CivIV: Beyond the Sword

[Kuciwalker]

Wait: if I have Warlords, and BtS, I won't be able to use any Warlords features in a BtS game? I might as well not buy it then.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Wait: if I have Warlords, and BtS, I won't be able to use any Warlords features in a BtS game? I might as well not buy it then.

Why not? What features are you talking about anyway - Generals and vassals, I assume? These work fine for me in BtS...

[Nikolai]

Solver, I guess you can't answer, but I ask just in case: Will Warlords and BtS be like PtW and Conquest, in the way that the second contains the first one?

[Solver]

Here's a truthful answer: I haven't played Conquests, so I can't compare BtS to that in any meaningful manner . The press release says, though, that you need Civ4 to install BtS, not Civ4 + Warlords... make of it what you will.

[Nikolai]

Thanks, that what I thought.

[Solver]

Realistically speaking, I'm having a hard time seeing how one might have vanilla + BtS but no Warlords. That would have to mean, say, no Warlords traits for BtS civs. Or no unique buildings for vanilla civs if you're playing BtS without Warlords . Too complex.

[Nikolai]

I agree. But one never knows what money greedy persons above the coders decide to do.

[Solver]

Absolutely

[Nikolai]

But thankfully Firaxis seem to have done something right ther after Civ3.

[Solver]

A lot of it, too

[Nikolai]

Yeah, I'm impressed on how it seems that they have turned around when it comes to their treatment of us. Of course, I don't know how much of their earlier treatment of us that was due to the publisher and such. My hope is that they continue the trend, the way companies treat their customers do a great deal for how much I want to support a company. I'm a devout Paradox fan for example, and that is much because they do anything in their power to listen and care for their customers both before and after the game is released. Few companies do that, and I feel Firaxis is in the good end of the scale here.

[Solver]

Hm, I think Firaxis treatment of players was good in the Civ3 days as well, even if the game itself wasn't as excellent. After all, Firaxians did release numerous patches, etc. On the other hand, I can remember a guy from Atari calling me names when I commented on my dissatisfaction with their (Atari's) performance with regards to Civ3 .

Granted, publishers don't get much love, and I certainly don't have love for 2K, but they have, at least, not been horrible so far - which, for a publisher, is good .

[Jaybe]

Atari had a bad rep, but they deserved every bit of it. Their culture of piss on the consumer, short-term greed had been there for over a decade.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Solver
Hm, I think Firaxis treatment of players was good in the Civ3 days as well, even if the game itself wasn't as excellent. After all, Firaxians did release numerous patches, etc. On the other hand, I can remember a guy from Atari calling me names when I commented on my dissatisfaction with their (Atari's) performance with regards to Civ3 .

Granted, publishers don't get much love, and I certainly don't have love for 2K, but they have, at least, not been horrible so far - which, for a publisher, is good .

No, they never were as bad as some other companies out there, but I certainly think they have improved a good deal. But their patch policy still have a long way to go compared to companies like Paradox(if there are any as good as them in that respect that is).

[Solver]

Well Nikolai, the patching policy is largely dictated by the publisher. The developer can not work on a patch - let alone publish it - without getting the publisher's approval in some form. Moreover, Firaxis is actually owned by 2K these days.

To be fair, I can't really compare them to Paradox...