Which Civs are In?

[TechWins]

If you ever want to see a Civ5 you want there to be unit animations, leaderheads, and all that junk that slows down my ol' computer. The mass market looks for these frivolous items in a game and all the users between Apolyton and CivFanatics certainly wouldn't appease the amount of buyers they need/want.

With that in mind, all I ask for is easily identifiable expressions from the leaders and easily identifiable units. It'd be nice to get all those different zooms, like in Civ2.


Sn00py, I like your idea of creating your civ from ground up starting as nomads, but I'd like to see that in a whole other game entirely. I don't want to see Firaxis taking any radical steps in Civ4 that could screw up the game altogether. It'd be nice if another company tried doing a radical spin off of Civ, except not Activision, and implemented some of the more radical ideas.

[Brent]

Maybe the animations can default to off? We can install everything except for the primo graphics if we want? Maybe we should all feel obligated to buy 100 copies of the game, each? kidding on that last of course, maybe they should sell a dozen volumes of a civ library and every self respecting fan should buy all of them? heh. Maybe the primo graphics can all be on disc 2 and everything we really need on disc 1. I think we'll get much better than Civ2 zoomability. Maybe Strategy First/ Stardock/ Ubisoft/ Big Huge should do that radical thing you describe. But you don't think Firaxis itself should do a quasiciv to go alongside trueciv?

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Brent
Maybe Strategy First/ Stardock/ Ubisoft/ Big Huge should do that radical thing you describe. But you don't think Firaxis itself should do a quasiciv to go alongside trueciv?

I don't know if Firaxis is intuitive enough. Besides that it would seem awkward for their (actually Take-Two's right? I think that's the name) marketing strategy to have two similar games.

Whoever makes the EU games or Brian Reynold's company, which is Big Huge I believe, wouldn't be bad a choice. I know RoN is a radical change of Civ already, but I'm thinking a radical, turn based Civ game.


I think it's Paradox, if I'm not mistaken, who makes the EU games.

[FrostyBoy]

CivIV has got to change radically if it wants to survive, people are getting bored with a slightly better Civ each version.

[Brent]

Maybe most people, but I know I want it to resemble the previous ones at least a little. I want a somewhat logical progression, or one that can play just about exactly like any of the previous ones, or any combination of their features, plus plenty of stuff added. Ultimate Civ. Not that I want it to be the last one, of course. Every civ in any Civ game or Conquests scenario available under any of the systems of any of the Civ games, plus additional civs from some Civ2 scenarios. And of course, a full featured SMAC scenario.

[Elda king]

I think that the number of civs by region must be based on the number of countries there in real world. So, if we have 19: Europe with 6 (UK, France, Rome, German, Russia, Greece) Asia with 6 (China, India, Japan, Mongols, Persia); America with 4 (USA, Aztecs, Incas, Iroquois/Tupi/Brazil); Africa with 2 (Zulu, Egypt) and , maybe, Australia. If we have 24, add Spain, Scandinavia, Mayas, Turkey and Arabia . For 31, add Israel, Sumeria, Carthage, Kongo, Celts,Tibet, Korea.

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Sn00py
CivIV has got to change radically if it wants to survive, people are getting bored with a slightly better Civ each version.

Who is the people? You and maybe other advanced players? At large the 2.5+ million people who bought Civ3 aren't looking for radical changes; they're looking for an improved product. Ever wonder how the Madden Football series has stuck around for so long? People like the basic concept and just keep improving the concept (not changing) and people will keep buying the product. I think Brent articulates the point exactly of what 'most people' will be looking for in Civ4.


The only radical changes I could see Civ4 implementing are ones that would appeal to more mainstream gamers, which seemingly would differ from the radical changes you would be looking for.

[Brent]

My list o' 31 flavors:

Egypt, Kongo, Mali, Carthage, Ethiopia, Zulu, Israel, Arabia, Armenia, Babylon, Persia, Sumer, India, China, Mongols, Japan, Tibet, Korea, Russia, Germany, England, Rome, France, Greece, America, Inca, Maya, Brazil, Aztec, Guarani, Australian Aborigines.

[FrostyBoy]

Madden Football is a bad example if you are trying to convince me, there's only so much you can do with a sports game.


If cIV comes out as just a slightly better Civ3, then many people are going to lose hope with CivV, they won't pay much or any attention and Civ will just start to disappear.

[Brent]

There's only so much you can do with a true Civ game, but admittedly more than with a sports game. Many people have never played Civ before, and many are going to lose interest in Civ5 if it's Civ, Sid, but not as we know it. Besides, it's starting to sound like you're expecting there to be less change than there will be. Changing it too much is the way to lose the fanbase. Each successive game was successful enough.

[Xorbon]

In my opinion, Civ needs just a handful of radical changes/additions (maybe 3 to 5), and the rest just improvements on the existing game. Change the game too much, and the game is no longer Civ. I would like to see an evolution of the series rather than a re-invention at each iteration.

For example, ICS is one thing I'd like to see radically changed. It should still be possible to rapidly expand and do well in the game, but it should also be possible to play as a perfectionist and do well.

To keep on topic ( ) here is my list of 19 civs I'd like to see (assuming Civ 4 starts off with 19):

[American] America, Maya, Inca, [European] England, Germany, France, Russia, Rome, Greece, [African] Egypt, Mali, Ethiopia, [Asian] Arabia, Babylon, Persia, India, China, Japan, and Mongolia

Scandinavia, Celts, Korea, Aztecs, and Carthage are on my short list of extras in case they include more than 19 with the initial game.

[Brent]

5 radical changes to major features or radical additions sounds good. But just about everything should be improved somewhat. Bring back popular old things thet they for some reason left out of Civ3, like video clips of actors for advisors, add voice clips. I agree that ICS should be just one of many strategies.

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Madden Football is a bad example if you are trying to convince me, there's only so much you can do with a sports game.


If cIV comes out as just a slightly better Civ3, then many people are going to lose hope with CivV, they won't pay much or any attention and Civ will just start to disappear.

I'm not trying to convince you; I'm only discussing a topic with you.

I was using Madden as an example that hardly any changes are made to the series year-to-year, yet people keep buying (and loving?) the game. With the Civ series I think the same could be said; there doesn't need to be a lot of radical changes each iteration of the game, since the core is already so compelling. Culture and resources in Civ3, religion and something else in Civ4 will do the trick to get to that 2.5+ million number again. Even if the game isn't up to par, the set of initial sales alone based on the credible/marketable name will probably be in the upper hundreds of thousands.

In my opinion, Civ needs just a handful of radical changes/additions (maybe 3 to 5), and the rest just improvements on the existing game. Change the game too much, and the game is no longer Civ. I would like to see an evolution of the series rather than a re-invention at each iteration.

I agree completely. The game doesn't need to be radically changed but to keep the game interesting some major changes need to be implemented. The aforementioned culture and resources added quite a bit to Civ3 -- on a side note: definitely not as much as I was expecting and wanting. Yet look what happened - the sales exploded for the game. Based on the changes alone we know about Civ4 those ought to be more than enough to recompell old users and bring even more new ones to the game. Civ4 is probably not going to be as much as I want but when is any game? Civ4 will be great; Civ4's sales will be even more great.

[Elda king]

I agree completely! Change what is wrong, improve what is regular and keep what is good!

[FrostyBoy]

personally I just want the game to be deeper, more serious and more realistic.

Remember Firaxis: Cartoons do not always = fun.