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

[Harovan]

Cort Haus

Nothing to add here.

[Zinegata]

This is probably not going to be the best first post for a newbie here, but this thread is just so wrong in its premise that I had to speak up.

Civilization is unique in that it is perhaps the first computer game franchise to ever incorporate fan feedback for its games. This this did not start with Civilization IV. It started as far back as Civilization II!

If you don't believe me, read the Civilization II manual and Brian Reynold's excellent "Designer's Notes" section. And mind you people were not just making suggestions. Some were even offering full-blown applications to remake the game from top to bottom, the ancestor of today's mods!

Thus, recruiting old-time Civilization fans as beta-testers wasn't just a smart move. It was just a logical continuation of what had already been a long-time tradition. Civilization is a game A game is meant to be enjoyed. The way to improve the game is to get feedback from the people who already play and enjoy the game!

Now, does that mean that these beta-testers automatically become supportive of the game? Of course not! Beta-testers are rarely given any form of compensation, save for the opportunity to play the game before the rest of the public. Thus, the "quality" of their compensation will depend entirely on how they enjoyed the game. If a beta-tester is unhappy with the game, he or she will probably make it known. Why would you protect something when you're not being paid to do it, and your only compensation is something that brings you no enjoyment?

A far simpler explanation (and one far more plausible) as to why beta-testers aren't posting feverish rants complaining about the game is because they, for the most part, actually enjoyed playing it. Some of us may not enjoy it, but I think the people Firaxis chose represents a good slice of the existing civilization community.

When the beta-testers do do criticize, most people don't notice it because it's usually done in a constructive manner. As the OP himself mentioned, most of the people recruited to beta-test are mods and staff. Well, aren't people chosen to become moderators precisely because they are mature, fair, and logical? And aren't these three qualities necessary for constructive criticism? A complaint based on emotion, without fairness, and without logic is not a criticism. It is merely a rant.

And the entire premise of this thread indeed fills all three qualifiers, making it nothing more than another rant.

[Skanky Burns]

Even if we assume for the moment that the site owners and beta testers were bought off by being given beta copies (not that I think they were bought off, mind), the rest of the community aren't affected by that. Regardless of how eloquent the beta testers are or how trigger-happy the mods are with stamping out opinions they disagree with, the community's view will come out eventually.

A simpler explanation is that the community is actually enjoying the game. From their first impressions, of course. It is still much too early to judge the game.

[VetLegion]

Zinegata, good post overall , but I disagree with the conclusion.

[eris]

VetLegion, I think you are just jealous that you weren't part of the Beta team and the conspiracy.

I know I am.

[Solver]

A far simpler explanation (and one far more plausible) as to why beta-testers aren't posting feverish rants complaining about the game is because they, for the most part, actually enjoyed playing it. Some of us may not enjoy it, but I think the people Firaxis chose represents a good slice of the existing civilization community.

When the beta-testers do do criticize, most people don't notice it because it's usually done in a constructive manner. As the OP himself mentioned, most of the people recruited to beta-test are mods and staff. Well, aren't people chosen to become moderators precisely because they are mature, fair, and logical? And aren't these three qualities necessary for constructive criticism? A complaint based on emotion, without fairness, and without logic is not a criticism. It is merely a rant.

That's exactly how I feel. I really enjoy Civ4 now, and I enjoyed it in the testing process. Claiming that I haven't said anything negative is simply wrong, since I have, but I indeed do not post rants - if I post something negative, I try to be constructive or at the very least reasonably justify my negativity in a given question.

[Arnelos]

I've known a number of the people who were beta testers for this game for years. I have nothing but the utmost respect for most of the ones I know. Well, except Trip, but that should be obvious! Just kidding! Or am I?...

Anyhow...

