Why Civ IV is doomed to be a hit? (the very smart move by Firaxis PR)

[VetLegion]

Has the community been quietly pacified by Firaxis?

Having just read the list of betatesters in this civfanatics thread, I am surprised to see that owners of both biggest civ sites, as well as many moderators, other staff and most prominent and respected players and posters have been beta testing the game.

Besides the good side of that which is obvious -- thanks to their efforts we should all benefit from a better game , there is also a downside.

Having all those people beta test has taken much of the sting from the community. I have been reading the forums these couple of days, and I can't but notice that most critiques and accusations get "covered" by an eloquent post from Solver or Locutus or someone else from that list.

I feel that many issues people have with the game are subjective and not objective, thus discussing them won't help any (random seed thing, or tank-spearman), however what these posters do is help stop an avalanche of mee too posts before they get a chance to roll, as well as preventing a general "negativity slant" from developing.

They are in fact helping Firaxis and defending the game to which they are not any more impartial to (having spent much time on it).

Since most people that don't buy on whim or word of mouth buy judging from printed magazine and big mainstream site reviews, and since those reviewers always check what the communities are thinking about the games they review -- is Civ IV doomed to be a hit, even if without merit?

Thoughts?
(*wears his best flame resistant suit*)

[Peets]

Even if they do it, it's still a great game.
Of course you can't please everyone

[Akaoz]

Heh, you mean: Is Apolyton and CFC bought and paid for?

Maybe. Still a good game though.

[VetLegion]

I don't have the game yet, so I can't say how good it is. I'm totaly objective here

[Khaim]

I have the game, and I must say, it's a pretty awesome game.

However, there are some serious compatability issues with certain video cards that are being ignored or dismissed as the video card's fault. The fact that they increased the minimum requirements the day the game shipped doesn't help, either. More, there are numerous places where the game looks unfinished and rushed. The civilopedia is horrible; Civ 3's was better. I still can't figure out what WLTKD's game effect is, nor what triggers it, for example. There are a couple of bugs, some worse than others. The one where you can take all an AIs resources in a peace deal is rather gamebreaking.

In short- they really should have waited another month.

[Nailfoot]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I don't have the game yet, so I can't say how good it is. I'm totaly objective here

OMG! Well, get the game and CEASE being objective! This game needs no defending, as it stands on its on merit better than any game in recent (or possibly non-recent) history.

[Akaoz]

WLT*D:

If a city is especially well-run,your happy people may rewardyou with a “We Love the King”celebration.

REQUIREMENTS

We Love the King occurs randomly to eligible cities.In orderto be eligible,the city must meet the following criteria:

• The city’s population must be greater than 7.

• The city must have no angry citizens.

• The city must not be losing any food because of unhealthi-ness (see “Advanced Cities”for details on city health).

EFFECTS

A city that loves the king pays no maintenance costs that turn,which can be a significant financial boost to your empire.

[SITS]

Re: Why Civ IV is doomed to be a hit? (the very smart move by Firaxis PR)

Originally posted by VetLegion
Has the community been quietly pacified by Firaxis?

Having just read the list of betatesters in this civfanatics thread, I am surprised to see that owners of both biggest civ sites, as well as many moderators, other staff and most prominent and respected players and posters have been beta testing the game.

Besides the good side of that which is obvious -- thanks to their efforts we should all benefit from a better game , there is also a downside.

Having all those people beta test has taken much of the sting from the community. I have been reading the forums these couple of days, and I can't but notice that most critiques and accusations get "covered" by an eloquent post from Solver or Locutus or someone else from that list.

I feel that many issues people have with the game are subjective and not objective, thus discussing them won't help any (random seed thing, or tank-spearman), however what these posters do is help stop an avalanche of mee too posts before they get a chance to roll, as well as preventing a general "negativity slant" from developing.

They are in fact helping Firaxis and defending the game to which they are not any more impartial to (having spent much time on it).

Since most people that don't buy on whim or word of mouth buy judging from printed magazine and big mainstream site reviews, and since those reviewers always check what the communities are thinking about the games they review -- is Civ IV doomed to be a hit, even if without merit?

