So Basically We Have Civ 3...but in 3D?

[Solver]

curtsibling: To some degree, you have a point. As long as we stay with the old Civ formulas, I won't be happy. That's true. But we've already had 3 releases of basically the same formula, so why not either let the series die a good death (you know, retire and stay retired with a little dignity) or take it in a bold new direction? -- I could describe a bold new direction, but so could anybody else, so I won't waste time.

But that's the problem exactly, if they change the formulas radically, it will not be Civ anymore. Look at how many of us there are here, terribly addicted to Civ. It's hard to think of many games fans of which are as addicted and devoted as Civ. If they change the formulas, we'll have a game that is no longer Civ. It might still be good. But it will be like RoN, like RTW, or whatever. Won't be civ anymore.

What Firaxis is doing is adding new things and tweaking the game within the Civ context. The basic Civ formulas, the core concept of the game works very well. That's what made Civ1 a success. So if they get the othre changes right, we have a darn excellent game on our hands.

[yin26]

So if they get the othre changes right, we have a darn excellent game on our hands.

Fair enough. Problem is, I've beaten this game a million times. A few stat changes, smoke and mirrors won't change the fact that this series has run its course, it seems. I'm happy for those of you who just want Civ3 with a few tweaks. Your happiness doesn't infringe upon mine, of course.

I just have to say that as we're getting some of the stable details of the game that I was hoping for more than the easy way out. That's all. I understand many people will enjoy the game.

[Solver]

The series has not run its course because people are still playing the game. That's the difference with Civ. You see a player play 5 games, then 10, then more and more. Veterans have three digit numbers of games, some Civ2 players have more than that, I think. And that is with the length of a Civ game, which is, well, you know what!

So Civ4 brings some new feautures and brings some novelty in this. New stuff, new strats, new gameplay elements. And if it's good, players will enjoy playing Civ for the 10th and for the 100th time.

It doesn't really happen with other games, people get bored of them more quickly. There are, though, a few games so brilliant in their design, implementation or whatever that they are still played for years. Besides Civ, there's Age of Empires II, which is 6 years old and with a very active MP community, or Starcraft for which the same is true, only it's even older.

It really sounds to me like you don't want a Civ game at all. It sounds like you want a game of another genre or subgenre, call it what you will. Care to summarize briefly what your ideas are about what you want to see?

[curtsibling]

I want a different CIV, and not just CIV3 again...

Since the game has been remade from the ground up, the chances
of it resembling CIV3 are slim, going by looks is not accurate...

The fact is that many people will enjoy and buy the game,
regardless of the fact that it may not be everyone cuppa joe.

Well that is the hard cheddar - Someone has to dislike it...

But I will not be that person, I'll wager...

[yin26]

Here's an example of what Firaxis is marketing:

The mini-map now shows you zoomed in, "so you are even less aware of the rest of the map in the early game." Wow! If this is a marquee feature to talk about in your video interview leading up to the release, then there's trouble.

It's like Honda saying: "All new cup holders for 2006!"

[Kuciwalker]

Re: So Basically We Have Civ 3...but in 3D?

No.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by yin26
Here's an example of what Firaxis is marketing:

The mini-map now shows you zoomed in, "so you are even less aware of the rest of the map in the early game." Wow! If this is a marquee feature to talk about in your video interview leading up to the release, then there's trouble.

It's like Honda saying: "All new cup holders for 2006!"

Some people will welcome this - Over exploration is a fun-killer...

If you are determined to deride a CIV game you have never played,
it makes you resemble the person who hates a movie he has never seen...

An opinion without grounding...

Me?

I prefer to wait and gather more data...

[Solver]

Originally posted by yin26
Here's an example of what Firaxis is marketing:

The mini-map now shows you zoomed in, "so you are even less aware of the rest of the map in the early game." Wow! If this is a marquee feature to talk about in your video interview leading up to the release, then there's trouble.

It's like Honda saying: "All new cup holders for 2006!"

It's one of the tiny feautures in Civ4 that make it different and hopefully better - this one does sound like an improvement, actually. And it was just something mentioned as a minor thing in the video, not as a star feauture. You'd obviously see that Jesse mentioned the 3D engine, religions and the combat system as the main new things.

[Kuciwalker]

Experience, I guess. Civ has never been able to conquer the fact that most human players win by economies of scale.

therefore civ has ALWAYS been dead!

Dunno. Just sounds like fluff to me. A side show.

Because we all know leaders were just fluff, a side show, in Civ3.

Oh wait.

