Warlords- What is it good for, absolutely nothing ugh!

[dshirk]

Dshirk, I don't know if this question has been asked already, but will the great wall be visible from outer space?
Also, can you shead any light on the viking scenario, for example, the traits of Ragnar, the settings available, etc.

The great wall IS visible from outer space. This was actually part of our demo opening at E3 while in globe view. As for Ragnar? I will need to hold off a bit longer on him. The PR team wants to keep some info to themselves until the press tour.

 

[midn8t]

Yeah, no caps, badly placed paragraphs (sometimes even sentences cut into two paragraphs) and too many typos does that to you. Sometimes, it seems like some people just don't want their post to be read.

i presonaly could really care less if peopel read post or not as for taking time to make it all proper yet agin i could care less, speacily when i spend hours on days behind a desk typing.

after while you just dont care.

if your going to judge post on how proper it was or wasnt put to gethere you might as well, buy the expasion pack based on how well or not well the orgnization of the company is put to gethere or not put to gethere, cuz at that point your just looking at the face value not whats actully in the product.



i wish the expasion would added more to actully game play.

expanded more depth into relgion and more depth into cultra, along with more depth into (combat which it is doing.)

and allowed for more management abilty for your civlization in general.

i also would like to seen abilty to customiz your own civlization

i know you can change the names and so forth along with the leaders names so such. but i mean like being able to pick if your going to be spiritual or not being able to pick if your civlization is orgnization skills or not and also being able to pick what two starting technologys you get in game. along with if you start with a scout or warrior or what ever.

and senes there adding more civlizations to the game i hope where able to play on bigger maps that would allow for more civlizations to be in the game with you at the same time.


but when warlords comes out and its 29.99 after tax 30 i wont see it as a worth while thing for the money.
i am only really intrested in couple of things in the expasion pack, and i dont see those things i would like as being worth 30 some dollars.

i havent made up my mind if I would buy the expasion or not, as of right now i am not going to buy it.

maybe after it comes out and 4 or 5 months go by and the price dropps to 19.00 which it will in time I may buy it.

 

[King Flevance]

diablo 2 was play able out of the box civ 4 was not

DING! DING! DING! WINNER!

They also had a patch ready to go to address gameplay not screwy code. If people seriously want to compare D2 with Civ4, your going to lose by alot.

Thats got to be the funniest thing ive ever heard. Just how many years did they need to bring out that 1.10 patch (daiblo 2) eh? Better late than never right?

1.10 Patch notes.
Adds more than it fixes. Years after the game is released, they are still giving you more to the game than merely fixing bugs. You think in 2014 Firaxis will be giving out patches that add stuff? And to "vanilla" on top of that? I dont.

No one claimed Blizzard is perfect. But it is closer to perfection than any other company I have seen.

i presonaly could really care less if peopel read post or not as for taking time to make it all proper yet agin i could care less, speacily when i spend hours on days behind a desk typing.

Ok, well then first off if you honestly don't care as much as you claim, then why do you post? It is merely out of respect to people trying to make out the garbled mess that you should try to keep it presentable. I would think that if you spend that much time at it, you would be better at it.

Usually, I won't play grammer police but seriously this is wild. It honestly does hurt my brain to read your posts. Do us a favor, if you want to post that is cool but like save some space and just run it all together with no spaces or every-other-line thing. I haven't made it through either of your posts yet all the way through without giving up yet.

 

[Mac Daddy]

I have been reading Civ-Fanatics prior to the original release of Civ IV. I have to say that I have a learned a few things about the game and downloaded some good MODs and maps as well. I thought that the Ancient Meditteranean and Europa Europa were quite enjoyable to play. I have also read a lot of good things about FFH, but, it just doesn't sound something that would interest me. My hat is off to all of the Modders out there though, who have dedicated their time and hard work to creating their MODs. I have "tweaked" a few things here and there, but I don't have the time to go and create my own MOD. Unfortunately life takes up too much time at times and I am unable to play this game as much as I like.

As for this on going debate over what is better a home grown MOD or a "professional" MOD it is starting to get old. I have already pre-ordered the Warlords and have to say I look forward to it. The Vassal State I think is something that is missing from the game and more cools stuff I am always open to it. I think that some of the CIV 3 additions were a little dissapointing, but hey I still probably got my money out of them. Back to the debate though, I can understand one or two messages about it, but the list goes on and on about what is better or to buy or not to buy. So, let's move on. All of you Modders, keep on Modding, cause I am sure I will download at least one of them in the future. All of you who are looking forward to buying Warlords, thumbs up to you, cause I already ordered it!

 

[prof_geoff_tate]

Like i said, it has nothing to do with value. Whether i paid $2 or $2,000 for the game makes no difference at all. The fact is that i bought a game, expecting it to work without bugs, and that's not what they delivered. You can't sell defective products to your customers, refuse to fix the products, and expect those customers to buy from you again. At least, not if i'm the customer in question. It's a matter of principle.

