What's in Civ4. Just the facts, ma'am.

[Robert]

Buddhism isn't a religion
It's a life philosophy

[Drachasor]

Am I alone on this, or is it a little crazy everyone is arguing over the 3D interface with little or no heed paid to the potential elimination of pollution, riots, and corruption?

I haven't seen anything from Soren or others officials indicating that they plan on replacing the current models with better ones. Does someone have hard information on this, or is it just wishful thinking?

While how it is implemented isn't perfect, I for one would not want to play a Civ game that completely removed these 3 features (especially rioting). They could be changed/improved, but elimnated? I hope not.

Anyhow, am I just being unnecessarily fearful? Was something officially said other than the "elimination of unfun elements"? Thanks.

-Drachasor

[Adagio]

I just hope they're talking about 're-writing' those things, instead of removing them... by 're-writing' I mean coming up with a new idea from scratch...
For one I don't like the way pollution is done now, where all of the sudden some huge "pollution" just pops up "from the ground"... while 're-writing' the idea could be done with just having pollution to cause unhappiness or something*


*Haven't given much thought to this idea, and I believe there's probably people out-there who has given a better solution to this problem... I just gave it as an example

[Drachasor]

True, pollution needs a lot of work to be really good, but I think I'd rather have the current model over nothing. Hopefully some sort of minor population issue, more significant happiness issue. I think there was another thread talking about this though.

Right now I am just more worried about the big "unfun" 3 being entirely eliminated. Everyone seems to be assuming a rewrite, but I haven't seen evidence to believe that.

-Drachasor

[Adagio]

True, we haven't seen any evidence for it...

[Joseph]

I will buy it.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Joseph
I will buy it.

indeed mate

I am more than sure that my wallet and I will be there too

[Heresson]

* Soren plans to kill "unfun" elements: pollution ("whack-a-mole"), rioting, corruption, maintenance, etc. These will be replaced by more entertaining concepts that maintain game balance.

Expenditure of resources by units would be good to remove

maintenance would be a great loss. It could be, and was at least by me, used as an important sometimes factor in civ2 scenarios.

This is not Heroes of Might and Magic. Civ and RPG won't mix, mark my words.

I think that introducing these ideas could be interesting
Anyway, veteran status IS a basic form of experience.

Civics is a social science dealing with the rights and duties of citizens. In Dutch: "burgerlijk recht" (or in a Civ context presumably "burgerrechten").

Thanks for translation.
It could be interesting, too

Removal of pollution and such stuff seems great.

And what will You do with engineers after You irrigate/mine/whatever everything?

3D would hamper the moddability of the graphics, wouldn't it?

Damn, you are right. I change my mind.

[rommelgain]

I think it is safe to say that everyone here reading the forums will be distinctly disappointed with Civ4. You are the 'hardcore' gamers they will not cater to. When you begin reading forums you cease being a casual gamer. Bet you didn't know that :-) The trend for these type games is to dumb them down, speed them up and generally make a piece of garbage. Actually this applies to all genres. Sad but true.

All the worry over 3D is silly...it won't necessarily change the viewpoint of the game at all...it just won't use the 'tiles' of the now antiquated system. It can only enhance the game to have a nice system of pan and zoom (within limits). It will also look better, much better.

Getting rid of 'un-fun' items is what kills most games. Take a look at the 'streamlining' done in MMORPG games. A game, like life, is a journey. If you don't have a little pain along the way it will be meaningless and unfulfilling. The key is to not get mired in the details, but to allow them to enhance the experience. There are ways to truly streamline the 'unpleasant' aspects of games without getting rid of them altogether.

For the majority of us Civ 4 will be like a new shirt. Nice when you first get it but in a week it's just something else to wear that's not any different from the rest of the crap in the closet. Firaxis will not take the necessary measures to make a truly great and innovative game. One because they fear losing some aspect of their potential market and Two because they don't have to...there is no competition in the TBS market. People will buy it because there is NOTHING else.

CTP2 was actually a much better foray into the Civ realm. Had the bugs been taken care of and it be allowed to mature into a CTP3...we would have had our best hope for a truly engaging game. CTP2 did several things that the Civ franchise needs to implement and there are a few others that neither did well:

1. get rid of those irritating and resource hogging workers. They only detract from the game. The public works model is greatly superior and with a few tweaks could make everyone happy.

2. There needs to be limits to expansion, not just an overriding desire to cover the map. There should be a great deal more 'open country' for a very long time.

3. Governments need much more variation and distinction.

4. No game has done resources right. Combine the Civ and CTP model and you may have something. Strategic resources need to be adjusted such that the lack of one will not end your game. Iron exists everywhere in the earth's crust. How bout getting some simply from mining? Large deposits would have the slick little icon that gives you a nice bonus :-) The more iron, the cheaper your units perhaps or they may build faster or just be a little better.

