Will we get to Civ 6, or 7, or...?

[Trifna]

Final Fantasy is now going up to FF XXII if not more. What do you believe will be the last Civilization game, from the Civilization franchise? Civ 7? Civ 8? Civ 16?


edit: erm... got a problem: I pressed enter and it didn't let me put the "even more" option.

[Immortal Wombat]

As has been pointed out more than once, Civ 104 would be great.

[Maquiladora]

I bet it wont have stacked combat

[Shogun Gunner]

I think this game will be continued as long as a large enough base is willing to learn the rules and strategy of an increasingly complicated system.

I used to play board war games growing up. The first ones were very playable (Afrika Korps for example), but in the letters to the editor section of Avalon Hill and SPI - two leading magazines covering war games, players would complain that "the game was too simple, they wanted more control over the different factors of decision making in war"

Well, Afrika Korp was a game whose turn was month based and lasted a little over two years -- about 28 turns IIRC. There were about 100 units for both the Germans and the British.

Since people wanted more complexity the game makers made more and more complicated games. In the first games you didn't have to worry about supply, then every game had to track supply...then there were seperate units for it.

The same with airpower...the first games it was a pretty abstract application of the power. People wanted the units. Then they had to worry about the logistics of the planes (supply, basing, what types of missions).

The units started out with three factors using along the bottom the unit ATTACK-DEFEND-MOVEMENT. Just like Civ.

At the end of the complexity cycle, many units would have six or even eight numbers relating to combat. Range and morale were two common factors added. Examples: Sixth Fleet, Squad Leader, Panzer Blitz, Panzer Leader.

The game, in my mind, that epitomized the "enhanced complexity cycle" the wargaming industry went through was Squad Leader. This was a squad level game with every unit, weapon, tank, vehicle used in World War 2. The first box was just the Russian front. One unit was a squad or a (one) tank, or a (one) airplane. You had leaders...lots of them in fact, that had different capabilities. You had a multiple stage turn with phases like "opportunity fire"; "rally"; "movement"; "firing"

The bottom line is that the computer industry prempted the building of new games. Certainly the complexity was better suited for computers versus people. Additionally, fewer and fewer people were playing this games anymore. And that's what will happen with Civ. Eventually it will get too complex or too narrowly defined as to lose appeal to the mainstream. That will be the last version of the line.

Note: I can't believe I typed this all from memory..it's been years since I've looked at the old games, magazines or books I have on this subject.

[Shogun Gunner]

Oh...I forget to mention I voted for Civ 6 just because the Civ is so popular. (People still play Civ2 seven years after it was released) We got two, maybe three more major version releases left before the game itself turns into a model for mankind. Then we can all relax and let the game fight the wars, make the economic plans and do the diplomacy...actually, scratch the last one, the AI will still suck.

[Kuciwalker]

Civ 7? Civ 8? Civ 16?

Civ 1024

(I wish)

I voted Civ6, as it is the highest

[Shogun Gunner]

Well, at least we didn't get a vote for Civ3...

[Optimizer]

As I saw Civ 2 back in 1996, I believed that the sounds, the graphics and the modability couldn't be taken any further without the game losing its soul. That idea was refuted by SMAC. Then Civ 3 came again and proved that Civ could be made still better-looking and better-sounding, still being Civ.

The issue is how long people will enjoy turn-based computer games. If a future edition of Civ isn't turn-based, it just won't be Civ anymore.

But whatever - people still play cards and boardgames, and they are turn-based, aren't they?

[asleepathewheel]

As long as the developers are strong and Atari doesn't do much pushing out the door, then ??? My fear is the inevitable (?) MoO3 of the series.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
My fear is the inevitable (?) MoO3 of the series.

That was Civ3, wasn't it?

[Q Classic]

what if it turns into...

Civ 4000
Civ XP
Civ 2005
Civ 2006
Civ Longhorn

?

[Nikolai]

If the interest is there(and I think it will), Firaxis has said that they will develop it further, right? So I think we'll have Civ for some time.

[alva]

As long as it turns out a profit....

[Nikolai]

Interest = profit mostly.

[VetLegion]

Shogun Gunner,

The bottom line is that the computer industry prempted the building of new games. Certainly the complexity was better suited for computers versus people. Additionally, fewer and fewer people were playing this games anymore. And that's what will happen with Civ. Eventually it will get too complex or too narrowly defined as to lose appeal to the mainstream. That will be the last version of the line.

You are overlooking the fact that Civ III is in many important ways simpler than previous titles


Anyway, I didn't vote in the poll. I don't care for the official franchize actually, I could live with a great civ game, whoever made it.

And as to when will Civ stop evolving. I think one can make an argument that it is very close to that point.