c189# HAVE A LITTLE FAITH

MarkG · October 13, 2001, 02:36

189# HAVE A LITTLE FAITH
Do you trust Firaxis to have done a good job or are there to many signs?

By Orange

fyi, i had 2-3 submissions which should be posted before this, but given the topic i thought it would be best to post it now. normally it would be posted after the civ3 release in which case it would be totally irrelevant. my apologies to the authors of the skipped articles

Sarxis · October 13, 2001, 02:49

A very appropriate and relevant choice MarkG, considering the types of discussions that have been genereated here at Apolyton lately.

I hope everyone takes this article to heart, as it basically destroys the credibility of Firaxis-bashing.

And I am sure that the authors of the other prospective articles will agree that this statement needed to be made at this time.

Falconius · October 13, 2001, 02:52

Do I hear c190 ?

Bleyn · October 13, 2001, 02:53

???

Was something more supposed to go here? Lassie, are you trying to tell me that Timmy is stuck in a chatroom listening to morons blather on about Everquest vs. Asheron's Call and can't get out to post the next column? Quick boy, go unplug the modem.

Sorry, I'm just confuzzled. At least, I didn't do my imitation of Beavis and Butthead being confused.

Edit: Hey, it worked. Make silly remarks about placeholders and the real post appears.

orange · October 13, 2001, 03:07

Well I hope people do take it to heart. I mean, it's ok to say that you're unhappy with something, but it's entirely different to be rude, especially to people who care so much what Apolyton has to say. You don't find that often, and because of that, you shouldn't push it away.

Bleyn · October 13, 2001, 03:07

As for the Column itself, I whole heartedly agree. There has been a LOT of complaining about things people don't like recently.

Often times, I wonder if people even have their facts straight. In fact its gotten to the point where I am more interested in the occasional post to appear in the MOO3 forum than most of what is said in either Civ3 forum.

I just hope it changes when the game comes out, and real discussion can start again.

BTW, is it just me or is the Comment on this Column link at the bottom of that page pointing to the wrong spot?

yin26 · October 13, 2001, 03:11

Quote:

Going back a few months, it was assumed for one reason or another that the game would only consist of 8 civs per game, which brought uproar to the forums. Admittedly, I too was disappointed and skeptical. What happened next? Firaxis gave civers everywhere a sigh of relief, announcing '16 civs per game as easy as a click of the mouse'. Shocking as this may come: it seems Firaxis does have some idea of what civers want.

Ummm: BECAUSE WE B!ITHCED ABOUT IT! Good Lord...

All you 'shut up and don't complain' types owe those of us who made our dissatisfaction plainly clear a great deal, the way I see it. Left up to you, we'd still have 8 civs, ICS, and a number of horrid things in Civ.

Quote:

but how dare any of you 'righteously' make rude and unproven statements that defame a man, a company, a myth, and a legend.

Been a while since I had a good, long gag reflex. Thanks.

orange · October 13, 2001, 03:16

being upset over no MP and posting constructive criticism is more than ok, it's what this forum is BASED on

but many people, you especially, have simply been rude arrogant *******s.

And if Civ isn't a myth, why do you waste so much time here?

cyril25376 · October 13, 2001, 03:17

Good article on the right time. Critic is ok, but in a constructive way.

Imran Siddiqui · October 13, 2001, 03:26

Quote:

Ummm: BECAUSE WE B!ITHCED ABOUT IT! Good Lord...

The arrogance is astounding.

Next Yin will claim that everything in Civ3 was his doing.

MarkG · October 13, 2001, 03:30

Let's NOT have another thread with mainly characterizations of people instead of really arguments, shall we?

Thank you

Sarxis · October 13, 2001, 03:37

Yin, I don't think its your efforts or so much your vocalness that negates your arguments, but your character as percieved by comments like this:

Quote:

Been a while since I had a good, long gag reflex. Thanks.

does.

And what makes you think that Firaxis changed the 8 civ limit because of your rantings? Or the rantings of so many others here? I could be wrong, but at the same time, if Firaxis isn't willing to make a statement about exclusion of MP based on your statements now, what makes you think your statements back then had any influence?

Self proclaimed saviors are a dime a dozen, but good character is rare.

yin26 · October 13, 2001, 04:21

You guys know so little about the last two years its amazing. Did I say because of MY rantings? I said the FORUM'S rantings.

Left up to you guys, Civ3 would be less than HALF the game it looks to be.

And Hero worship of Sid along with blind faith in a money-driven company makes me gag. End of story.

Martinus · October 13, 2001, 05:11

Great editorial, Orange. My feelings exactly!

Martinus · October 13, 2001, 05:13

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
And Hero worship of Sid along with blind faith in a money-driven company makes me gag. End of story.

