should they skip Civ 5 Xpacs and go straight to Civ 6?

[Akka]

I see what this is. We're in 'Akka's World' where no is yes and green is blue.

Sorry we're not in Vandyr's World where reality adhere to his flawed memory. I feel very bad for you.

Keep claiming the sky is falling and spreading your sensationalistic doom and gloom while worshipping the cd case your Civ IV copy came in.

Keep skipping the argumentations that trash your lies, and hope it doesn't show.
You just have been completely ridiculed with your claim about Civ3, but I guess if you just ignore it you feel it's like it never happened ?

Civ IV wasn't perfect, and had its own share of hate when it released

Yes.

much more than you're willing to admit.

No.

 

[lschnarch]

Says who? You? heh...you think those four or five posts I linked are it? There's more Civ IV hate on the internet than Civ V by a long shot at the moment.

Well, I just did a short test run.

Search term 1: "Civ 4" + sucks
Search term 2: "Civ 5" + sucks

Timeframe 1: 25.10.2005 - 01.01.2006
Timeframe 2: 21.09.2010 - 21.11.2010

Hits for Civ 4 in Google: 426
Hits for Civ 5 in Google: 51.200

That means, Civ5 is found a hundred times more often under the equivalent search term and comparable time frame.

Edit (same time frames)
Results for Civ4 + "don't buy" - 10
Results for Civ5 + "don't buy" - 480

That is 48 times as often for Civ5 than for Civ4

Edit2 (same timeframes)
Results for Civ4 + garbage - 56
Results for Civ5 + garbage - 10.600

Remember: this is comparing vanilla version to vanilla version

 

[vandyr]

Sorry we're not in Vandyr's World where reality adhere to his flawed memory. I feel very bad for you.

Keep skipping the argumentations that trash your lies, and hope it doesn't show.
You just have been completely ridiculed with your claim about Civ3, but I guess if you just ignore it you feel it's like it never happened ?

Yes.

No.

Except I've actually backed up my statement. What have you done? Oh yea...nothing. And no, Civ IV did not release fully modded, patched and with two expansions under its belt, which Civ III had at the time. What is wrong with you?

 

[vandyr]

Well, I just did a short test run.

Search term 1: "Civ 4" + sucks
Search term 2: "Civ 5" + sucks

Timeframe 1: 25.10.2005 - 01.01.2006
Timeframe 2: 21.09.2010 - 21.11.2010

Hits for Civ 4 in Google: 426
Hits for Civ 5 in Google: 51.200

That means, Civ5 is found a hundred times more often under the equivalent search term and comparable time frame.

Really? This is what I just got:

Civ 4 sucks:

About 177,000 results (0.34 seconds)

What google are you using?

Same generic Civ 5 sucks comes up with 242,000 results. But if you get more specific, ("civ # sucks") you get 7,000 results for Civ 4 and only 4,000 for Civ V.

Not that it matters, the search criteria isn't perfect. My point was that what's happening here with the release of Civ V isn't new. I remember reading Civ IV hate threads all over the place when IV launched.

 

[evrett37]

How do you know you arnt picking up ads for mechanical pleasure toys ? Or an Ethiopian band named civ ?

 

[Akka]

Except I've actually backed up my statement.

You've provided ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up your fantasy claim that Civ4 was barebone compared to Civ3.

What have you done? Oh yea...nothing.

Nothing ?
Let's see, let me quote myself...

You're wrong. Plainly, bluntly, completley wrong. Civ4 had ALL the core mechanics of Civ3 (great persons, culture, borders, specialists, wonders - with movies, unlike Civ3 - , national military budget, artillery, air missions, ressources, etc.), new crucial ones (a far-impacting reworking of the terrain improvement and of specialists, health, city-based maintenance, religions, multi-path tech tree, promotions, siege units, civics...), and on top of that much more refinement in Civ3 mechanisms (spillover, diplomacy, ressources, endings not being simply a textbox, trade routes...).
Have fun trying to find core concepts that were in Civ3 and not in Civ4. Have fun trying to find better-implemented concepts in Civ3 than in Civ4.

The only thing Civ3 had and Civ4 lacked was scenarios, and they hardly count in the core gameplay, and immersion, but that's a very personnal opinion in this case. Oh, and the palace. I deeply miss it, I admit, but it's not enough to make look Civ4 "barebone", especially considering the crapload of new concepts and features it brang. Maybe the field airport, but it's one less terrain improvement against the SEVERAL new ones, so either way it's a gain for Civ4.
So where exactly was Civ4 "bareboned" compared to Civ3 ?


I guess this account to "nothing" compared to the complete emptiness of your "backed up statement".
Yet another instance of your lack of reading ability I suppose. Maybe it wasn't big enough, because you certainly seem to have entirely missed it. Or maybe you just - AGAIN - proved me right about your reading and selective memory problems.
It's been what, three times that you shown this in this very thread ? Maybe you should try to make it less obvious ?

