"The Bad Sequel": Sullla's Analysis of Civ5

Gaming site Bitmob has recently published an article written by CivFanatics member Sullla in which he describes his perception of Civ5 as "the bad sequel". In the piece, Sullla chronicles the big picture of Civ5's release and some of its subsequent disappointment.

However, he also addresses the gaming industry as a whole, commenting on a pattern that seems to apply to games failing to live up to the hype:


The timeline of a bad sequel always seems to follow the same pattern. The buildup to the game's release is full of excitement and anticipation, and rises to a fever pitch on launch day. The game comes out, and the fanbase is euphoric! For a few days, anyway. Then the stories start creeping out. Too many bugs detract from running the game. The second play session isn't nearly as interesting as the first, and the third is just plain boring. Influential, long-time community members start posting that the game lacks depth and isn't as good as past entries in the series. These claims are hotly debated, and forums turn into polarized camps of "haters" and "fanboys."

After a month passes and the initial excitement begins to wear off, more and more of the fanbase begins to lose interest. Some of those who initially defended the game begin to join the critics. A mantra begins among the faithful: “Wait for the patch!” Patching will surely solve these issues and salvage the game. The wait becomes interminable, and more fans drift away to other games. Then the developer finally delivers – hallelujah! Only…the patch makes marginal improvements, and nearly everything remains the same. More fans drift away, and the waiting for the next cycle begins. Repeat and rinse until the patching/expansion cycle comes to a close.

For those of you interested in a more Civ5-specific article, check out Sullla’s website for his explanation of “What Went Wrong”.

Thanks to Rob Savillo for the news tip!

Origineel Artikel: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=407659&goto=newpost