Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[YouR_DooM]

Sorry for my hostility in the previous post.

[Muz]

I had a friend who played it and is apparently doing very well in it (without paying). He was very happy with it, it sounded like some online game where you form alliances and work together with other people. It's apparently a good multiplayer kind of game, can't really compare it to single player games, and he's the type to enjoy 5-min-a-day games.

Haven't actually tried it myself, I don't think I got accepted to the trial.

[BigD145]

I don't like YD's hostility but he's right. CivWorld is stupid, but I've been keeping up with the news about it and I don't think they ever marketed it as terribly much more than a civilization-themed F2P timewaster.

I agree. YD is way over the top with hostility but everyone else in the thread is way over the top with melo drama. "The state of the industry" and all that shit is laughable. You guys sound like old men from every generation lamenting the fact that it was better in their day. Seriously. Are any of you over 30? Why is every one in such a rush to pronounce PC gaming dead?

Why yes, I am over 30. The problem with these shitty little games is that they set a very low bar for other game makers. One company does something and others follow. You end up with a generation of terrible games being pumped out. An entire generation of kids and young adults think it's the best thing since crustless bread (why does that even exist?!), because they don't know any differently, and then they go into game design and make/influence more of the same.

Look at the bright side, maybe it will give him the money to make Alpha Centuri 2 or MOO 4 or what ever.

Nope. Sid used the Civ IV money to make Railroads! and Revolution, which were dumbed down piles of crap. Both could have been good games. They are not.

[Dutchling]

I agree with the old men here
I like Kings Bounty (the original one) more than that I like Heroes of Might & Magic V despite the former being 16 years older than the latter.
Same for the Civ games, one of  the older ones even had the Netherlands as a playable civ : )

[YouR_DooM]

I don't like YD's hostility but he's right. CivWorld is stupid, but I've been keeping up with the news about it and I don't think they ever marketed it as terribly much more than a civilization-themed F2P timewaster.

I agree. YD is way over the top with hostility but everyone else in the thread is way over the top with melo drama. "The state of the industry" and all that shit is laughable. You guys sound like old men from every generation lamenting the fact that it was better in their day. Seriously. Are any of you over 30? Why is every one in such a rush to pronounce PC gaming dead?

Why yes, I am over 30. The problem with these shitty little games is that they set a very low bar for other game makers. One company does something and others follow. You end up with a generation of terrible games being pumped out. An entire generation of kids and young adults think it's the best thing since crustless bread (why does that even exist?!), because they don't know any differently, and then they go into game design and make/influence more of the same.

Look at the bright side, maybe it will give him the money to make Alpha Centuri 2 or MOO 4 or what ever.

Nope. Sid used the Civ IV money to make Railroads! and Revolution, which were dumbed down piles of crap. Both could have been good games. They are not.

What are you talking about? Have you really just found out about casual games? Have you been sleeping under a rock? I can bet CivWorld hasn't even been made by the same team that makes the AAA version of Civ. It's probably some new group within Firaxis.

You really seem to have trouble getting the difference between a game that has a development cost measured in thousand dollars and is made to be playing for 10 minutes per day, and an AAA title that costs millions. There is really no difference between CivWorld and any other browser game. It's just that, a browser game.

Crappy games have been made since the beginning, I really don't see what changed since CivWorld came out.

It's also pretty evident that this game has been made for a different crowd, i.e. facebook gamers. Criticising it because it is not Civ6 is like saying the Mercedes Smart is dumb only because you live in some small shithole and it's not made for you. Newsflash, not everything is made directly for you. I bet so many facebook gamers think Civ is so dumb because it's so complicated. What makes their opinion worth less than yours?

[burningpet]

Nope. sid meier himself was the lead designer and main programmer.

[PrimusRibbus]

I'm just chucking because this is like the tenth time I've heard about "the death of Civ".

