PETITION: Delay Civ 4 Until Easter...Please Sign!

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Oh, bollocks . Remember, I've known you since pre-Civ3. You'll make some concillatory statements during production and then its Defcon 5 right before release or soon after. And you'll yo-yo between Defcon levels all the way until release.

He just has to cover all of his bases so he can claim he's right, no matter what happens

[yin26]

Sabre2th: That would be clever. But do you think I can proclaim the game pure genius now and get away with it? I've made my bed. Let's see how well I sleep.

[Dale]

Originally posted by yin26
My plan actually is to drop from the boards for a while, let the optimists take back over. I've said my peace.

Goodbye, seeya, au revior! Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by yin26
Sabre2th: That would be clever. But do you think I can proclaim the game pure genius now and get away with it? I've made my bed. Let's see how well I sleep.

Genius? No, but you've left yourself a couple of back doors in your more recent posts in case you do actually like the game. If it doesn't come out well, I suspect you'll just revert to your posts from the week or two prior

Edit: Grammar

[Zoid]

Originally posted by yin26

Dr Zoidberg: Do you know any desperate coders?

Unfortunately no. Otherwise I would´ve realized a few ideas of my own...

[Harovan]

Wholeheartly signed, although I am aware, that it is just wishful thinking.

Other than Yin I think, that Civ4 has a big potential to become the ultimative turn based strategy game, if the announced features come true. While it does not break very far from the tradition (it is still Civ as we know it), it has some elements reminding SMAC (civics - adding some elements of social engineering, unit promotions - allowing to customize units, although not quite as much as with the unit workshop), and it is at least as moddable as CTP1/2, which is awesome if it comes true as announced.

In short - it could be THE civ game we all dreamed of. If there was not that devil, that puts bugs in computer games. Remember Conquests. It could have been THE perfect Civ3 expansion, making the absolutely best of what Civ3 was, if it was not for the presence of said devil. He completely and utterly ruined Conquests into something not worth to play.

Please, both developers and publishers, take your time. Go through the code and find that damn devil of bugs. Exterminate every sign of his presence. Every horn, every hair, every claw, every hoof. Find and wipe off his footprints.

Charge what you must, and if it costs twice or thrice as much as a normal game, so be it. This is not a normal game. It is Civ. I play normal games perhaps for three, at most four weeks. But this game I intend to play three or four years!

Don't let Civ4 become a second Conquests. Easter sounds ok, summer 2006 would be even better.

[Sabre2th]

I'm all for a bug free Civ and of course want as many features (within reason) as possible, but I don't understand why people are so convinced the game is going to have so many issues when released. Granted, it's happened in the past, but under very different circumstances. I'm willing to believe that Firaxis can learn from the past.

Think of it this way:
If Firaxis pulls off Civ4, which it's starting to look like they might, they'll have at least partially redeemed themselves after the Civ3 fiasco (which wasn't completely their fault). If they mess this up too, then they risk losing the majority of their long-time fans. If they're smart, they know that and won't take any chances with this one.

[Harovan]

What concerns Firaxis, I believe, that they learnt their lesson. And the Conquests disaster was not Firaxis' fault. That expansion was given to Breakaway Games. Nomen est omen.

The developers are not what I am afraid of. The publishers are. Granted, their name is not Infogrames anymore (I still refuse to call that greedy lot with the noble and well-sounding name Atari). But what publisher could resist the temptation to cash in as early as possible?

I have high expectations for Civ4, just as I had for Conquests. And I know, if they blow this sequel, the franchise will be either dead or finally hit the shelves of cheap mass entertainment (which is where Civ3 happened to be most of the time, just that it was hardly to be called cheap).

Please don't blow it. You have only one shot left. You'd better take your time to aim this time, instead of shooting quick and missing.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Sabre2th

..............the Civ3 fiasco .....................

I do not agree. I knew this game when Civ III cames out, and I started to play Civ II (yes, I bought it! ) and SMAC because Civ III...
I've played Civ since for the last years, and definetely it's not a fiasco.
IMHO (and I know I'll wake up the lions here), Civ III is so much better than Civ II...

[SpencerH]

CIV3 conquests was the first firaxian 'CIV-type' game that I didnt buy (or even demo). I've broken the addiction cycle and am prepared to 'wait and see' what happens (till easter if need be).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Genius? No, but you've left yourself a couple of back doors in your more recent posts in case you do actually like the game. If it doesn't come out well, I suspect you'll just revert to your posts from the week or two prior

My point exactly

I've seen it before (from Yin, I mean) .

[AeonOfTime]

@Sir Ralph: The Conquests disaster was not Firaxis' fault. That expansion was given to Breakaway Games. Nomen est omen.

I'm confused. In another thread recently (can't remember which one right now) someone said that the conquests expansion was actually the best expansion of the two, and that a lot more time went into betatesting and balacing it, elevating the game to a level where it is really good.

I know for a fact I cannot go back to Play the World or vanilla Civ3 since I have tasted Conquests - and I just keep playing and playing the game. I would tend to say it is a very good expansion too - why do you refer to it as a disaster?

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Aro
I do not agree. I knew this game when Civ III cames out, and I started to play Civ II (yes, I bought it! ) and SMAC because Civ III...
I've played Civ since for the last years, and definetely it's not a fiasco.
IMHO (and I know I'll wake up the lions here), Civ III is so much better than Civ II...

If your first taste of Civ was Civ3, then I don't expect you to fully grasp what people mean by "Civ3 fiasco." For people that knew Civ before Civ3, there were major issues. Firaxis lost half the team in the middle of development and had to make sweeping changes to the game. They never had a chance to make up that lost time. People that played Civ1/2 religiously know that there was a level of immersiveness in them that Civ3 just did not have. It lacked the polish of the previous versions and was just plain riddled with bugs.

Whether or not you like the game has nothing to do with problems that occurred. I like Civ3 too and can't play Civ2 anymore without getting bored, but for its time, Civ3 was nowhere near the level of 1 and 2.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
In short - it could be THE civ game we all dreamed of. If there was not that devil, that puts bugs in computer games. Remember Conquests. It could have been THE perfect Civ3 expansion, making the absolutely best of what Civ3 was, if it was not for the presence of said devil. He completely and utterly ruined Conquests into something not worth to play.

What bugs? I don't remember anything that made Conquests unplayable.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Sabre2th

If your first taste of Civ was Civ3, then I don't expect you to fully grasp what people mean by "Civ3 fiasco." ........................................

I'm tempted to not agree....

"If your first taste of Music was rock'n'roll, then I don't expect you to fully grasp what people mean by "decadence of Music"

You see, this is an statement very interesting, but not necessarely true.