2K lays off dozens of Firaxis employees, mostly those working on Woke Civ7
(www.gamesindustry.biz)
Comments (41)
sorted by:
"We want to get rid of all the white people and replace them with DEI hires and Indians. Thank you for your attention in this matter."
Yeah it’s all going to be Indians. Indians will totally sell you a turd and tell you it looks like gold and smells like roses. Then go off on you for any argument that it’s not gold and roses. No one they work (also all Indians) will disagree with them. The only way is for no one to buy their turd.
But think of all the gold eggs to be found in the belly of the golden goose...
Saarivilzation VII
Ironic to have them working on Civilization games, considering they're people only recently got civilized.
Indians cause they make so many good games.
It's a shame things have gotten to the point where I like to see these companies struggling.
I have fond memories of Alpha Centauri, and then the early Civs, and the XCOM reboots were great, some of my favorite games.
But Firaxis, under 2K/Take Two, have been pushing the anti-consumer nonsense of their corporate overlords for too long, and the goodwill has worn so thin it's nonexistent. Thanks for the good games...now suffer and fade away.
Fuck 2K/Take Two.
Normies are finally waking up to the fact these are not companies they grew up with. These are different companies wearing the skin suit of someone that made a beloved game at one time.
Yup, to varying degrees. Some are close to what they were, staff/management-wise, but still get overtaken by the rot...while others are skinsuits from the start.
True, Todd Howard didn't need any one new to ruin Bethesda.
I still fault the majority of that failure on the likes of Emil, aka their narrative lead.
The guy thinks he is this amazing writer, when every contribution he provides is mid at best. All the best writing and setting creation was made by people working for Emil, not Emil himself, but Emil arrogantly believes that he is the reason why those things succeeded.
Until he is gone or at the very least removed from narrative lead, expect only mediocre stories at best from Bethesda. And the stronger his hand in the writing, the worse it will be.
Wait until they realize that's happened with the entirety of the west.
Jake Solomon, the man responsible for basically every non-Civ game in some way and directly every XCom one, was literally forced out after Midnight Suns (a very good game that had no marketability) bombed horribly.
It'll be hilarious when they try to make an Xcom game without him, because his finger is very notable on the franchise.
Mass hire women who don’t play games
Fire all the men who listened to the women on how to make a strategy game
3…….
You forget seeing 10k pajeets in the end credits and wonder why the game is unoptimized.
Everybody knows that the best way to measure the skill of a programmer is by how many lines of code they generate and how many PRs they submit.
Reinvent wheel.
Crash cart.
Complain customers are the problem.
Repeat until fired.
Add Harriet Tubman as an American leader somewhere in there.
They actually make more money through esg funding anyway so yes, it does profit.
ESG money is usually access to loans.
Didn't buy this one or civ6. They have been basically the same game for a few generations l
Civ peaked at IV.
Civ 3 was the best IMO. Civ 4 had the reduced world map size, combat became very easy, tech steamrolling became too easy, etc. Civ 3 was balanced in such a way that learning all techs yourself was really hard, and combat was set up so that you were never completely sure of a win unless you had really overwhelming numbers. Though I know some people didn't like those aspects of it.
Corruption was absolutely out of control in III.
I didn't even play four that I can remember. I remember having an absolute BLAST playing three for years and years.
I do remember playing five and getting bored with it after.... *checks Steam* ... less than 35 hours and beating it on Deity.
Jesus, that was 14 years ago.
It is the worst mainline Civ game by far. As far as I know, sales for 7 were in the toilet. Makes sense the axe came down. A lot more people were keyed in to how the marketing was promo'ing angry brown women at every possible second.
I lol-noped out of that game when I saw Harriet Tubman as a "leader".
It's a good example of how "Not even once" is a viable metric of quality. When you see woke signifiers in a game's design, it's a safe bet that ALL of it will be shit. There are very few exceptions. (KCD2 , Clair Obscur)
Shouldn't have made a Civ game where you can pick Harriet Tubman and Ada Lovelace as leaders, but you can't pick George Washington or Queen Elizabeth I.
