CIv4... Beware the planned obsolescence!!!

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
I'm so easily convinced. You are correct, I will not be able to resist...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by 1889
PTW was a lot more than a few extra buildings. It introduced Multi-Player.

Quite an expansion I think.

Not if you think that it should´ve been in the game from start...

[1889]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg


Not if you think that it should´ve been in the game from start...

CivIII was a big improvment over CivII. I never expected MP to be part of it, and enjoyed playing against the computer for over a year.

I'm looking forward to playing CivIV, not gripping because I don't live in an alternate universe where PTW is released in 2001.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Solver
Also remember that it's not like Firaxis are intentionally making Civ4 without some feautures they'll add later. Of course, if Civ4 sells well, it will get an expansion pack, that's how game business works and that's how it also should be, as it will improve the game anyway.

Aehmm, I beg your pardon sir. You don't work for a software house, do you?
Any expansion is a planned opportunity: how many open ended movies we had see in the last years? Books series? Harry Potter anyone?

Expansions are mostly sw reuse, some late patches, spare arts and tuning of game parameters. Add a bunch of revamped weapons or enemy, polish few new maps/scenaries.
A lot of juice for the industry, squeezing the same orange again.
Developing cost of a game: 2 to 3 years full team;
Developing cost of an expansion: 6 to 9 months of half a team or less. A bargain.

That's not wrong, if you know the real game enhancement are clearly written on the box, still you think the added price is right.

Nevertheless it is mostly planned from the start and we can (should?) cope with it.
Troubles begin if you are forced in a "obsolescence mode":
"well, no more patches for the original, you see we are concentrating our effort on the improved expansion"
or
"sorry, you can't MP anymore, because others players are enjoing the "improved expansion" and we introduced a compatibility issue, while the game servers are just migrating to the "new, improved expansion"...

Ok, you can see where I'm going. Let's hope Firaxis will play a fair game (pun intended ).

[asleepathewheel]

I can but shake my head at this thread.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
I'm still unhappy with the radical changes each patch of Civ3 brought. Waiting has the benefit of playing a stabilized product.

I'm still unhappy how buggy it was upon release.

In a way, I'm hoping CIV will be in need of such major patches just so I'm not tempted to buy it during its release month.

[ew0054]

Heck, if Civ3 was $100 I'd still buy it without hesitation, but I think their sales would drop considerably.

But isn't anyone even the slithest bit bothered that we'll only be getting 18 civs in Civ4? Civ3PTW has 31 which is almost twice that number. If anything, they should add more, not reduce the number.

They probably will add more in an expansion pack.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by ew0054

They probably will add more in an expansion pack.

Hence the comments in this thread (read: not pleased)

[Bogdanovist]

This may go against the grain a little, but is it really that important to have heaps of different civs? The differences between civs in CivIII was not gamebreakingly huge and it didn't fundamentally change the way you played the game, not like say the much bigger difference and fundamentally different playing styles in SMAC(X). Civ II had thousands of civs but there was then no difference at all between them. If the difference between civs becomes more in Civ IV than in III (not that I've heard that will be the case, but I'm hoping) then the increase in variety gameplay will be enormous even for (only) 18 civs.

I'm sure that after all expansion packs there will be 30+ civs in Civ IV, but I doubt that it will really be the shear number of civs that change the depth of gameplay. The Civ III Xpacks were good (well conquests was great anyway) beacause of the broader changes and scenarios, not the fact that they doubled the number of Civs available.

For me 18 civs is plenty, I'm more interested in exactly how the civs will differ, offering the chance to be guiding into many different playing styles.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ew0054
But isn't anyone even the slithest bit bothered that we'll only be getting 18 civs in Civ4?

No.

Civ3PTW has 31 which is almost twice that number.

No.

PTW included 24 civs. It had the capability of having 31 civs at a time in a game.

[Shogun Gunner]

Lots of civs matters in Civ3 (traits), but not CtP 1/2 because it was just the name - no specific uniqueness.

Maybe I'm running counter-grain to your against the grain...

[Bogdanovist]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Lots of civs matters in Civ3 (traits), but not CtP 1/2 because it was just the name - no specific uniqueness.

But my point is that the different traits in Civ3 don't really make that much difference. Do you really play that much different with an militaristic/industrious Civ compared to a religious/scientific etc etc. The traits and UU are tweaks around the edges, but I have never seen a strategy post that deliniates particular strategies based on the traits of a Civ. Not in a truly fundamental way. I guess it comes back to that fact that I've played SMAC a lot more than Civ3. You need a completely different approach when using the different factions in SMAC, whereas in Civ3 the traits play a fairly minor role by comparison. Hence my ambivalence to how many Civs will be available in Civ4, unless they are made much more unique, which hopefully will be the case via the civics (as was the case in..... yep SMAC).

[Kuciwalker]

But my point is that the different traits in Civ3 don't really make that much difference. Do you really play that much different with an militaristic/industrious Civ compared to a religious/scientific etc etc.

Yes.

There is a world of difference in playstyle between, say, Babylon and Scandinavia.

[1889]

Some of the Civs in CivIV have two leaders though. So its more like 30 leaders anyway and they have different traits.

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, gameplay-wise it's more diverse than C3 at the start.

Especially since traits aren't stuck to UU. There are some very interesting possibilities there...