First Civ 4 Screenshots!

[Brent]

CShy: I hope that doesn't all refer to me. I'll specify in detail the way I want it to be, but I intend to buy it and I'm sure I'll like it however it turns out. I think 1000 civs is the maximum to be reasonable, but I'll settle for as few as 10. Oh, I guess I just illustrated part of my dislike of the common abbreviation. I wouldn't mind having two completely different versions of the game, but really, I think we can play it as many ways as we want on one disc.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Looks like another kids game.

Civ has always been comparatively kid-friendly. It wouldn't be Civ if it wasn't. But just because the graphics look 'childish' doesn't mean the game has to be kid-friendly. CtP2 has very cartoony, 'childish' graphics but has considerably more complexity in gameplay than Civ3, too complex for a lot of kids to understand.

I agree with Cyber that some people seem to be jumping to conclusions awfully early. I guess the disappointments of Civ3 are the root of that, but one 'bad' product doesn't make an entire company bad. I was a staunch critic of Civ3, but I didn't start to criticise the game until I had a fair idea of what it was going to be like.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Yes, they were playing already. In the early days we even tried to get the code, which was in the game, to work. (like in the early civ2 days we tried, and managed to, get the civ2 mp code to work)
But for cIIIv it never worked. apparantly they started writing the code, but never finished it.

Exactly, it never worked. For Civ4, it was already working last February. Making a start with something and having it working so well you can play 4+ hour games in your free time for your own entertainment is a big difference.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Looks like another kids game.

Civilization is a serious game, but Firaxis makes games for kids, so I see little hope for cIV.

Bugger it

Yeah, most kids are expert at XML and Python.

Originally posted by Sn00py
And Trip, you're doing it again. You did it through Civ3's development, and now you're going to praise Civ4's development.

But Civ3 fell pretty flat for quite some time. Yin26 was your exact opposite, but he turned out to be generally correct.

Excuse me? Doing what again? What are you referring to?

[Robert]

But Civ3 fell pretty flat for quite some time. Yin26 was your exact opposite, but he turned out to be generally correct.

Yn26 correct?
Then explain to me why I'm still having much fun playing cIIIv? cIIIv is a very good game. I like it very much.
There'll be always people who dislike a game. But cIIIv definitely is a good game I have enjoyed for years already. Any many others did so.

[Solver]

You really think the elimination of corruption, city riots and pollution would be a major blow to the quality of the game?

Yes, and a poor way of dealing with it. OK, pollution in Civ3 sucked, would be cleaned up instantly and was just annoying. So the solution - remove it? Gah! Why not replace the polution model by something more interesting, like in SMAC or CtP? In both these games, pollution was a pain in the butt. In SMAC, massive pollution could cause massive attacks from native life, in CtP, cleaning pollution up requires advanced tech and many resources, while overpollution can have a dramatic climatic effect.

Civ has always been comparatively kid-friendly. It wouldn't be Civ if it wasn't. But just because the graphics look 'childish' doesn't mean the game has to be kid-friendly. CtP2 has very cartoony, 'childish' graphics but has considerably more complexity in gameplay than Civ3, too complex for a lot of kids to understand.

Comparatively kid-friendly? What games are you comparing it to? Civ games are long, and require thinking much more than most popular games. Leaving FPS games alone, Civ still is considerably more complex than Warcraft, Age of Empires or Battlefield 1942. And while you're right saying that CtP is more complex than Civ3 (which might well be the least complex civ-game), Civ3 is still much more complex then most games "kids" prefer. Or most good-selling games. A look at the charts reveals Half-Life 2, Halo 2, GTA:San Andreas, Doom 3, The Sims 2, World of Warcraft and Rome:Total War being among the best selling games now. Now, none of them strikes me as very complex - Rome:TW might be complex somewhat, but still not to the levels a civ game is.

I agree with Cyber that some people seem to be jumping to conclusions awfully early. I guess the disappointments of Civ3 are the root of that, but one 'bad' product doesn't make an entire company bad. I was a staunch critic of Civ3, but I didn't start to criticise the game until I had a fair idea of what it was going to be like.

I still consider Civ3 to be a very solid game, although definitely with its shortcomings. This time, though, I'll try and get excited about Civ4 when we see some specific feautures - I don't consider anything that has been said so far to really give as an idea of what Civ 4 will be like, it's all more speculation for now. What I am worried about, though, is that Firaxis will want to further the process of de-complexing the game they started in Civ3 (which was a definite success on the commercial level at least). And I know very well that if Civ 4 is going to be any less complex than Civ3, I am not going to be satisfied. No, actually, if it has a solid AI, I will be satisfied regardless - I'm an AI whore.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Solver
Yes, and a poor way of dealing with it. OK, pollution in Civ3 sucked, would be cleaned up instantly and was just annoying. So the solution - remove it? Gah! Why not replace the polution model by something more interesting, like in SMAC or CtP? In both these games, pollution was a pain in the butt. In SMAC, massive pollution could cause massive attacks from native life, in CtP, cleaning pollution up requires advanced tech and many resources, while overpollution can have a dramatic climatic effect.

Who is to say that it hasn't been replaced with something better.

All we know is that pollution - as it functioned in Civ 3 - isn't going to be in Civ 4. There could be something much more enjoyable in its place now.

[Solver]

Yes, speculation it is mostly, as I said previously. But they said they'd "get rid of" these unfun elements, that's good - but I do indeed hope they will be replaced with something more interesting.

