Will there ever be a Civ5?

[Lambiorix_be]

I am starting to think that there never will be a Civ5. What do you think?

[Willem]

So what if there isn't, Civ 4 is a very good game anyway. There's lots of years of playing left in mine.

[johnmcd]

Why wouldn't there be?

There has been nothing wrong with sales of Civ IV and its expansions.

The market has been widened to consoles and side products (I'm not a fan of Rev, City or Colonization II). This looks to be the steps of someone with a marketing plan - which a Civ V must surely be at the middle of.

I really think there will be, I'm nervous it will be designed by marketeers though.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by johnmcd
I really think there will be, I'm nervous it will be designed by marketeers though.

While this is certainly a valid concern, I'm hoping they learned their lesson about the difference in reception between well designed and poorly designed games with Civ 3/ Civ 4. And given the quality of Civ 4, I think it is reasonable to assume they have.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Seedle
While this is certainly a valid concern, I'm hoping they learned their lesson about the difference in reception between well designed and poorly designed games with Civ 3/ Civ 4. And given the quality of Civ 4, I think it is reasonable to assume they have.

Those are wonderful glass-is-half-full thoughts, Seedle.
OTOH, remember that history is for repeating, and complacency begets carelessness. Witness Wall Street.

I want a few Civ4:Colonization elements in my Civ5, please.

[LDiCesare]

There will probably be one because Civ IV has been quite successful. It'll probably sport flashier graphics, because that's about the only thing that can really be improved, considering the moddability and gameplay of the current game. So wait till Civ IV graphics look too ugly to buy to the average dude and someone might fancy doing a Civ V.

[ColdPhoenix]

They've released a new version every 4 or 5 years so if they keep to form we should have Civ 5 by 2010.

That said, LDiCesare makes a good point.

[Blaupanzer]

Given the number of products they have labelled "Civ4," seems more than likely that there will be a Civ V just so they can resell the whole product line, redoing all of them, one at a time. I would think such an event will begin at least two years after the Civ:Col product settles down. As I understand it, all three main Civ 4 products sold well as have Rev and expectations for Col are high as well. So, no reason not to extend the franchise.

[Lambiorix_be]

Originally posted by ColdPhoenix
They've released a new version every 4 or 5 years so if they keep to form we should have Civ 5 by 2010.

That said, LDiCesare makes a good point.

Still it wouldn't be the first time that a good game (series) ends even when there was sufficient support.

Following LDiCesare point that only the graphics will change but not the game then firaxis may conclude it ain't worth the investment...

I guess that the graphics can be improved even on the Civ4 engine?

[wodan11]

I personally would like a more open ended tech tree.

e.g., have the gameplay such that the "default" is along the lines that history has gone.

But, should the player so choose, he could pursue advanced pneumatics early, or steam technology, or what have you. Particularly if you have no contact with other areas of the world. There should be some "bleed through" for cultures which have contact.

For example, the Inca were purportedly quite advanced in medicine and in some other areas. Yet they knew nothing of gunpowder, semi-advanced metallurgy, and other technologies.

Taken to an alternate universe, which is what Civ does, I as a player should be able to pursue some of those alternate technology lines.

Whereas in CIV I have to know steam power before I can discover medicine. Wait... what?

There are some very interesting science fiction alternate universe novels which deal with cultures based upon advanced genetics, or steam power, or what have you. It would be nice to be able to do this in CiV.

(Keep in mind the default especially when a beginning player loads the game should be the "normal" tech path.)

[wodan11]

See... what CIV lets me do is recreate Earth's history, but within limits and along the same lines.

There's nothing that allows me to recreate history with a totally fresh start, and where I can honestly prioritize in totally new directions. THAT's what I'd like to see in CiV.

As mentioned, I do think there should be some bleed through. e.g., if I have contact with a civ, and it researches X, then I should get some amount of research toward X for free.

Basically, let's change the tech tree to have prereqs of only what honestly makes sense from a physical sciences standpoint. NOT because of what actually happened. Because in CiV I do not want to recreate what actually happened. I want to create a brand new world and a brand new history.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by wodan11
As mentioned, I do think there should be some bleed through. e.g., if I have contact with a civ, and it researches X, then I should get some amount of research toward X for free.