Thoughts?
(*wears his best flame resistant suit*)

OMG! You're right! Embedded betatesters! Where did they get that idea from?

[vmxa1]

I think the verdict is still out. It reminds me of Moo3. I got it it was full of things to learn and it took me weeks to decide I was not interested in it any more.

This has lots of interesting things, much to learn (how to best use) and looks good.

In a few weeks I will either find it has me or not. So far I have only had a small tug on staying at the table and not doing something else, but I did play many hours yesterday and the day before. I have not felt I need to stay up past my bed time, nor skip a show I wanted to see, so it is on the fence right now.

[Backpack]

I Can be bought.

*Imitates Donkey from Shrek*
Pick Me!
Pick Me!
Pick Me!
**************************
Seriously. Every Civ release has bugs. Every Civ Release some pin head suggests a class action lawsuit. Every time someone of questionable heritage suggests a boycott. Every time someone suggests it's a pre-planned conspiracy and that MarkG is in on it. Someone says it shipped early. Someone claims the publisher set the shipdate instead of the programmers. Someone is offended. Someone else isn't offended enough.

Everytime it's the same complaints.
Everytimeit's the same griping.

Nothing New.
**************************
(I'm not makeing a comment about any individual poster, merely the phenomenon as a whole)
---------------------------------------------------

In other words, "These aren't the droids you're looking for..... Move Along."

[VetLegion]

kwpulliam1973, it is not the same every time. Remember Call to Power II.

[Solver]

Objectivity is a subjective issue .

Do I love this game? Yes. Am I being paid by Firaxis to say good things? Of course not.

The reason you find me addressing complaints is that I genuinely want people to enjoy the game, and most complaints are indeed possible to address. Such as people saying that their games end too quickly - that issue is addressed by playing on the Epic mode and that's simply a fact that I am stating.

Am I impartial to Civ4? No. But I don't think anyone is. And certainly not hardcore veterans. I am doing my best to be objective, though. It's not like I'm saying Civ4 is perfect without any flaws. It's not. But as far as, for instance, bugs go, I in all honesty do not think that Civ4 is a disaster - the ATI problem was indeed huge, but a fix was developed quickly, as for the rest, it doesn't seem any more buggy than your random game. Just read the forums for any recently-released game, it's many people having issues. As always.

Some bad gameplay bugs got through as well, though. The best example is the "take everything from AI for peace" bug. Big, yes. It is, however, a bug that the player decides to exploit, it's most obvious that it's a bug. And, I do not doubt that it will be fixed in the first patch.

And as for the beta testers themselves, Civ4 really, really benefited from their input in many ways. Without this team of testers, Civ4 wouldn't be as good as it is. The concepts would be solid, but the AI would be much weaker and the balance would be poorer. I can't really prove this to anyone of course - to gauge the impact the beta testers had you would have to be one of them, but Soren would tell you the same thing.

The Tank. vs Spearman issue, by the way, is not subjective. Combat in the game operates under specific rules and known formulas, and it is a fact that the probability of a Spearman beating a Tank is extremely small. Under normal circumstances, I think it might be around one in a billion.

[VetLegion]

Of course beta testing was useful

It's not the choice of QA method that is interesting here, it's the choice of people who did it. Both MarkG and Thunderfall? It's a PR dream come true

The Tank. vs Spearman issue, by the way, is not subjective. Combat in the game operates under specific rules and known formulas,

It's subjective whether you think it's a game breaker or not - for example, I couldn't care less even if probability of losing a strong unit to a week unit was significant (I've played Civ 1 without complaints in that regard).

[Ninot]

I think once the veterans of Poly make their decisions independantly, if your conspiracy theory were true, Markos and Solver would have a difficult time of keeping their positivity/negativity under a blanket. There are just too many voices, many of them well respected.

But I highly doubt it is some kind of large reaching conspiracy. THIS GAME IS AMAZING!

[VetLegion]

It's not a conspiracy to cover up a bad game. It's a very smart PR move to get specific people personally involved in the game production - the owners of the biggest sites and the moderators of related forums.