And no, Civ IV did not release fully modded, patched and with two expansions under its belt, which Civ III had at the time. What is wrong with you?

I fail to see where I compared Civ4 modded and with expansion to Civ3. In fact, I did the opposite, and compared Civ3 with expansions to Civ4 Vanilla. Maybe you should "back up your claim" and show me ?

Is this again your selective memory and reading at work ? You should really try to fix it.
Because by now it amounts to simple, basic, raw trolling.

 

[vandyr]

You've provided ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up your fantasy claim that Civ4 was barebone compared to Civ3.

Yea, you're right. Civ 3 was still vanilla when IV released. My bad. Wait, what did Civ IV have, exactly? The same crap V does. Different games with different mechanics, but the basic fundamentals are exactly the same. There were no vassals, espionage, corporations in Civ IV vanilla, there were missing mechanics from III that people liked and preferred in the game. Sounds familiar. Don't start on sliders and civics, that's not content, its game mechanics. What, religion? Meh.

 

[vandyr]

How do you know you arnt picking up ads for mechanical pleasure toys ? Or an Ethiopian band named civ ?

Logic would dictate the Ethiopian band named civ would show up in both searches. But yea, the search criteria isn't perfect and bringing it up was kinda pointless.

 

[Akka]

Yea, you're right. Civ 3 was still vanilla when IV released. My bad.

I can't even begin to understand how your answer is in any way related to what I said.
Especially after I said this :

I fail to see where I compared Civ4 modded and with expansion to Civ3. In fact, I did the opposite, and compared Civ3 with expansions to Civ4 Vanilla. Maybe you should "back up your claim" and show me ?

Seems like you don't even read what you answer to, which could explain your chronical reading comprehension problem, and replace it with trollish behaviour.
What I see is that you quote me as if I said the opposite of what I actually said, completely avoid any argument I made and instead answer in trolling one-liner that are completely unrelated with whatever I was saying.

There were no vassals, espionage, corporations in Civ IV vanilla

I actually didn't talk about vassals, espionage nor corporations. Thank you for proving you didn't even read what I wrote, you again made a fool of yourself

there were missing mechanics from III that people liked and preferred in the game.

Still waiting to hear which ones. Oh, silly me, you don't read the posts, so of course you didn't see when I asked - twice - about this.

I don't think I need to say anything more, as you simply ignore any argument even when it's repeated and I point how you ignore it, don't even read the posts you're supposed to answer to (which would probably deserve you a trolling report if I bothered), and you don't really look like you actually came up ahead in the "discussion" anyway.

Good night people !

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

How do you know you arnt picking up ads for mechanical pleasure toys ? Or an Ethiopian band named civ ?

Don't throw a wrench in his super scientifical experiment!

 

[AlpsStranger]

here we go, so as a consumer and supporter of Firaxis since Civ 1 I have no right of reply? I should just say nothing and swallow whatever comes? I don't actually understand your thinking. I can't conceive why you would want to give up your right to say that you thought a product lacked the qualities you were expecting from the new instalment.

If you want to talk about Blizzard, they say loud and clearly their motto is "build a better product and people will want to buy it", not some hackneyed measure of tell em to shut up and replace your customer base with new customers. If you actually knew dot one about commerce or marketing you would know that the golden rule is the 20-1 rule, or it takes 20 times as much effort to attract a new customer as it does to keep an existing one. you want to bleet about circling the drain, what you are advocating is sheer lunacy. If Firaxis is hoping to pick up new customers in a now very competitive market at the expense of their long suffering fan base then I would be selling shares in them faster then shares in snowball inc in Antarctica.

You people are not normal customers. Your "Han shot first" nonsense makes you impossible to please. It is probably harder to keep your ilk as a customer than it is to attract five new customers.

So, no, pleasing the hardcore Civ fanatics at the expense of any pretense of a mass market grab would not be a solid strategy. The thing you miss in your equation is the non-niche nature of Blizzard's games. If you *really* follow the 'Blizzard method' you'd never make something like Civilization in the first place! The Blizzard method cannot be applied to niche genres for reasons that I feel are obvious.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Stop discussing other posters. Parts of the last 2 pages are already too personal.

 

[vandyr]

I can't even begin to understand how your answer is in any way related to what I said.
Especially after I said this :

I fail to see where I compared Civ4 modded and with expansion to Civ3. In fact, I did the opposite, and compared Civ3 with expansions to Civ4 Vanilla. Maybe you should "back up your claim" and show me ?

Seems like you don't even read what you answer to, which could explain your chronical reading comprehension problem, and replace it with trollish behaviour.
What I see is that you quote me as if I said the opposite of what I actually said, completely avoid any argument I made and instead answer in trolling one-liner that are completely unrelated with whatever I was saying.

