What do you think 'killed' the demogame?

[Chieftess]

The past two demogames haven't been officially finished, much less there hasn't been too many people posting as of late. The first one was abandoned, and the second was turned into a succession game which just recently finished.

Lack of government positions to run for/participate in.
Ruleset was too complex to understand.
Too much arguing over the rule set.
"Demogame Fatigue" (9 demogames is enough!).
The game was set (victory/defeat in sight).
Game seemed intimidating.
Fellow posters seemed intimidating.
No/Lack of public turnchats.
Lack of a schedule (i.e., save is played every 4 days at 8pm EDT).
Lack of alternate "positions" or groups to participate in.
I'm not a good Civ4 player/The game's level was too hard for me.
Don't have enough time to post/play.
Lack of fun side-games (RPG)
Other
Dead? We're not dead yet!

 

[donsig]

I voted other: the game simply was not fun. I realize near the end there may have been little or no chats but the game started with them and that reduces the participation those of us who can't or don't want to attend the chats. I've seen it in enough DGs that it makes me only a low level participant.
The German longbow / turn chat scheduling fiasco finally turned me completely off to this last DG. Frankly I am tired of trying to play in a DG where I have to play against moderators who make insinuations and threats. (If you or DaveShack or any other mod wants to ban me for publicly discussing a mod action here then do it. Just don't warn me or give me an infraction cause I'm sick of that crap, too. You asked what killed the DG CT and I'm just telling you.) Mods who participate and use their mod authority to activel enforce forum rules in the DG threads give themselves and unfair advantage in the game whether they are trying for such advantage or not.

So between the chats and the mods I feel as though I don't have a fair say in game decisions and so the game is killed for me.

 

[Provolution]

As I said, the anarcho-syndicalistic ruleset combined with unfair arbitration of these rules (read Judiciary) killed it for me. Also the bland game-technique wording used to get a higher moral ground by some players also became tedious after a while. I happen to like more colorful exchanges. The longbowman affair also removed some of the interest for positions, as you were unfairly micromanaged on very thin grounds, backed by supreme action. If we are to have A, B and C players based on game reputation, please write that in the FAQ, so we know what to expect.

 

[Strider]

I voted other: the game simply was not fun. I realize near the end there may have been little or no chats but the game started with them and that reduces the participation those of us who can't or don't want to attend the chats. I've seen it in enough DGs that it makes me only a low level participant..

The drop in participation levels seem to correspond directly to the fall of public turnchats. So your correct in the sense that the turnchats are a major reason why it was killed.

It's been almost a full 2 years since we had a turnchat that actually had a purpose. If it was the problem.. then it would no longer exist. Obviously.. the problem is still here.

 

[Cyc]

I put lack of side games (although I didn't like the wording of the option) and other.

From the begining, I didn't see the love for the game coming from the participants. I'm not knocking anyone here, but it just seemed like you were going through the motions without feeling it. I don't know if this can be corrected, as I've noticed it in the last 3 or four of the DGs. I know newer players need the guidance of vets, but hey, DG1 was my very first online forum experience.

The fire of the Demogame has died down so low, you can barely see the glow of the smoldering embers.

 

[HUSch]

For me a DG is the highest level of Civ or better of my opinion of the game Civ. From the beginning 18 years ago, i like to play slowly, every turn to look for the best move, but that is not direction the players here and now prefer. Action and fight is the wish, also more real time games, so they prefer turn chats in which they are involved with the decisions, and not post direction now and look what will be done later.
The RPG which is favorite of some here, looks for me like the Model parliament. To many rules to know them without participation at the beginning.