I was not a beta tester myself and took no part in this process until buying the game. I have had considerable difficulty with the graphics for the game, but having BEEN a beta tester for other games before, I don't blame this on the testers. When you're playing a beta for a game, you are playing something that you are specifically *told* is an incomplete product. You are there to test for bugs, yes, but you are there to test for gameplay and you are pretty much never going to get to play a completed product as a beta tester - when the product actually has all of the assets IN the game, they release it. There will always be stuff missing that will get filled in before release; graphical issues that linger that they're still working on before release, you name it. This process is greatly exacerbated when you have a publishing house pushing the developer to rush the product out by a certain date even in a not-entirely-complete condition.

As for Civ4, it is obvious to me from playing the game that the testers, many of which I've known for years, did a DAMN FINE JOB on testing the gameplay and helping Firaxis develop it. That's really the core of their job and they did it extremely well in my estimation. They have every right after the fact to defend their work from stupid nonsense and conspiracy theories such as are in this thread.

The graphical problems with the game, however, are something they can't do all that much about. They are also going to be patched. This is just how Firaxis and their publishers operate, whether any of us like it or not.

The gameplay, though, is FANTASTIC. The testers, who know a good bit about it, defend it with good reason. I also know a number of these guys well enough to say with a pretty high degree of certainty that they wouldn't be defending it unless it actually WAS good. We're talking about people who helped take apart Civ2 and Civ3 down to their bare bones and exposed every AI weakness, nearly every hidden algorithm that could be discovered and understood... even exploited. Guys who had A LOT to say about what were the weaknesses of those games and worked in some cases on mods to make them more strategically interesting. There is no doubt in my mind that they were able to test the **** out of this game with the calibre of analtyical talent I've come to expect from them.

So yeah, the graphics cause issues on a lot of machines (including my own) and the product was shipped as an incomplete product. Welcome to PC game development and especially welcome to releases by Firaxis. The gameplay, though, which the testers defend, is so incredibly good that I honestly have to wonder at the oddballs who whine about it.

When this game is patched (as it will be) and many of the graphical issues are resolved, the game will simply get better. It already has the gameplay down.

I'll get off my soapbox. You guys did a fine job and I'm extremely glad that Firaxis picked a number of guys from the Apolyton community for this - specifically the people they did. My estimation is that it probably greatly improved the game we're playing today.

Thanks guys. Don't let the nutcases get to you.

[Zinegata]

Vet->

Originally posted by VetLegion
Zinegata, good post overall , but I disagree with the conclusion.

Thanks. However, I stand by my conclusion. Evidence contrary to your hypothesis simply far outweighs those that support them. Not to mention some of your initial points were incorrect to begin with.

I'd only like to add one more thing to my previous post. In general, people tend to better enjoy a game that they understand. People tend to wonder why a game is implemented in a certain way, and if they don't understand it they are more likely to post inflammatory posts against it.

For example, when I first started playing D&D I was somewhat perplexed why it used a 20-sided dice (which was hard to find and buy) compared to the more readily available 6-sided dice. However, after some discussions with the D&D community, I found out that the D20 dice was chosen because it allowed for the easy computation of probabilities (in 5% increments), and it was also a neat gimmick useful for attracting new players. I haven't complained about it since.

The vast majority of "positive" posts made by the beta-testers I've seen so far are not at all outright endorsements of the game. Rather, they are explanations to promote a greater understanding of the game. A player who understands why something was implemented in a game is far more likely to enjoy it. Note, however, that not all players will appreciate the implemented features, even if they understand why they are implemented. I certainly dislike Civ III's combat system in spite of knowing the reasoning behind their design decisions.

The exception, of course, is when the reasons presented are simply outright dumb and unjustifiable. But really, none of the posts I've seen so far fit this description.

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

Solver->

Thanks. I'm glad that you indeed had been feeling that way ^_^.

[VetLegion]

Not to mention some of your initial points were incorrect to begin with.

That is possible, but you also suggested that the premise of this thred was "based on emotion, without fairness, and without logic" and thus a rant. That's a conclusion I disagree with. You are of course entitled to your opinion.

[mantari]

Originally posted by 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.

I had MOO3. This is not MOO3.
REPEAT: This is NOT MOO3.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by VetLegion

Not to mention some of your initial points were incorrect to begin with.