I actually didn't talk about vassals, espionage nor corporations. Thank you for proving you didn't even read what I wrote, you again made a fool of yourself

Still waiting to hear which ones. Oh, silly me, you don't read the posts, so of course you didn't see when I asked - twice - about this.

I don't think I need to say anything more, as you simply ignore any argument even when it's repeated and I point how you ignore it, don't even read the posts you're supposed to answer to (which would probably deserve you a trolling report if I bothered), and you don't really look like you actually came up ahead in the "discussion" anyway.

Good night people !

Alright, then once again I'll ask what Civ IV had at its release that V does not. I backed up a claim about the history of the Civ IV release which you claimed wasn't true. Which, curiously, you are now avoiding.

Second, I've already stated that Civ IV released with just about the same amount of material as Civ V. There's not much here to back up really, so I'm asking you, again, what vanilla IV had that V doesn't.

 

[vandyr]

Don't throw a wrench in his super scientifical experiment!

Its actually one of your fellow detractors that started posting search numbers, which is pointless to begin with, but nice try And a band being named 'civ' would show up in both searches, therefore negating its effect, would it not?

 

[AlpsStranger]

"entitlement" --WRONG.

I don't feel entitled to anything. I looked the game over, tried it (demo), and decided not to purchase. It was clearly a bad version. ONCE AGAIN, what does it MATTER to YOU? If you like the game, GO PLAY IT or POST IN THE "favorite etc." threads. What on earth motivates someone to DEFEND IT?! Clicking on a thread in order to post is a VOLUNTARY ACT. If criticism of the game offends you for some insane reason, DON'T POST. If you enjoy it, wonderful. Have a blast. WHY argue with critics? They/we don't like it. This forum is exactly to place to voice our criticisms and our opinions. If it wasn't, mods would have stepped in by now and put a stop to it. That the mods haven't done so simply verifies this assertion.

Perhaps you attack dogs should get THAT "through your heads." Wherever the hell they may be.

I don't care if you own the lunchbox, the underwear, and every version ever released signed by Sid Meier himself, a million-billion fans are not the same as one solitary developer.

You aren't even dealing with plausible possibilities at this point. The game got good reviews and I imagine it sold well. There is no way they are going to abandon it now.

I estimate that no more than a few thousand customers are seriously disappointed in Civ5. These people, by their very nature, are very active on the game's forums and that gives them a megaphone to voice their discontent. It does not, however, make them more than they are. If they can please more people than they upset they've made the correct business decision.

Anecdotes are not good arguments on their own, but I have one anyways. I've known two people that I could never urge over the hump in Civ4 that bought and love Civ5 simply because they were able to figure it out more readily. They are likely to be permanently interested in the series now. Should Firaxis have valued some abstract idea of hardcore purity more than their business? If so, why?

 

[lschnarch]

Its actually one of your fellow detractors that started posting search numbers, which is pointless to begin with, but nice try And a band being named 'civ' would show up in both searches, therefore negating its effect, would it not?

Well, actually it has been you to come up with the links. Since I was interested why my memory about the Civ4 release would have become so bad, I just checked about the numbers.

Since your fingers are apparently broken:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-149440.html
Thread titled: Why Civ IV sucks.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-144588.html
Thread titled: Civ IV a waste of cash.

http://opiniondalek.blogspot.com/
Ten reasons why Civ IV sucks.

http://www.stormoverciv.org/forums/showthread.php?t=455
Civ IV sucks!

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/anything-goes/8097-civilization-iv-sucks-2.html
Civilization IV Sucks!

That took all of ten seconds of searching, and a lot of it is mirrored in the posts you'll find here over the last three weeks. There's literally pages and pages of hits about how much "Civ IV sucks" on forums and blogs all across the interwebs.

I played Civ IV at release, and went back to Civ III. I didn't start seriously playing Civ IV until much later. When Civ V came out, I dropped IV altogether.

And as I have stated, I used comparable time frames:

Well, I just did a short test run.

Search term 1: "Civ 4" + sucks
Search term 2: "Civ 5" + sucks

Timeframe 1: 25.10.2005 - 01.01.2006
Timeframe 2: 21.09.2010 - 21.11.2010

Hits for Civ 4 in Google: 426
Hits for Civ 5 in Google: 51.200

That means, Civ5 is found a hundred times more often under the equivalent search term and comparable time frame.

Edit (same time frames)
Results for Civ4 + "don't buy" - 10
Results for Civ5 + "don't buy" - 480

That is 48 times as often for Civ5 than for Civ4

Edit2 (same timeframes)
Results for Civ4 + garbage - 56
Results for Civ5 + garbage - 10.600

Remember: this is comparing vanilla version to vanilla version

Actually, I think that you didn't limit the timeframe when you did your own Google search.

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Thread closed for general lack of civility and for failure to heed moderator warnings.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889