is the one I'm running usually, but I started a Rhye and Fall the other night, and the Persians are kicking my ass....) allow for many times the original (almost endless) replayability. So I'm peachy, either way.

I've actually started messing with LoR 0.9.9 while I wait on the next Civ5 patch.(Some of the changes they've announced make it very hard to put up with the current version.) LoR is definitely my favorite major BTS Mod(Other than BUG/BULL, of course) and this new version has some nice updates.

Anyhow, we'll see what happens with Civ5 I guess. I definitely stand by my main point, though. Civ5 crashing and burning may be what people want for various reasons, but I am highly skeptical that it would lead to a quick segue to Civ6.

 

[blind biker]

On one hand, it would seem unlikely that Civ V would mark the end of Firaxis: it has been a commercial success by all standards. I estimate 40.000 to 60.000 copies per week, and near if not at 1 million copies by now. At $50 a pop, that's a pretty penny, and bound to rise. How could possibly that be bad for Firaxis, right?


But, Firaxis has been in the red for the longest time. Let's not forget that Civ IV (WITH all expansions included) sold something like 5 or 6 million copies. So, Civ IV was no slouch in sales terms! And STILL it didn't pull good ole firaxis out of the woodworks. Now they fired some 20 people, and are at dire straits. Maybe not even Civ V's phenomenal sale figures can save them?


What'dya all think?