Wow, yin26. I think you have unveiled the greatest conspiracy of all times. Firaxis is a money-driven company??? Oh my god! This is just horrible.

yin26 · October 13, 2001, 05:30

Lame...

Money-driven means this: If the people to whom they are marketing the game passively sit by and say NOTHING when announcements of 8 civs, etc., are made, they conclude that: "If the harcore segment of the market isn't raising a fuss, we have a green light."

Now if I am up for it, I might give all you people here who weren't paying attention these past 2 years the complete story of how and when things happened. With 8 civs, there was a tremendous outcry on these forums, similar to the MP one, and then things 'mysteriously' changed at Firaxis. ICS is straight from the forums because the vocabulary was from here...and I sent a special outline of the issue to Firaxis about it.

Am I saying that *I* somehow saved Civ3? No. Only you trollers here are putting those words in my mouth.

So I repeat: You passive hero-worshippers here are the enemy to a good Civ3. Everybody who has stood up in his own way by giving ideas or criticism deserves to be applauded.

HOW DARE they speak indeed! Puke.

kolpo · October 13, 2001, 06:37

This artickle is nothing more then flames to people who have another view then the autor of that article. There no single good argument in it.

Earthling7 · October 13, 2001, 06:48

For the first time in a long time I read an article and wish I had written it myself.

I'm with you 100%.

I hope Dan gets to read it.

Ralf · October 13, 2001, 06:59

Quote:

but how dare any of you 'righteously' make rude and unproven statements that defame a man, a company, a myth, and a legend.

Orange - I basically agree with your article, but I feel above is a little too excessive for my taste. Keep things in perspective.

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
And Hero worship of Sid along with blind faith in a money-driven company makes me gag. End of story.

Yin26 quote from the past. Click and read:

"Having said that, I have immense faith in Sid. He has earned it, afterall".
"I will say, though, that they have a tremendous awareness of public opinion and have seen first-hand patch issues and so forth. And I also think Firaxis will trust them for that..."

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Money-driven means this: If the people to whom they are marketing the game passively sit by and say NOTHING when announcements of 8 civs

In this thread Yin26 explains why Why 7 Civs could be a GREAT indicator...

By the way: Im still dont think its possible to play against more than max 7 AI-civs, simply by choosing large or huge maps. Yes, I know about that Ask the Civ-team map-size answer, but that doesnt prove you can choose to play with so many civs directly from the World Setup screen. Its perhaps possible by some "backdoor maneuver", but officially unsupported. The foreign advisor screenshot for example, only seems to support max 8 simultaneous Civs. How do you guys explain that?

Finally, why would they choose such a rigid map-size + number of Civs possible solution? If the player wants to play against 7 AI-civs on a small map - or against 4 AI-civs on a large map, he should obviously be abe to do that. If those map-related Civ-numbers are to be taken literally, then why havent they added number of Civs along with planet-size, in that world-size setup screenshot? I think you guys jumping to conclusions here. Unless this gets officially clarified once and for all, I remain sceptical.

-------------------------- edited:

The world setup has been updated: http://www.multiplayer.it/show.php3?...500/s_img7.jpg

yin26 · October 13, 2001, 07:03

Notice I said "blind" faith in Sid. I trust him...to a point. Obviously I think that the fan can help make the game better. But simply saying 'Don't criticize because he is Sid' does NOBODY any good...not even to Sid.

As for the 8 civs, it doesn't matter what side of the controversy I was on PERSONALLY. The point is still the same: A great number of people here wanted to play with 16, so there you have it. I still think they were going with 8 for the reasons I listed.

BTW: Nice research!

yin26 · October 13, 2001, 07:07

But here's one you missed:

Quote:

Bottom Line: LET'S NOT MAKE CIV3 ANOTHER "PATCH A PATCH" MELODRAMA! If that requires a public or much expanded closed-beta, great. If that means cutting out some features to focus on this stuff, great.

Pretty clear what side of the issue I am on: Reasonable Quality and listening to fans / keeping them informed as much as possibe. And yet still people attack that position.

yin26 · October 13, 2001, 07:10

And as for how more than 8 civs will be possible, I was clear on that, too:

Quote:

And rather than make us hack a .txt file, please just make it a option from the get go for people who want to play against more opponents at once despite the lack of playtesting.

CapTVK · October 13, 2001, 07:35

Quote:

THIS GAME IS GOING TO SUCK...
...or at least you'd think so based on what most of the Apolyton posters have to say, yet what authority do they have to speak out against a game they have yet to play or experience?

Well sorry Orange, but this is a forum about civ in general. The posters here are a little more interested in civ than general. And the authority they proclaim is based on previous experience with civ related titles. And there's a difference between *****ing and critizing. In the same way a movie critic will review a movie. But that doesn't stop YOU from going to the movie is it.

What I find annoying is people who critize the critics. It's only a game, don't you have something better to do?