There are some mods out there which provide that. Hephmod Beyond, for instance. If you play it, don't come complaining that AI civs won't trade for very-obsolete techs, since they have gained substantial research for it through your suggested bleed-through.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Jaybe

There are some mods out there which provide that. Hephmod Beyond, for instance. If you play it, don't come complaining that AI civs won't trade for very-obsolete techs, since they have gained substantial research for it through your suggested bleed-through.

Two things.

1) The bleed through is a secondary point. It is ancillary to the main desire to allow a more flexible tech tree.

2) AI implementation must be interpreted in the context of the gameplay. You bring up a good point, which is: how would the AI perform under this? Nevertheless, we can't casually throw out the current AI under a proposed hypothetical Civ 5 system, and use that as an implied opposition to the proposal. I think we have to expect and demand a good AI under Civ 5 which fits within the Civ 5 context. If all we get is a Civ 4 AI, then obviously that isn't good.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by wodan11
... I think we have to expect and demand a good AI under Civ 5 which fits within the Civ 5 context. If all we get is a Civ 4 AI, then obviously that isn't good.

According to Sid Meier in PolyCast #50 (26 minute mark, lasts 2 minutes), the AI is not MEANT to simulate a human player, only to provide an "entertaining experience for the player". Yes, hearing this saddened me also.*

As an alternative, I can only recommend vigorous support for using and advancing Better AI, both now with civ4 and in the future with civ5.

* With a competent AI, we could have different difficulty levels based on advantages given to the HUMAN player instead of to the AI. It would also probably advance heuristic AI models for future games.

[snoopy369]

Jaybe, to a large extent that comment means that most players don't want a competent human player, they want a fun game to play. A strategy game needs to have opposition at the right level - not too easy, not too hard, and in the right manner. Lots of people like SP far more than MP - and a truly human AI would be like playing MP. The SP folks would not like that, as the game wouldn't be as interesting for them.

I think Sid has a lot of theory-based knowledge of game design, that goes well over the heads of most of us - and occasionally forgets this, and says things that sound bad if you don't have his level of understanding of game design theory...

[wodan11]

Jaybe, that comment was in context of the game. I don't have a big issue with that goal for the AI. However, I do think we need to extrapolate the comment to different games.

"The AI is not MEANT to simulate a human player, only to provide an "entertaining experience for the player in Civ 5."

[joncnunn]

On the base topic. Of course evenually they'll be a Civ 5, but I'm thinking probably not for a least a while.

Say if the version of Windows after Vista (or the one following that) doesn't run Civ 4 then Firaxis will time a release of Civ 5 that runs on it next November.

Or when machines the average person has are a similar level above the ones people had when Civ 4 was new vs when Civ 3 came out and Civ 2.

[ColdPhoenix]

Originally posted by wodan11
As mentioned, I do think there should be some bleed through. e.g., if I have contact with a civ, and it researches X, then I should get some amount of research toward X for free.

They already have that in Civ4 as the technologies are quicker to research if other civs know it.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by ColdPhoenix


They already have that in Civ4 as the technologies are quicker to research if other civs know it.

That mechanic works regardless if you have contact. I'm thinking of a stronger bleed through but it only works if you have contact.

[ColdPhoenix]

Fair enough. I always thought it was odd that the tech costs were reduced when there hadn't been contact. I guess the reason was to help isolated civs.

[wodan11]

There are other ways to do that. I think artificially inflating tech progress both isn't very historic and isn't very interesting gameplay. It turns every game into a clone of each other.

How about providing effective alternate victory types? e.g., enable an isolated Civ to have a good cultural victory. Right now you really need multiple religions to do that, and that means if you're isolated then a CV is almost certainly not an option. Whereas that could be one of your best options in CiV.

Alternately perhaps there could be mechanisms whereby the more you're behind the more "catch up factor" is applied. Not only is this useful for an isolated CiV, it also is good game design to help prevent snowballing and "rich get richer" runaway games where the leader is impossible to catch.

There also could be tech paths that make more sense if you're isolated because they have few prereqs or fewer branches in the tree. e.g., if you know you have a lot of neighbors then you're going to get a lot of bleed through, so if everybody is researching different branches of the same basic path then that's the most efficient for everyone involved. If, OTOH, you're isolated then if you research one or more standalone parallel paths then that would make more sense for you. And perhaps those tech paths have bonuses the more isolated you are.

