Scenarios

[DrSpike]

Does anyone play the Civ4 scenarios?

Thing is, I didn't really like the Civ3 ones, and only bought C3C for the upgrades to the core game. Some people seemed to play the Conquests scenarios (which were more involved), but not that many. Yet Civ4's x-pack is again offering scenarios. I just did a search on 'scenario' for the last 3 months in General and Strategy. I found 2 threads.

So is anyone looking forward to the Warlords scenarios, or are they just a "selling point" that no one actually really wants?

[Solver]

Warlords isn't just scenarios. In fact, vassal states and Generals are the two big new features, and they appear in the regular game. I think it's pretty clear that scenarios are not as popular as the regular game, at least insofar as the community here is indicative, but that doesn't mean they're bad.

From where I'm standing, scenarios may be getting less attention simply because they're a one-off deal. Or they seem so to me. A scenario can be interesting to play through once, then maybe a second time with a different civ (and hence goals). This is opposed to the regular game of Civ4, which obviously has extremely high replayability.

But go play Desert War .

[DrSpike]

The point was not that Warlords just has scenarios. The point was that my perception is (and you seem to agree) that people don't rate them that highly, yet Firaxis spends scarce developer time on them instead of adding more features to the core game that people would like.

[Alexander I]

Re: Scenarios

Originally posted by DrSpike
Does anyone play the Civ4 scenarios?

Thing is, I didn't really like the Civ3 ones, and only bought C3C for the upgrades to the core game. Some people seemed to play the Conquests scenarios (which were more involved), but not that many.

So is anyone looking forward to the Warlords scenarios, or are they just a "selling point" that no one actually really wants?

I loved Civ2's scenarios. Civ3's seemed a bit lacking to me. Some of Civ4's have seemed unbalanced, and many are not as creative or original as some of Civ2's (I personally enjoyed Mars, Midgard, and Post-Apocalypse), however, I remain hopeful for the future.

[Bkeela]

I've no interest in senarios. If I ever get bored of full campaigns, then I might try a senario. But by the time I'm bored with the main game, Alpha Centauri II or Civ V will be out, so I probably won't get around to it.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by DrSpike
The point was not that Warlords just has scenarios. The point was that my perception is (and you seem to agree) that people don't rate them that highly, yet Firaxis spends scarce developer time on them instead of adding more features to the core game that people would like.

I love scenarios. Some people do, some people don't. Matter of preference.

However, I rarely talk about them, what's there to say? Most can only be played a couple of times before they lose replayability value, it's not like the regular game that you can play hundreds of times and discuss all kinds of different strategies and do demogames and the like. So just because there's little discussion on the foum doesn't mean they don't get played (not in the last place because hard-core fans like us aren't necessarily representative of all the million+ people who bought the game).

[Virtual Alex]

I loved Rise of Rome in Civ2, and I loved Rise of Rome and Fall of Rome in Civ3. Those are the only ones I every played, so chances are I probably like them all. I enjoy the veriety to the core rules.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Locutus


I love scenarios. Some people do, some people don't. Matter of preference.

However, I rarely talk about them, what's there to say? Most can only be played a couple of times before they lose replayability value, it's not like the regular game that you can play hundreds of times and discuss all kinds of different strategies

Actually I'm not sure that is true. For Civ2 (I agree with Alexander, Civ2 was the pinnacle of scenarios) the regulars would replay them and try to attain the goals as early as possible. This was aided by some finely balanced and innovative scenarios, which meant there were usually unexplored angles. The playerbase was so much smaller then it beggars the question why this doesn't happen today.

I think the scenarios just aren't that good and people don't want them.

But if you agree with Locutus please post, as I'd like to get a better idea.

[MasterDave]

I vaguely remember a weird dinosaur scenario from Civ2. I liked a lot of the scenarios I played in C3C, especially the various Rome scenarios and the Japan/WWII scenario. Like other posters said, however, they really are not fun after one or two plays, unlike the core game which has tons of staying power.

I think that nobody talks about the Warlords scenarios because most of us have not played them yet, and those who have are likely under NDA not to reveal too much. I did hear rumors about a scenario where you get to play the barbarians and try to mess up existing civs. That sounds very cool to me.

[DrSpike]

But there are scenarios in Civ4 already - 3 with mods that come with the game. People don't talk about those either.

[Solver]

Originally posted by DrSpike
[..] yet Firaxis spends scarce developer time on them instead of adding more features to the core game that people would like.

Thinking like this is a common mistake. Game development isn't a thing where you can say "if they didn't add X, there would be more time for Y". In the case of scenarios, the people creating them are normally not the same people who are working on the "core" gameplay.

[DrSpike]

Duh.

Maybe they could hire more core game developers and less scenario developers?

[Dale]

DrSpike:

Just want to point out if you read the credits you'll notice there's only two Firaxis people out of the 6 who did the scenarios.

Doesn't sound like excess developer time to me. They got the testers to make the scenarios.

Dale

[Locutus]

And of those Trip started out as an intern, I don't know how it works in the US but here in the Netherlands they typically don't get payed.

Also, without the Civ4 scenarios the game wouldn't have had 10% the moddability it actually has, so they were a very, very good investment, even if noone had ever played them.

For Warlords, everyone will have to judge for themselves whether or not the scenarios are worthwhile, after they've played them.

[Nugog]

Granted I've only played a couple of the scenarios in cIV, and I don't think I will be playing anymore.

Just not my thing - I prefer the full game, on huge, on marathon.