Stupid Frixas

[Matthew5117]

I rather they be there then not, I mean it's not like your FORCED to read the descriptions of everything.

Yeah, your definitely not forced to read them, but it looks like such much effort has been put into something that doesn't alter the gameplay. I was thinking that maybe that effort should have been put towards something else. Looking at the polls, obviously I was wrong and the majority of the community likes the descriptions (and I support that).

 

[AlphaShard]

I don't think it would have taken too much energy to hire a couple data entry people to write up the descriptions while the code monkey's are working on making a good game. Having the Civilopedia there makes me feel like they really thought out all aspects of the game. It's just a nice added depth to the game, I would better understand this problem if the game was really subpar and the only indepth thing WAS the Civilopedia.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

You should really read the entry on Mansa, it makes him sound like the King of Bling.

Apparently he devalued gold for years because he took so much of it with him on his way to Mecca.

 

[Camikaze]

There may be some minor inaccuracies with the civilopedia, but it is only designed to give a basic outline, not a full scale history, and it does that quite well.

 

[Airefuego]

The problem with the Civilopedia is not the historical information.

The problem is the game info, which is incomplete and sometimes either misleading or wrong.

 

[toft]

Posting a thread with the title "Stupid Frixas", is like posting a thread with "Macrosaft sucks"...

it dsoent amke secne, btu lest psot it aynway...

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

If I want a history lesson, I'll look into reading several books on the subject that aren't published by a publishing house that has majority A-class shareholders in international banking.

I certainly won't be looking at a video game (even CIV) for it. Thus, I voted "I just don't care"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The problem with the Civilopedia is not the historical information.

The problem is the game info, which is incomplete and sometimes either misleading or wrong.

This.

How is an inaccurate/misleading manual acceptable? It can't be that hard to make an accurate one? How much time went into programming the game? I bet the staff was *very* familiar with the mechanics of their OWN game, and yet...

 

[UWHabs]

This.

How is an inaccurate/misleading manual acceptable? It can't be that hard to make an accurate one? How much time went into programming the game? I bet the staff was *very* familiar with the mechanics of their OWN game, and yet...

I'm a developer. We don't want to write documentation. I know how the game works

 

[g.neuman]

Looking at the polls, obviously I was wrong and the majority of the community likes the descriptions (and I support that).

As others have said, the problem with the civilopedia isn't the descriptive histoical information. It's the game mechanics that are sometimes left out, like the aforementioned Apostolic Palace +2 issue. I remember being very frustrated when Civ IV first came out because certain cities, for no apparent reason, were unable to build the Space Elevator wonder. No where was the rule mentioned that it had to be built in a city located within 30 degrees of the equator ... they just kinda left that out. Confusing and irritating.

A couple thoughts regarding your gripe:

1) Most civ players enjoy history at least a little - some of them because of this game. That is probably the reason why you've found so few here who share your dislike of the historical information in the civilopedia. This isn't an FPS crowd; civ tends to draw the type of gamer who appreciates the depth added by features like the civilopedia descriptions.

2) The effort put into writing the civilopedia was almost certainly done by copywriters, not programmers. Therefore, leaving out the descriptions would not have allowed more time to be spent on new features or bug fixes. They are two different jobs that rely on different resources.


G

 

[MonRiverMonarch]

I like reading the civilopedia sometimes, but not so much for educational reference. Having played Sid games for many years I expected it to be better than it is, but, that's the way it goes... the civilopedia would have been better if it had more game reference's in, and less historical stuff. I didn't take the stupid poll.

 

[turingmachine]

It looks like such much effort has been put into something that doesn't alter the gameplay.

Well, uhmm the same argument could be made for the 3D leaderheads. Firaxis could have not "wasted" their time making animated 3D leaderheads and just used static ones. I mean, doing so doesn't alter the gameplay.

Nothing in the civlopedia is extensive or esoteric enough that it would require in-depth research, and typing everything up doesn't really take that long.

What's the point of having a game modeled off history if you don't give some historical background? I, for one, am glad they included them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm a developer. We don't want to write documentation. I know how the game works

The manual/pedia are part of the end deliverable to the consumer. Quite a few consumers have indicated that deficiencies in them lower the value of the product somewhat. If the developer can't do it, they need to find a temp or something that can, or it affects the quality of the product.

 

[mechaerik]

I iike the pedia, it entertains me.

 

[mech654]

I agree. The pedia entertains me too.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Posting a thread with the title "Stupid Frixas", is like posting a thread with "Macrosaft sucks"...

it dsoent amke secne, btu lest psot it aynway...

I like the civilopedia concept, and i'd like it even better if it were updated with each patch.

 

[r_rolo1]

I decided to not gripe about civilopedia since I discovered that Khmer UU was a powerful melee unit

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah, despite some relativly minor historical errors or some typos, its not that bad for general learning about history. While I would never cite it in a report (Out of Curiosity, is there a way to cite computer games for a report?) it does provide good background info. Eg: most people have no clue who Mansa Musa, Zara Yaqob, Asoka, Brennus, for me most of the far eastern leaders, and so on. (Which on a World Histroy test I didn't study on, it saved me becasue I was able to BS most the answers off what I remembered from reading the Pedia entries.)

And BTW, it is Firaxis, not Firaxs.

 

[Airefuego]

I decided to not gripe about civilopedia since I discovered that Khmer UU was a powerful melee unit

Speaking of which, I like the bug where if your first mounted unit is an elephant, you still get the popup saying "these units can wreak havoc behind enemy lines with their 2 movement points"

Sigh. If only!

Yeah, despite some relativly minor historical errors or some typos, its not that bad for general learning about history. While I would never cite it in a report (Out of Curiosity, is there a way to cite computer games for a report?) it does provide good background info. Eg: most people have no clue who Mansa Musa, Zara Yaqob, Asoka, Brennus, for me most of the far eastern leaders, and so on. (Which on a World Histroy test I didn't study on, it saved me becasue I was able to BS most the answers off what I remembered from reading the Pedia entries.)

And BTW, it is Firaxis, not Firaxs.

You might cite a computer game as a source if your essay is about historical accuracy in computer games!

Otherwise you are just begging your professor to mark you down instantly for being unable to find a real source... although the Civ I civilopedia was pretty solid. Maybe if you cited that...

 

[g.neuman]

If the developer can't do it, they need to find a temp or something that can, or it affects the quality of the product.

Most software companies have technical writers; I supported myself as one for five years after finishing college. It was a good entry-level writing job, one that I acquired by being more comfortable with computers than your typical novice writer.

The civilopedia, not being technical information, was probably written by a copywriter. Firaxis is a big enough company that they probably employ both.


G