BBC shows much new gameplay footage, including Nuclear Attack!

[rah]

Without having played V, I don't see how you could possible make that statement.

And for the record, if there's no MP, I won't bother buying the game.

But I will agree that a majority of sales will be to those who will never play anything besides SP.

[Ming]

Yeah... How can anybody make claims about a game that hasn't even been released yet. Or even make assumptions on how much it will be like Civ IV. If you look at all the stuff that has been officially released, it does look like an entirely new game, but until we get a chance to play it, it's kind of silly to make any kind of assumptions.

And yes, without an MP version, I would just continue playing Civ IV MP and not waste my time or money on Civ V. No matter how good the AI is, they can't match the experience of playing another thinking human being. And to me, that's where the fun is.

[CanuckSoldier]

Yeah... How can anybody make claims about a game that hasn't even been released yet. Or even make assumptions on how much it will be like Civ IV. If you look at all the stuff that has been officially released, it does look like an entirely new game, but until we get a chance to play it, it's kind of silly to make any kind of assumptions.

And yes, without an MP version, I would just continue playing Civ IV MP and not waste my time or money on Civ V. No matter how good the AI is, they can't match the experience of playing another thinking human being. And to me, that's where the fun is.

I couldn't have said it better. +1

CS

[Beatie]

My guess is that if you do not like Civ IV, then you will probably not like Civ V, because fundamentally it is the same game.

That is not my point! First of all we do not played Civ5 yet so we don't know about that game yet. But my point was that the problem of Civ games was the complexity of these games. The same complexity that we love so mutch is for other to high step to make. it's like chess, if you don't know the rules you don't like the game.. just 64 fields with pieces on it, that moves to other squares. But soon as people understand the basics of the game, en understand the complexity, and the many options you have to win a game.. a lot of people whould love the game just as we like I think.

[MxM]

For the record, the statement that that fundamentally the mechanics of the game is a civ game, is NOT my statement, it is the statement of the developers (done by multiple people). That includes complexity of the game. Just watch interviews.

And Beatie, you are talking about game accessibility, which is supposed to be better in Civ V, due to different interface, but again, fundamentally game suppose to be the same.

Look at Civ III and IV - they both civs, but with different interfaces and some new concepts introduced here and there. Same will be with Civ V. This is not bad thing, this is GOOD thing, otherwise it would not be Civ.

[rah]

Then you should have said if you didn't like previous civ games you probably won't like the new one. What you said about III and IV is really no different than if you had used I and II.
Even without playing V you can assume it will still be a CIV game.

[MxM]

rah, you right, I could have included all civ games, not just III and IV, I just think that III and IV are more representative of what will happen in Civ V, than Civ II or I. So I would not recommend buying I or II today, but III and IV I would.

And after playing the latest SimCity game (SimSity: Societies) I can not say that just because the name is the same the game has to be the same. So I would not assume that just because it is called Civilization it will be similar. So I was really glad from interviews to learn that Civ V is not too far from other Civs.

[Ecthy]

Any screenshots of historical scenario settings? I'm not gonna want this game without any of these. I know I started wanting Civ2 bad when I saw a shot of the original Rome scenario, specifially the mediterranean map with some ancient cities...

[Jaybe]

Historical Scenarios:
If they are not available with game, they WILL be with mods, probably within 3 months of release.

Haven't seen any such screenshots yet, but there are over 11 weeks left for the marketing buildup before release.

[MarBaS]

Meh, I won't buy a new computer for it.

ACK!

its not expensive having a computer that could play a game like this...the computer i built 4 years ago would play this. There is no excuse not being able to have a computer up to date enough.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes there is...you could be really cheap. Or maybe you just don't play many video games, and use your computer for work/word processing? Not everyone here plays video games, maybe they only play civ because they're middle age and aren't into games that are all about shooting people in the face and jacking cars and killing prostitutes or otherwise racing anthropomorphic egg laying dinosaurs on go-karts.

[CanuckSoldier]

Well if you are that cheap that you can't by a computer that will play a TBS game then I guess you don't want to play Civ5 that bad.

It's not like we are asking you to upgrade to a super computer, but you have to upgrade eventually anyway and chosing a business computer with a decret graphic chip doesn't add anything to the cost.

CS

[Modo44]

Well if you are that cheap that you can't by a computer that will play a TBS game then I guess you don't want to play Civ5 that bad.

It's not like we are asking you to upgrade to a super computer,

Dude, what are you smoking? CIV has always had performance problems. It's only reasonably fast now, because it's been many years of game patches and people's hardware upgrades. What makes you say this one will be any different?

[CanuckSoldier]

This is Civ not Quake 4 or Crysis 2. The game requirements have always been low for a game in any time period. The only issue is that Civers have got to used to running games on very sub par computers and expect this always to be the case and of course are disappointed when there 6 year old museum piece of a computer can't run the next version of Civ.

I beta tested Civ4 and the unoptimized beta builds ran on my old AMD Duron, Radeon 9800 pro, 1 Gig Ram system just fine. Let alone the released version which was much less resource intensive.

But people expected Civ4 to run on machines they ran Civ3 on despite the clear minimum system specs. I stopped counting the number of people in shock because their Geforce2FX cards, which clearing do not support T & L in hardware, would not run Civ4.

So lets be honest here, any Civ game is never going to need cuting edge technology to run, any average computer you buy today with any of the middle of the road dx10/11 video cards, will have no problem running Civ5.

So unless your computer is older than 3 years or was bargain computer from day 1, 2 years ago, you will be fine. And it's not expensive to buy an off the shelf computer today that will run Civ5. They have publically stated that they are simply aiming for a 256mb graphics and a dual core CPU as the minimum spec, I wouldn't recommend this but the I'm sure the recommended system is only one level higher.

So I don't know why you think a Civ game is resource intensive unless you still want civ5 to have the footprint of Civ2!

CS

[Modo44]

This is Civ not Quake 4 or Crysis 2.

I agree. Those games are orders of magnitude less CPU and memory-throughput intensive than Civ. All you really need for them is a high-end graphics card. CIV was the first game for a long time to go above 1GB of RAM used under Windows. Most 3D shooters never even approach that size, even today.

I agree that you could start CIV on most hardware. But that's far from providing a good, fluid experience, especially later in the game, especially when using any map size bigger than normal.