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...