That is possible, but you also suggested that the premise of this thred was "based on emotion, without fairness, and without logic" and thus a rant. That's a conclusion I disagree with. You are of course entitled to your opinion.

Well, I wasn't going to nitpick, but if you insist...

1) Without fairness -> The initial post states as fact that the beta testers were wholly supportive of the game and preventing any criticisms of the game. They were taking the "sting" out of the community.

This is unfair as, by being stated as fact, it does not leave open other possibilities. Possibilities such as the simple and plausible one I have mentioned, which is "Beta testers aren't criticizing the game because they simply like the game". Being fair it to leave open room for other possibilities. Your post did not include this breathing room.

Also, your concession that the beta-testing has improved the quality of the game does not count as it is not relevant to the primary issue and premise of the thread - that Firaxis has deliberately subverted the Civilization community by taking its most prominent members as beta-testers to improve its PR.

2) Without logic-> Logic must be supported by fact. Your points are primarily opinions presented as facts. Your conclusions are thus not based upon logic.

For instance, you have said that most people buy games because of word of mouth. While word of mouth is always a great marketing tool (and I know something of this subject because I work do work in the field of marketing), it is only effective if the product is of a high quality.

There are but a hundred or so beta-testers, compared to the expected sales of at least a hundred thousand copies. Assuming that just 1% of the consumers are completely disastisfied with the game, we'd already have ten times more people spreading bad news about the game than beta-testers (theoretically) defending the game! No matter how well-regarded those hundred people are, they'll simply be swamped by the voice of the thousands more who are not happy with the product.

Moreover, word of mouth takes time to spread and is slow to build up momentum. Advertising, and leveraging an honored brand name (such as Civilization) is far more effective in getting people to buy the game. The number of products that have suceeded by word of mouth alone in the 21st Century can be counted using the finers in one hand. All the rest suceeded because of advertising.

"Most" people thus won't buy a product just because of word of mouth. They would most likely buy it because they saw the ads and announcements and remembered the name "Civilization". Word of mouth could add to the sales generated by the advertising, and these sales could indeed be substantial. However, word of mouth can only spread if the product has sufficient quality. A bad product, no matter how heavily advertised or how many "word of mouth" gimmicks are run, simply won't sell in the long run (not to mention it can potentially destroy the image of the brand).

3) Based on emotion-> To be fair, I can't say what sort of emotion you were feeling when you posted this. Humanity has yet to invent a reliable way of determining what a person is feeling, and what their true intentions are. Thus, you shouldn't be getting flak from people who say you are just doing this because you're jealous that you weren't a tester. One cannot prove it as fact.

However, given the length of the thread and the exchanges that have occurred, you have fallen prey to the unfortunate habit of wanting to be right. This is emotional and not logical. An emotional person wants to be right. A fair and logical person wants to know the truth.

You are nonetheless entitled to your rant, as it is the right of everyone to speak their mind. I had merely pointed out that the entire premise of this thread was without basis. I have also now demonstrated that even if something did go on between Firaxis and the beta-testers, it would have been a dumb move to begin with (which, incidentally, makes it more likely that there was no "conspiracy" between the beta-testers and Firaxis to begin with).

It's now up to you if you'd wish to continue wanting to be right.

[RobC]

Originally posted by Solver
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.

Solver, Sid gave me a message to give to you: "You can kiss your royalty checks goodbye, traitor!"

[Jerh9e1k5]

Originally posted by Zinegata
It's now up to you if you'd wish to continue wanting to be right.

I believe that would be checkmate...

Very well thought out posts Zinegata. You make a great a great addition to our community! Welcome

[VetLegion]

*bump*

Check both Apolyton and CivFanatics news sections. Look for news titled "security issue in Civ4, here is how to fix it" and "patch release botched".

Don't look too hard. It's bad press that didn't make the news.

[notyoueither]

Except it's all over this forum.

Why are the discussions allowed to take place?