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

[Anguille2]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
What insulting rubbish. Maybe I shouldn't even be feeding this troll.

First, i am not a troll (i've been almost as long as you on these forums)
Second, i have currently one CIV 2 and one CIV3 game going on, so i do care about CIV.

What i am saying is, as the concept of CIV is probably one of most appealing to ANY player and that only ONE company produces that type of games (which is a mystery to me), we (including myself...i really have to refrain myself to buy CIV IV) are avid for more and would buy almost anything with the CIV name on it. As i said i would like to see other companies do a TBS on that subject.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Solver
I find VetLegion's point that we would be risking out status as beta testers by saying negative things about the game ridicilous.

Quote me.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by LaRusso
i must admit, being a part of EU beta team, that i was not impartial to the game.

Wow! I didn't know you were a part of it! Great game, I enjoyed it very much. And for honesty,

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Sartaq
Civ IV will sell because it's Civ IV.
I don't know about anyone else around here but I stopped caring what magazines, online reviewers, webmasters, moderaters, beta testers etc. think about games long ago.

Do you buy all games in the market to see what they are like?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Sirian


Firaxis PR had absolutely nothing to do with creating the Play Session. That was all Jesse and Soren.

Soren is PR. I've seen him in chats, in forums... conducting public relations. Humans are not ants to do only one thing, and it's a good thing we aren't.

[Arrian]

Meh. Methinks somebody is just bored 'cause he doesn't have the game yet.

The basic point, that it's good for PR to have well known, respected members of the online civ community involved as playtesters... sure, duh. Many of the people were specifically chosen for their communication skills (intelligent, coherent posts - the better to get across what needs tweaking during testing).

The insinuation that we're going to help shill the game because we're somehow beholden to Firaxis, though, is a tad insulting, and I understand Aeson's (and others') reaction.

My suggestion, VetLegion, is to wait until you have the game. Or, if you don't want to risk wasting money on a game you won't like, wait for others who have the game to have had it for more than, oh, 5 days. Most of the posts so far - including mine - are not grounded in enough playtime to really draw solid conclusions about the game.

-Arrian

[VetLegion]

Meh. Methinks somebody is just bored 'cause he doesn't have the game yet.

I do dislike the fact , but I am not bored.

The insinuation that we're going to help shill the game because we're somehow beholden to Firaxis, though, is a tad insulting, and I understand Aeson's (and others') reaction.

I had to look up shill. I haven't used the term. I knew approximately what the reaction would be like, I've written "wears his best antiflame suit" in my opening post

I still think I've made some good points that deserved to be made. Read Solver's response to my custom title idea.

My suggestion, VetLegion, is to wait until you have the game.

Wait for what?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sartaq
Civ IV will sell because it's Civ IV.
I don't know about anyone else around here but I stopped caring what magazines, online reviewers, webmasters, moderaters, beta testers etc. think about games long ago.

The proof is in the playing, YOUR playing, nowhere else.

You think paying $50 or more just to find out if you like a game is the only way??

[spiralx]

I think this whole argument misses the point that the vast majority of people who buy Civ IV won't ever read or know about these forums anyway - they'll be buying the game based on playing previous versions, reviews or just off of the shelf. The people posting here are almost certain to be buying the game anyway, Firaxis doesn't need to have beta testers acting as PR. In fact they can only lose out really, as if they're critical then that potentially would lose them sales.

But again, these forums are a drop in the water. As ever a vocal minority seems to think that they're actually a majority...

[Solver]

Soren is PR. I've seen him in chats, in forums... conducting public relations. Humans are not ants to do only one thing, and it's a good thing we aren't.

That's not PR, that's getting the information he needs much of the time. Simply hanging out in chat like on release date you could call PR though I guess.

I still think I've made some good points that deserved to be made. Read Solver's response to my custom title idea.

Do you still think I was against that because beta testers would be ashamed or because they would be put to blame? It's simply that I am against any prejudices, positive or negative. A negative prejudice would be that people with this title are saying positive things they don't think. A positive prejudice would be that people with this title know the game better than others - while that is true now, it will cease to be so in a week.

[Arrian]

I had to look up shill. I haven't used the term. I knew approximately what the reaction would be like, I've written "wears his best antiflame suit" in my opening post

Indeed you did, because you knew exactly what you were saying and/or insinuating (whether you said it outright or not).

From the OP:

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?

The insinuation is that we are shilling for Firaxis - that we're helping them sell the game, and that this would "doom" the game to success, even if the game sucked.

Well, you don't know if the game sucks, do you? And neither do those of us who have the game - because it's been out for FIVE DAYS. You also don't know whether or not the playtesters will have any appreciable impact on the online perception of the game: after all, maybe if we're too gung-ho, nobody will trust us anymore and our impact will actually be negative.

I think you are bored. Conspiracy theories are fun when you're bored.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Oh, and for the record - I spent very little time playtesting the beta. I was busy IRL. So I don't really know the game much better than a total newbie and I don't feel that I'm invested in the game anymore than I felt I was invested in CivIII (the development of which I had zero connection to) - and I was active on the CivIII forums reacting to angry rant posts and the like.

As notyoueither said - they didn't have to buy me to get me to post like this. I just don't like:

-kneejerk assumptions/reactions ("I played one game and I hate it, it sucks because I have no idea what I'm doing, didn't read the manual, and I will not listen to anyone's helpful tips!!#%$#@")

-anger due to misunderstanding (if I can offer information that clears the issue up, I will, regardless of my connection to the game!)

If people give the game a chance, understand it, and end up not liking it due to bugs or design choices they disagree with, so be it. It's possible I will be among them.

-Arrian

[VetLegion]

Aeson, accusing someone of "ducking" questions is a simple and cheap trick.

"Tell me, are you feeling better now that you have stopped molesting children?"

See above? It's an extreme example of a question that you "duck". I've never been molesting them in the first place, I will not answer a yes, nor a no, nor will I even allow the discussion to be dragged in this direction by even replying that I am not a child molestor. I will ignore the question, or in your terms "duck" it.

I wrote (in the other thread):

Heh, this is exactly what I was talking about (that Firaxis made a smart move). A negative post and WHAM two beta testers rush to respond in detail.

Two simple sentences, which you can't in any way imaginable prove false. I feel that those two sentences don't need further elaboration (they're simple) and that your questions are of the "changing the direction" type.

Here they are for others to see:

Your insinuation that I am now a "yes man" for Firaxis is rather insulting though. Do you have the first shred of evidence to offer to back it up? Is my posting style in regards to CIV different than my posting style in regards to Civ III? Am I making unsupportable statements in support of CIV, or valid ones?

I will not debate your thoughts about what I am insinuating, nor your posting style in regards to Civ III, nor your consistency, nor the actual statements you made about Civ IV, just because you want me to.

I'm pretty concentrated.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by spiralx
I think this whole argument misses the point that the vast majority of people who buy Civ IV won't ever read or know about these forums anyway - they'll be buying the game based on playing previous versions, reviews or just off of the shelf.

This is a good point. The dynamics of success or failure of games are interesting. I don't know exactly how to quantify the effect communities have on sales. Perhaps it is only indirect - I think most reviewers check other reviews for hints (if only to make sure they haven't made an obvious and embarassing error in the review), and I think that at least some reviewers or important magazines (printed ones and established sites) "dive" into communities to check the pulse of hardcore gamers.

Whether there is something like a "revailing opinion" forming about each game, when does it form and how it forms, and who gets to influence it in which way (and what are the effects on sales), I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

[Solver]

VetLegion: So once there's a negative post, beta testers respond to that. Why do you think they are doing it?