Refined Poll: your standing with the game

[Brian Shanahan]

It seems much more smarter to design a game aiming the already established fanbase, and put in the game options to disable most of the "complicated features", something they actually did in Civ4 BTS.

What they should have done was try the "easy to learn, hard to master" approach, so that the new people would go after 10-15 games "Wow, I'm really good at this Noble, lets boot up that Prince level". After four or five games then they'd be going "I'm not winning, yet. But I see what is wrong, if I do this like that, and that like the other I'll beat this Prince, and then I can figure out Monarch."

That's the kind of stuff that usually gets me hooked. But V is play five times beat the level, play the next level once, beat it, go up again, beat that, etc. I think it says something really bad about a game when it can be beaten on Deity (a supposedly made to be unbeatable level) a scant few weeks into release (cf RB3: Daring Deity with Ottomans, a game further handicapped by having the worst Civ).

 

[QuantumProjects]

What they should have done was try the "easy to learn, hard to master" approach, so that the new people would go after 10-15 games "Wow, I'm really good at this Noble, lets boot up that Prince level". After four or five games then they'd be going "I'm not winning, yet. But I see what is wrong, if I do this like that, and that like the other I'll beat this Prince, and then I can figure out Monarch."

That's the kind of stuff that usually gets me hooked. But V is play five times beat the level, play the next level once, beat it, go up again, beat that, etc. I think it says something really bad about a game when it can be beaten on Deity (a supposedly made to be unbeatable level) a scant few weeks into release (cf RB3: Daring Deity with Ottomans, a game further handicapped by having the worst Civ).

Yeah, they should have thought on that too.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

ciV is a good strategy game, not a good civ game however.