CivIV: Beyond the Sword

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
So, in fact you're not that happy with the XP because a lot of things already have been modded in?
That means that Firaxis the next time 'd better not make their games that moddable because in the end it won't satisfy anybody!

Originally posted by Locutus

The only practical difference between a mod and an XP is that an XP is easier to find (especially for mainstream gamers, i.e. the millions that don't post here) and makes it easier to agree on a standard for MP games, tournaments, etc. The fact that it's official serves both as a rallying point for all the best modders and players to come together (with Firaxis providing direction and the budget to get things done both well and fast) and functions as some sort of quality control: with mods you never know what you're gonna get. Some of it is brilliant, a lot of it is crap but most is somewhere in between, and you never really know what you have until you try it -- and most people just don't have the patience to test hundreds of mods to find the dozen or so that they like (and then hope that they are compatible, which they usually aren't). You can count on an official XP being more or less solid and (once patched up) fairly balanced and bug-free. There can be no doubt that the best fan-made mods are better than the official game in every way, but the problem is to figure out what they are and how to get them to play together.

So an XP to Civ4 is basically nothing more than a fairly high-quality mod that forms a widely accepted standard.

That was actually kind of my thought.

What I didn't like about Civ III is that many things were IMO broken, and Firaxis simply says "well, play with a mod then".

That is not fun, when you play with a mod, because you can't really compare with anyone.

I think it is a great idea if firaxis officially incorporates some modes into the gameplay, making them "canon" so to speak.

Then, even though it might be annoying to pay for, well, what appears to be freely available content- you're paying mostly for standardization of top notch mods. And countless small bug fixes, I'm sure.

Perhaps the original modders can get some sort of acknowledgment from Firaxis too, so they won't feel cheated.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Locutus
With most of the source code available there's almost nothing you could think that modders couldn't do that Firaxis can, and that they couldn't do as well, if not better. The fact that Firaxis draws very heavily on the fan community with the testing group is a testament to this: Civ4 wouldn't be nearly as good as it is now if it wasn't for modders and players in the community contributing a lot of their time and effort to the official product. Every single aspect of the game has been crafted with the help of the fans, not a single gameplay feature is a Firaxis-only production. Whether its my city/building/unit/GP names, Sirian's map scripts, Rhye's flags, Dale's scenarios, Blake's AI, Sullla's Civilopedia texts, ColdFever's localisation, countless other people's ideas, playtesting, debugging, code, etc, etc, etc. Don't forget that two of the main designers for Warlords are Apolytoners...

The only practical difference between a mod and an XP is that an XP is easier to find (especially for mainstream gamers, i.e. the millions that don't post here) and makes it easier to agree on a standard for MP games, tournaments, etc. The fact that it's official serves both as a rallying point for all the best modders and players to come together (with Firaxis providing direction and the budget to get things done both well and fast) and functions as some sort of quality control: with mods you never know what you're gonna get. Some of it is brilliant, a lot of it is crap but most is somewhere in between, and you never really know what you have until you try it -- and most people just don't have the patience to test hundreds of mods to find the dozen or so that they like (and then hope that they are compatible, which they usually aren't). You can count on an official XP being more or less solid and (once patched up) fairly balanced and bug-free. There can be no doubt that the best fan-made mods are better than the official game in every way, but the problem is to figure out what they are and how to get them to play together.

So an XP to Civ4 is basically nothing more than a fairly high-quality mod that forms a widely accepted standard.

Nice post. However, it seems very likely that the x-pack will be mainly a move sideways, with a few small steps forward, like Warlords.

[Kuciwalker]

X-packs usually are, and IMO ought to be. Save the fundamental changes for a new game.

[DrSpike]

Well yes, but in other genres more of the same can still be worthwhile. It's only really in the Civ context it usually isn't. So the better argument is that x-packs don't suit Civ, because you can't tack on a new campaign or whatever with new but similar content.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Martinus

My guess (which is a bit of wishful thinking, because if it was implemented like this, it would be perfect) is this:

- AP is going to be either a national wonder, or a building,
- it can only be built in the city with the shrine of a given religion,
- it functions like a low-power UN, but only for civs with the same state religion.

Three excellent ideas. The last one is brilliant... It can make religion much more interesting and valuable.

[Targonis]

It's difficult to know how much source code will be changed/added for the new module without having access to people at Firaxis. Many things can be done with the current game code, but at the same time, some additions may require updates to the source code/game engine.

Originally posted by Locutus
With most of the source code available there's almost nothing you could think that modders couldn't do that Firaxis can, and that they couldn't do as well, if not better. The fact that Firaxis draws very heavily on the fan community with the testing group is a testament to this: Civ4 wouldn't be nearly as good as it is now if it wasn't for modders and players in the community contributing a lot of their time and effort to the official product. Every single aspect of the game has been crafted with the help of the fans, not a single gameplay feature is a Firaxis-only production. Whether its my city/building/unit/GP names, Sirian's map scripts, Rhye's flags, Dale's scenarios, Blake's AI, Sullla's Civilopedia texts, ColdFever's localisation, countless other people's ideas, playtesting, debugging, code, etc, etc, etc. Don't forget that two of the main designers for Warlords are Apolytoners...

