|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Dec 20, 2005 18:52:22 GMT -5
I present exhibit A, also known as Gamespy's #1 PC Game of the Year: goty.gamespy.com/2005/pc/index12.htmland their further commentary here, under Turn-Based Strategy Game of the Year: goty.gamespy.com/2005/pc/index29.htmlOf course, you could argue that Gamespy doesn't know what they're talking about. (They only make their business on games, after all.) You could argue that Gamespy is biased, or that they can be bought, maybe. ...but then you'd have to take it up with IGN. Game of the Year again!: bestof.ign.com/2005/pc/22.htmlAnd Best Multiplayer Game of the Yearbestof.ign.com/2005/pc/17.htmlLadies and gents, I'll grant you that Civ had a few problems with the launch. Lots of games do though, and the speed with which Firaxis is responding (many of you know what I'm referring to) is outstanding.1400 Players? 680 or so active daily? Those were C3P's numbers during its Golden Age - during its heyday. We have those numbers already... and reviews like the ones you just read above guarantee... things are going to get even bigger after Christmas time. TBS will never have the raw player-draw that FPS and RTS has; that's a fact of the genre. But don't tell me Civ 4 MP sucks: www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/civilization4THIRTY-THREE reviewers can't be bought. Don't tell me Civ 4 MP is dead - with 1400 registered members in the first few months, and a very promising Christmas purchase rate ahead of us (most stores have very few copies that I checked out)... Civ4 doesn't suck. Civ MP isn't dead. Civ MP is alive, well, and the road ahead looks glorious.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Dec 21, 2005 10:33:03 GMT -5
1400 Players? 680 or so active daily? Those were C3P's numbers during its Golden Age - during its heyday. We have those numbers already... and reviews like the ones you just read above guarantee... things are going to get even bigger after Christmas time. 680 people daily? Well the number of reports for the past 4 days have been 460-386 Thats more like 50-60 players, note how many days people have been idle for outside top 170ish. C3P in its golden age? "463 Matches" - Yesterday, does that mean its currently in its golden age? Cool Facts The game must have a big advertising budget, because i have seen adverts all over the place, that alone will garuntee a certian level of sucess. I dont doubt the game will get bigger cuz every magazine is singing its praises, and this will boost sales, but its just a really funny post. No one is saying CIV MP is dead, just general constructive criticism, some about bugs and others about some fatures they may not like.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Dec 21, 2005 16:45:41 GMT -5
Facts about CIV4Players:
We have had 882 players active in last 3 weeks.
We have over 650 ranked players (people who have won at least 1 match).
We are on track for about 15,000 matches reported this month.
Anyone who has been in the lobby knows that Ladder matches are just a small fraction of the total games played.
Is the game perfect? Of course not. Every version of CIVILIZATION has taken 3 patches before it stabilized.
We have communicated many desired changes to the Firaxis team. For example, I am reasonably confident they will implement the ability to be in Game Setup and to talk in lobby at same time (as the unsupported program civ4fans does) sometime in the next 45 days.
We have fans of CIV3 and fans of CIV4 and some people (including myself) are fans of both. There is no reason to pick and choose. Buy both disks and use them frequently.
Happy Holidays, SPM
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Dec 21, 2005 22:10:05 GMT -5
1400 Players? 680 or so active daily? Those were C3P's numbers during its Golden Age - during its heyday. We have those numbers already... and reviews like the ones you just read above guarantee... things are going to get even bigger after Christmas time. 680 people daily? Well the number of reports for the past 4 days have been 460-386 Thats more like 50-60 players, note how many days people have been idle for outside top 170ish. C3P in its golden age? "463 Matches" - Yesterday, does that mean its currently in its golden age? Cool Facts The game must have a big advertising budget, because i have seen adverts all over the place, that alone will garuntee a certian level of sucess. I dont doubt the game will get bigger cuz every magazine is singing its praises, and this will boost sales, but its just a really funny post. No one is saying CIV MP is dead, just general constructive criticism, some about bugs and others about some fatures they may not like. The 680 figure is the number of players ranked(won atleast one match and haven't been purged, which also applies to C3P as well. As to C3P, it is doing well, but you quote the one above average day this week, there was also a day with only 182 matches. So on average this is not C3C's golden age. Prehaps not you, but some people here are already proclaiming C4P dead, if there is a issue it's that our vet players just aren't selling the ladder to all the n00bs well enough yet. That would be the challenge we face over the Christmas season. CS
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Dec 21, 2005 23:35:24 GMT -5
