Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
Its a very different situation. With 5, the problem was simply missing features, intentionally omitted by Firaxis to include them in the later DLCs... but the core of the game was still a pretty solid base to work on, even if minimalistic, and the game was built on top of the proven Civ 4 design. They had a good plan to develop the game post release, too. With 7, many players just disagree with the overall structure and the central ideas of the game. I don't see the DLCs changing anything. How could they.
Players who don't like it right now, still won't like it after a few years, so I see as pretty likely that Firaxis starts to decline from here. Truly, if it was even possible to "save" every lemon through DLCs, every game studio would do it. There would be no flops.
Saving it through DLC isn't even possible if the DLC continues to be priced this way.
I think the game is salvageable, and I enjoy parts of it. so I'd like to see it succeed. It has a bunch of flaws, but I can accept the civ switching and curated eras enough that it doesn't make Civ 7 a complete write-off.
But the DLC will compound existing issues at the current rate. $30 for 2 leaders and 4 civs is not sustainable... Crossroads might have been picked up by some as part of the Deluxe edition in pre-orders, but if the same price-content ratio remains for Right to Rule, that may push things past the point of recovery.
The real problem in the long-run may not be the changes the base-game made... it might be that as consumers we're getting 2 leaders and 4 civs at a price that just isn't realistic. Even if this was Civ IV or V (meaning, a less changed-around formula for gameplay), I'm not sure the DLC pricing would work.
The actual problem with any DLC or game changes is Distant Lands. The concept of Distant Lands is built into the game to such an extent that you cant really change anything without removing Distant Lands. And you cant remove Distant Lands without breaking the entire game. Thats why its on rails and broken. Its an unfinished mobile deckbuilding game that lacks polish and quality.
Sid's glory days are long gone although in his heyday, he was an absolute giant and made some truly awesome games. But Sid's been gone from development for a very long time now and his last attempt at a smaller game was a failure so Sid's name on the package means absolutely nothing to me. I honestly don't know why anyone thinks that it means anything more than the brand name. I haven't listened to anything written by Paul McCartney for decades now either. Absolutely great in his time but now? Who cares?
Kind of disagree on this one.
If someone lends their name or likeness to something (say, Tom Clancy, John Madden, Sid Meier, etc.), then they did still make a choice to endorse something or at least profit from it.
Now, there are caveats, because Tom Clancy passed away and it's now his estate managing his name and likeness. So, it's complicated. Madden, too, is no longer here to judge the quality of, or possibly push back on, the content of the Madden football video-games.
But if Sid (who is alive) isn't involved and just sells his name to something, that still reflects on a decision made that is part of the person's legacy. You can sell an IP without selling your name, and vice versa, so it's not like you would have to sell *both* the Civ series and your name if you are Sid.
The Doctor is right to say Sid isn't involved anymore, and hasn't been for a while. But it's still his name on the game, which is why I have to scroll down to the 'S' section instead of having it up in the 'C' part of the alphabet.
So, as a player, as a consumer of the product that the man's name is still a part of, I have at least *some* say, IMO.
The difference between a game developer and a game fan is that the former makes games, and games are made for millions, not individuals.
So I shouldnt build something I believe in?
The post-pandemic economy sucks really, really bad, and prices of goods have doubled or tripled since then, despite the very conservative CPI numbers which -vastly- underestimate real inflation. Gaming is following that trend and I don't think the price hikes are being wholly unreasonable. To start with, devs are probably costing a lot more to hire.
If 100 dollars or euros is a lot of money in advanced economies, what can we say of developing countries, where the games cost the same but the wages are 1/3 or 1/4 the equivalent. Still you find people gaming over there.
Sure, if you're buying many AAA releases a month instead of just one or a few, the cost adds up. But that's your decision only. I just wait for a deal and rarely buy a game on release. Games aren't groseries, they don't get any worse with time... rather the opposite, as we assume its the case here.
On the other hand, when we couple bad prices with bad quality... that's when we start having a big problem.
Why are you asking that?
What you make of "Sid Meier's legacy" for yourself is entirely another matter than attempting to define it for someone else.