5. Any good game needs interesting things to do. Special units, diplomacy, spying...all these things need to be enhanced to a high degree. In history, more time has been spent on these than fighting or building wonders.

6. Motivations and caps need to be looked at. Real growth is not solely tied to food, especially later on. Wealth is not the end all of civ building either.

7. Along the lines of the above point...Gameplay should evolve over time to keep one from getting bored. Maybe food is important at first for you growth. In the modern era surely you have done well enough where this is not a concern. You should have more food than you can eat and your cities now grow due to economy, environment, leisure...If the US followed the Civ model everyone would live in Kansas and Nebraska where the wheat is and New York and LA would be languishing in corruption ;-) Realities change, the game should change too.

8. We MUST get away from having success be solely dependent on your population. Having everything so tied together makes the game utterly predictable. Together, China and India have TEN times the population of the US, yet the US has a MUCH stronger economy and and a more sophisticated military. We are small, yet powerful. Players should be allowed to evolve their empires differently. You should never be able to tell how powerful a Civ is simply by looking at the number of cities it has. Building new cities should not guarantee you a stronger nation.

9. Too many things have to be built. Most of your structures get built in every single city. Why bother? Many of these could be incorporated into a 'budget' style interface that builds up the strength of a given area, be that education, economic etc. This would allow structures to be more important and special when built and not just the next thing in the queue. This would further give character to your cities and eliminate a lot of unecessary redundant activity.

10. As one poster said...nationalize. You are in fact building a nation, not just a collection of cities (unless that is your govt model). Your nation needs an identity and a defined morality. What rights do you allow? What are your philosophies? What motivates your people? This adds richness to the experience and is vital to keeping a long game interesting and memorable.

I could go on...but this post is long enough. You get the idea. I'm sorry to say that Civ4 will likely disappoint, but thus far every game in the Civ/Ctp realm has been more disappointing than satisfying. Here's hoping I'm wrong..

[Paddy]

oh wow



ouch

thanks for your viewpoint

indeed here's hoping you are wrong...

but I feel you are on the money

way to many marketing / accounting people make decissions on how the game should develop

must look after the bottom line afterall

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by rommelgain
Too much to quote.

First off, 3d doesn't mean the end of tiles. In fact, Soren has already publically confirmed that CIV will have tiles and be turn-based.

Secondly, streamlining isn't always bad - depending on what you streamline. Do you really ENJOY cities rioting the turn you're about to finish a wonder, only to be beaten to it by the AI? I bet in that case most players will just reload the game. That's not an indicator of a good game mechanic. Do you ENJOY having to hunt down pollution every turn which can also delay a meticulously timed build?

Who's to say that these things (and others like maintenance which so many people are bent out of shape over) might be replaced with a system that is BETTER than the original? I know that I didn't like having to check every city every turn to make sure it wouldn't riot and lose all of it's production and commerce for a turn, especially on large maps with dozens/hundreds of cities!

Thirdly, I don't see why a lot of the things you suggest wouldnt'/couldn't be changed in CIV. While it's unlikely that things like Workers will be removed, I don't see why other things won't be included. Soren has announced that religion and civics will both be included in CIV. This fits the criteria of "new gameplay options" as well as "governments having more variation." Who can say what else has or has not been changed or improved besides those who are part of making the game so far?

I don't think such a pessimistic analysis is warranted, at least not until more is known about the game. If it was Firaxis' goal to dumb down the game completely, then they would not have allowed the use of Python, a rather powerful programming language, to be used to change a lot of the core game functions as well as the AI! Additionally, if they were trying to milk the series and get as much money as they could they wouldn't be adding MP from the start, but wait for an expansion pack as has ALWAYS been the case in the past!

So, to summarize, I don't think it's the end of the world as you announce. And even if a lot of the things you suggest aren't included, there's no reason to assume that they couldn't be added by modders and programmers after the game is released.

[Brent]

I think I'd be easier to please than a lot of the people here, and I seem to disagree with others on a lot, so maybe I wouldn't be so disappointed.

Streamlining had better not mean severe lack of options.

Right now Civ3 and GalCiv are the only computer games I play, so there isn't a lot of other crap in the closet.

2. I disagree. I don't want such limits to expansion. People who like to play the way I do should be allowed to. I don't want all that open country. There hasn't been so much open country in the real world for a long time.

3. Sounds very good.

4. Sounds very good, I was unable to build rails in a recent game.

5. Basically agreed. Caravans served this purpose for me in Civ2 in times of peace.

8. Agreed.

9. Could be good.

10. Sounds cool.

I've been satisfied with C1, 2, and 3, Col, and SMAC, but not CtP1. Haven't played CtP2 and don't expect to.

I never reload the game.

[rommelgain]

Wow, glad people are still reading this stuff :-)

Trip:

Tiles will still be there I'm sure. I pulled a Kerry by not 'splaining it very well ;-) haha I meant the usual terrain tiles...the dozen or two little pictures that repeat over and over across the land to comprise the world. 3D could allow more variation or those little tiles could just be rendered in 3D and be just as repetitive, just easier for the artists to create.