Health is new. Combat system isn't quite like Civ3, because Soren said you need mixed arms, something that was never the case in previous Civ games. Promotions are new too, and if there are 42 of them, that will allow for more versatility than in previous games. Oh, I forgot Civics, too.

How do mixed arms work in the framework of what we're seeing in the videos? If that's really a part of the game (and not hype), then that's a good thing. As for promotions, again, nothing new. If Firaxis wants to add RPG elements to Civ, that's fine, but it should commit to them fully and not just throw around meaningless production bonuses, etc.

Eh, you obviously have no clue what the promotions are about if you think they have to do with production bonuses... there are complete newbies here less woefully uninformed as you. And you didn't even respond to the fact that pollution and corruption have been completely replaced. That's a huge change from all of the civs before.

What I mean by hype is that "We have an awesome game, but we'll let you mod it, if you like." If the game can be completely re-written by Poly, then there is hope. But like I said, I think it will take about three years or so for the game to be A) in the bargain bin with at least 2 patches (one after the initial release then the X-pack) to fix stuff that we *CAN'T* mod and B) for the modders to finally fix the mess.

We're going to be able to mod the game code. This is any modder's wet dream.

[yin26]

If ICS isn't still the dominant strategy in Civ 4, then I'll eat (at least part) of the cardboard box! And if combat isn't as dull as ever, I'll eat more parts!

The question, of course, is: "But if you 'fix' these things, is it still Civ?" Maybe not, but then I just have to say that what was exciting and new a decade or more ago will naturally be (by many people) run through the paces until there's no more blood to be squeezed from the rock. So I guess that's what we have: More of the same, and for those of you who can't get enough of it, great!

Since you asked, I'd make the battle portions of Civ 4 real-time or do something like you see in Heroes of Might and Magic. You know. Give me something TO DO once the battle actually starts! I'd also introduce some kind of other limitations (like the number of people allowed in your royal court in Knights of Honor) to make it logically more difficult to wage world-wide wars so effectively. Then I'd do something like you see in Supreme Ruler 2010 where you can appoint cabinet members who have specific political leanings, which can be of use during specific political turmoils.

The theme there is: Make me think a little more! That's all I'm saying. The core of Civ is great, but we figured this thing out a LONG LONG time ago!

[yin26]

Eh, you obviously have no clue what the promotions are about if you think they have to do with production bonuses...

You're missing the point. It does some minor X adjustment to some factor Y. I could care less really what the detail of it is because it's a ruse to get some people to think that something exciting is being done to the game. Obviously this tactic works on some people.

[Solver]

If ICS isn't still the dominant strategy in Civ 4, then I'll eat (at least part) of the cardboard box! And if combat isn't as dull as ever, I'll eat more parts!

I'll print this thread, and you'll post a video of eating the box on Apolyton .

If you fix ICS and combat, it's still Civ. But if you make parts of it real-time, it's no longer Civ. I really have a problem with anyone who suggests making battles real time. I don't want any real time elements, I don't want reflexes to have any meaning in Civ! There are tons of real-time or partially real-time games on the market, from the abovementioned great oldies like AOE2 to RoN and Rome Total War. Yet there are very few good turn based games.

What you do once the battle starts is hope your unit wins. I'm sure the combat animation can be turned off, then a battle will take less than a second.

Appointing cabinet members is sort of like changing civics. You've got 3125 possible government options in Civ4. If that isn't enough stuff to do for you, I don't know what is.

[yin26]

I really have a problem with anyone who suggests making battles real time.

Well, I also suggested something like you see in HOMM. Long story short: Make it a little more fun and strategic! As for civics, I guess we'll have to see it in action. You know, changing governments in Civ didn't really change things much, either. Sure, some specific goals were better met with specific governments, but it was pretty easy just to advance willy nilly and win the game easily as long as you had ICS in your corner.

I should say, of course, that my comments are against the backdrop of single player. I don't have the time for multiplayer.

[Solver]

So you DO agree that the gameplay dynamic will change sufficiently if the game shifts away from ICS being the best strategy, and often the only strong one (unless on low difficulty)?

[yin26]

Sure. One idea I would like to see is, for example, once you get a certain number of cities, you actually lose city-by-city control and move to a city-state interface (somewhat like Europa Universalis or Knights of Honor). The city model works well early when you are exploring, etc., but is then too open to tedium and abuse mid-game forward.

So, yes, if that were remedied in Civ, that would warrant a purchase of the game for this old, tired, negative force.

Edit: But nowhere in the screens I've seen does anything look different about cities.