Would you rather the Civ community was larger or smaller than it is now?

[Brawndo]

With every new installment in the Civ series, there is the potential for new fans. I for one like introducing people I know to the series. However, judging by the amount of complaining on this site associated with the latest release about "simplification" and "mass appeal", I get the impression most people here would rather have the series pander to a small group of hardcore gamers instead of making some gameplay changes to try to reach to a larger audience.

 

[Akar]

Small but enough to make producing a civ game profitable.

 

[Brawndo]

Small but enough to make producing a civ game profitable.

The thing is, every Civ release costs more to produce and market than the last, so there is incentive for 2K and Firaxis to change the game to appeal to more gamers. Although I think both companies have done a decent job managing community demands, their bottom line is still maximizing profit

 

[rastak]

Bigger the better. More development cash for Firaxis.

 

[Shiggs713]

well if your equating dumbing down the game to more sales, then I'll take the smaller community.

 

[Brawndo]

well if your equating dumbing down the game to more sales, then I'll take the smaller community.

Not saying this HAS to be the case, but it is the general consensus. Typically attracting a larger group of gamers requires making the learning curve less steep, otherwise you turn them off with too much complexity too soon. This is why games like Europa Universalis aren't mainstream (which is more than okay by that community)

It's very hard to please both your traditional fanbase (most of whom hate change as much as the residents of rural Georgia) and new gamers

 

[onedreamer]

what about not larger nor smaller?

 

[mmix2000]

Well, if the game reaches too large of an audience I will definitely lose all interest. Nothing good ever comes from large masses of people. BUt I wouldnt worry about that.

You see, I cannot deny Sid or Fireaxis the attempt to bring in the Average Joe into the Civ flock even if it means I'll leave. But I think its a futile attempt, the Average Joe spends his days updating facebook, toiling at work, doing some virtual farming, few sport games/TV shows, etc. He will not spend his hard earned $50 on Civ5, so what they'll end up with is losing mine and his $50 alike and declaring the franchise dead. The strategy (real strategy for using brains, not the tactical simulations called RTS) market is a niche market, IT WAS ALWAYS a niche market. The size of Civ community is already staggeringly large for that genre, anyone who likes strategy liked at least one Civ game if not more. There is more then enough money here to finance a quality game without reaching for the lower half of bell's curve.

 

[Shiggs713]

I love Paradox Games and their approach, so I'll just stay where I'm at. I still bought Civ5 and am waiting to play it in.... an hour and a half, but I view the simplification with distaste. It will be modded heavily soon to my needs I'm sure.

 

[Wuddel]

Bigger, obviously. More people will get more into it, and "become hardcore".

The challenge here is to make a game that is easy to get into, but becomes incredibly complex as you ramp up the difficulty / play MP. Civ5 might have made a good attempt at that. There is a lot of strategy in the social policies and also in the combat. We will see.

Starcraft 2 for example did a pretty good job in doing so for the RTS-genre. Easy to pick up, hard to master.

 

[Lord Tirian]

It's very hard to please both your traditional fanbase (most of whom hate change as much as the residents of rural Georgia) and new gamers

On the other hand, change and innovation is good. The danger of concentrating on one fanbase is staleness (not to mention succumbing to complexity fetish); by trying to appeal to a larger market, you force yourself to innovate and rethink concepts. And this doesn't always mean dumbing down - sometimes quite the opposite.

An example I like is unhealthiness/unhappiness from CivIV. It's essentially a population growth control, akin to corruption and aqueducts in the earlier games. The change from that (i.e. letting go of a tried-&-true mechanism) allowed for easier, less micro-management driven play for the larger audience - but since it did so by replacing an element (instead of removing it completely), it still gave the micromanagement-loving audience something to tinker and play with.

So, if going more mainstream only means replacing old mechanics with better ones, I'm all for it.

This said, it can be a fine line; examples if you go wrong (in either direction) are Spore and MoO3.

Cheers, LT.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I have a distinct feeling that some people would love to see it smaller, because it makes them feel like part of some exclusive club that makes them smarter/better/more "special" than other people.

 

[Brawndo]

Well, if the game reaches too large of an audience I will definitely lose all interest. Nothing good ever comes from large masses of people. BUt I wouldnt worry about that.

You see, I cannot deny Sid or Fireaxis the attempt to bring in the Average Joe into the Civ flock even if it means I'll leave. But I think its a futile attempt, the Average Joe spends his days updating facebook, toiling at work, doing some virtual farming, few sport games/TV shows, etc. He will not spend his hard earned $50 on Civ5, so what they'll end up with is losing mine and his $50 alike and declaring the franchise dead. The strategy (real strategy for using brains, not the tactical simulations called RTS) market is a niche market, IT WAS ALWAYS a niche market. The size of Civ community is already staggeringly large for that genre, anyone who likes strategy liked at least one Civ game if not more. There is more then enough money here to finance a quality game without reaching for the lower half of bell's curve.

The evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Civ 5 was #2 this week in video games sales on Amazon, second only to Halo Reach. 2k/Firaxis are definitely doing something right.

Traditional wargames and city/empire builders like Caeser and Cleopatra are in their own niche markets, but the Civ series has become more and more mainstream ever since Civ 3 (first one I played, personally)

 

[Shiggs713]

civ3 was my first as well.

I'm not against change, nor a larger audience, I just hope that they have the forethought to see how their changes, additions, and removals have effected the gaming experience. There is potential to satisfy both average joe and raging hardcore fans. Civ4 did this well I thought, average joe can play on noble difficulty, not manage a single citizen and research all the technologies in the wrong order and still win. I can micromanage every last tile, tactically defeat superior enemies, and out fore-think the AI to oblivion. As long as we are near that same base I will be satisfied.

 

[Lord Tirian]

...since Civ 3 (first one I played, personally)

That might just be the thing: CivII (and CivI) were a bit less complex than CivIII - but still have their status as timeless classics; they were simple in a certain way, but not simple as in "dumbed down", but as in "elegant".

Personally, I think CivIII (well, perhaps SMAC a bit more, though the many automations helped a bit if you were a beginner) was the peak of required micro-management in the Civ series.

If you've started out CivIII, I can understand why Civ appears to become simpler; as somebody who has started earlier (and still sorely misses public works from CtP), I see Civ4 (and hopefully 5) more as a return to a certain elegance, that allowed complex and intriguing gameplay without the need for lots of fiddling.

A possibly relevant quote:
"Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better."
— Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

(though I wouldn't say one requires education to appreciate it, it might be just matter of taste; but you find elitism everywhere, even in proponents of simplicity)

Cheers, LT.

 

[mmix2000]

I can't see Amazon ranking as a point in your argument. Civ franchise has sold almost ten million copies over 20 years and each one of us here (or large majority) is in one of those weekly ratings, as I said Civ still has a large fan base. That does not mean there won't be displeased or disappointed customers once the game unlocks and jewel cases arrive, but I am sure there wont be any refund rank lists published.

Nothing good comes from mainstream, only mediocrity. I don't know why you are looking forward to that.

And my first Civ was actually the baord game the preceded the video game and I've been in the franchise ever since. HOwever I feel more and more disenfranchised. Right now the mods are the only things that can save Civ5 for me, I will be very careful in how I define my relationship to the future endevours of fireaxis. AS it stands now there wont be a preorder for Civ6

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That might just be the thing: CivII (and CivI) were a bit less complex than CivIII - but still have their status as timeless classics; they were simple in a certain way, but not simple as in "dumbed down", but as in "elegant".

Personally, I think CivIII (well, perhaps SMAC a bit more, though the many automations helped a bit if you were a beginner) was the peak of required micro-management in the Civ series.

If you've started out CivIII, I can understand why Civ appears to become simpler; as somebody who has started earlier (and still sorely misses public works from CtP), I see Civ4 (and hopefully 5) more as a return to a certain elegance, that allowed complex and intriguing gameplay without the need for lots of fiddling.

A possibly relevant quote:
"Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better."
— Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

(though I wouldn't say one requires education to appreciate it, it might be just matter of taste; but you find elitism everywhere, even in proponents of simplicity)

Cheers, LT.

I'd agree with that. CivIII added a bunch of things that just seemed thrown in for the sake of adding things. Maybe they were good in theory but not in practice (at least in CivIII, some like culture improved in IV). IV WAS a simpler game, and was better for it.

 

[Shiggs713]

or another one LT;

“A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

 

[mmix2000]

A possibly relevant quote:
"Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better."
— Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Haha, nothing could be further from the truth my friend. We are on a pathway to the realization of distopic idiocratic society. Simplicity sells. Big time.

 

[Helmling]

Not saying this HAS to be the case, but it is the general consensus. Typically attracting a larger group of gamers requires making the learning curve less steep, otherwise you turn them off with too much complexity too soon. This is why games like Europa Universalis aren't mainstream (which is more than okay by that community)

It's very hard to please both your traditional fanbase (most of whom hate change as much as the residents of rural Georgia) and new gamers

I think the answer for future civs should be scalable complexity. I'm surprised Civ 5 wasn't more like this, actually. Complexity beneath the hood that won't even show for basic players on the easier levels but is there for us to manipulate on the higher difficulties.