The only practical difference between a mod and an XP is that an XP is easier to find (especially for mainstream gamers, i.e. the millions that don't post here) and makes it easier to agree on a standard for MP games, tournaments, etc. The fact that it's official serves both as a rallying point for all the best modders and players to come together (with Firaxis providing direction and the budget to get things done both well and fast) and functions as some sort of quality control: with mods you never know what you're gonna get. Some of it is brilliant, a lot of it is crap but most is somewhere in between, and you never really know what you have until you try it -- and most people just don't have the patience to test hundreds of mods to find the dozen or so that they like (and then hope that they are compatible, which they usually aren't). You can count on an official XP being more or less solid and (once patched up) fairly balanced and bug-free. There can be no doubt that the best fan-made mods are better than the official game in every way, but the problem is to figure out what they are and how to get them to play together.

So an XP to Civ4 is basically nothing more than a fairly high-quality mod that forms a widely accepted standard.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well yes, but in other genres more of the same can still be worthwhile. It's only really in the Civ context it usually isn't. So the better argument is that x-packs don't suit Civ, because you can't tack on a new campaign or whatever with new but similar content.

I think Civ x-packs can be worthwhile with interesting gameplay changes that don't alter the basic structure.

[DrSpike]

But enough to warrant the x-pack? Warlords is probably the best Civ x-pack and it doesn't really add much over the vanilla gameplay.

[greenday_234]

Warlords is probably the best Civ x-pack and it doesn't really add much over the vanilla gameplay.

Actually I couldn't disagree with that more. I think i was one of the worst because it didn't add much over the vanilla, and I think if you go back and read a lot of the non-fansite reviews that was a huge complaint.

I think that would have been a good xp had it been 10 bucks. Its lack of content wasn't worth more than that. I understand that they took pains to make sure it was balanced but that doesn't mean they get to charge me more for less because "they tried real hard".

[edit]: If you think about it, we wouldn't accept that excuse if we went out to eat, "Oh yes sir, we know you paid thirty dollars for this meal, thats why all .2 ounces of your steak will be cooked to perfection."

[DrSpike]

I think you missed the point. I tend to agree with your comments on Warlords, but it's competition in recent years is PTW (which added even less and a broken MP - its main feature - from day 1) and Conquests, which broke the game completely and was never fixed.

So unless you dig back through scenario based x-packs to Civ2 (fine if you liked scenarios) Warlords is the best x-pack, despite offering little.

Which underlines my point: Civ is a very difficult game to do x-packs for because a choice has to be made between adding little and changing the core game. Personally I'd prefer they didn't bother and continued patching. But that will never happen.

[Solver]

It's difficult to know how much source code will be changed/added for the new module without having access to people at Firaxis. Many things can be done with the current game code, but at the same time, some additions may require updates to the source code/game engine.

I think all the gameplay additions could be done with just the SDK code by the fanbase, in theory. What does BtS add? Tweaked espionage? Go into the SDK and you can create any espionage system you want to. New civs and leaders? Doesn't even need the SDK. Corporations? Again, just some SDK programming. Random events? Doable very well in SDK, as shown by some existing mods. Etc, etc.

The best part of this is, of course, that, post-BtS, we will have great mods building on top of it that enhance the game even more.

[Kuciwalker]

Solver, you could probably make Civ V with the SDK. So?

[Solver]

Depends on what you mean by Civ V. You couldn't do a substantial upgrade of the graphics, because the engine would remain what it is. But you could definitely do just about anything you can imagine with the gameplay itself. As far as gameplay changes in the SDK go, the only real limitation is your coding skill. Practically speaking, though, I'd say it's the coding skill and the possibility of teaching the AI whatever it is that you create.

[Dauphin]

No talk of traits? With 19 combinations of traits not used, 16 leaders takes it up to pretty much all combinations. Industrial-Philosophical will no doubt remain unavailable as a combo.

[Jaybe]

Remember when Civ4 was first being promoted, it was said that for culture you would have to SPEND MONEY to get it to expand? I was somewhat disappointed that buildings provided all you needed, and you didn't need to allocate finances towards it unless you were going for a culture victory or had to enhance happiness (to combat war weariness, for instance).

I would like all non-wonder buildings to be capped at ONE culture-point per building, unless some proportion of your budget was put into culture spending. This would represent government support for such. Perhaps 30% (or at least 20%) ought to be required for buildings to provide their full culture value. Below that it would be proportional, aside from the 1-culture point minimum.

The AI would have to be adjusted of course, as might technology costs.