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

[yin26]

Interesting, thank you. I know Snoopy's graphic work, of course, and if he can shrink the goofy giants in Civ 4, he'll be a hero once more!

[Solver]

Yin,

RoN did indeed innovate the RTS genre. That's why I liked it a lot, it really brought many new things into RTS. But you'll notice that the core of the game remained the same as any other classic RTS - you have vilagers who build buildings and gather resources, some buildings train units, other buildings discover techs, then combat breaks out, and units fight with a RPS system, etc.

Civ4 does similar things to Civ. The core game is the same, yet there are many good additions to Civ.

And why the heck are you laughing each time someone suggests that Firaxis is doing good serious work on the AI? Do you work for Firaxis now, or have you perhaps played Civ4?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, the day I take advice on the future of the Gaming Industry from the likes of you, Yin, then I know it is time to check in to the local Sanatorium.
The phrase 'Good Real Time Strategy Game' is, with almost NO exceptions, an Oxymoron. They are designed for Anal Retentives who believe that ultra-Micromanagement is the height of Strategy-rather than pure tedium (BTW, I didn't say the game was hard , just TEDIOUS and ultimately SHALLOW ,DERIVITAVE and REPETITIVE . Oh and it rewards speed over good strategy, a problem with almost all RTS's, with the exception of WotW and HoI I and II).
It is interesting to note that you made similar brave predictions about the death of the Civ Franchise 4 years ago, and you were equally wrong back then.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Solver]

Well, if you don't like RTS games, that's your position, but that doesn't mean it's not a good genre with many fans. Alright, I don't myself think there's really a lot of strategy in those games (but there is a ton of tactical micromanagement), but that doesn't make it a bad genre per se.

And among people who DO like RTS games, RoN is very popular and widely considered to be among the best games. That's saying something.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

The thing is though, Solver, that I am trying to show Yin how ludicrous his own position is (but he clearly lacks the brain-power to understand Irony). He claims 'if you didn't like Rise of Nations, then you either Suck at it or don't understand it', yet he clearly dislikes Civilization for much the same reason-yet he expects us to take his word as 'The Gospel'. Well, I say 'If you don't like Civ Yin, then fine, but stop plaguing these sites with your annoying, arrogant dribble and go off and play those RTS games you love so much.'

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[yin26]

I also said that perhaps you just don't like RTS, which is fine, but that RON innovated in its genre, which deserves respect. In your case, playing the game twice and giving up on it pretty much sums you up as a game player. As for the rest of your flame bait, it bores me...so consider yourself ignored in this thread unless you say something intelligent moving forward.

Solver (who can argue intelligently, so take note):

What I laugh at when people talk about AI is that they quote marketing. I happen to think that Soren is the best hope we've seen for good AI in a Civ game in a long time, so I'm happy to see what he'll come up with. But I return to the premise of my thread: Based on what has been announced about the game, we are in store for a Civ 2.7 -- And a goofy-looking one at that!

Will Civ 4 sells lots of copies? Almost certainly. Did Civ 3 get my money? Not a penny. Will Civ 4? Remains to be seen, but as I tap into my long experience with computer gaming, I see nothing coming out about Civ 4 that amounts to much. Just my opinion, of course, but I really do think the series (in Firaxis') hands is dead. Perhaps if Sid himself cared about it anymore, the story might be different.

EDIT: "Cared" here means actually programmed/designed. But Sid is on record saying he doesn't like to try to top himself, so he pawns off games like Civ to other programmers and hopes for the best. But when it comes to something like SimGolf (which he literally pitched to Will Wright who gave him permission to rip off Sim), he's there in spades. I actually liked SimGolf, by the way, which should tell you something about what happens when Sid actually gets involved.

[Zoid]

I know this is a tad late, but....OMG yin26 sighting!!

