Civ is dead (or reminiscing on the past)

[Solver]

"Civ is dead" - Yin26, 9th of July, 2005.

Forgive me for posting this, but I have a very strong urge to . There was a very interesting thread in which the discussion ended exactly one year ago. The thread featured Yin in a somewhat surprise apperance on the forums, announcing his very pessimistic predicitons for Civ4.

I think that the thread itself was very interesting, and it's even moreso now in hindsight, given that we know how Civ4 (and Warlords just now) turned out, and given that Yin is playing and enjoying the game.

to Yin's contribution to the forum, gloomy as it might have sometimes been, and to Civ4.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136160

[conmcb25]

Now Solver, didn't Yin already eat the box

[Solver]

It isn't about the box, it's about the arguments that were brought up regarding no gameplay innovation, marketing vs. strategy, etc.

[yin26]

Originally posted by conmcb25
Now Solver, didn't Yin already eat the box

EXACTLY! Thank you.

Solver, you evil man. You already hoodwinked me into a sucker bet (playing it cool as a tester the whole time). Well, I paid my dues. The Firaxis team with Soren in charge proved me wrong. I'm glad for it, honestly. We hurt the ones we love, so the saying goes. We also shouldn't forget what I think was perhaps a deciding factor in how much better Civ 4 was than it could have been -- the "secret" beta testing group, of which Solver was a key member.

One interesting reminder was that I was looking at expanding the RPG elements even back then, and I hope we see this with a 'tailor your leader's traits as you play' ability in the XP. I also think Risk-like cards that you earn and can then spend on units, upgrades, traits, etc. would be pretty fun, too.

Anyway, are you having fun, Solver?

[Solver]

Nahhh.... you're missing the point . This isn't about the box bet or that, I've already had plenty of fun watching that famous video, thank you very much .

This is really about the gameplay discussion. I think that, under the layer of teasing and box-eating, that thread contains some important subjects on gameplay or, should I better say, genre advancement.

Got it ?

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by yin26
I also think Risk-like cards that you earn and can then spend on units, upgrades, traits, etc. would be pretty fun, too.

Isn't that what great people do?

Ugh, from the past thread,

Experience, I guess. Civ has never been able to conquer the fact that most human players win by economies of scale. These other things, which might be interesting the first several turns when every little bit counts, will get washed away as always when city 100 happens to be a different religion. Who cares?

brought CivIII screaming back to me.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by conmcb25
Now Solver, didn't Yin already eat the box

You know...I never saw that video... anyone have a URL?

[yin26]

Yeah, the gameplay discussions hit on some of the important topics, for sure. As for the Risk cards / great people, yes, same idea, but you can't buy units or boost your traits, for instance. There would also be a bit more randomness in what kinds of cards you get (for example, 3 military cards would be needed for a military boost of some kind, but it might take several earned cards before you get 3). So definitely I would not want these doing the same things as great people but doing similarly interesting things in a different way.

EDIT: By the way, I know many Civ players absolutely loath randomness, so I don't pretend that this idea would fit everybody.

[Blaupanzer]

Can those of us that are not Python programmers actually mod the game in basic concepts? Not just different leader traits, or building costs/unit strengths, but relationships (e.g., different unit effectiveness based on national religion, whole new unit types associated with certain techs, new techs in the tree, and so forth)? This seemed an implied promise at the time of that other thread.

[Solver]

Unit properties, such as promotions, bonuses, relation to techs, resources and such are moddable without Python indeed .

[yin26]

Shogun: Here you go... http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=146254

[Shogun Gunner]

yin -- thanks! That's a funny video. I was away from Poly for awhile and missed all the fun!

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by yin26

Firaxis on the other hand reminds me of a bunch of old ladies thinking that making 2's wild instead of 3's has somehow revolutionized their Sunday game of Go Fish.

Hehe.

[Louis XXIV]

I'm glad I read that thread plus part of the fund raising thread. I'm now downloading the video.

But it was very eye opening to be honest, especially when combined with the closing comments of Solver's Warlords review. I felt that, compared to Play the World, it offered significantly more, so I wondered about the lukewarm review. But the thread made me think that adding more isn't necessarily better (I know I've heard Firaxis say this before). You have to be forced to change your strategies to include the additions, not just have them added.

It isn't really going to change if I'm going to buy Warlords (my only hesitation is the reason why I don't own Civ4 yet, I'm too cheap to upgrade my computer to be able to play it). I play for singleplayer, but also as part of the Civ community. Expansions offer something that is accepted by the majority of the community, and allows new opportunities that I wouldn't want to be left behind on (pbem, succession games, and demogames, for example). Its something to think about in the future (and something that anyone making an expansion or sequel of a game should think about).

Thanks for posting a link to that thread, it was well worth the read. Now I just wish I could see Yin's review of Civ4 as well

[Louis XXIV]

Just to add, I finished watching that video

OMFG, that's hillarious (don't worry, I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with the guy laughing at you ). Seriously, that's pretty cool. Why didn't you bring anything to wash it down?