Why put out an unfinished game?

[Palfouri]

Now this I can understand and can agree with to a point. An original thought, or at least one that I haven't read before.

And yet it seems all this forum wants is "the same old civ".

 

[Grimberht]

Blizzard and Valve, by the way, are swimming in money. They have development budgets that allow software to remain in development "until they are finished." It's hardly a comparison that can be made without taking that into consideration.

In fact, well after they finish... they actually delay games to come out to milk even more the one they have out.

IMO We should let Take two go bankrupt once and for all... they're so stupid in how they conduct thier business that they deserve it...

They were close to shut down last time (CIV IV) and there're still at this level 7 years later. Hopefully they will be gone by the time CIV VI is out and Firaxis would hopefully get a good publisher.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

I beleive a certain segment of the testing population and internet sales associates (ike 2kgreg) were more interested in getting the game out in order to start selling their DLC & mods for $$ and may have played down the bugs. They sold the idea that the community would accept a less then stellar release which would quickly be cleaned up by the modding community.

No, the 2k marketing folks were trying to get it out faster, in order to avoid bankruptcy. Also will ya' please stop jabbering about the testers it's getting old and your not convincing anybody.

@Revoran: actually it did fix a LOT of bugs, including improving combat AI, once they get the diplo working and get the AI actually building aircraft I will be content.

 

[Vordeo]

No, the 2k marketing folks were trying to get it out faster, in order to avoid bankruptcy.

Wait, does anyone actually have a source for this? I've heard this claim, but always thought it was mostly speculation. I mean, rushing a release to make the current financial statements look good =/= being near bankruptcy.

 

[Surgeon]

Just today I discovered another new bug. Clicking manual control of specialists and not assigning specialists is better than letting the game's AI choose your specialists. Literally, you will get better growth and whatever focus you select (wealth, production, etc) this way.

Your definition of bug is very very loose.

 

[Jharii]

IMO We should let Take two go bankrupt once and for all... they're so stupid in how they conduct thier business that they deserve it...

They were close to shut down last time (CIV IV) and there're still at this level 7 years later. Hopefully they will be gone by the time CIV VI is out and Firaxis would hopefully get a good publisher.

Yeah, I think you need to keep things in persepective. Based on comments like this, I am sure any one of their staff has forgotten more about strategy game design than you will ever know. Even if they read this, though, I am still sure they wouldn't wish you to lose your job.

 

[charon2112]

This confuses me. Your complaint is that V is too similar to the other Civ's? Shouldn't that make the game really great? It sounds like you just hate Civ games altogether.

I got the game this weekend... I don't know about the bugs/missing features many complain about. My main gripe is that beneath the revamped engine and interface, beneath the gorgeous map, beneath all the bells & whistles... it's still the same tired old game of being herded and rushed towards the end of the same old linear tech tree. It's more or less the same Civs, doing more or less the same thing throughout. Too many people confuse tactics with strategy. And of course the entire notion of observing the development of civilizations is entirely marginal. I mean this is the 5th version of the game and it still takes me *centuries* to build a f*cking granary! That was present in the 1st version 20 years ago. *scowls*

In short the game has flavor - all the shinny things - but no depth.




G.

 

[evrett37]

Also will ya' please stop jabbering about the testers it's getting old and your not convincing anybody.

I'll be happy to "stop jabbering" once the testers stop hiding in their little holes and come forward to answer for the condition of the game on release and the lack of any warning. Surely if they have a reasonable excuse they dont need to hide or be protected by censors ?

 

[Gunship_Down]

The game is finished, stop whining like a bunch of es. Civ games always get better over time, but the game is very playable at launch. That constitutes ''ready for release'' by my standards.

 

[Jharii]

I'll be happy to "stop jabbering" once the testers stop hiding in their little holes and come forward to answer for the condition of the game on release and the lack of any warning. Surely if they have a reasonable excuse they dont need to hide or be protected by censors ?

You're in the wrong place then. 2k forums are that way ------------>

You've already voiced your malcontent for Civ5. This diatribe is nothing more than spam.