Of course it has to do with value/utility. That's what trade is all about. If you think you are going to derive net utility from paying the purchase price for a product (taking into account opportunity costs), you buy it. If you think you won't, you don't.

That's why, in fact, you are completely accurate when you say that "[y]ou can't sell defective products to your customers, refuse to fix the products, and expect those customers to buy from you again" -- at least assuming consumers are rational and there's relatively decent information transparency. Companies go out of business when they do that sort of thing because customers can't cost-justify the purchase price and don't buy the products.

The problem is that by most people's standards, your characterization of Firaxis's actions is a fairly ridiculous one, particularly in the software industry context. All software is "defective," and cIV is much less "defective" than many other software products. Furthermore, Firaxis has made an effort to fix those defects.

Your real disagreement with many of the other members of the community, then, is not that this discussion has nothing to do with value, but rather lies in what standards of value you measure software products against (i.e., what it is you value in software products, and how much you value whatever it is you value) and how you measure cIV against those standards. You say:

Maybe my standards are too high because i'm used to a company that actually fixes their bugs (called Blizzard).

Obviously your standards are too high. If you're going to hold all companies to the standard you think is best, you're going to be disappointed a lot. That's true whether you're buying software, a car, or a hamburger.

Let's face it: products are not always what you expect them to be. So caveat emptor: figure out what it is you're buying so your expectations are more realistic. I don't get this neo-consumerist entitlement attitude: "I deserve to get whatever my expectations are." You get what you buy. If you don't like it, return it, or don't buy it. You didn't like the last one, so you're not going to buy the next one. There you go.

But the irony in your decision is that the reason you didn't like cIV is probably largely self-created: you create negative utility for yourself when you get frustrated that products don't meet your expectations, at least to the extent you have the information necessary to come up with more realistic expectations. You'll be a lot happier with your purchases if you can indeed align your expectations a little more closely with reality (and not what you think reality should be).

 

[naterator]

All software is "defective,"

what an odd thing to say...

 

[Leif]

All I have to say about Warlords is
"Valhalla I am coming."

 

[Zombie69]

Of course it has to do with value/utility. That's what trade is all about.

Morality and legality have no concern with monetary values. I'm not talking about economics here. Selling a defective product is wrong and it's actually illegal in any other field but video games.

 

[Harrier]

what an odd thing to say...

But unfortunatly - true.

Any complex program code will have defects somewhere. Either program errors or design errors.

Most program errors will eventually be found - most, not all.

In lots of cases some design errors are never encountered.

Then some times they are. Like Black Monday - when all over the world Stock Market computers were programmed to sell, sell, sell - when prices were falling. Unfortunatly there was no mechanism to stop them. So Billions and Billions were lost worldwide.

Millions of people are still suffering the result.

So not such an odd thing to say.

 

[King Flevance]

Of course it has to do with value/utility. That's what trade is all about. If you think you are going to derive net utility from paying the purchase price for a product (taking into account opportunity costs), you buy it. If you think you won't, you don't.

That's why, in fact, you are completely accurate when you say that "[y]ou can't sell defective products to your customers, refuse to fix the products, and expect those customers to buy from you again" -- at least assuming consumers are rational and there's relatively decent information transparency. Companies go out of business when they do that sort of thing because customers can't cost-justify the purchase price and don't buy the products.

The problem is that by most people's standards, your characterization of Firaxis's actions is a fairly ridiculous one, particularly in the software industry context. All software is "defective," and cIV is much less "defective" than many other software products. Furthermore, Firaxis has made an effort to fix those defects.

Your real disagreement with many of the other members of the community, then, is not that this discussion has nothing to do with value, but rather lies in what standards of value you measure software products against (i.e., what it is you value in software products, and how much you value whatever it is you value) and how you measure cIV against those standards. You say:

Obviously your standards are too high. If you're going to hold all companies to the standard you think is best, you're going to be disappointed a lot. That's true whether you're buying software, a car, or a hamburger.

Let's face it: products are not always what you expect them to be. So caveat emptor: figure out what it is you're buying so your expectations are more realistic. I don't get this neo-consumerist entitlement attitude: "I deserve to get whatever my expectations are." You get what you buy. If you don't like it, return it, or don't buy it. You didn't like the last one, so you're not going to buy the next one. There you go.

But the irony in your decision is that the reason you didn't like cIV is probably largely self-created: you create negative utility for yourself when you get frustrated that products don't meet your expectations, at least to the extent you have the information necessary to come up with more realistic expectations. You'll be a lot happier with your purchases if you can indeed align your expectations a little more closely with reality (and not what you think reality should be).

Well, that solves it. Just lower our standards. So that way when movies and games decline in quality, we as the people must lower our standards is all. Not expect them to continue on with great things, just lower our standards. When you buy a game, it doesnt run on many people's computer, the company acts like there is no problem, then doesnt address it or the fanbase - we just had too high standards. I mean, why should we expect support for the first couple months after the game is initially released?