Something like 50% of all the industry layoffs since 2020 have been in California. The gaming industry is fine. Western media is where the collapse is happening, and it is 100% the result of DEI and feminism infiltrating, subverting, and destroying all of these companies and their IP. No one can actually come out and say that the layoffs are a purge of leftist retards, but that’s absolutely what is happening. You don’t see quality game devs in Eastern Europe and Asia complaining about layoffs.
The last "normal" civ was 5 and it was the best. There were enough games produced before 2015 to last me the rest of my life.
People focus a lot on the DEI leader choices instead of the biggest thing that bombed the game.
Which was the "you change civs with every 'era'" mechanic that they ripped from Humankind (a failed civ clone no one liked). Something that forced them to decouple your leader from your Civ on every level, and made it impossible for even the leaders people liked to feel right.
Even if every other element of the game was up to snuff, that alone would have tanked this game. Because it goes against one of the very things people play these games for in the first place.
The Humankind decision, and later the Civ 7 decision, screams to me of trying to mask incompetant AI design.
The norm in Civ games/clones is to give the CPU players huge bonuses to make up for the player dancing around their poorly coded tactics.
This leads to most difficulties the player ends up steamrolling past the CPU, and never losing that momentum.
The era reset is such a retarded idea. These games are about planning, min/maxxing. Every era you get a soft reset, and lose huge swathes of territory, cities, momentum? Just to mask a sub-par CPU opponent problem?
Plus it forces you due to RNG, to choose one of the leaders you might not ever pick. Bringing 'equity' to the overall player base stats. it's subversive and manipulative.
Civ is one of those games where the beginning is always the funnest part, and by about half way most people lose the steam to finish. Something it shares with a lot of CRPGs and SPRGs, plus a few others.
You start at equal footing with the CPU and have an abundance of choices in front of you, with a lot of opportunity for organic and unique gameplay to emerge. Even if they are retarded or cheating, lots can happen. By the time everything stabilizes, all the open land is settled it just becomes a slog of either you've already won but need to wait 100 turns to achieve it, or the opposite.
You aren't really ever going to fix that. Even if the CPU get much better, then they will just roll you because they are AI making perfect decisions. Focusing on doing so is a losing fight, as any change to do so (as you described) ruins the game for most people who are playing it just for the "promise" of challenge that isn't fun.
The only solution would be to make multiplayer less cumbersome, so that people are actually willing to sit and play it to the end. But I can't think of a way to do that, even my own family never plays more than 2 sessions on any new map.
The failure of Civ7 wasn't the grunts. The failure was squarely on the idea-makers. The ones directing the grunts to make these stupid woke designs.
It's not surprising considering 4X strategy games based on history are seen as extremely fucking boring by all gamers who are not into those kind of games. And the kind of gamers who are actually into those kind of games are not very tolerant of WOKEness.
So far in this thread I've seen people saying Civ 3, 4, and 5 are best.
Personally, I played Civ 1, 2, 3, and 4. I played the least of 4 and I don't remember it very much. Never played anything after 4. I think I would say 3 is the best. I remember making "mods" by just modifying an INI file--I can't remember if that was 2 or 3. I think 3.
FWIW I played 1, 3, 4 and 6 the most. In 4 I loved the colony/vassal stuff. 6 grew on me with all of the different game play modes. Yeah it has a lot of problems, but the fun outweighs it. 5 was great for multiplayer, but for some reason one of my least favorite single player Civ games.
What are net bookings in this context? Is this about preorders for GTA?
Guess we're not getting Civilization 8 for a while than.
Maybe Blackrock will give 2K a big cash infusion. Then Civ 8 will be out in four years, and in the first campaign you can play as Black Cleopatra ruling Wakanda in the future age at the highest tech level versus the evil slaveholder George Washington in the late Renaissance era.
So Gandhi will be even worse?