[LDiCesare]

Not to be disrespectful, but most of these gameplay proposals can already be coded in Civ4. Look at mods like Fall from Heaven orRhyes and Fall to get an idea of what can and has been done.
But these gameplay changes are either too small for the casual player who's not an addict, not very important to many people, and generally don't make enough difference to warrant a new game. It doesn't mean a Civ 5 wouldn't feature them, but it's unlikely.

Right now you really need multiple religions to do that, and that means if you're isolated then a CV is almost certainly not an option.

I disagree. I've won Cultural Victories while isolated. Unless if by isolated you lean never meeting any other civ, but someone will just build a caravel and make contact some day.

it also is good game design to help prevent snowballing and "rich get richer" runaway games where the leader is impossible to catch.

That's not necessarily a good idea. People who spend lots of effort early on to get a lead often dislike that this lead be worth nothing or little afterwards. Again, such mechanisms can already be modded in. Stability in Rhye's does something like this.

You can also redo the tech tree, so any change to the tech tree would just be a (small) mod or a patch, not something worth making Civ V.

[Blaupanzer]

We talked at one time about what we'd like to see next, like a more robust economic model with booms and busts and an economic victory; or a more flexible population satisfaction model based on new concepts over time, e.g., tribalism to feudalism to nationalism to socialism along the lines of the current model's population dissatisfaction without emancipation. Further work also could be done with great people giving a boost to different aspects of the civ for limited periods simply by their very existance, separate from their use as a game device. I know there is a thread or two on those musings somewhere in the archives.

[johnmcd]

There are a stack of things that would make a Civ 5 worthwhile; the question for Firaxis isn't if there are enough improvements to make but when the new product is saleable.

I'd be amazed if it's not in early development.

[wodan11]

LDiCesare, your objections boil down to "that can be modded". I might point out that Col could be modded yet it's a saleable product.

[rah]

It's really a very basic question that can be answered quite easily.

DID THEY MAKE MONEY ON CIV IV?
IF YES, then there will be a CIV V QED

[Willem]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
We talked at one time about what we'd like to see next, like a more robust economic model with booms and busts and an economic victory;

With the introduction of Corporations, there's lots of room for improvements in this area. I'd like to see early industries being developed, sort of like in Colonization, where you can actually produce something for trade.

Another area that could use a vast improvement is the Worker and Governor automations. There's been so many complaints about how poor these are that having them completely revamped would justify a new game, even if nothing else was changed. And diplomacy could use a number of improvements as well.

[pedrojedi]

I think Civ IV will have a fairly long lifespan, as compared to the time between III and IV, but this is just a hunch, not based directly on any theoretical thoughts as well devised as some that you brought here.

The only thing that comes most readily forth to me is that Civ V should be a gigantic game, with enough material to the experienced player to make easy-to-do mods that recreate all these scenarios that are being sold separately. I know I would like that.

Being able to create new technologies, create/download figures to these technologies, devising diferent worlds or perhaps only future technologies (allowing an do-it-yourself Alpha Centauri), diplomatic options and effects, new Civs...

Ok, this is just crazy talk - that would just screw their money-making.

Or not? I keep thinking about the "D20 effect" translated to a "generic computing game", that easily transforms you a Civ game master. With books that made huge cash... Why wouldn't that be good with Civ? I know the comparison isn't good, but I hope you see the point.

Such a Supreme Civ would be the ultimate game, and anything else would just expand more and more, offering new scenarios and options, eventually a graphic revamp.

Sorry for the long useless post.

[LDiCesare]

LDiCesare, your objections boil down to "that can be modded". I might point out that Col could be modded yet it's a saleable product.

Yes that can be modded but mainly it's too minor a change to be seen by a casual would-be buyer.
That is why I say it could be included in a patch, maybe an XPack but even that's unsure, but definitely not a new version, because you can't sell/market minor features like these on their own.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Yes that can be modded but mainly it's too minor a change to be seen by a casual would-be buyer.
That is why I say it could be included in a patch, maybe an XPack but even that's unsure, but definitely not a new version, because you can't sell/market minor features like these on their own.

I didn't say it would be the main marketing / selling point. Simply that it's something I would like to see in the game when it DOES come out.