Third XP: Yay or Nay?

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Alexander I


Heh, we can make that one ourselves.
Or rather, fans with skills can.

I have very few skills, but many ideas. Time to take some courses...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Nay. Move on toward Civ5.

QFT. Or SMAC2.

[Locutus]

How often do we have to say it? SMAC's rights belong to EA, Firaxis can't make a SMAC2. (Yes, hypothetically EA might buy up Take-Two but that (a) is *etremely* hypthetical and (b) assumes EA would rather see a SMAC2 than more Civ content which considering their recent use of the SMAC license doesn't seem terribly likely; either way, companies generally don't start projects based on hypothetical assumptions and you can rest assured that Firaxis's next projects are already well into the planning stages, whatever they might be).

That said, I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to create a third expansion, not just because of the civs but there's only so much stuff you can cram into the game before overloading it.

Still, if you really wanted to, there are IMO three MAJOR civs missing from the game: Assyria, Nubia and Phoenicia (Phoenicia is a bit problematic because of Carthage but I think with the HRE and Byzantium there is plenty precedent for them; Phoenicia did contributed more to history than Byzantium, HRE and Carthage combined).

Combine those with one or two civs to fill some geographic/cultural gaps (e.g. Poland, Srivijaya, Gran Colombia, Benin) and maybe one or two 'lower tier' civs (Hittites, Minoans, Sweden, Austria, Thailand) and 3rd/4th-tier civs that seem to have a lot of popular support (Israel) and you could add 5-7 more interesting new civs. Beyond the big three you're definitely scrapping the bottom of the barrel though.

Fortunately there *are* still plenty of quality leaders to choose from (Harun al-Rashid, Akbar the Great, Wu Di, Tuthmosis III, Sargon the Great, a second Spanish leader (Ferdinand or Carlos), a post-Achaemenid Persian (like Khorsau), Sundiata Keita, Pachacuti, etc). And where the original Civ4 had 26 leaders among which 5 or 6 women, Warlords and BtS combined have added another 26, but only one of which is a woman. I'm no feminazi but that's a bit skewed if you ask me -- variety is the spice of life. So a hypothetical third expansion could do with a few more female leaders as well: Cleopatra, Dido, Wilhelmina, Maria Theresa, Zenobia, Roxelana, Wu Zhao, Theodora, etc. (I gotta say though that I take part of the blame here, I think without knowing it at the time I had a fairly big say in which leaders were included in BtS and didn't include any women in my list of suggestions )

So rather than adding 10 new civs and 6 new leaders you might reverse it for XP3: a lot of new leaders and only a handful of new civs.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Locutus
So rather than adding 10 new civs and 6 new leaders you might reverse it for XP3: a lot of new leaders and only a handful of new civs.

Sounds good to me! Want to pull some strings?

[Locutus]

I might have a somewhat bigger say than most people when it comes to this stuff, I unfortunately don't have nearly that big of a say

[Kuciwalker]

How often do we have to say it? SMAC's rights belong to EA, Firaxis can't make a SMAC2.

I'd never heard that before, actually. Damn

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Locutus
How often do we have to say it? SMAC's rights belong to EA, Firaxis can't make a SMAC2. (Yes, hypothetically EA might buy up Take-Two but that (a) is *etremely* hypthetical and (b) assumes EA would rather see a SMAC2 than more Civ content which considering their recent use of the SMAC license doesn't seem terribly likely; either way, companies generally don't start projects based on hypothetical assumptions and you can rest assured that Firaxis's next projects are already well into the planning stages, whatever they might be).

I'mnot a lawyer, but what would stop Firaxis from developing a SMAC 2 in spirit but using a different name? Obviously they would need renamed factions, leaders etc., but couldn't they do it if they wanted?

I'm not sure how nit picky copyright law is with regards to video games so who knows how much would need to be changed.

[LordShiva]

For the third XP, they should remove all the bogus civs, wonders, UBs, etc.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Nay.

FFS, I'm already cynical enough about expansion packs to consider them as nothing more than a cash grab. Enough already - if it isn't good enough to put into BtS, it's not good enough for subsequent release.

[vee4473]

I think they tried a bit too hard on this one. There is a point where enough is enough.

I'm all for adding improvements to a game that actually are improvements, but some of this seems like needless fluff. I mean, a second XP would have to be huge in order to sell. Hence the incredible amount of "stuff" whether it improves the game or not.

There's a saying in the art world that implies that an artist needs to know when to put the brush down. Especially when you feel yourself just adding things for no reason.

[Dis]

nay. I don't think they could include enough meaningful content. throwing in a few lowbie civs doesn't count as content.

[Robert]

I can come up with 20 cool ideas for a 3rd civ4 expansion.....!
Not to mention the many ideas to work out the current parts of the game.

The most important idea I would have is to expand the tech tree with many 'dead end' techs that give bonusses.
One of the current game problems is that some civs are very advanced and get all wonders/goodies from researching new techs first or almost first. It's hard to catch up in the late game.

If there are many tech choises that civs do not HAVE to make, but that can be made by more advanced civs, then the game may ballance out more and become more interesting up till the late age.

[Robert]

To expand on the above post;
what about tech-choises........

If a civ discovered evolutionism, he can't continue to discover any religious techs, like "creationism". A player who is on the State Property civic can't discover any free-market related techs (like corporation, in example)

Anyway, decisions in the game should have more influence on the techs can research, and different tech paths lead to the abandoning of other tech paths. So that a more behind civ can be the first to discover a certain tech, and build the wonder/building, get the advantage, etc.

right now the tech tree is factually only a priority choise, but not a real choise. Civs could change over time because of different tech paths, unable to join together anymore.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Locutus
SMAC's rights belong to EA, Firaxis can't make a SMAC2. (Yes, hypothetically EA might buy up Take-Two but that (a) is *etremely* hypthetical and (b) assumes EA would rather see a SMAC2 than more Civ content which considering their recent use of the SMAC license doesn't seem terribly likely [...]

Can't Take-Two buy only SMAC's rights from EA? (Assuming Firaxis could make a hypothetical SMAC2 a far bigger success than any other developer EA might choose, a deal advantageous for both Take-Two and EA should be possible.)

[Robert]

I'd rather have civ5 then smac2, btw.
The magic of civ is that it's attached to real history. It's not made up stuf. I didn't like SMAC that much because it was too much fantasy.

Not to mention that civ follows from 4000 BC to 2050 AD while SMAC just goes from future to future. It lacks the epic feeling to me.

I mean, Alpha Centauri is just civilization on another planet. I can see why they made a game out of it when the civ rights were still with Microprose, but I don't think that there's a real big market for Alpha Centauri. I think that I won't even buy it.

the only thing that I can imagine is an XP for civ4 that's a huge Alpha Centauri scenario.