Announcement

**Ekmek** · June 20, 2004, 19:41

This sounds like a lot of promises I heard for civ3... but with the source code we could cherry pick the good ideas!

**child of Thor** · June 21, 2004, 05:16

I seem to interpret point 2 in a completely different way

Sounds like they plan to put an 'empire earth' type graphical display on it - i really hope not, as this kind of game view just doesn't enable a decent tactical experience, at least not in a civ type context....

**Maquiladora** · June 21, 2004, 07:40

3D, oh dear. Why dont they concentrate on getting the game perfect and not pissing around with crap that adds nothing to gameplay. I dont see many people screaming out for civ in 3D around any forum. Its all just a big game to them

**Locutus** · June 21, 2004, 10:42

Re: Just an observation......

Dale, did you see my thread where I broke down the info Soren gave into more detail (here)? Some interesting details there that weren't included in the news item Dan blindly copied from CFC before I could finish my analysis.

Point 2 is old hat for SMAC players (yes still 2D graphics, but but a 3D feel), or any other RTS player.

There's a difference between a 2D map with bumps and a truely 3D game engine. CoT is on the money about the EE comparison, similar games include RoN, Warcraft III, AoM and C&C:Generals. Those are truely 3D environments, SMAC is quasi-3D at best. (Remember, Civ3 uses the same engine as SMAC!)

Whether this change is a good one is open for debate, but if done properly it certainly isn't worse than 2D (RoN is an excellent example IMO). Fact of the matter is, if Civ4 wouldn't be 3D it wouldn't sell, and the franchise would eventually die out like CtP did. And I think most of us will agree that it's better to have a Civ games Firaxis-style than no Civ games at all.

Point 7 is just ridiculous to mention, because you can't have a civ game without a conquest win option.

Now, now, having fun venting your Civ3 frustrations?

In the context of the presentation where that quote came from that comment makes perfect sense

But take a look at points 4, 5 & 6. Point 4 just sounds like CTP2's religion mod and public works.

I've considered at least a dozen different implementations for religion myself, Civ4's system may be similar to CtP2's or it may be very different. EU and other games have religion models as well, so if you're implying they're just ripping stuff from CtP2 I think you may be giving us too much credit

(though I can assure you Soren is indeed aware of CtP2 and its mods.) Civics sounds more like something akin to the EU government feature to me, not PW related.

Similarly, unit upgrades and experience. Will this be similar to the upgrade mods of CTP2 and it's experience ratings (medals)?

Doesn't every Civ game have that? SMAC even has 5 levels of 'veteranship', as opposed to CtP2's 2. I think the idea is that they're gonna expand on that system in ways we haven't seen before (in Civ).

But most importantly, let's look at point 6. Modability/multi-player. I SOOOOOOOOOOOO hope this is a major focus of the design team, and not some puffed up speech like it was for Civ3's so called "multiplayer/modability". An editor is NOT on the cards. Sure, for scenario makers it'd be good, but what of the serious moder who wants to write the AI? Or script in their own events/processes? If they're serious about these areas, then it sounds to me like they'll take an approach similar to CTP2.

If you read the link I provided in the first paragraph of my post you'll see that Soren is taking this *VERY* seriously. I think Civ4 has the potential to surpass CtP2 in terms of moddability if Firaxis handles it right. And I don't need to tell you how big that is

So all up, it appears like Sid and his team might be encrouching on CTP's turf. Or am I just reading too much into it, and should expect something similar to Civ3, an over-simplified, unchangeable game?

Mostly, you're reading too much into it IMO. I'm sure they looked at CtP2 and other strategy games (heck, I *know* they did), but they're making their own game. If they wanted to make a clone of CtP2 than they would've done so with Civ3, which was released long enough after CtP2 for them to have been able to copy its concepts. They will undoubtably be borrowing ideas here and there, but they will probably improve upon those ideas in their own way and also add a lot of new and unique features. Just like we do with CtP2.

**Peter Triggs** · June 21, 2004, 13:19

I'm not getting the added comments on the powerpoint file of Soren's talk. Any trick to exposing them?

The thing is that when I dug up the link to this file:

What they're up to.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1915387#post1915387

Hey, does anybody have any information from Firaxis about what they intend to put into cIV? I'm kinda curious, since I heard that they already have the new major additions thought up... so, does anybody have any of it? I would really like to know! Thanks.

I noted that there was another interesting slideshow available:

Game Developers Conference (GDC)

http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2004/reynolds_brian.ppt

GDC is the game industry's premier professional event, championing game developers and the advancement of their craft.

and I wonder if there's any hidden comments on this one.

**Locutus** · June 21, 2004, 14:03

Peter, did you download the file (much) earlier or just now that the news was posted? If you downloaded it earlier, clear your history and cache and try again. The file with the notes was only uploaded a few days ago. Before that, a version without notes was on that site. If you downloaded it before, your browser might be getting the file from it's own cache rather than getting the new version from the website.

If that's not the case, do you see any room for comments at all or is the box there but empty? The box should be below the slides, in normal view (View > Normal). Below a screenshot of where the notes should be (not every slide has notes though; the 4th slide "Franchises: who needs 'em?" is the first one with notes).

