Tweet
So there has been some whining (not that much admitadly) that Civ4 is just the same old same old but now in 3D. With all the new features announced, and the indication that the AI is a big focus 
I find this a little strange. I'm not really sure what the doubters of Civ4 want but it seems to me to be a game that isn't really 'Civ' at all.
So what makes a game a 'Civ' game and not something else (like an AoE style game or a RTW style game, both of which are great, but are not 'Civ' games, and of course not quite as good
). Here is my first attempt at a definition, but what do you all think?
1) Must be turn based!
2) Bounded by human history, so no magic or sci fi and the game should feel 'right' with regards to events that occur in history. (SMAC/X has more freedom in design, bring on SMAC2 for cool innovations
)
3) The basic system of food/production/cash brought in from each sqaure by workers is the heart of Civ. Other strat games have different systems (such as in RTW) some copy Civ, but it wouldn't really be Civ if this system was substantially different.
4) Warfare is a means not an end and is not the sole focus of the game.
This is pretty broad and allows all kinds of different ideas to be brought into the franchise, while keeping the basic feel of Civ we know and love intact. I think Civ3 and Civ4 are/will be genuine sequels becuase they have radically changed most of the elements outside of these basic constraints with respect to previous versions.
I find this a little strange. I'm not really sure what the doubters of Civ4 want but it seems to me to be a game that isn't really 'Civ' at all. So what makes a game a 'Civ' game and not something else (like an AoE style game or a RTW style game, both of which are great, but are not 'Civ' games, and of course not quite as good
). Here is my first attempt at a definition, but what do you all think?1) Must be turn based!
2) Bounded by human history, so no magic or sci fi and the game should feel 'right' with regards to events that occur in history. (SMAC/X has more freedom in design, bring on SMAC2 for cool innovations
)3) The basic system of food/production/cash brought in from each sqaure by workers is the heart of Civ. Other strat games have different systems (such as in RTW) some copy Civ, but it wouldn't really be Civ if this system was substantially different.
4) Warfare is a means not an end and is not the sole focus of the game.
This is pretty broad and allows all kinds of different ideas to be brought into the franchise, while keeping the basic feel of Civ we know and love intact. I think Civ3 and Civ4 are/will be genuine sequels becuase they have radically changed most of the elements outside of these basic constraints with respect to previous versions.
.
Comment