[Chieftess]

Boy, some of you shouldn't get jobs in game/software development. These are very early screenshots with placeholder graphics. That means that the artists are currently making graphics. The placeholders are there just so testers and developers can spot bugs easier. It's much easier than trying to do so on a blank screen.

[Jon Shafer]

Well, I highly doubt they'd just cut stuff out and not replace it. It's not like they're about to remove corruption and let the warmongers and mass REXers go wild...

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Trip

Yeah, most kids are expert at XML and Python.

You're making me feel old.

Why in my day, XML and Python wasn't even around. It was Unix scripting and Assembler! :mischief: (well, and a TRS-80)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Chieftess
You're making me feel old.

That's because you are, grandma.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Solver
Comparatively kid-friendly? What games are you comparing it to? Civ games are long, and require thinking much more than most popular games. Leaving FPS games alone, Civ still is considerably more complex than Warcraft, Age of Empires or Battlefield 1942. And while you're right saying that CtP is more complex than Civ3 (which might well be the least complex civ-game), Civ3 is still much more complex then most games "kids" prefer. Or most good-selling games. A look at the charts reveals Half-Life 2, Halo 2, GTA:San Andreas, Doom 3, The Sims 2, World of Warcraft and Rome:Total War being among the best selling games now. Now, none of them strikes me as very complex - Rome:TW might be complex somewhat, but still not to the levels a civ game is.

Ever tried to get a kid to play Civ? They love it! Happy colours, (semi-)funny dialogs/animations, it doesn't go too fast, no real (visual) violence or gore. Longevity is not a problem: most kids get tired of playing after a few hours, but you can always save and continue later. Plus, once they're drawn in, you'd be surprised how long they last Sure, the gameplay is complex and I've yet to meet anyone under 10 who can play on a level higher than Warlord (though I'm sure there are a few) and they may not understand the intricacies of the more complex models, but they enjoy playing it if you take the time to teach them the basics...

FPS is too fast and violent (and seems to give many kids headaches if they play it too much), a lot of RTS games are too dark/violent (others, like AoE, are popular with kids as well though), sport/flight simulators too fast. There are other games out there that are also kid-friendly, but that doesn't make Civ any less so.

[Solver]

Hmm, I have seen a few kids playing Civ indeed, but well, they were 15 or so, so not really kids as in 10 years old. You know what's another problem? English. 10 or 12 year olds typically have their English so poor that they can't understand anything on screen, which would lead to frustration.

But I got to absolutely agree that anyone who gets a basic understanding of Civ, at least the basic concepts, gets drawn in, that's amazing.

Interestingly, though, I think that the average age of Civ players is much older than that of most other games. Here on Apolyton we have most people over 20, and with many and many over 30 and even over 40 - whereas on forums of games such as AoE, people at 30 are already old and quite a minority.

[Nikolai]

First time I tried Civ2, I was too little to understand English properly. I saw it was a good game, but I needed a grown up to be with me all the time and play for me, so I didn't play it then, and forgot it. Then SMAC came, and I got hooked. I found Civ1 on the net, and got hooked on that one too. I couldn't find Civ2 anywhere, not in the shop, not on the net or anywhere. Then I found out that an older friend had it but had forgot it a long time ago. So I lent it and got hooked again. But by now I could perfectly well understand English of course, so it was different. Then came Civ3 and history repeated itself. Now I wait for cIV...

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Solver
Hmm, I have seen a few kids playing Civ indeed, but well, they were 15 or so, so not really kids as in 10 years old.

15-year-olds are barely kids anymore, from a gaming point of view at least. The shallow ones only want violence and action (or Sims if they're of the feminine kind ), they couldn't care less about Civ. The less shallow ones are more than smart enough to understand Civ in all its complexities, not too different from adults. Some of the great minds of Apolyton were only 15 when they joined the site (e.g. Stefan Härtel and Immortal Wombat).

You know what's another problem? English. 10 or 12 year olds typically have their English so poor that they can't understand anything on screen, which would lead to frustration.

I reckon that may be the case where you come from, but in the Netherlands they start teaching kids English at the age of 8 or 9 (if not earlier). And plenty of them already speak a fair amount of English at that age as a result of watching cartoons and movies and stuff (the advantage of subtitling over dubbing). But still, dialog is not always all that important, even in Civ. You be surprised how fast kids can pick up what stuff does even if they don't understand a word of it: experiment and remember Plus, Civ is very visually oriented: lots of symbols, icons, facial expressions (in diplomacy), etc.

Interestingly, though, I think that the average age of Civ players is much older than that of most other games. Here on Apolyton we have most people over 20, and with many and many over 30 and even over 40 - whereas on forums of games such as AoE, people at 30 are already old and quite a minority.

That is true. Shooters and other action-packed games mostly tend to attract teenagers and young adults, it's too fast and violent for the really young ones and older people. The former are not ready for it yet, the latter don't see the point. Civ OTOH appeals to all ages, therefore our community is very balanced age-wise (I think there may be more under-20-year-olds than you may suspect). Plus, Civ was considered advanced and mainstream 10 years ago. People old enough to remember that tend to stick around. The ones too young to remember it can't be arsed with it, it only seems quaint and old-fashioned to them (a younger friend of mine told me he thought it was odd Civ3 wasn't RTS as TBS was such an "obsolete" genre, RTS was the logical next step in gaming evolution for him. If I'd had a weapon I would've killed him on the spot ).

(This is all very generalised of course, plenty of exceptions.)