Quote:

Plain and simple - if you don't like what you hear, cancel your order...but how dare any of you 'righteously' make rude and unproven statements that defame a man, a company, a myth, and a legend.

Oh boy...

Okay everybody, repeat after me!

"Firaxis is GOOD,
Firaxis is my friend....."

"Firaxis is GOOD,
Firaxis is my friend....."

"Firaxis is GOOD,
Firaxis is my friend!"

Ralf · October 13, 2001, 07:42

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Pretty clear what side of the issue I am on: Reasonable Quality and listening to fans / keeping them informed as much as possibe. And yet still people attack that position.

I agree with you on one thing: And that is, regardless if one think their info-policy have been OK, or not - the info they actually DO publicize, from time to time, should have been more sensitive when it came to parry follow-up questions in advance. NOT by answering more questions in the forums afterwards (after all; there are LOTS of Civ-3 forums out there - not just Apolyton, and their time is limited, and after work they DO have a privat life as well - I understand all that), but on the official Civ-3 site.

Take that map-size question for instance. Couldnt the Firaxian who answered that question imagine that people would immediately jump to conclusions, and parry that in advance by adding 1-2 extra lines of positive/ negative clarifications? Just in order to avoid uneccessary follow-up questions?

Ralf · October 13, 2001, 08:02

Quote:

Originally posted by CapTVK
Oh boy...

Okay everybody, repeat after me!

Try to raise the level of your comments, please.

Its not that they (and I) base their confident viewpoints about the game out of thin air, you know. We all know pretty much about the game already (go and read Civ-3 Fanatics impressive Info Center, for instance).

Concentrate on analyzing why you must whine so much about something you havent even played yet. OK, so that MP-feature got delayed, or some other feature wasnt implemented. So what? One get disappointed for a while (and yes, I have also whined from time to time), but then one moves on...

Earthling7 · October 13, 2001, 08:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf
Take that map-size question for instance. Couldnt the Firaxian who answered that question imagine that people would immediately jump to conclusions, and parry that in advance by adding 1-2 extra lines of positive/ negative clarifications? Just in order to awoid uneccessary follow-up questions?

I imagine they want to get people talking ans speculating. It builds up the interest for the game. If it wasn't for the Internet, I might be doing other things, ignoring the Civ3 issue until it comes out. Now I'm here, exchanging comments on the game and dying to play it.

If that's what they want, they're succeeding.

eohian · October 13, 2001, 08:35

Every game developer owes the people who play their games, they owe them for their livelihoods. They are smart to listen to the people who play their games, whether they are Sid or a first time developer.

There is no excuse for rudeness but Firaxis shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt either. This is their first shot at CIV since they were formed and I can only hope it turns out better (MP, I mean) than Alpha.

As far as screen shots, you say they don't have to show us anything, and that is true but they do show us screen shots to keep our interest, IT IS MARKETING so give us a break with the they don't have to do anything but put it out.

It would probably be successful even if it sucks because of Sid but if it does suck, it would be the last one, hence all the marketing to get everyone on board. From what I have seen the guys at Firaxis (and I have met a number of them at the Game Developers Conference) are not listening to the players but rather are developing the game they want. That's fine it's worked before and games have been developed listening to the players and sucked in the past but this group is pretty full of themselves and think they know best, time will tell.

But Firaxis does owe me, I've purchased 4 of their games so don't say any different.

Sarxis · October 13, 2001, 08:39

Firaxis doesn't owe you anything.

You paid for 4 previous products, and 4 products you have recieved.

I guess I just don't see how they owe you anything at all.

Crouchback · October 13, 2001, 09:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Firaxis doesn't owe you anything.

Or from Orange's column:

Quote:

Firaxis has no obligation whatsoever to give you ANY information at all. They could very easily produce this game, put it on the shelves, and say like it or leave it.

What is this, the Firaxis marketing team working out the strategy for their next game release?

Sid: 'Don't tell anyone what we're doing this time.'
Jeff: 'Yeah, and ban anybody who complains from giving us money.'

I have to tell you this ain't a winner. Game companies want us to buy their products they are going to have to provide quality and customer service.

Now I actually think Firaxis understand that and are doing it. But the radical "shut your mouth, and take what your given" group are as out of order and rude as the whinger faction that dominate some threads. There is a middle path here guys, which most of us are trying to tread called constructive criticism.

David

yin26 · October 13, 2001, 09:29

Quote:

But on the official Civ-3 site

Precisely. Just makes no sense how much of the info. was dealt with. While the game itself might stun me and be an A+ product, the PR has been very close to (if not actually) an F. Who cares? Well, I suppose Firaxis could see all the chaos as funny, but somehow I don't think so. Which just makes you wonder why this end of things was --again-- handled so ineptly?