Who else is refraining from hanging out in Civ forums?

[falconne]

Yes, we conduct focus groups. Yes, we do market research.... but the single biggest driver of enhancements, fixes, etc?

Complaints on segment-focused websites. Sure, there's just inherently fewer law librarian blogs or legal research discussion boards than there are boards discussing a given game -- but even the shrillest and seemingly most inane complaints are given attention, and nearly all of them (within reason... sure "this sucks" isn't helpful feedback no matter what you're building) are at least discussed for potential improvement. In fact, our marketing communications team will quite often jump into discussions -- and not anonymously, but spelling out who they are -- to dig deeper into forum/blog complaints. I manage a team of technical analysts -- and it's also not at all unusual for US to be put in touch with the complaining party to figure out how to alleviate the complaints.

I can back that up too. I used to work at a company that created a popular system utility software and the developers were told to spend a lot of time on the forums, official and unofficial, to find out exactly what the customers are having trouble with, what they are asking for. No amount of focus groups and paid market research can make up for actually going to the people using your software in the real world and seeing how they're doing with it.

Market research is all that companies that make physical consumer products can do, but software companies have the advantage that their users tend do go on forums and complain about problems, or ask for new features. The most successful companies are the ones that give people what they want and they know how to farm this information.

 

[Akka]

We hear a lot about the "silent majority" of players who are enjoying Civ 5. I've only posted a few things here and there, because basically, I can't stand all the negativity.

Funny thing, I've posted very little on these forums, because I can't stand the fanboyism.
And I'm actually serious here. People with different opinions will obviously be irritated by the idiocy from the other side, and if I can trust you there is plenty from the "whiners", trust me that there is also plenty from the "fanboys".

 

[stethnorun]

Funny thing, I've posted very little on these forums, because I can't stand the fanboyism.
And I'm actually serious here. People with different opinions will obviously be irritated by the idiocy from the other side, and if I can trust you there is plenty from the "whiners", trust me that there is also plenty from the "fanboys".

The thing is, I just don't see that happening with Civ 5. I have yet to see "This game is the best game ever made!" I see tons of "Very fun game, will get better with patches to iron out the bugs and balance." The pro-Civ 5 side seems very rational, calm and measured. The anti-Civ 5 side seems anything but. I just don't see fanboyism going on here.

 

[ridge]

I generally avoid commenting on games. Somehow, though, this version has broken the core mix of production, research and food. Drop a city and spam gold. Same with choices and strategy. My choices are gold and units. The technology tree has become a decision tree for nearly exclusively picking the next best unit.

 

[ridge]

The thing is, I just don't see that happening with Civ 5. I have yet to see "This game is the best game ever made!" I see tons of "Very fun game, will get better with patches to iron out the bugs and balance." The pro-Civ 5 side seems very rational, calm and measured. The anti-Civ 5 side seems anything but. I just don't see fanboyism going on here.

I have no problem with push-back - that is what forums and conversations are about. Some people get entrenched in their opinion and they have a hard time with conversations - like those that go zombie on "fair and balanced" politico-entertainment.

 

[charon2112]

I try to stay away because reading all the hate threads makes my throw up in my mouth a little. But I just can't help myself, it's like staring at a car accident.

We hear a lot about the "silent majority" of players who are enjoying Civ 5. I've only posted a few things here and there, because basically, I can't stand all the negativity. The complaints that people have seemed either A) unfounded or B) "it's not Civ 4". It's hard to even have an intelligent debate with these people because of their strong bias. They throw around words like "2k fanboy" (not even realizing the 2k is the publisher, Firaxis is the developer) whenever someone says they are enjoying the game.

If most players are anything like me, they are simply waiting for all the whiners to get bored of ranting and just move on so we can have a laidback, fun community that plays this fun game.

I am the silent majority and I'm staying silent until it's worth talking about Civ again.

 

[Daniel D]

I mostly lurk in Strategy and Tips now...too much hyperbole here at the moment.

 

[knug]

The vitriol is what gets to me. I don't know what percentage of those that are the most vocal and critical of the game were those that pre-ordered, but I find it hard to believe that in light of so many games coming out unfinished or buggy as hell that so many smart people would opt in for a pre order of a brand new game with a long history of ambigous game launches. Then to only scream about it here or 2kgames. Or steam. Especially those that wanted their money back. Instead of doing any kind of research or waiting until those of us who had planned on buying the game soon, knowing the risks could post thoughts and complaints and praises on the boards, they bought it blindly, and I don't have a lot of pity for them. It would not have been that hard to wait a couple weeks, when people who could not start the game listed all their specs to compare systems.