 

[mike6426]

for me, the major reason is that there was not enough other people. Most of the offices were not voted upon, the discussions were not interesting, etc. Also, I have to admit that when I lost the last science election that I ran for, I was discouraged and left. I was going to come back about month later (there was also some real life stuff involved) but after taking a step back and looking at the game, it seemed uneventful and boring.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

For me, it has been mostly a time issue, as well as a sense that it was time for me to move on --- over 7+ DemoGames, I had pretty much seen it all. The fun part about the game for me was in the beginning when I came in as a brand new citizen, slowly but eventually winning the respect of some of the vets. I gained equal enjoyment from watching new players develop their own identity and, in some cases, school me in the process.

There seemed to be a sense of order in the early games, mostly because the DG was still a new frontier and there were more players willing to give their all to make it work. Over time, some patterns emerged and eventually wore thin and participation started to wane in the process.

And say what you will about the controversies, but that's really what put the asses in the seats. It was these moments that set this game apart from just a regular game of Civ. But there's no denying that the abundance of PI's, CC's and botched game starts may have intimidated the more passive members into leaving.

I haven't read much of the recent activity lately but what I have seen has been a bit sterile for my tastes, as the new generation attempts to pay reparations for our sordid past by being a bit too cordial. Bring back the thrill of debate, step out of the mechanics of the game and step into the ring! This game needs passion and opposing positions to work, not to mention a few shameless characters who know what it takes to carry Sweeps Week.

Obligatory Cage Match promise withheld at this time

 

[fed1943]

Not voting, but just two points.

First, "veterans". Veterans regarding what? Computers? English language?
Web sites? This particular site? These fora? Games? Civ serie games? The
version that is being played? Demogames (after it is agreed what they are)?
Or?

To me, and just to me, and votes showed I belong to a small minority here,
the game became boring and with little sense, due to little discussion and
play of the game itself, like it was designed and sold, and not another game
that some partners invented or tried to.

Best regards,

 

[DaveShack]

For those who voted lack of fun side things (RPG, groups, etc), why do you think there wasn't anyone creating this type of content?

In my case, I don't do a lot of creating of that type because I don't think I'm good at it.

 

[donsig]

Time is a factor. I've been hard pressed between school work and work work this past week. It happens now and then to me and I'm sure to others as well. We've never quite been able to work effectively as a group. We always seem to be waiting around for someone to lead us.

BTW, I think DZ made some excellent points. It's just too bad he won't play his turn in the Cage Match.

 

[DaveShack]

We always seem to be waiting around for someone to lead us.

Or waiting to jump on the person who does try to lead, for doing too much.

 

[donsig]

Or waiting to jump on the person who does try to lead, for doing too much.

Yeah, like you did to Provolution, right, DaveShack?

 

[Strider]

For those who voted lack of fun side things (RPG, groups, etc), why do you think there wasn't anyone creating this type of content?

I tried to create those things a couple of times, but it was often met with negativity.

 

[DaveShack]

Yeah, like you did to Provolution, right, DaveShack?

That was about being unresponsive and disrespectful to citizen questions. The whole thing could have been avoided by a straightforward "yes I am" or "no I'm not, and here's why" answer. Instead we got obfuscated answers which, if you had the time and skills to decode them, meant "I don't have to listen to you".

 

[Provolution]

I think the thing escalated to become a witchhunt, all over some moves the Warlord should do anyways. I have never seen such an attention to detail in individual battles neither before nor since. This was more a primordial soup where someone wanted to demonstrate their control. But that is past.

The core matter is, it should be rewarding to do work in the game, that means, influence over the mandate you run, and there should be a limitation to the things that are polled and not polled. to make elections have sense at all. If we want intimidated, soft-spoken and weak-willed leaders, so be it, then please spell out these requirements in full. I think that the mob rule got so strong, that no one cared about attending elections, or caring about being nominated, since this feeble flat-organization citizen thing discouraged those that wanted to take on leadership positions or supporting their candidates in leadership positions. There was no requirement of backwards and negative citizens that wanted to overrule ministers to provide analysis and argumentation themselves, instead of just demanding it.