Yes but not all vets enjoy civ4 as they had c3c..this makes it harder to "promote". You play well all game often on defense cause 2 players rushes you, you still manage to gorw a bit but are pinned in your land. You score 800 points and are ahead by 140 with 8 turns left when poof, they plop all these empty cities just out of reach and all go past you in score. Those final ten turns are killing me. I love this game in SP it is great, I truly enjoyed the scenerios in the CCC. Variety and excitment but this 8 on standard lakes stuff with inca/egypt as a neighbor...well you are done without resources. I miss my ladder, How many ctons did we manage to win in last turns by landing boats full of archers? Or the adrenaline of seeing a huge stack on a double move and throwing reinforcementsin with all your might..sigh..maybe Im missing something caue I suck worse at this then c3c. Yeah C3C was more "repetition" but in a fun way. Yesterday I played a ladder cton in civ4. Turn 11 I had 2 inca rushers and an egyptian warrior by my cap. I spend the whole game without making a single worker as I had no horse of iron. What's the fun in that? Some of the scores and recources placements will have to be fixed or this game will never be as popular as C3C. In civ4 we all get great growing land and that is way cool. But often we cannot grow the tiniest bit cause we are swarmed. The "noobest" player with inca 8 tilesa away from you can mess you up for a whole game. And please!!!! Can someome make a mod/scenerio where one can make a darn colony
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Dec 22, 2005 7:26:27 GMT -5
i think the problem is resources are so important now, and whether u do or dont get copper at your cap can be the difference between winning and being choked to death
the non resource units simply dont compare to the resource units and because battle results are so stable now, things can start to seem a bit sterile
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Dec 22, 2005 9:50:02 GMT -5
Perhaps some new, non-resource dependant, units are needed. In C3C you can effectively defend or even attack with the spear/archer combo. Sure, it's not as good as a powerfull UU; but it's something you can work with. It seems CIV4 has no option for the player without quick access to resources. That's pretty bad imbalance.
I think the game needs a major overhaul. The game dificiencies are pretty obvious to ladder vets as they have C3C MP as a benchmark. Having no such benchmark, many of the new players haven't discovered these dificiencies yet; but they will. If the game isn't fixed, and pretty soon, interest will wane and we will see declining participation. Also, the cool graphics draws player interest initially; but this is a novelty that will wear off.
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Dec 22, 2005 11:40:19 GMT -5
actually, i just find the graphics annoying they add nothing imho
map scrolling is also way too slow
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Dec 22, 2005 14:05:16 GMT -5
Yeah but then strategy games have never been about graphics good or bad. Scrolling sucks but the arrow keys are much faster, used in conjunction with the mouse it's just as precise too.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Dec 22, 2005 20:43:37 GMT -5
Im not sure if this is applicable in this thread but these are the reasons i think some people are turning of CIV.
Addressing the balance issue, the situation we have here is we have very few units and very few cites, for a long long time. The way it worked in C3C was achers were not as powerful as swords or horses but they were way cheaper, although only 5 sheilds diffrence it was actually more then that, beacuse it was very easy to make a city produce 10 sheilds, 1 per turn. But now with only say 5-6 units (Often less) before someone can pounce on you the superior units are much much better, they can be produced in almost the same time, so we have equal number of units and not equal strengh. I understand what fraxis have tried to do, by eliminating big lag causing 70 stacks, by reducing stack number you reduce flaxability. SoD were just another tactic. Older civ player are prehaps finding this twidding with 5-6 units fustrating, also it allows less skillfull players to really be overly effective.
Another issue prehaps turing some away is the shere amount of red tape in the game. The biggest and definatly the most annoying is the red tape on placing cites, i mean OMG. Micromanagment was an unfun element..NO this is. Just out of curiousity what model was this based on?
Waging heavy war early is crippling, i mean you have unit costs eating you up, but if that wasnt enough they introduce something called unit supply cost, aka mess your reseach up cost, if you attaking with a sizable amount of units. The fact that you have been building soo many milatry units which will probally be crushed and maybe out of date should be cost enough.
Why even bother having boats, your border have expanded a million times so you can see a 2 for movement thing coming like 4 turns before it lands, and you have very few cites so its hardly likely to be weekly defended.
There are so so many brilliant ideas that have been implemened by fraxis, that really keeps you on the edge of you seat but i feel red tape is really reducing the fun element of a game with HEAPS of potential, im not sure how SP guys feel about this, but this is my opinion.
Edit:: Stuff like unstable lobby which crashes when you tab, or not being able to connect i can toatally live with and am very confidant fraxis will fix these problems in the near future, but things about the game itself wount be changed, so my personal fun level has a celing.
|
|
|
Post by umbra on Jan 2, 2006 12:30:44 GMT -5
HAHAHA Fred , so Think about this, those report yuo brag about, dont mean mutch. dose testers for such game stuff are paid, and they allways give good.
CIv4 looks great, when you play it for the first time, it feels good 2,
so its only Natural that someone playing it for 1h thinks its great, and gives a good rev of it.
but seeing pepople that have played for civ all its life, comming out and Saying how crap it is, and it it is.
