The Failure of Civ 4

[10Seven]

reading this post is like sitting in a Logic 101 class- however logic fails in one important area - fun. (And too- in the sponataneous)- i like the
"..disagreement is not an excuse for violence" ...lol of course it is-
disagreement is usually always the cause violence and aggression- as defensiveness is more oft than not that which breeds attack.....at least from what i have experienced- intellectual types want u to play their game- with their rules- which is pretty smart- but still a form of bullying -only in a realm where they can compete-
These "Quality" concerns are self percieved ,not reality- quality?....what is the gauge for such? (i was having fun but then i read that the forbidden palace doesn't work - now i stopped having fun....?...)
But of course the whole post makes no sense as Civ4 can not be a "failure" as it does not yet exsist- but maybe my logic is flawed....

So, in a roundabout way you criticise intellectual elitism, then bring out that exact method.

It's so obvious that Civ4 is not out, and along with the authors qualification, your argument is manipulative.

"He's a dumb-dumb, therefore his opinion is dumb-dumb"

Another argument I notice as to 'it wouldn't be Civ' - the very same argument applying logic, would imply that the franchise should not have evolved beyond Civ1.

It's Civ4 already, ramp it up!

 

[Belcarius]

I have been reading these posts and have come to one conclusion. That conclusion is that computer games which operate on logic do not mimic the illogical nature of humans very well. What I mean is, in the average computer game if you perform action A, then B will result, whereas in real life you can perform action A, and you may get result Y. Everyone is saying we need this or we need that in CIV IV. In actuality, what we need is for the AI to be illogical enough to accept a trade and then turn around and sucker punch you for no reason other than it doesn't like you. The AI is getting better at it, but it is still not quite there. When it finally is, then, and only then, will CIV be able to truly mimic history in all of its non-deterministic, non-linear glory. (And for anyone wondering, I am very much looking forward to purchasing CIV IV eventhough I will have to finally junk my "digital abacus" and buy a new computer!)

Yes! Yes! Yes! That's exactly right! Less linearity, more humanity!

 

[Belcarius]

Ultimately, if there are people who think that Civ 4 is going to be a failure as a Civ game, than we really aren't going to be able to do anything to change their mind. However, to those people I say: if you want Civ to get better, don't go around saying that it will be a failure as a game before it is released. If you are successful, people won't buy the game and the franchise will end here. If however you wait and see how it turns out in the long haul, then there is a chance that if it does suck, Firaxis will listen to your cries and improve it for the next iteration. There's no chance of that happening if Civ 4 is a commercial failure. So just chill and try not to be so pessemistic.

 

[Shigga]

1 + 2 are not valid points imho. All previous incarnations had the same "flaw" and they still were a big seller.

agree with you on most of what you said concerning pc. I think Firaxis is overdoing it a little. I do not think it will influence sales tho.

Come on it's a game, it isn't about ethics. Imho, ethics went out of the window a long time ago anyway, on a global scale, so why even bother with it in a game? I killed thousands an thousands of virtual incarnations of ppl playing UT2004, so what? It's a freakin' game. Compared to FPS, a turn based game like civ is dealing with abstract concepts most of the time.

 

[warpstorm]

Im sure that Firaxis deliberately didnt allow an events-editor in civ3, just to keep civ2 selling copies.

Since Firaxis gets no money from a Microprose title why would they do this? This statement makes no sense to me.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, you are right, however there is no logic behind not allowing an events editor; some people even had claimed that the civ3 editor did infact have a "phase unit" option, but it was never completed. (phasing a unit would be used as an event, to make units appear at some location in the map).
Perhaps it had to do with syd meier. Either way it crippled civ3 imho

 

[apatheist]

If however you wait and see how it turns out in the long haul, then there is a chance that if it does suck, Firaxis will listen to your cries and improve it for the next iteration.

On the other hand, maybe Firaxis will think, "Oh, they still bought Civ4 even with the constant griping about X. I guess we don't need to do X." The only leverage any potential customer has is their wallet. Either you buy or you don't. If you do buy, why should the expect that you won't buy the next incremental evolution of the game (assuming that's what it is)?

I'm not actually that cynical; I just don't think the statement above holds up under scrutiny.

 

[warpstorm]

Hm, you are right, however there is no logic behind not allowing an events editor; some people even had claimed that the civ3 editor did infact have a "phase unit" option, but it was never completed. (phasing a unit would be used as an event, to make units appear at some location in the map).

The basic reason is easy; time and money. It costs both to make and they were running out of both when a goodly portion of the team quit to form their own company.

Yes, there are hidden options in units and buildings in the C3C editor for the types of units that were cut when the focus of the expansion changed.

 

[Kyriakos]

Too bad that there wasnt any attempt by the community to make a civ3 event editor, although i realise ofcourse that this must have been a nearly-impossible task due to hardcoding, and i guess that was why it wasnt attempted

 

[ForbiddenPalace]

It really bothers me that the size of the units are just way too large compared to the size of the landmass. If there are too many units on the map at the same time, the scene will be too messy.

 

[Belcarius]

On the other hand, maybe Firaxis will think, "Oh, they still bought Civ4 even with the constant griping about X. I guess we don't need to do X." The only leverage any potential customer has is their wallet. Either you buy or you don't. If you do buy, why should the expect that you won't buy the next incremental evolution of the game (assuming that's what it is)?

I'm not actually that cynical; I just don't think the statement above holds up under scrutiny.

Ahem, please note my use of the word chance.