If we want a social democratic or anarcho-syndicalistic ruleset, this is what we will get. No one cares about doing the work, and everyone tries to put a finger into everyones else's decisions, and we lose the big picture. With such a tedious micromanagement of leaders, how would we ever be capable of even inventing subgames? I had to watch my back and own words constantly, in case of spurious law infringements. I felt suffocated. With better conditions for leaders, these would even have the surplus energy to invent, develop and maintain subgames, not fending off legal trolls and micromanagement control freaks. We need less legal infringements, or the legal infringement part becomes the only subgame that remains beyond the haranguing over micromanagement decisions.

 

[DaveShack]

But that is past.

On that we agree.

We need less legal infringements, or the legal infringement part becomes the only subgame that remains beyond the haranguing over micromanagement decisions.

Thank you for saying this. It seems to me that there was a desire to have something more than civ, and lacking any different ideas about what something more should be, the law became much more than what it needed to be. I was very confused, because first I would hear that we must protect the citizens, I'd try to do exactly that and then the same people would say no, don't poll that.

 

[Strider]

I think the thing escalated to become a witchhunt, all over some moves the Warlord should do anyways. I have never seen such an attention to detail in individual battles neither before or since. This was more a primordial soup where someone wanted to demonstrate their control. But that is past.

The core matter is, it should be rewarding to do work in the game, that means, influence over the mandate you run, and there should be a limitation to the things that are polled and not polled. to make elections have sense at all. If we want intimated, soft-spoken and weak-willed leaders, so be it, then please spell out these requirements in full. I think that the mob rule got so strong, that no one cared about attending elections, or caring about being nominated, since this feeble flat-organization citizen thing discouraged those that wanted to take on leadership positions or supporting their candidates in leadershi positions. There was no requirement of backwards and negative citizens that wanted to overrule ministers to provide analysis and argumentation themselves, instead of just demanding it.

If we want a social democratic or anarcho-syndicalistic ruleset, this is what we will get. No one cares about doing the work, and everyone tries to put a finger into everyones elses decisions, and we lose the big picture. With such a tedious micromanagement of leaders, how would we ever be capable of even inventing subgames? I had to watch my back and own words constantly, in case of spurious law infringements. I felt suffocated. With better conditions for leaders, these would even have the surplus energy to invent, develop and maintain subgames, not fending off legal trolls and micromanagement control freaks. We need less legal infringements, or the legal infringement part becomes the only subgame that remains beyond the haranguing over micromanagement decisions.

Agreed. I remember during the first Civ3 demogame (yes.. I know. That was 3-4 years ago) I was able to make an entire research queue and implement it with just a simple poll. It was my right as Science leader. I won the election by a purity of the citizenry.

It made the job worth the time and effort. It should only come natural that those that put in the work should have a greater influence in the game. The past year or so becoming an elected official was pointless. You have to poll everything anyway.. so why even bother to elect the person to begin with?

-----

To be honest.. I'd make the game much more political based. Give leaders almost complete authority over their respective areas. If they want to keep the job.. then they will have to listen to the citizenry.

As for side games.. many of them require a decent number of people first.

 

[donsig]

Strider, it's still your turn in Cage Match II. If you're racing Donovan Zoi to see who can take the longest to play a turn in a Cage Match he has at least a year head start on you.

 

[vra379971]

Agreed. I remember during the first Civ3 demogame (yes.. I know. That was 3-4 years ago) I was able to make an entire research queue and implement it with just a simple poll. It was my right as Science leader. I won the election by a purity of the citizenry.

It made the job worth the time and effort. It should only come natural that those that put in the work should have a greater influence in the game. The past year or so becoming an elected official was pointless. You have to poll everything anyway.. so why even bother to elect the person to begin with?

Which is exactly what I said at the begining. Art imitates life. Politicians get voted in by the people. They are lobbed by the people. They make final decisions on behalf of the people. And, eventually, if they can't defend thier options, they get voted out by the people.

Works for the world...