Plans for new XP or Civ5?

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Not so sure it's a good thing that another x-pack is on the way. It's so hard to add good material without changing the underlying game too much too soon.

I agree.

Civ4 was almost perfect gameplay, Warlords is more unbalanced, still fun but in a more SP way.

I fear the next expansion will knock things further out of balance.

[Adagio]

I'm looking forward to the next XP, just hope they wont spend too much time on scenarios I'll never play
I hope the XP will make diplomacy better than it is now

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Adagio
I'm looking forward to the next XP, just hope they wont spend too much time on scenarios I'll never play

Don't worry, I'll play them twice.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Diadem
Allright

So will there be more patches for warlords or is support ended now that a 2nd expansion is beind worked upon?

I do not know, but I doubt it. Firstly, there have been quiet after the patch. Secondly, there has been a long time since the XP was released, and usually all patches for games come the first months or so. Thirdly, Firaxis is working on a new XP, why use time on something they won't get money for? Sad, but true...

[Arrian]

I liked CivIII, despite its faults.

The corruption system was broken, but it was probably as close to "fixed" as possible in (fully-patched) PtW. They broke it again in Conquests, probably due to the inherent screwiness of the system itself. Conquests added a number of interesting things that were ultimately not balanced.

I enjoyed playing it, but the game had a ton of flaws. But then again, so did CivII.

/me runs.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by alms66
It's funny. Everyone who hates civ3 says that the corruption model was broken. Those who like civ3 say it was fine.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the corruption system was fundamentally broken (I liked Civ3), especially after Civ4 showed us how things ought to be done (and brilliantly). It's just that by the end of PtW things had been tweaked enough to patch over most of the brokenness.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Maquiladora


I agree.

Maquiladora rarely agrees with me so what I said must be true.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Arrian
I liked CivIII, despite its faults.

The corruption system was broken, but it was probably as close to "fixed" as possible in (fully-patched) PtW. They broke it again in Conquests, probably due to the inherent screwiness of the system itself. Conquests added a number of interesting things that were ultimately not balanced.

Thanks for your support as well.

I know Civ4 has been better in almost all ways (not just the game but in testing and balancing) but I still just get this nagging worry they might screw stuff up in an x-pack and then focus on Civ5. Look how long the Warlords patch took. And as I argued above we never got the C3C patch the game needed to make it even as good as the previous x-pack. This does not make a good precedent.

On the other side of the equation we have potential for fluff to be added like Civs and scenarios. You can see why I see the glass as half empty.

[Solver]

Conquests is in no way similar to XP2, because Civ4 isn't really similar to Civ3. Remember that Conquests was developed outside of Firaxis, and the whole game then being published by Atari, who were certainly one of the most horrible publishers of that time. Conquests was also the follow-up to a flopped expansion. PTW flopped, even if it improved on some aspects of Civ3. I can recall it having low review marks, and winning "Disappointment of the year" on GameSpot. XP2 is a followup to Warlords, and Warlords, while a long shot from being the best-ever expansion for a game, got good critical acclaim and didn't flop by any stretch.

[DrSpike]

For sure there are reasons to think 'this time it will be different', but if you follow the line of reasoning through the posts I'm not just arguing there is scope for bad things to happen I'm saying we'll probably get another "average but fluff" expansion which (even if not disastrous) wont add a great deal.

And there is scope for it to be worse than that. Whether or not Civ4 is comparable to Civ3 (the points about Breakaway and Atari are fair enough, though not entirely convincing given that Firaxis was responsible for Civ3 initally) look how long 2.08 took. Look how much Blake has been able to improve the AI as an unpaid amateur (albeit a gifted one). And (this is the kicker) do we really believe the necessary patches for XP2 will be there when Civ5 is the priority? I'd say maybe, and if you'll stop being an unquestioning fanboy (I myself am a fanboy - but a cynical one ) for just one second you might realise it's not a certainty.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Solver
XP2 is a followup to Warlords, and Warlords, while a long shot from being the best-ever expansion for a game, got good critical acclaim and didn't flop by any stretch.

Even though Warlords was "lackluster" in terms of improvements and additions, the stuff it did provide was good quality. Few people dislike Warlords the way many people have hated the Civ3 expansions. If what I understand is correct, then XP2 should do a whole lot more than Warlords, and be quite a good addition to the game as a whole.

[Solver]

Spike, I'll give you one thing, it's harder for me to maintain a discussion along your lines because I have much more inside info on development. And I fail to see the relevance of how long 2.08 took. Yes, it took long, but how is that relevant to XP2 being good or not? And yes, I'm positive that there XP2 will get patched if it needs it (probably will) .

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Solver
.... And yes, I'm positive that there XP2 will get patched if it needs it (probably will) .

Damn realist!

Actually, patches are good to have. First you get the expansion and learn how the dynamics have changed. Then the expansion gets patched and the process is repeated -- puzzle/mystery-solving time!
Just like Warlords and the vassal-state dynamic, not to mention AI enhancements (apply the ol' "Damn you, Blake!" here).

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Solver
And I fail to see the relevance of how long 2.08 took. Yes, it took long, but how is that relevant to XP2 being good or not?

It matters because the further we get away from XP2 the more focused minds will be on Civ5 (or, god help us, XP3). If they can only manage the resource to patch that slowly when they have every incentive to keep us happy because an x-pack is coming what will happen when there is no x-pack? I don't know, and (you can stop showing off too) you don't either. What I do know is that history (not just C3C) suggests my concern is a valid one.

Originally posted by Solver
And yes, I'm positive that there XP2 will get patched if it needs it (probably will) .

The question is around adequate patching not patching per se. And, as I mention above, you don't know the answer any more than I do.

[Solver]

Let me put it this way, you do not have any knowledge about why 2.08 took as long as it did, so you can't really judge whether it was because Firaxis "only managed the resource to patch that slowly".

What happens after XP2 gets released? Yes, I don't know that, but all my experience, not just with Civ4, says that a (possible) Civ5 would be very far off at that point. I do not see how there would even be a significant resource conflict between making an XP2 patch and Civ5. If Civ5, at that point, would be in the early planning stages, that would mean that it wouldn't require the coding & testing resources that a patch for XP2 does.