warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Wow, I never heard the term "tall poppy syndrome" before. Very interesting saying and history behind it.
The Failure of Civ 4
- Thread starter bluemethod
- Start date
Belcarius said:
That's a straw man argument. What will happen instead is that some people will play the game and feel like it's missing a certain essential something. They might not be able to put their fingers on what it is exactly, they'll just know it's not there. So they won't buy the expansion pack, because they'll figure it'll just be more of the same. And they won't buy civ5 because they won't know exactly why civ4 disappointed them, just that it did, and so they would expect civ5 to disappoint them as well.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Many people here LOVE Civ 3 because they saw culture and armies. In fact, I'd argue that Civ 3 was a flawed release and people here seemed to love it anyway. Civ 3 was grossly unbalanced and gameplay became horribly repetitive once you found some key exploits, and yet people still play it passionately today.
Only pessimists focus on what's missing. Optimists look at what they've gained.
A realist will call a spade a spade -- if a game is fun, it's fun. If it sucks, it sucks. It doesn't matter if the person says "my favorite feature X made it in" or "why didn't they implement feature X?"
I think there are a lot of optimists on these forums because they love Civ. And there's a good chance that the realists will be pleased too, since the devs have been play-testing Civilization 4 for what they claim to be as 18 months! If this means what I think it means, the jump from Civ 3 to Civ 4 will be VASTLY superior to the last jump from Civ 2 to Civ 3.
Only pessimists focus on what's missing. Optimists look at what they've gained.
A realist will call a spade a spade -- if a game is fun, it's fun. If it sucks, it sucks. It doesn't matter if the person says "my favorite feature X made it in" or "why didn't they implement feature X?"
I think there are a lot of optimists on these forums because they love Civ. And there's a good chance that the realists will be pleased too, since the devs have been play-testing Civilization 4 for what they claim to be as 18 months! If this means what I think it means, the jump from Civ 3 to Civ 4 will be VASTLY superior to the last jump from Civ 2 to Civ 3.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
apatheist said:
This too is a strawman. Roughly 75% of people who buy any game do not buy any expansions for it.
Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
dh_epic said:
I think there are more pesemists (forgive my spelling
) then optimists on this forum judging by all the complaints. Even my "best thing about civ4" thread became a place to complain. And why do people have to be an optimist to enjoy civ3? Its not like it is a bad game, it just has some issues.Anyway i haven't read this entire thread but i think that i have to say that Bluemethod is a pesemist himself.
bluemethod said:
Read sorens powerpoint (you can find the link at civ rules thread, i cant be bothered adding it here). Judging from the screenies, the rts feel, the game speed and much much more i think that your above statement is one of the most uneducated on this forum. Of course it will be targeted at us but it is not like they are going in the flight simulator course and reducing the audience each time. Civ4 will have a larger audience! And whats "don't have a good view of what makes a game actually playable" suppose to mean! You are on your way to offending everyone on this forum.
To rebut your points on Linearity:
Almost every other stratagy game works this way. Whilst some changes would be nice I dont think that people will be turned of by it because what would be the alternative?
To rebut your points on Determinism:
How do you know this? Do you have a cristal ball or a spy within fraxis?? Civ4 looks to be a vastly different game to civ3. Yet again I wonder if you have even read civ rules post. I am sure that fraxis will make some sort of change to this and even if they dont the game will still be the same as any other stratagy game.
To rebut your points on Political Correctness:
Actually i have to agree that the PC is driving me crazy but do you really thing that that is going to make the game a failure? So they dont have hitler or religious benifits... will that kill the game?
To top off my arguements you must remember that fraxis has been playtesting this game to death. All in all I think this is more about pulling down Civ4 for no reason other than for personal benifit (you are after all working for a rival).
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Once again, DH_Epic, you truly hit the nail on the head.