I bought my game 2 days after release. I knew going in that it was going to have lots of bugs, as most new games these days do, and that it would be a while before things were flushed out. I knew there may be a chance that the damn thing wouldn't even start, according the hate speech on the various forums. I knew that in time that it would become a fantastic game with a long life. I made a concious desicion to buy the game, bugs and all. My cost/benifit analysis was basically, "On one side, the game might not start but hey, this is my first 'new release' of a civ game. I want to experience it from the start, and grow with the community, and learn as I go along. I would rather play from the start bugs and all, so that when the game is finished, I will be at a place to fully enjoy all the game has to offer, than wait a year or two until the game is finished and miss all the fun." I knew I was buying a beta version of a game, and I was fine with that, considering how far Civ IV came from its release version.

Though I can understand the complaints, I think the best place for the complaints about the bugs is the bug reports threads, and the complaints about gameplay styles and mechanics, shouldn't really be complaints, but reasonable discussion in General Discussion, or better yet in the mod forums. The gameplay mechanics is something you licensed, and for better or worse, if you bought the game, you bought whatever comes with it. I certainly don't mind civ players being vocal about things they would like to see in the game, but that is not going to happen a week out, and a thread in the mod forums would be more helpful.

By the way my gaming experience has been altogether positive, i've got about 82 hours so far, and after turning off the intro movie the only annoying bugs were partial alt-tab-sort-of-functionality and worker units not finishing their improvements until I hit the build button again and losing a worker turn. And I've done about the only reasonable thing to do. Upload a save game and make a bug report. Easy as pie

 

[skallben]

I find the atmosphere in the strategy sub forum much less vitriolic. I suggest we all go there and let the boring folk stay here to scream until they hopefully, eventually, just pass out.

Yes, that and Ideas&Suggestions forums.

 

[Fezzik]

"The first rule about Strategy Forum: You do not talk about Strategy Forum."
"The Second rule about Strategy Forum: You DO NOT talk about Strategy Forum."

 

[jprc]

A "Silent majority " works for both ways...

You like the game as it is and stay quiet. Because you are busy playing, or simply is bored by forums (or by internet, or no internet -...)

You hate the game as it is (like me), and you stay quiet, because you have nothing more to say that have been already said...

It is 50% 50% as no one can count the "silent players", and nothing say that it is 80% vs 20% concerning this "silent majority", nor I can say that are more players in this silent group with a negative feeling about this Civ V...

Until you express yourself, you can not be really "quantified/qualified" in a forum...

Hence, I do not think this thread is fact driven.

 

[Zalcron]

ive been playing the civs since the begining and i for one like V it is a lot better than unit spam crazy IV, that used to go mental with corperation units, unit stacks. Not to mention dumping religion and spying etc in my view is a good thing i never really used it anyway.

I have played two games of 5 and have really enjoyed them. Albiet the diplomacy is a bit naff but otherwise i think it is a well balanced game. The combat is so much better now you cant rely on mass numbers to win, you have to really plan attacks and defence accordingly.

Yes there are a few flaws but nothing that patches and mods cant sort out in time. All the negative comments seem to be from fanacitcs of IV. I got some miffed with its stupid stacking and spamming that is stopped playing it over a year ago.

My only real gripe like i say is the wierd no sense diplomacy (why do ai characters remain annoyed with you so long??) and the unclearness of some of the pacts etc.

I also like the addition of city states, buying land, supply limitations of units i.e oil only supplies so many units that makes perfect sense. (after all how could one oil well supply an entire army in real life?)

All in all V in my humble opinion is a welcome addition to the series. Okay i am probaly not as anal as some players as i never really exploited corporations, religion or spying which is why i dont miss them form IV but i say a job well done.

 

[MonorailCat]

You hate the game as it is (like me), and you stay quiet, because you have nothing more to say that have been already said...

Looking at your post history, you are the opposite from quiet.
You posted in at least 6 threads about hating the game.

 

[katipunero]

free speech is what drives the so-called marketplace of ideas. indeed, the solution to bad speech is more speech. notwithstanding the occasional trolling and tasteless kibitzing, I find the general discussions for Civ 5 instructive and helpful, and more often amusing than otherwise.

