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

[Solver]

Well, Markos certainly got on the test team because he's the owner of this site, not because he's a great strategist .

It's subjective whether you think it's a game breaker or not

Yes. But even those who consider this a game breaker won't consider a probability of one in a billion game breaking. The difference is that in Civ3 weaker units win against stronger units quite often - game breaker for many people. In Civ4, it happens very rarely - those people are either exaggerating the problem or satisfied.


BTW, just head over to CFC if you want to see negativity, although most of it comes from new posters. I am myself blown away by Yin's positive reaction.

[VetLegion]

I am enjoying myself reading some of the more colourful posts on CFC. My favourite line so far: "...It's STAR WARS EPISODE ONE ALL OVER AGAIN!". Couldn't stop laughing for a while

[Solver]

Originally posted by 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.

In a way. Then again, they never had a guarantee of these people liking the game. If it were crap, then it would be a disaster for Firaxis if Thunderfall, Markos, Locutus, Chieftess and I started saying all over that it disappoints.

Moreover, these people weren't just "PR tokens" on the beta team. Chieftess is a good MP player with valuable input, Locutus is not only a modding expert but also actually designed scenarios that came with the game...

[VetLegion]

But would you call something crap after being involved for six months of more?

Anyway, I've thought of a simple solution to the objectivity problem. All involved should have "Civ4-beta tester" additional title. This would avoid confusion and explain why there are so many hippies running around

[Solver]

Well, being involved for months would certainly make me try to do my best to help the game not being crap if it would be. But Civ4 wasn't that case. If it were crappy by the time I arrived, I wouldn't be able to change that significantly.

I absolutely would criticize Civ4 if I honestly though it's a bad game. But I don't .

[VetLegion]

I know, I know, it's a great game and I'm going to love it, or at least my grandchildren will judging by the release date here

[Blackship]

Originally posted by Solver


In a way. Then again, they never had a guarantee of these people liking the game. If it were crap, then it would be a disaster for Firaxis if Thunderfall, Markos, Locutus, Chieftess and I started saying all over that it disappoints.

Moreover, these people weren't just "PR tokens" on the beta team. Chieftess is a good MP player with valuable input, Locutus is not only a modding expert but also actually designed scenarios that came with the game...

But, if you are part of the develpment process, and you have input as to the product you'll be reluctant to post negatively about the product...right? There is the smell of conflict of interest, whether or not there is one, especially as there are so many CIV players that could have been selected that don't run websites.

You see what I mean?

[Solver]

Yes, that is a fair point. I said it, I do admit it that I'm not completely impartial - I can't be, being a part of the development process. I would still post negatively about it if I thought it's crap, though.

As for selecting players that don't run websites, there are two points:

1) The beta team consisted of more people than owners and moderators of sites. Check the list of testers, most of them don't run sites.

2) People who are moderators don't become so randomly. Moderators are among the most hardcore civvers, and the goal of Firaxis was largely to get many hardcore players on the team - that makes sense. Civrules, Chieftess, ainwood, Locutus, myself - these people are first civers, and only then moderators.

[VetLegion]

It could easily be solved by giving beta testers an additional title that says "Civ4-beta tester". Then people could judge for themselves. It's pretty confusing this way. For example, I have seen alva post a lot of positive comments, and only later I see him on the beta tester list (he has no title at all).

[asleepathewheel]

There are negative posts by betatesters, you just don't see as many of them because obviously they have other means of communicating such. I have posted my negative points in the thread on the review forum.

If the game really sucked, I think you would see an extreme backlash from some of the betatesters, many of whom are quite outspoken. After all, nothing is more insulting and irritating than identifying a problem or issue and nothing being done about it.

though if it were me, and I truly thought the game was bad or even just overrated, I would probably just lay low and post in the strategy forum.

[Killazer]

Well it IS a good game so..... not a big problem in this case ;-)

[Paddy]

Good list there. Thank you one and all for your efforts in bringing forth a game we all have such hopes for. Game On

[Solver]

It could easily be solved by giving them custom titles, then people could judge for themselves.

Wouldn't that be a bit like putting a label "they tested the game so don't trust them"?

Beta testers have another way of communicating with Firaxis. Many negative points are being made thus. That's what testers are for.

Besides, beta testers have said negative things about the game, myself too. In the comment threads of my Civ4 preview, I commented that I found the espionage system lacking, for instance. Today I posted that nukes, without modding, are not nearly as strong as they should be. It's just that the positive points I see about the game are far more and outweigh the negatives.

[Blackship]

I am enjoying the game...when I can keep it running. I have no doubt it was improved by the beta-testing system, gamers are usually better at game-play aspects than developers for some reason.

I will say that Firaxis was smart to select the team the way they did.

[Solver]

It's not that developers aren't good at gameplay. It's that they can't do everything at once. You can either code the game or play games to test it, but not both at once. However, collecting a team of players who can and do play is good, especially since the team has SPers, MPers, players of average skill, better players, top players, etc. That provides a good number of different perspectives.