Fact is, the developers have taken the very nascent ideas of Civ3-namely Culture and Resources-and really given them a huge overhaul to make them much better. Culture, for instance, was a good concept, but still tended to favour the civ with the most cities, because it was entirely based on Improvements and Wonders. Now, though, you have to largely fund your cultural growth from your treasury-forcing the player to make occasionally tough choices between tech development and cultural development.
Resources too, will now have a greater impact on the game, as they will be required for the construction of terrain improvements too-not merely units and city improvements.
Governments, too, have been massively overhauled, and give players the chance to create much more nuanced governments.
What will really make this game sell, though-especially to hard-core gamers-is the almost unlimited modding. If this proves to be more than just hype, then there will never be anything truly missing from the game, as the player can merely add it in to his/her hearts content.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Fact is, the developers have taken the very nascent ideas of Civ3-namely Culture and Resources-and really given them a huge overhaul to make them much better. Culture, for instance, was a good concept, but still tended to favour the civ with the most cities, because it was entirely based on Improvements and Wonders. Now, though, you have to largely fund your cultural growth from your treasury-forcing the player to make occasionally tough choices between tech development and cultural development.
Resources too, will now have a greater impact on the game, as they will be required for the construction of terrain improvements too-not merely units and city improvements.
Governments, too, have been massively overhauled, and give players the chance to create much more nuanced governments.
What will really make this game sell, though-especially to hard-core gamers-is the almost unlimited modding. If this proves to be more than just hype, then there will never be anything truly missing from the game, as the player can merely add it in to his/her hearts content.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
warpstorm said:
Man, those straw man arguments are popping up like poppies. It's easy to accuse, but I don't think your point hits its target. Ok, so 75% of people don't buy the expansion, so what? 25% do. And publishers and developers make money off the 25% that do, otherwise they wouldn't do expansion packs. Surely they would want that 25% to be 26% so they can make more money. That 25% number is not carved in stone. The quality of the base game affects it. If the base game is worse, there will be fewer than 25% buying it. Conversely, if the base game is better, there will be more than 25% buying it. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, that means that because only a fraction of the potential game-buying public will actually buy civ4, quality doesn't matter. That's a ridiculous conclusion, because it's built on a flawed premise.
dh_epic said:
Why do people insist on looking at things in such binary terms? There's a middle ground between crushing the CD up into little pieces to send back to Maryland and building it a shrine as the One True Game. For every game, you'll find someone who loves it (well, except Daikatana), and you'll also find someone who hates it. The majority of people are in the wavering middle, and, thus, that's where the majority of the money is. Incremental improvements in the game lead to incremental increases in current and future revenue. Gamespot giving the game an 8.6 instead of an 8.5 will lead to slightly more sales. I think these features can do that. They won't make a 0 into a 10, but they might push an 8.5 to a 9.0. That's not a Nobel Peace Prize accomplishment, but it's something.
That's a little too convenient an answer. I like that they're making it moddable, really I do. However, infinite configurability can lead to a lack of focus. Look at all of the instances of people on these forums saying, "they should make it an option." That's usually a cop-out for not really thinking about the problem and working hard to solve it the right way. If only 25% of players buy the official expansion pack, I'm guessing fewer than 25% will pay attention to mods. If the game requires a mod to fix some flaw, or to give it greater depth, well, some players would buy the game and then install that mod, but most potential customers just wouldn't buy the game or would buy it and not play it. Now, I am definitely not saying that civ4 will suffer from this. I am merely saying that extensibility is not a panacea.Aussie_Lurker said:
qazxc
Chieftain
By stating determinism, Bluemethod probably means to emphasize the games sensitivity to initial conditions.
So what; inequalities are part of life and the life of nations. In my view, problems will appear with balanced resource allocation, which is total - do you hear - total B.S.
Civ just underlines what weve known to be true for some time: geography is destiny.
q
So what; inequalities are part of life and the life of nations. In my view, problems will appear with balanced resource allocation, which is total - do you hear - total B.S.