I find the claim that one's opinion is representative of the true sentiment of a "silent majority" too presumptuous. Such bare assertion is a cheap attempt at proof and substance by drawing the persuasive authority of a fictitious group. It seems to me that the "opinion of the silent majority" gets amended, rehashed and transformed every year or as often as there are individuals who proudly claim ownership over it.

 

[klokwerk]

We hear a lot about the "silent majority" of players who are enjoying Civ 5. I've only posted a few things here and there, because basically, I can't stand all the negativity. The complaints that people have seemed either A) unfounded or B) "it's not Civ 4". It's hard to even have an intelligent debate with these people because of their strong bias. They throw around words like "2k fanboy" (not even realizing the 2k is the publisher, Firaxis is the developer) whenever someone says they are enjoying the game.

If most players are anything like me, they are simply waiting for all the whiners to get bored of ranting and just move on so we can have a laidback, fun community that plays this fun game.

I am the silent majority and I'm staying silent until it's worth talking about Civ again.

Agreed 100 %

 

[BufordTJustice]

I agree with the OP. What happens now is exactly what happened when CIV4 was released. Unluckily it is flawed and unfinished. But it has a high potential and I am convinced with the second add-on we will have a gem just as CIV4.

At the moment I finish some CIV4 games and silently wait for the first one or two big patch(es).

I remember the difference between the strategy and tips and the general forums as well. Exactly the same thing. In the general forums it would go like "OMG!!!!!!!! A spearman just whupped my TANK!!!!" Today it is "Why is the food symbol an APPLE? THAT SUCKZ!!!" (okay maybe a bit exaggeranting here...)

In the strategy and tips, the people who enjoy the game have their forum. Their input is the base for the continuous improvement of this game.


Regards,

Buford




P.S.: I accidentally wrote "exaggeranting". Isn't that cool?

 

[CornPlanter]

The side effect is that now many people sustain from criticizing Civ 5. Me, for example. I very rarely write anything negative, tho I do see and I do want to discuss many negative things. Why? Because my posts would be lost in the sea of whining. With so many whining nobody takes any criticism seriously anymore. I am sure I am not the only one thinking this way.

 

[jprc]

MonorailCat

Originally Posted by jprc
You hate the game as it is (like me), and you stay quiet, because you have nothing more to say that have been already said...

Looking at your post history, you are the opposite from quiet.
You posted in at least 6 threads about hating the game.

Perfectly exact Monorail... Unfortunately you did not read well as I never said that I stay quiet !!!

 

[Akka]

The pro-Civ 5 side seems very rational, calm and measured. The anti-Civ 5 side seems anything but. I just don't see fanboyism going on here.

You have obviously very selective reading ability then.
I can find several of your OWN POSTS in this VERY THREAD that are choke-full of condescending fanboyism and insults. Even this very quote above just makes me roll my eyes.

Half of the "arguments" from "fanboys" can be summed up as : "any critics made on the game are because some people just want Civ4.5".
In other words, the very act of not liking Civ5 design is already considered an example of being an idiot that can't stand change. Not what I would call a reasonable stance.
Not to talk about the overused fanboyists cliché that are just omnipresent in ANY launch of ANY game, like handwaving any criticism by saying that "people who complain are the most vocal because the one having fun are busy playing and not posting on the forums" - not that it's always false, just that it's ALWAYS used, and actually doesn't adress anything, as it's not an argument but just a way to IGNORE a bad input regardless of its value, which is not an intelligent answer, but a childish "putting hands on your ear" gesture.

 

[falconne]

The thing is, I just don't see that happening with Civ 5. I have yet to see "This game is the best game ever made!" I see tons of "Very fun game, will get better with patches to iron out the bugs and balance." The pro-Civ 5 side seems very rational, calm and measured. The anti-Civ 5 side seems anything but. I just don't see fanboyism going on here.

You mean the "pro Civ 5" side that dismisses any post criticising Civ 5 as "You just wanted Civ 4 with better graphics, go play Civ 4 instead" without actually reading the actual complaint? Some of us wanted a better game than Civ 4, not a sequel to Revolutions.

There are far more walls of text on posts critical of Civ V with details of exactly why some mechanics don't work or are too simplified for a Civ series. They usually get refuted with a general variation of "Go play Civ 4 instead".