[Solver]

What I laugh at when people talk about AI is that they quote marketing. I happen to think that Soren is the best hope we've seen for good AI in a Civ game in a long time, so I'm happy to see what he'll come up with. But I return to the premise of my thread: Based on what has been announced about the game, we are in store for a Civ 2.7 -- And a goofy-looking one at that!

We do know some facts that is not just marketing. The most important being that for Civ3, Soren developed the AI alone and with very little feedback. However, Civ4, as IGN said, is being constantly played and tested by about 60 Civ fans - therefore it's obvious that Soren is receiving a lot of feedback about the AI, as he himself of course can't notice many things that people who get to play the game now do notice. So that's a major improvement.

Civ 2.7... again, if you want a switch to semi-real-time or something like that, you will never see it. Not only because it's un-Civvish, but also because if you look at the strategy game market, there's an overwhelming majority of RTS games or partially real-time games, with games that are TBS and stay so making up a minority.

But I insist that Civ4 has what it takes to refresh the Civ genre, and a lot - in a way comarable to how RoN refereshed the RTS genre. Civ4 has a new government system, a new combat system, a new religion system, assumably new MP stuff, modding abilities better than in other strategy game. Those are facts. You may not think that promotions matter, for instance, but the above things are facts, as they are in the game. Additionally, there is a number of things that has been tweaked considerably, such as maintenance/pollution, and possibly a feauture or two we don't know about yet (three party talks? SMAC style UN?). Oh, to the earlier list I forgot to add the new tech tree, research no longer being linear in Civ4 is quite a change, I'd say it's probably comparable to the change in how RoN handled technologies.

If we also do (that's optimistic, but possible) finally have the ICS no longer dominant, prompting a change in how civs are built, I'd say that Civ4 is going to be very, very refreshing, changing the Civ genre quite a lot.

As for Sid... give him a break. Civ2 even was done by Brian mostly. Sid did Civ1, and that's enough for him, he wants to try new things. His involvement in Civ4 is probably indeed limited to maybe dropping a suggestion or two, but Soren & team are making the game. I believe Soren is a very capable designer and can breathe the same spirit into the game that Sid or Brian can.

[yin26]

Dr Zoidberg: LOL!

Solver: Fair enough. I won't argue anymore with you that there is a glimmer of hope. Indeed, I would *love* to see the game succeed, though I've given some of the reasons why I have doubts.

Do you agree, however, that if Civ 4 plays as well as Civ 3 that it's probably time for this dev team to stop messing with this venerable series and try something new? And I know Sid got lucky pushing Civ 2 on to Brian (who is clearly good enough to run his own successful company), but do you really think that the rest of the Firaxis crew can fill such shoes? At some point as a coach you have to evaluate your team and decide the best strategy for development. To me, the strategy here seems to be:

*Eye candy
*Moderate tweaks to the formula
*Sid's name on the box
*Release before X-Mas

Yes, Firaxis is a business. Yes, they are likely to make plenty of money with this strategy. No, I'm not "mad" at them for playing it safe. Fact is, though, plenty of other companies *are* innovating and pushing the envelope, so they'll get my money. Should Firaxis (or anybody at Poly) even care about this? Of course not. I'm just one person in millions.

But those are my opinions, take them or leave them. If anything, wait a few months for Civ 4 to be in the bargain bin before you (likely) waste your money.

[Solver]

Yes I do agree that if Civ4 has almost the same gameplay as Civ3, then it's screwed. I'd still hate to see the series abandoned, though, because there is nothing else really like Civ - it's not the shooter market where several new games come out in a month, with big-title releases several times a year.

I do not believe that the Civ series can now be dead. There's definitely new things to do with it, whether Civ4 will do it is another question.

In fact, I have great faith in Soren. I do believe that he, helped by the other guys at Firaxis and five dozen people playing the game now, can do what we want him to - make Civ4 have the same fun elements as all classic Civ games, yet bring many new things into it.

BTW, when are you going to buy Civ4? After the first reviews here come up, or after it goes down to 15$?