Civ just underlines what weve known to be true for some time: geography is destiny.
q
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
My point, apatheist, if you had honestly tried to read my post in full is that, simply based on what little we already know (and it is a little) there is an enormous amount of new material to appeal to both novice and hard-core player alike, whilst the modding tools allow the truly hardcore to put in the things which they felt should have been included.
If you look at the threads in these forums, then you will see that this is a very smart route to take-ultimately-'cause if they truly tried to appeal to all the hard-core fans, then you would end up with a substandard game!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
If you look at the threads in these forums, then you will see that this is a very smart route to take-ultimately-'cause if they truly tried to appeal to all the hard-core fans, then you would end up with a substandard game!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
determinism
im always determ to play the game even im losing in civ3, because there are infinite numbers of strategies.
if a big nation goes uneasy on you, you can bribe a few other nation, and form an alliance against it,
or try to trigger your GOLDEN AGE, thats the biggest thing for you to comeback from losing.
who knows what the combat might happen, everyone knows the "pikemen defeats tank" phenomenon
also there are different UU for different civs, for different ages. if one civ is strong in this age, you may counter him with your next age UU
im always determ to play the game even im losing in civ3, because there are infinite numbers of strategies.
if a big nation goes uneasy on you, you can bribe a few other nation, and form an alliance against it,
or try to trigger your GOLDEN AGE, thats the biggest thing for you to comeback from losing.
who knows what the combat might happen, everyone knows the "pikemen defeats tank" phenomenon
also there are different UU for different civs, for different ages. if one civ is strong in this age, you may counter him with your next age UU
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Actually, Panzooka, that is yet another means by which they have reduced the Linearity and determinism of the Civ4. Rather than having a single Golden Age-often occuring when it is of little use to you-you can now store up Great People and 'sacrifice' them to produce one or more Golden Ages when it suits you. This can be a perfect way for a civ that is lagging a little behind to essentially Supercharge their economic and technological development.
What this proves, though, is that they have clearly listened to our complaints within the community, and improved an otherwise good idea accordingly. Hardly the behaviour of a company that is on the edge of economic ruin
!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
What this proves, though, is that they have clearly listened to our complaints within the community, and improved an otherwise good idea accordingly. Hardly the behaviour of a company that is on the edge of economic ruin
!!Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker said:
And had you read my post in full, you would have seen me temper my words with the statement that I don't believe they'll screw up civ4. My point was that moddability is not a panacea. Pointing to moddability does not resolve disagreement over a feature. You can respond to every single comment by saying "the game will be moddable, so you can do it yourself," but that doesn't solve the issue, nor does it allow people to collaboratively define the solution. By that logic, you're effectively saying there's no point in constructively criticizing the previous civ games and what we know of the upcoming ones. I'm interested in exploring ideas. I'm interested in hearing what others think. I'm interested in improving the base game. I'm interested in suggesting novel things that the Firaxians see and improve on and incorporate. It's nice to know that I can theoretically extend the game if I like, but with a job, a wife, a house, and a baby, it's not going to happen. There's a middle ground between "civ4 is perfect" and "if you don't like it, you can suck it."
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
apatheist said:
On this I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Though it is true that modabillity is not a Panacea, it is a reasonable way around the 'trying to please all the people, all the time' dilemma. As I said above, if this were done, then the game would look truly awful . Instead, they have built again with the broadest amount of fan and non-fan appeal, and offered the modding tools as a means to placate those who feel like they might have missed out. This is quite a sensible route to take, IMHO.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker said:
If there's no way to do it without displeasing some people, then yes, you'll always have a custom mod. I firmly believe, though, that they can accomplish a substantial part of the things that started this thread and have them be implemented in a way that's pleasing to many and satisfactory to almost all.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well, I cannot agree with you I'm afraid. Though I feel that they have gone to great lengths to rein in both Linearity and Determinism, I think there is a limit to how far they go before they begin majorly ticking off some people in order to please others.