Even now 6 months later when there are still clearly memory leaks in the game and the company would rather focus all its time on an expansion pack. Also, not to mention rarely still communicate to the fanbase. Just lower our expectations is all.

I was surfing around today and came across this list of the Top ten things that irritate us about video games on Gamespy and thought I would post it.

10. Huge HD space reqs. (eh..)
09. Bad use of License.
08. Copycat mainstream (instead of develop new ideas)
07. Tedious Puzzles (namely in action games)
06. Lame Quests (mostly RPGs)
05. Half-ass level design (mostly FPS)
04. Bad AI
03. Tech Support
02. Patches
01. Release date

Source Link

Civ 4 hit 1-3. Sure the AI is bad but I find it 'average' honestly. I haven't seen an AI that is even remotely decent in strategy games. Although no doubt the Civ AI could use a crash course on how to organize an attack. Not to mention how some of its units work. I guess my standards on AI is pretty low due to the fact I have yet to see anything decent IMO yet. But once I do see it, my standards will raise. I would love nothing more than to be able to point at CIv 4 and say "THAT is how AI should be done."

Defenders always claims "it is a competitive market, thats why they had to release early. Thats why quality was sacrificed for time constraints." Well, IMO "It's a competitive market. This is why quality should not be sacrificed and your actions SHOULD be held in comparison to standards you set by what you have seen from other companies.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...] If you don't like it, return it, or don't buy it.[...]

Return an opened box? Doesn't work for software in most stores, I'd guess.
Don't buy a game already bought?

So, the above advises are just a smoke screen to hide the truth: the poster lacks arguments.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

I'll probably grab Warlords way down the line, but no other expansion pack can even compete with Conquests for Civilization three. Thats got to be the best game expansion pack ever, that added so much new content and really made the game feel complete.

 

[naterator]

But unfortunatly - true.

Any complex program code will have defects somewhere. Either program errors or design errors.

by that logic, my baseball cap that came with a loose thread is defective, although it's caused no problems in the subsequent years. imperfection doesn't mean defective.

defective
1.The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
2.An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.

i'm not saying civ IV wasn't defective when i bought it, as seeing the terrain is necessary or desireable for completion, however, i've gone through countless console games for PS2, N64, super nuntendo, nintendo, atari, and my old texas instruments home computer that worked flawlessly from the box, and continue to do so. maybe there's a pixel missing somewhere, but if perfection is your standard, then we could also say, for example, that in any blanket as complicated as an afghan, there's bound to be defects, even if they're never noticed. every product ever made by man or beast suffers from imperfection, it doesn't make them defective.

edit: and before this degenerates into a discussion on semantics, i am aware of the essential synonymity of "defect" and "imperfection", my point remains that perfection is an unrealistic goal. and an error that is never found, well to me, at least, that's kind of like a tree falling in the woods when nobody's around.

 

[D. Minky]

The great wall IS visible from outer space. This was actually part of our demo opening at E3 while in globe view. As for Ragnar? I will need to hold off a bit longer on him. The PR team wants to keep some info to themselves until the press tour.

A fun thing to add into the game, no doubt, but actually completely untrue in real life. The Great Wall is only a few feet wide, despite being incredibly long. It's thinner than most roads, in fact.

But I think it's a cool little thing that's being added in.

 

[Truronian]

Selling a defective product is wrong and it's actually illegal in any other field but video games.

In that case you should never buy another game. All games are 'defective' by your standards. Even after significant patching, games still contain bugs. Does this mean they are not fun? Of course not! As soon as bugs detract from enjoyment, and nothing is done to address them, is the time you should complain.

 

[Truronian]

A fun thing to add into the game, no doubt, but actually completely untrue in real life. The Great Wall is only a few feet wide, despite being incredibly long. It's thinner than most roads, in fact.

But I think it's a cool little thing that's being added in.

Actually, it can be seen from Outer Space. Just not too far into Outer Space. (The common misquote is that it can be seen from the moon, which it can't) IIR, several other wonders can be seen form space, such as the pyramids.

 

[The Great Apple]

If you have a spy satalite to hand you can see quite a bit from space...

 

[Commander Bello]

I think "visible from space" refers to human eyes seeing something from an orbit. As far as I know, the only man-made item are the pyramids for which this stands true.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I think "visible from space" refers to human eyes seeing something from an orbit. As far as I know, the only man-made item are the pyramids for which this stands true.

Unfortunately, this thread has already proven that you know very little about most things.

Many human artifacts can be seen from low earth orbit. You could just look it up, e.g., http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/033127.htm

 

[hs1611]

In a perfect world, our national team would win the Football World Cup 2006

Perfect for whom?? In my perfect world Portugal would win the World Cup!!!
Right, and then we'll get peace on Earth, good will amongst man, and a free copy of Warlords on our mailbox!! With no bugs or glitches .