Yes, there are quite a few interesting articles on that page, and Brian's is indeed among the most interesting ones (and not just because it's Brian's

)

And no, the other slides don't have 'hidden' comments. Some may have comments, I don't know (I think the ones I read mostly didn't, but then again, for most it's been a while), but they're not specificially hidden. Soren's comments were added recently (after I sort of reminded him of it). Apparently he had submitted the wrong file to the webmaster or something (or maybe he initially felt the extra info in the notes wasn't ready for publishing yet but changed his mind). I was too happy with the extra info to ask him about that

Attached Files

**Locutus** · June 21, 2004, 14:12

Ah, I see you talked to Warpstorm. If you have any questions, he's the guy to ask (well, after Soren himself of course) -- he's a game developer himself (coincidentally also works in Hunt Valley, MD, though not for Firaxis) and attended the GDC.

**hexagonian** · June 21, 2004, 15:24

I don't expect a CTP clone, nor do I really want one (especially since there are so many games out there that that have similar features), but I do hope that civ4 evolves by recognizing some of the benefits that have proven to be successful in many of these types of games, (i.e. stacked combat, elimination of lategame tedium by unit stacking and Moddability)

The main drawback of Moddability in civ3 is the lack of a scripting language and the fact that certain apects (especially in regards to tile improvements) are hardcoded. There actaully seems to be a great deal of flexability in many areas of the editor (at least in c3C), though I'm no expert in the matter.

I've seen both 2D and 3D maps that are beautiful, and having one or the other really isn't going to determine whether it's a good game or not.

RP elements is going to be important. After giving AoW a play, I like the idea of individual units (In AoW Heroes and Wizards) because they give your civ more of an individual character rather than a collective charater.

**Dale** · June 21, 2004, 18:31

Locutus:

Actually, no I hadn't seen that extra article (as I suppose is pretty obvious in my original post). After reading that post of yours I want to make these further comments:

Firaxis seems to be going through considerable lengths to make the game *extremely* moddable: all in-game data will be stored in XML, nothing will be hardcoded! Also, the engine has Python (a very powerful scripting language) integrated in it, opening up things like map generation, combat, triggers/events, etc to fans. If you don't know what that means, suffice to say this is every mod/scenario-maker's wet dream!

*DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL* Candle'Bre is following this same road for those interested, .xml and Lua.

Regarding MP: Soren noted that at the time of his presentation (last February), Firaxis had a working MP system already and the Firaxians have been playing 4+ hour games after work. I'd say this is very good news for the MP community indeed!

I'm glad it's working this early in the development. Usually MP likes to be added into TBS near the end of the cycle, and that's extremely difficult to integrate properly.

The game will provide a "continuous, immersive 3D world (what-you-see-is-what-you-get)". I think this means two things: 1) Civ4 will be fully 3D 2) As in Civ3, I believe that Firaxis will aim to keep the game on the main map as much as possible: no large windows that block the view of the main map, no 'distracting' features like palaces/throne rooms, wonder movies, cutscenes, etc (note that this is my own conclusion, not something Soren said).

Actually, I'm thinking this is touching on a world map design similar to IMagic's Destiny (truelly spherical). Hope so, that'd be cool.

One of the key phrases for Civ4 will be "Simplify, simplify, simplify", which means as much as streamlining the existing gameplay where possible.

This comment actually scares me. I thought Civ3 simplified Civ2 too much for me. I like the complex nature of Civ2. I would much prefer if they took a line similar to the CTP team did by going, "nationlise, nationlise, nationlise". This would keep the complexity but give the appearance of "simplified" for the user.

More sophisticated RPG-like concepts of unit experience and upgrades will be introduced.

Paragon's HOI experience system comes to mind as something that might work.

Soren mentions The List for Civ3

I'm fairly certain that Firaxis would have many copies of The List, and CTP's list, and RoN's list, and EE's list, and MTW's list, and any other high-strategy "list".

This would also tie into his comment of looking at models that worked in other games.

Civ4 is part of the Civilization franchise, and a franchise can usually only be successful if it makes conservatively changes between iterations. So Civ4 will not be extremely different from Civ3, it will be another conservative sequel. According to Soren, a good rule of thumb for a franchise is "1/3 old, 1/3 improved, 1/3 new".

And this, finally, is probably why I'll be hesitant to purchase Civ4 when it comes out. The Civ core-design and core-principles has not changed since Civ1. Now while yes, I applaud them for that, I do believe that it's time for a brand new shiny core-design. And until this happens, I really don't know if I'll be truelly enthused into buying any new civ-styled game.

In my opinion, the current existing core-design of all civ games revolves around "wealth". Wealth in money, wealth in resources, wealth in trade, wealth in factories, but plain wealth. From wealth the design-star flows out to the other models (military, diplomacy, etc). Unfortunately, I don't believe you can leave it at that. I truelly feel that any new core-design model for a civ-styled game should revolve around 4 tied-in concepts:

- wealth
- location
- religion/ideology
- plain old curiosity

If people want me to go into it further, I can. Just ask.

**Solver** · June 21, 2004, 19:07

XML files and Python -

. That might give Civ 4 a level of moddability comparable to that of CtP1/2.

My only real concern is the same as Dale's, relating to that simplifying part...

**Alex** · July 5, 2004, 18:57

Originally posted by Dale
I truelly feel that any new core-design model for a civ-styled game should revolve around 4 tied-in concepts:

- wealth
- location
- religion/ideology
- plain old curiosity

If people want me to go into it further, I can. Just ask.

Go into it further. Please.

Announcement

Just an observation......

Just an observation......

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment