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

[wilebill2]

"there are numerous places where the game looks unfinished and rushed." Yes. I think the pro reviews mention "rough edges." The civilopedia is not bad, just needs a bit of polish. The AI peace rip-off glitch will be fixed first patch or two. The graphics card issues get fixed first patch or two. Maybe they will eventually improve the advisor screens. Gosh Civ III/C is up to patch 1.22 e or f, forget which.

Civ 4's minor issues and youthful indiscretions are not to be compared with MOO3's hard-coded birth defects, IMHO.

[VetLegion]

Solver, I only witnessed a couple of cases (one of them Aeson's), so I don't know how often does it happen. Beta testers are very active around the forums and not by any means only in replying to negative posts.

The reasons they are replying vary from post to post and person to person. I can't generalize about that.

[Solver]

Beta testers are active around the forums, yes - in fact, they do account for a lot of veteran users. If you ignore the beta testers, you'll see that the forum is, except them, consisting of new posters and quite a limited number of veteran players.

I can't speak for everyone on the beta team, but I know that I would be very active myself even were I not on the team.

[VetLegion]

Arrian, I don't like kneejerk reactions either. There is a "are you interested in a class action lawsuit against Friaxis?" thread on CFC, did you know that? . Over 500 people voted.

BTW., is it me or are there nowadays generally a lot more Civ IV "negative posts" on CFC than here, even though CFC is usually known for stricter moderating?

[Arrian]

Yeah, CFC is apparently rife with discontent. I'm registered there, but I've always preferred 'poly, so I haven't been reading their forums. But I've heard about it indirectly.

Class action lawsuit That's pretty funny... takes me back to the days of Coracle...

-Arrian

[Solver]

The reason why CFC is more negative is that it come sup higher than Apolyton on Google searches. Thus, new posters who want to voice their discontent are likelier to land at CFC.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Solver
Without saying anything about Intel, T&L and such stuff, I do not think it sane to blame the developer when you can't run the game on hardware that was clearly mentioned as not running it.

Which is the prevalent attitude unfortunately. I've become bogged down in this debate on several threads now, and I very seldom hear people complaining about Intel etc. for sticking them with sub-standard video cards. The blame is being placed almost squarely at Firaxis' feet on this matter.

[Willem]

Originally posted by VetLegion
BTW., is it me or are there nowadays generally a lot more Civ IV "negative posts" on CFC than here, even though CFC is usually known for stricter moderating?

CFC has always had a harder edge than here. There was a time awhile back that some people were down right brutal to any new comers who dared post a question that might have been covered in the FAQ. It's not new by any means.

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
I can't help it if they listened and changed things when I complained.

Well put.

But, the OP does have a point. Not that I think the active beta testers are uncritical to the game (beware! Though of course, there are "other" places to discuss such stuff). I'm prety sure they all would post the very same about the game if they hadn't been on the team.

However, if you look carefully on the list, you will notice a number of prominent names missing, especially from the SP scene.
Now, what do you guess - weren't the invited, are weren't they caught by the game and thus aren't around praising it now?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Doc Tsiolkovski
However, if you look carefully on the list, you will notice a number of prominent names missing, especially from the SP scene.
Now, what do you guess - weren't the invited, are weren't they caught by the game and thus aren't around praising it now?

I look at the list, and I think it has a very broad range of players. I also suspect that many other players were asked to be part of the process, but did not want to betatest a game, or were busy with life and family, or were involved in other gaming interests and projects at the time...

In short, I think Firaxis did a smart thing (get the people who are passionate about the genre), and I have every indication that they listened to the testers for input, based on the type of players who are in the list (civ3/CTP/SMAC). The game has a lot of features from all of those games, and is a huge step forward from civ3 in concepts.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by 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?"

"I have never molested children." Simple, straightforward, and completely destroys the entire premise of the question. Loaded questions are extraordinarily easy to address, as they rely on a faulty premise.

Let's look at my questions and see if they are loaded:

"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?"

These each offer a dichotomy. Do you have evidence or don't you. Is my posting style different or is it the same. Are my points valid or are they invalid. They are not false dichotomies. They do not imply an assumption about you. They do not tie either the "yes" or "no" to any unrelated issue.

None of the questions are loaded. If you disagree, explain how any of these questions qualify as "loaded". That is what you are implicating they are, so justify your accusation. Or is this just another one of your unsubstantiated claims you've "carefully" made?

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.

The question of whether your statements are applicable or not in the manner you used them is something that can be supported with evidence, so I have asked for it. For an analogy, I cannot disprove there is an (arbitrary) god, but if there is no evidence that supports the assumption that the (arbitrary) god exists, then claims made based off the assumption that the (arbitrary) god exists are unsupported.

I am not trying to prove you wrong. I'm pointing out that you have no supporting evidence for your claim.

Your simple sentences were drawing off of "exactly what I was talking about". Which means you are applying the "prediction" you have posted here in this thread to my post. It's not simply just those two sentences involved, but your entire premise of this thread.

I have asked questions which are directed at examining the applicability of your "prediction" to my post. You have failed to answer them.

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.

Your statements are completely unsupported, as you have offered no evidence to support your claim. That is all I wished to illustrate. That you don't know what you are talking about. You are speculating in the dark.

The reasons they are replying vary from post to post and person to person. I can't generalize about that.

Yet you have generalized about it. That is what your OP here is. Generalizations about the reactions of beta testers to negative posts about CIV. Now that I've called you on a specific application of your "prediction", you can't come up with any evidence to support the application you made.

So go back and hide behind your generalizations. You obviously can't handle dealing with specifics.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Blackship
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?

As someone who has spent a lot of time on beta forums for MMO games, this just makes me chuckle. Where a company has ignored faults found by its beta testers or shipped knowing about major bugs, there are always people willing to make their dissatisfaction known, even if it has to be couched in ambiguous terms because of an NDA.

[VetLegion]

Aeson,

I am not trying to prove you wrong. I'm pointing out that you have no supporting evidence for your claim.

That claim being?

[Novaya Havoc]

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?

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

*snip!*

I agree completely. But this is common on ANY "3rd party" discussion forum where the moderators/administrators are "in bed" with the producers.

A big example are comic book sites (ComiX-Fan in particular) where moderators consistently crack down on segments of the community that get unruly toward writers, artists, and whomever else visit their site. There's a personal stake and pride in it -- the developers of the fan product are visiting your discussion board (of choice). That will change the "impartial" element quite a bit.

Or, just look at the mainstream media. FoxNews, anyone? (Heck, CNN?)

So there's a lot of that going on. But it's to be expected. I would be VERY surprised to see any moderator or admin at C3C or Apolyton criticize CivIV or it's launch.

-B

[Aeson]

Originally posted by VetLegion
That claim being?

Take your pick. You keep throwing out more unsupported claims, so there's no shortage of opportunities for you to back up your words with evidence.

--------------------

Statement that my post is "exactly" what you are talking about:

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.

What is exactly what you are talking about?

Has the community been quietly pacified by Firaxis?

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.

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?

It's not the choice of QA method that is interesting here, it's the choice of people who did it.

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.

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

If my post is exactly what you are talking about, then show how it's an example of me being pacified by Firaxis, stopping "me too" posts and general negativity slant, acting as a review to increase sales, a reason why Firaxis chose me to be a beta tester, a smart PR move to have me on board, that I'm an owner or moderator of the forum posted in, and that I wouldn't express my disagreement with Firaxis over any aspect in the game.

-------------

Statement that I had stated that I was objective:

I don't think you are objective, you think you are.

Quote me where I said I think I am objective.

---------------

Insinuation that I was asking loaded questions:

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?"

You have not given any analysis of the actual questions I asked, or explained how your example of a loaded question is applicable in regards to those questions.

(And you're still ducking the questions, even more of them now.)

--------------------

Of course, if you are feeling up to it, you could also address some of the many points I've made that you've failed to respond to so far.

(BTW, have you realized yet that the idea that anyone would want me to represent them for PR purposes is insane? )