Talk:Civilization World

Time to Move?

Since the videogame is no longer called "CivWorld"... isn't it time to move it to "Civilization World"?--Drdak (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Turn based?

I don't know. This game certainly doesn't feel like a turn-based game. Functions more like Cafe-World or Farmville. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Publisher = Firaxis?

Page lists Firaxis as "publisher". Are they really, or is Facebook the publisher? Then there's quotes from Take-Two guys; is Take-Two publishing this? What does "publisher" even mean in this context? 98.206.218.218 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Change

Since it is no longer called CIV Network, i think we should change the article image to the splash graphic that appears when you launch the game or to another in-game capture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.139.32 (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Updated to use loading screen — Rescendent (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming?

Is it the right time to remove the Upcoming video games category?--31.47.13.48 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Okay, so we have a minor Facebook game that doesn't even exist anymore. The main claim to notability is in the name (and connection to the much more famous/successful/talked about game series by Sid Meier)

References so far, outside of company information, seems limited to announcements that the game was about to start up, and shut down.

I did a little search for discussion re the game, including reviews. I found almost nothing. Metacritic does not have a single review. I found two myself, neither from a big computer game magazine. The fact is: this game appeared with little fanfare, no splash, and mediocre reviews. Then it quietly puttered along for a year or so before vanishing again, leaving few or no articles or other items of enduring notability.

It's time to ask the question: could the little real information there is about this game (mainly that it existed) be condensed on some other page, and then this page be wiped and replaced with a REDIRECT to the section of that other page that gives the mention?

CapnZapp (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability = third party coverage. [1][2][3][4][5][6] and so on. It's a shitty fucking facebook game, but it not wikipedia unnotable as you alleged, so no. --Niemti (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not wrong. However, just because something is mentioned by the world doesn't automatically mean a Wikipedia article is merited. I went through all six of your links: fully five of them could be characterized as a Sid Meier interview; they're promotional pieces for the upcoming game. The last one is about the game closing. In other words, none of them is about the game (they're either about "Sid Meier's been making a new game" and written before the game was launched, or they're about "Sid Meier's game is closing").

I'm not arguing the page should go away because it doesn't meet some guideline. Perhaps using the template was wrong. What I am asking you all is:

Would the little real information there is on this page be better presented as a section of the Civilization (series) page.

This article's lead obviously qualifies:

Civilization World was a massively multiplayer online Flash game in the Civilization game series, developed by Sid Meier and Firaxis Games. It was launched on July 6, 2011 on Facebook with the original name Civilization Network; the game title was officially changed to Civilization World on January 6, 2012. On February 28, 2013, it was announced that the game would be discontinued and was shut down on May 29, 2013.

The rest of the article is, in my opinion, of poor value. Let me explain:

The Gameplay section contains three paragraphs: 1: A sales pitch, using the publisher as source. Almost all of this turned out to be false promises - while saying "Civilization World contains many gameplay elements featured in previous Civilization installments" might be technically true, it has no place in an encyclopedia, since none of it worked in a fun engaging way. It's misleading for us to regurgitate Take2's sales pitch when players didn't find that these elements weren't "contained" in any engaging, interesting ways.
2: Can be condensed into "Unlike other installments in the series the game features real-time combat"
3: As a Facebook game, this paragraph is completely superfluous. Already the lead tells you it is a massively multiplayer online game; no need for explanations such as "it featured online compatibility and had a heavy emphasis on multiplayer".

Re: the Development section I simply think the subject doesn't merit one.

The Release section merely repeats the lead.

And there you have it. Almost no reviews and very little other discussion post launch. Should this article exist only because it can? CapnZapp (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What would be the purpose of deleting this article? What would we gain? I think it should, instead, be expanded. I find it odd that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that this was one of those despicable pay-to-win games. And does anyone know why the game was cancelled so soon? Pulseczar (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)