Civilization 5 - WoW style.

[FrostyBoy]

Sigh, everytime I start these "make Civ 3D" threads, everyone gets what I say wrong. I guess the only thing I can do is hope someone creates the damn thing, or do it myself to show you all what I am talking about.

Don't limit your mind so much as to what I say, you're supposed to see beyond what has been done and make it work. I can see it, why can't any of you?

[Spaced Cowboy]

I still agree with Snoopy.

[Blake]

There are dynamic games of this nature in the making but um.... It's not the direction to take Civilization.

edit:

I'd put it like this. It'd be like mating The Sims with a FPS game so you can shoot all your Sims, in fact violently ending their pitiful virtual lives becomes the goal. Many people would think that it's a brilliant idea, but it doesn't change the fact that it would be uh... just plain wrong, it's not what The Sims players want.

[Kuciwalker]

Civ5 needs to have built-in demogame support, with even additional rules to handle player interactions*. That's the sort of direction it should go in.

* does anyone remember the economic minigame that was developed during the Civ3 demogame? That's the sort of thing I'm thinking of.

[FrostyBoy]

I don't see how what I said has anything to do with The Sims.. !? The Sims is for family orientated people!

[Blake]

Way to brilliantly miss the point .

CIV is for "big strategy" orientated people, not game environment immersion people.

So calling it Civ 5 is dumb, mkay?

It'd be like making a strategy game called Warcraft 3, then making World of Warcraft...

nevermind.

But at least call it "World of Civilization" rather than "Civilization 5", it is in no way shape or form a logical idea for a sequel to CIV.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Civ5 needs to have built-in demogame support, with even additional rules to handle player interactions*. That's the sort of direction it should go in.

* does anyone remember the economic minigame that was developed during the Civ3 demogame? That's the sort of thing I'm thinking of.

QFT

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Sigh, everytime I start these "make Civ 3D" threads, everyone gets what I say wrong. I guess the only thing I can do is hope someone creates the damn thing, or do it myself to show you all what I am talking about.

Don't limit your mind so much as to what I say, you're supposed to see beyond what has been done and make it work. I can see it, why can't any of you?

'Children of the Nile', 'Empire Earth', 'Medieval Lords: Build, Defend, Expand' etc(and Star Wars:Force Commander for a slightly different take) - It's already been tried.....and mostly not worked that well.

First Person 3D + grand strategic control don't mix very well - mostly due to the complete opposite way in which an interface best works for both styles. It's not as simple as saying, "then you can zoom up for the empire view and control everything" that by itself gets in the way enough to 'break' the magic....see examples above.

So erm no - "Civ WoW" wont get my vote.

Still if you can give me examples of grand strategy games that use 3D and don't dissolve into becoming all about panning camera angles around over actual strategy, I'm ready to be won over?

Originally posted by Blake
.....................

But at least call it "World of Civilization" rather than "Civilization 5", it is in no way shape or form a logical idea for a sequel to CIV.

I fully agree. 'sigh' IF only bethesda had given me that courtesy with "The Elderscrolls IV: Oblivion", I would have been able to save myself time and money

[FrostyBoy]

El Cid, each of those games you mentioned suck, and thats because they do it wrong. For games like this to succeed they need immersion. I believe it can be done.


Blake, it is less logical to think that a name has so much importance, that it should dictate how a particular game should be made.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Sigh, everytime I start these "make Civ 3D" threads, everyone gets what I say wrong.

No, we get what you say, we are just smart enough to realise what a bad idea it is.

[Patroklos]

Do it like Sim City then. You build the city a grand strategic game. Then freeze it in a moment and have another game let you play as a private citizen of your empire.

They should be two different games though, just one game is a parasite off the other game.

[DrSpike]

Parasite seems an apt description.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by DrSpike


No, we get what you say, we are just smart enough to realise what a bad idea it is.

I remember the first week of WoW's announcement; A LOT of people said it's a bad idea; but I could see that it was brilliant, lo' and behold.. it is.

Thus, I see things you don't, this makes me a designer and you a negative follower.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Sn00py


I remember the first week of WoW's announcement; A LOT of people said it's a bad idea; but I could see that it was brilliant, lo' and behold.. it is

You missed a n't at the end there.

WoW is initially immersive and always a good way to kill time (or maybe that should be "brutally murder time and feed it into the incinerator to hide the evidence"), it is not however "brilliant", being a grind game and all.

[FrostyBoy]

I can see its brilliance. That's my gift of power over you.