I love streamlining done right. Its just that usually some pretty interesting stuff gets smoothed over in the interest of making it more 'accessible' and promising 'non stop action' and a game you can play with your friends in a night, you know, those casual gamers you know and love. I don't want to finish a game in a night. I don't want to be slinging arrows at the French at 7:30 and rolling over the Germans with a tank by 9:00. I don't want to 'streamline' history just so I can finish a game quickly. TV shows last months and are divided into 22 episodes. I think the 'casual' gamer can take a game that lasts a week or two of playing nights and weekends. No, I don't love chasing down the pollution...but that's what happens when you get a bunch of left wingers makin' games :-p they overstate the pollution. I got things to build, what's a little acid rain? :-D

I agree that micromanaging needs tweaking. One reason that the rioting is so annoying is that it is so predictable. If it was that predictable in RL then we'd have never had a succesful rebellion in the history of the world.

"You know, Urdel...I've been getting really pissed off lately and I think everyone else is too...I think we should...huh? WHATS THAT?! DAMN! Another phalanx...Back to the fields for me in the morning. Maybe God is on the Emperor's side."


They may well add some depth, but remember the goal of Firaxis- Bring in new fans and don't make it overly complicated. In order to get these new features like civics and religion there may be other areas that me get gutted or cut altogether.

The only reason I'm pessimistic is that I've been playing games since 1982 and have seen a good deal of history as far the gaming industry is concerned. I've particualarly noted a trend over the last 5-10 years or so of making very disappointing sequels. There has also been hardly any innovation in the industry aside from graphics. There are so many more games now, but how many do you remember? I'm just betting on the trend here.

"Not everyone likes a thick juicy steak, garlic potatoes and sauteed asparagus with a green salad and homemade bread....Hmm...what do we do? Lets just serve them thin cheese pizza. Everybody eats that. Oh, better give'em some cheese and peppers, they *****ed about not having that last time."

In this political season I'd like to coin a term- Playin' to the base. Python and all that promised modding potential is just that. You can mod the hell outta the game and script like you're makin a phone book, but some things just have to be hard coded. This includes most really cool and innovative concepts. You won't be writing any scripts to add a whole new spying model with its own screen and interface that can add the depth you want and be usable by the AI. Adding units, governments, events, terrain etc., will only get you so far. Besides, are we buying a finished game or a construction set? I'm all for modding, but I just don't see it allowing any truly impressive features.

Brent:

Glad you agree on so many points :-)

2. All of my games of Civ3 found the world completely infested before Jesus came on the scene. If one spot opened up, every fool on the planet sent settlers hoofin for that spot, no matter where it was. This is just silly. Not limiting expansion puts everyone in the frenzied turmoil of cranking out settlers so that they can try to get the largest slice of the pie. A more measured expansion sounds better to me. It would also be cool to have far flung colonies in the middle ages. Forcing all the city building in the early game takes a good deal of the fun out for me. I like the potential of having a 'new world' to go to. Frenzied expansion also favors the computer and makes the usual cheating it does even worse. Not that it helps them, but it is annoying. Remember trading maps and seeing that one long blue streak leading from your opponent's lands straight to that island with the iron? Gee, it's like they KNEW it was there. Hmmm. Let's build about 10 or so cities...build up the empire a bit...build some more cities..rinse/repeat. I think CTP2 had a much better model than Civ in this respect. But that's just my opinion.

[Brent]

I want to be able to finish the smallest map size in a night, but the largest size is okay for much longer.

It is indeed annoying when my enemies go through my territory to fill a gap or settle on terrain like tundra that I passed over. I guess it would be nice if they expanded more uniformly. I don't like the AI knowing where everything is. I guess I don't want the AI civs to do the things that I like to do.

[Shr3dZ]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Secondly, if we say it would be cool to rotate the map, it implies that some things would only be visible from a certain angle of rotation.

So, some objects on the map could obstruct our view to other objects! If we look at a flat map, obviousely there is nothing to block your view unless we allow that units can be so large that units behind them cannot be seen. Which is really bad I think.

What if the planet is blocking our view ? What if they create the map as a globe. So obviously some of our units wouldnt be visible. Maybe you dont rotate around the units but instead rotate the globe to see units (think xcom). Or if they dont do that they could always show your units behind mountains as a glowing silouette(sp?).

Because the more zoomed in it is the more 3D makes sense. Zoomed out 3D map looks almost like an ordinary 2D map. Very flat except for shadows that mountains throw. But the joke is on those shadows too, because they can't move. No dynamic shadows . The scope of the game dictates a resolution of 20 years per turn, which doesn't permit for day/night change.

They could have day/night if the map was spherical.

Do you think the whole impassible north/south ice caps are too 'civ'ish to remove ?