First it was SNES version of Civ 1 ("Sid Meier has sold out to the console crowd and is dumbing down the game!"), then Civ 2 ("Isometric clearly means they're moving away from hardcore strategy"), then Civ 3 ("OMG LITERALLY THE WORST STRATEGY GAME IVE EVER PLAYED! CIV 2 WILL BE THE LAST GOOD CIV GAME EVER MADE. RIP CIV"), then Civ 4 ("Wtf! Civ 4 shouldn't even be allowed to carry the Civ name! It's nothing like the other games! RIP Civ!"), then Civ 5 ("KIDDY CASUAL STRATEGY GAME! DLC! RIP Civ!"), then Civ Revolutions ("Sold out to the console kiddies. RIP Civ")... etc. Then there was the outcry over the 2002 and 2010 Civ boardgames because it was a clear sign that the Civ series was "selling out the brand".

So yeah, announcing Civilization's death yet again due to a browser-based spinoff title is a little premature in my book...

[freeformschooler]

The board game part is particular is funny because those look extremely fun to me, even on first glance.

[YouR_DooM]

Nope. sid meier himself was the lead designer and main programmer.

That doesn't change my point in the slightest.

[PrimusRibbus]

The board game part is particular is funny because those look extremely fun to me, even on first glance.

I rather enjoyed the 2010 boardgame, but you have to play it with people who don't take games personally. Backstabbing, fleeting alliances, and treachery are damn near a part of the ruleset and can lead to serious butthurt if you take the game too seriously.

[Grakelin]

Stopped reading the OP when it said "prove facebook games can be good". They can't. It's not what Facebook is for.

I agree with PrimusRibbus. People get upset with every new installment. Granted, I really did dislike 3, and am always confused when people say it is their favourite over both II AND IV.

[Shadowlord]

I had a friend who played it and is apparently doing very well in it (without paying). He was very happy with it, it sounded like some online game where you form alliances and work together with other people. It's apparently a good multiplayer kind of game, can't really compare it to single player games, and he's the type to enjoy 5-min-a-day games.

Haven't actually tried it myself, I don't think I got accepted to the trial.

There are people who seem to love to do this:

Each house/workers gives a set amount of resources according to its size, with additional bonuses given by building wonders or having great peoples. resources which you have to manually collect by hovering over annoying popping icons.

For the first hour its ok, but the scaling is where the scheme really starts to show off. if you want to expand past the 3 population limit, you have to reach 720 food, something which may take you several hours to do. i am talking here about moving your mouse over popping icons and doing absolutely nothing else for three hours. this is more work than game to me.

Might be something to do with operant conditioning.

[burningpet]

Stopped reading the OP when it said "prove facebook games can be good". They can't. It's not what Facebook is for.

Why cant they?

edit - its not like facebook limits game design,  it is simply a method to make your game accecible to a lot of people. if other browser games can be good games, there shouldnt be any reason facebook games cant be.

[EuchreJack]

While this is blantant proof that Sid sold out, he already sold out when he:
1) Created Civilizations 2 3 4 5... instead of a new game
2) Rereleased Pirates of the Carribean in 2004 as almost exactly the same game as the original, just with slightly better graphics... instead of a new game
3) Never revisited the ability to craft your own units as seen in Alpha Centauri

And so forth.

Sorry Worshippers of Sid, your god betrayed you.  Deal with it.

[Shadowlord]

While this is blantant proof that Sid sold out, he already sold out when he:
1) Created Civilizations 2 3 4 5... instead of a new game
2) Rereleased Pirates of the Carribean in 2004 as almost exactly the same game as the original, just with slightly better graphics... instead of a new game
3) Never revisited the ability to craft your own units as seen in Alpha Centauri

And so forth.

Sorry Worshippers of Sid, your god betrayed you.  Deal with it.

Make up your mind, hivemind.

We want [classic game] updated with modern graphics, bug-fixes, and possibly multiplayer (if it didn't already have it, or better multiplayer if it did)! And/or a sequel with a new story!

Where [classic game] frequently included Sid Meier's Pirates (and then from my recollection the Hivemind said "Awesome!"), Alpha Centauri, Master of Orion 1 or 2 (which we have Sword of the Stars or other games for, since MoO 3 was horribad), and Master of Magic (Shadow Magic is fairly close). XCom has a number of spiritual sequels, even a multiplayer remake. There have been calls for a proper sequel (or possibly prequel) to Star Control II by Toys for Bob for ages now (And The Ur-Quan Masters is a version of SCII for modern computers).