 

[grallon]

This confuses me. Your complaint is that V is too similar to the other Civ's? Shouldn't that make the game really great? It sounds like you just hate Civ games altogether.

Hate? Not at all - I'm just bored! And disappointed that after 20 years and 5 versions we still have the same basic - and as I said - tired theory behind the game.



G.

 

[Haig]

I think there are definite clues in the game that things were rushed, one of the biggest is there are no ending movies whatsoever for any of the victory conditions, and not even any good statistics for it.

I simply refuse to belive that there was a decision that it would be ok not to have anything rewarding for a victor.

Yeah in old Commodore C64 games you would smash your joystick for hours to simply get a title reading Congratulations! You have finished Forbidden Forest! Please try again!

But seeing the gorgeous starting animation in Civ V, I kind of assumed we'd get the goods in the end too.

 

[Vordeo]

Hate? Not at all - I'm just bored! And disappointed that after 20 years and 5 versions we still have the same basic - and as I said - tired theory behind the game.

Well... yeah. It's the same franchise. I mean, Mario still runs around jumping on enemy heads and no one's complaining about that.

I'll be happy to "stop jabbering" once the testers stop hiding in their little holes and come forward to answer for the condition of the game on release and the lack of any warning. Surely if they have a reasonable excuse they dont need to hide or be protected by censors ?

Why, exactly, are you blaming the testers ahead of say, the developers?

Edit: I actually recall you trying to call out a beta tester who posted on here a week or so back, think you got shouted down by half the forum. Think it was you anyway.

 

[charon2112]

So you've been playing all five Civ games for 20 years each time hoping that the next game would be totally different? Why didn't you just play a different game?

Hate? Not at all - I'm just bored! And disappointed that after 20 years and 5 versions we still have the same basic - and as I said - tired theory behind the game.

G.

 

[Abegweit]

You need to be less sensitive. I covered both possibilities. You were one of the rare. You happened to have an old chipset. I was incorrect in my assessment that "all" ATI cards had this issue.

You need to be less whiny. Why is it that the all the fanbois whine?

This does not change the fact that there were major issues with the release.

This is one of the favourite whines - that the bugs in Civ4 some somehow justify the design issues in Civ5.

Moderator Action: personal attacks are not acceptable on the forums

 

[CivDude86]

Take2's fiscal quarter ended Oct 31. Since this quarters profits is all that matters to investors these days they didn't have a choice.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You need to be less whiny. Why is it that the all the fanbois whine?

This is one of the favourite whines - that the bugs in Civ4 some somehow justify the design issues in Civ5.

They don't, but it's worth noting that there is a rather unfortunate pattern, and that too many people ignore it .

 

[Jharii]

You need to be less whiny. Why is it that the all the fanbois whine?

This is one of the favourite whines - that the bugs in Civ4 some somehow justify the design issues in Civ5.

Please pay attention. I wasn't one that brought up the Civ4 release in comparison to Civ5. Someone else did. And you tried to back up the stance that it was such a smooth release, when on the contrary it was not. I simply pointed out that you were incorrect.

No need to be a sore loser. It's okay to admit you were wrong. No need to get all defensive and lash back out.

Moderator Action: No need to call anyone a sore loser. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Geddy]

CiV should have been a further development of Civ 4, like all the others were developments of the previous versions. Why is this difficult for some of you to understand? It's a dumbed down offshoot of Civ Rev that doesn't develop the Civilization game further at all.

 

[Anthropoid]

CiV should have been a further development of Civ 4, like all the others were developments of the previous versions. Why is this difficult for some of you to understand? It's a dumbed down offshoot of Civ Rev that doesn't develop the Civilization game further at all.

Don't own it, but this is exactly what I gather reading scores of posts across different boards. That to me is the central theme in virtually all complaints by Civ Old-Timers; not a fear of new, not a "hate" of different, not a rejection of change. Just that Civ5 is such a breach of the tradition compared to the trajectory from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4.