[Solver]

Ohh BTW about Brian, there's definitely interesting stuff with Rise of Legends. Rise of Nations was a big success, there is no doubting that. With Rise of Legends, though, he really does have the chance to fail, too. What can happen is that everyone will say RoL is RoN set in a fantasy environment. I can't judge the game now - screens look good, but they indicate exactly zero about gameplay. However, if Brian manages to get out two consecutive strategy games with great success it will be, well, great. It doesn't even take numerous Strategy of the Year awards to be a success like RoN did it.

[yin26]

I don't mean to say that the Civ series is dead by itself. I just mean that Firaxis doesn't seem on fire about it. I mean when you have a genius in the next room just looking at periodic builds, you have to ask yourself: WHY!? I think there is tons that can be done with Civ (leaving all RTS elements out) that would be fantastic. HOMM is, in my opinion, a pretty good example of a fairly static formula that is being given --in this case under a new development team-- some honest-to-goodness energy. Again, I'm not big on eye candy for its own sake, but have you seen the latest HOMM videos? That's some real embiance, for sure, and could really add to the experience all by itself. Here's just one screen: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...15.html?page=1

As for ROL, I do think this is a true test for Brian (as if coming out of the gate with Strategy Game of the Year wasn't proof enough!). What we can say is that the graphics look superb, and for me the most interesting part of that seems to be real attention to map elevation. If the game plays with elevation the way the screens look like will be possible, then that is a pretty impressive start. Consider this screen: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...s.html?page=24

Let's just put it this way: Based on Civ 3, I'm not rushing to by Civ 4. If I can borrow a copy from a friend, I'll gladly test it out. Otherwise, I'm waiting at least for the bargain bin if not for Civ 4 "Complete" to be on sale. And based on RON, I wouldn't think twice about putting my money down for ROL. They just seem like a hungry dev team fueled by a leader hungry to make his mark.

Firaxis just seems to be a company floundering in the shadow of a semi-retired genius. Don't be surprised if Soren isn't already moving to another company shortly after Civ 4 is released. You heard it here first!

[Zoid]

yin, you are fiercly opinionated as ever And I´m bound to agree with you that Civ4 won´t be revolutionary in it´s gameplay or in the basic concepts. But that´s what we want! We play Civ, just because we know what we get. And with every new installment we get something new and some modified stuff. It´s safe and comfy, feels like home

We can take the occasional bug and stupid exploit because we know that it will be dealt with in time. Civ3 was less than perfect out of the box, I denounced it here along with a lot of others. But I kept playing it occasionally and with the Conquests release it was a pretty decent game. Should this have been the case with the original game? Yes, of course, but you can´t always get what you want Hopefully Civ4 won´t be as rushed as Civ3 was. I know I´m setting myself up for a major disapointment here, but I have a really good feeling about this!

[Solver]

I mean when you have a genius in the next room just looking at periodic builds, you have to ask yourself: WHY!?

There are different types of genius. We don't really know Sid. Maybe he's the type that can invent new things (well, that we do know) but can't really work on newer/refined versions of that.

HOMM looks sweet visually . Not quite as good as AoE3, but very good.

I wouldn't base my judgement of RoL upon screens. I have seen many times in the past where screens of RTS games make things seem possible that really aren't possible or at least common. Ensemble Studios games screenies showed unit formations, etc., yet those were never used, plus lots and lots of shots not from actual gameplay, but designed-for-beauty moments with the scenario editor. However, if RoL has great gameplay, I'll gladly play it. In fact, I'd gladly play any game with great gameplay even if it had 1994 graphics.

And don't be so pessmistic on Soren. He isn't some guy who goes to design a game with another guy's name on the box. He's passionate, and he has everything needed to make it work right.

[yin26]

It´s safe and comfy, feels like home.

Well, I can't argue against you here. Based on this, I think you'll probably like Civ 4, and that's great. Did you really find Civ 3 that much better after the X-pack? If so, in what ways? I never gave it another look after the first patch.