 

[apatheist]

Noted ;-). There's a big gap between sucks and succeeds (haha), though. I don't want it to be just good; I want it to be great. Some people are satisfied with just good, though, and will reject ideas that make something great. And I don't want to have to go through sucky to get to great.

 

[brinko]

It really bothers me that the size of the units are just way too large compared to the size of the landmass. If there are too many units on the map at the same time, the scene will be too messy.

indeed, more realistic proportions of the military would be widely appreciated...

other then that, i happier then a pig in poop.

(whats wrong with recognizing a unit of 1000 with a flag, or insignia, if they are too small to deciefer wheather they are swordsmen or spearmen)

 

[10Seven]

indeed, more realistic proportions of the military would be widely appreciated...

other then that, i happier then a pig in poop.

(whats wrong with recognizing a unit of 1000 with a flag, or insignia, if they are too small to deciefer wheather they are swordsmen or spearmen)

Giants!

To the opening argument - I think there is a distinction, however faint, drawn between what is succesful as a game and what is financially succesful - there have been rather a few games that were financially succesful - particularly movie licenses - but as a game were garbage.

Given my impressions as the Civ3's success as a game, it seems to me that views are mixed, and, thus, Civ3 as a success is a mixed bag.

It's far from complete garbage - as the 'Civ4 Big Vision' team points out some good points - but seems to me far from excellent.

The value I see in an extreme argument is that it can help clarify the issue - 'Civ4 is going to be garbage - here's why'

The risk is that people will focus on the 'garbage' accusation at the expense of debating the 'here's why' part.

I think this is where we've gone wrong - particularly as there seems by far more angry retort against the accusation than consideration of the 'here's why'

EDIT And I hardly helped did I

 

[Meleager]

I can agree with all that. The problem I think is that Bluemethod's "here's why" hasn't really stood up to scruteny. Unlike the "Big Vision" document which provides a much better "here's why" in my opinion.

 

[10Seven]

I can agree with all that. The problem I think is that Bluemethod's "here's why" hasn't really stood up to scruteny. Unlike the "Big Vision" document which provides a much better "here's why" in my opinion.

And yet, while clearly Bluemethod's 'document' is brief, and the 'Big Vision' one at greater length, they actually agree on a number of key points.

The only disagreement seems to be the degree of pesimism/optimism, and the issue of terrorism.


The thing I'm interested in is the issue of REVOLTS, etc, and Firaxis removing CORRUPTION as it was - though at this stage the new system sounds far better, even as it is a minor tweak.

It sounds like Firaxis has gone some way to address the issue, but, to my view, not nearly far enough - I agree with Bluemethod's views as to revolts, as I do with the 'Big Vision' and their proposal for it - although that system of culture strikes me as a complicated one to impliment at this stage - and seeming unlikely to make it into Civ4 at release.

 

[bshirt]

compare the title to Civ2 and the only thing it could claim superior is is graphics.

You gotta be kidding me.

Imo, CivII's AI was simply trash not even worth playing.

CivIII's AI was a huge improvement relative to CivII's. As any AI, still flawed? Of course. But compared to CivII's it's HAL.

 

[Belcarius]

Giants!

To the opening argument - I think there is a distinction, however faint, drawn between what is succesful as a game and what is financially succesful - there have been rather a few games that were financially succesful - particularly movie licenses - but as a game were garbage.

Given my impressions as the Civ3's success as a game, it seems to me that views are mixed, and, thus, Civ3 as a success is a mixed bag.

It's far from complete garbage - as the 'Civ4 Big Vision' team points out some good points - but seems to me far from excellent.

The value I see in an extreme argument is that it can help clarify the issue - 'Civ4 is going to be garbage - here's why'

The risk is that people will focus on the 'garbage' accusation at the expense of debating the 'here's why' part.

I think this is where we've gone wrong - particularly as there seems by far more angry retort against the accusation than consideration of the 'here's why'

EDIT And I hardly helped did I

I can agree with all that. The problem I think is that Bluemethod's "here's why" hasn't really stood up to scruteny. Unlike the "Big Vision" document which provides a much better "here's why" in my opinion.

Once again, Meleager and I are on the same wavelength.

I never had any problem with bluemethod daring to say Civ 4 will be a failure (indeed I applaude him for having the courage to brave a hoard of ravenous Civ fanboys ). No, what gave me the irrits was the way he used his claim to be a developer - it was like saying "I must therefore be right". Also, even before you look at whether his arguments stood up to reason, they constituted merely a few examples of lack of features within the game. They weren't exactly what you would define as major gameplay mechanics - just small additions, and I can't see how adding things like terrorism makes it go from being a failure to a success. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[10Seven]

Once again, Meleager and I are on the same wavelength.

I never had any problem with bluemethod daring to say Civ 4 will be a failure (indeed I applaude him for having the courage to brave a hoard of ravenous Civ fanboys ). No, what gave me the irrits was the way he used his claim to be a developer - it was like saying "I must therefore be right". Also, even before you look at whether his arguments stood up to reason, they constituted merely a few examples of lack of features within the game. They weren't exactly what you would define as major gameplay mechanics - just small additions, and I can't see how adding things like terrorism makes it go from being a failure to a success. It just doesn't work that way.

It seems to me that while the developer part was only briefly mentioned - the rest, as to "I MUST be right" is not necessarily an inevitable assumption.

 

[warpstorm]

Briefly mentioned, in the opening sentence. This is a ploy to give it more credibility to the following text. This is known as "Argument From Authority".

This is not to be confused with "Argument From False Authority", for example, "I am not an artist, but I play one on the internet".