For instance, I believe Civil War/Secessions are the best bet for reducing Linearity/Determinism. However, I realise that a number of people seriously disagree with that being in the game. Same with Supply Lines and limits to early game exploration and expansion. So, do the game designers aim to keep the likes of me happy, or do they aim to please the other group? I suspect that they have aimed for the latter, whilst leaving the door open for people like myself to bring these elements into the game if I wish).
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
For instance, I believe Civil War/Secessions are the best bet for reducing Linearity/Determinism. However, I realise that a number of people seriously disagree with that being in the game. Same with Supply Lines and limits to early game exploration and expansion. So, do the game designers aim to keep the likes of me happy, or do they aim to please the other group? I suspect that they have aimed for the latter, whilst leaving the door open for people like myself to bring these elements into the game if I wish).
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I definitely agree with you that it's rarely in the binary terms of "bad game / good game". Civ 2 was arguably superior to Civ 3, but even if you believe that it doesn't make Civ 3 a bad game. And even if you think Civ 3 a bad game, it didn't make it a commercial failure... quite the contrary, in fact.
I think all this talk of "failure" is grossly exaggerated. Probably so people can lament that their ideal feature didn't make it in.
I think all this talk of "failure" is grossly exaggerated. Probably so people can lament that their ideal feature didn't make it in.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
See, I don't agree with that statement, DH_Epic. Though there were things from Civ2 which I missed in Civ3-namely Civil Wars, a more functional UN and Unit Trading-I felt that Civ3 was on the whole far superior to Civ2, especially when you consider the addition of a rudimentary Culture and Espionage system. If Civ3 had a problem, its that it failed to incorporate the best elements of its true predecessor, namely SMAC. Had Civics, Faction personalities, the UN High Council and the Improved Diplomacy of SMAC been retained by Civ3, then I think that people would have been utterly blown away by how much better-and different-Civ3 was compared to Civ2. To be fair on Firaxis, though, I don't think the decisions to exlude those SMAC features were their idea, but had more to do with the defection of the RoN guy (can't remember his name right now!).
Anyway, the main things which bother me about Civ4-from what I have heard-is a general trend towards being PC, which is unfortunate given how un-PC history is, and the fact that flaws in certain systems, like Espionage, caused them to throw the whole thing out-rather than simply try to improve it. Will these two gripes stop the game from being successful? Not likely. Will it stop me from buying it? See previous response
!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Anyway, the main things which bother me about Civ4-from what I have heard-is a general trend towards being PC, which is unfortunate given how un-PC history is, and the fact that flaws in certain systems, like Espionage, caused them to throw the whole thing out-rather than simply try to improve it. Will these two gripes stop the game from being successful? Not likely. Will it stop me from buying it? See previous response
!Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
CanuckSoldier
Emperor
lurker
n. One of the `silent majority' in a electronic forum;
one who posts occasionally or not at all but is known to read the
group's postings regularly. This term is not pejorative and indeed
is casually used reflexively: "Oh, I'm just lurking." Often used in
`the lurkers', the hypothetical audience for the group's
flamage-emitting regulars. When a lurker speaks up for the first
time, this is called `delurking'.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lurker
An odd nick you have chosen AL, rather an oxymoron for a Civer with 2,402 posts
CS
n. One of the `silent majority' in a electronic forum;
one who posts occasionally or not at all but is known to read the
group's postings regularly. This term is not pejorative and indeed
is casually used reflexively: "Oh, I'm just lurking." Often used in
`the lurkers', the hypothetical audience for the group's
flamage-emitting regulars. When a lurker speaks up for the first
time, this is called `delurking'.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lurker
An odd nick you have chosen AL, rather an oxymoron for a Civer with 2,402 posts
CS
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hey, the nickname made sense at the time and, by the time it didn't, I just became too lazy to change it !
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Similar threads