Civ4 is a bad game, its ok for a few games, then its like Booooring, the game is just messed up. And i dont mean bugs, LOL and to think all of this bragging about Civ4 was made up for Mp fromt he start.
LOL then why are there allmost no bugs when you play Sp.
and alot when you play Mp, its just strange, Civ3 is bby far a better civ game, than Civ4 will ever be.
Its just sad, to think alot of pepole have been trixed to use cash on the game.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 2, 2006 15:51:38 GMT -5
Well we are all entittled to our opinions Umbra, but even if you think C3C is a better game, your statements about testers are very untrue, 99% of testers get paid nothing at all, my name is in the credits and I recieved nothing for 1.5 years of effort.
And if you really think C3C is a better game then go play C3C on C3P it's still a thriving community and you can leave us who enjoy CIV in peace.
CS
|
|
|
Post by umbra on Jan 2, 2006 15:57:55 GMT -5
Oh no Cs i Didnt mean to say you Beta testers was paid, i know alot of you did a Very Very good job, and if it where not for you, i think Civ4 would be even worse of, it would be like a nice lookig tic tac to game. What i meent to say, is that those pepole whom write for Gamespy, and other game Magazines, dont play the game very mutch. And maybe your Right, What was expeccted of civ4 was maybe a bit to high. since we could only read of what to come, and not get to see how it would work out. i love Civ4, but it sucks, it could have been made into so so so Mutch more. There are alot of good ides, in fact i am having a real hard time finding any bad ones, they just aint worked out so the work, its all nice in the head, but when it comes real in asspect of play, it just dont seem to work. And as zzZhenon will say it. that we all hope there is plans for such big Exp rhater than small Patches, witch only fix the copy cats ;D
|
|
|
Post by Levi on Jan 2, 2006 16:38:07 GMT -5
I can't say why game reviewers gave civ4 a thumbs up, but I can say that I don't play civ4 because the game isn't fun to play. They sold out to the idea of hi-res graphics being more important than game balance.
I have not read the reviewers opinions because they are not as important to me as the opinions of the internet community. CIV is being panned by gamers, who cares what reviewers think.
As a community, we would have been better off if they had first fixed the problems with civ3 before starting to work on civ4. Now we are stuck with c3c and all its, as of yet, unfixed bugs, as well as civ4, which is barely a playable game. It looks to me like this is the end of the civilization legacy.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 2, 2006 17:41:11 GMT -5
play it more than a few months, it'll grow on you (the bugs will be fixed, indeed many have) if it doesn't float your boat still I'd love to play you in a c3c future or ancient; you were always one of the good guys Levi
|
|
agent_x7
Settler
Agent of Truth
Posts: 65
|
Post by agent_x7 on Jan 2, 2006 17:42:18 GMT -5
Levi, I remember you. I think civ 4 is a very poorly made game comapred to civ 3, with the crap-ass graphics and all... However, I think the resource situation has been improved. Making iron/copper and uranium/oil interchangeable for some units is a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Jan 2, 2006 18:01:00 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that Civ3 was a better game than Civ4.... but I would say that the 2nd expansion for Civ3: Conquests is better than civ4.
I can't wait for the 2nd expansion of Civ4 for it to fix the game and make it more complex. Micromanaging 4 cities is childs play, micro managing a 20 city empire in civ3 while trying to conquer/ defend is exciting and takes skill. I think I'm starting to miss Infinite City Sprawl.
Civ3 = Build an Empire Civ4 = Build a small Kingdom
|
|
|
Post by Magzi on Jan 2, 2006 18:13:06 GMT -5
Unfortunately, making a game is about making money. These days the kids want fancy graphics ( I know I have a teenage son!). The rest of us have to put up with this and try and find the game underneath. I'm still hoping the mext patch will sort more out!
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Jan 2, 2006 18:29:34 GMT -5
Hmmm. civ4 is great game. Zhenon wot is ur prob I dnt see u playing but also i played c3c with u only once. Maybe ur forumboy...ok then enyoj here. Magzi maybe u must play more. Try 1v1 to learn many aspects of the game,dnt be afraid of lossing. Winning and lossing are parts of our life.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 2, 2006 19:10:59 GMT -5
There are new things to micro which most players havent found out till now. Sadly i have to agree to point 2 - the managing of big nuking empires in civ3 (espacially future) needed load of skill (I cant do anymore) and felt just great.
Still u can afford in epics also about 20 cities which is about same as in civ3
and I like the fight system with different strenth vs diff untis as I dont like that muhc that for example Catas defend twise as good as bowman
Thats really a point that they didnt make civ3 conqu run better was something like a presight to civ4 were problems are very much the same. Just very bad costomer service to leave civ3c as it is. Somehow I should have not bought civ4 after that to make em pay, but .... I m dumb and bored of other stuff
|
|