"Civilization IV"... Confirmed? - Page 7

Vince278 · July 4, 2004, 13:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
So that means it's still in development, and has lots of room for improvements.

Now is the time to make our opinions felt.

Enigma_Nova · July 4, 2004, 14:17

...
You -do- know they're just going to read this forum, and do whatever the hell they were going to do anyway, right?

Vince278 · July 4, 2004, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
...
You -do- know they're just going to read this forum, and do whatever the hell they were going to do anyway, right?

This is Civ4, not MOO3.

(I hope you are wrong.)

Tassadar500 · July 4, 2004, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
...
You -do- know they're just going to read this forum, and do whatever the hell they were going to do anyway, right?

That's wrong. I believe one of the Firaxians stated that they do read the forum, and take suggestions from it.

Vince278 · July 4, 2004, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
That's wrong. I believe one of the Firaxians stated that they do read the forum, and take suggestions from it.

A giant thumbs up to the Firaxians. It feels good to have even a tiny impact on how things go.

Joseph · July 4, 2004, 23:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
Does anyone know when they actually started to make cIV?

My guess only--NO. Sid and Company know but are not talking.

Enigma_Nova · July 5, 2004, 13:27

Nuclear Master, vince278:
I suppose I am a bit pessimistic about the issue.

But hey, I campaigned against the 24-hour day in World of Warcraft, and Blizzard still included it.

If Blizzard doesn't listen to its customers, then why would an inferior company like Firaxis do so?
Just a thought.

Vince278 · July 6, 2004, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
If Blizzard doesn't listen to its customers, then why would an inferior company like Firaxis do so?
Just a thought.

Its still too early to call Firaxis inferior, IMHO. Blizzard has lowered my opinion of themselves years ago. Warcraft was an excellent game but they are killing it sequels and clones (Starcraft). They're all the same to me. Diablo on the other hand was an outstanding product.

Drachasor · July 9, 2004, 11:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278 Its still too early to call Firaxis inferior, IMHO. Blizzard has lowered my opinion of themselves years ago. Warcraft was an excellent game but they are killing it sequels and clones (Starcraft). They're all the same to me. Diablo on the other hand was an outstanding product.

Well, it is ok to make a "clone" if you improve the game and gameplay. Warcraft II and Starcraft both did this, and that latter had an incrediably good story to boot.

Diablo II though, ehh, they never really balanced that worth a darn, and it sometimes seemed like they never cared.

WC III also wasn't that great, imho, and even with the expansion it doesn't offer the strategic depth of Starcraft. The counters are too hard, so you have to build up the entire tech tree and make sure you always use counters; otherwise you are toast. Starcraft was a bit more flexible in this area, so you could play the same race in a variety of ways.

Anyhow, the important folk have left Blizzard, and I no longer consider it the great company it once was. You just have to just each game release (from any company) on its own merit. Some are hits and some are misses. Civ III was a miss, imho*, but cIV might be dead-on.

-Drachasor

*I hear Conquerers dramatically changed this though, so I'll have to get it. Heh, has anyone notice that Amazon is trying to sell the Civ III + PtW Box matched with the C3C Expansion at a reduced price. Poor fools that buy it doesn't realize they could spend a lot less money, and get Civ III for a mere 10 bucks now (and then buy C3C which has PtW in it).

tuckson · July 10, 2004, 16:53

Hi,

Did anyone notice www.civ4.com is registered and leads back to civ3.com at the moment? According to the records it's already been registered in november 2003.

Kind regards

Lambiorix_be · July 11, 2004, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by tuckson
Hi,

Did anyone notice www.civ4.com is registered and leads back to civ3.com at the moment? According to the records it's already been registered in november 2003.

Kind regards

Yep, now I noticed

I hope this is a sign that they are preparing the start of the civ4 project.

It could off course also be standard procedure to avoid anyone to 'steal' the address in case they ever decide to create civ4. (in any case www.civ5.com does not work

)

homerjsinnott · July 28, 2004, 19:29

Can we have (not another moo3) Moo4 please? (will they buy it back?).

Toby Rowe · August 10, 2004, 08:12

Hi all,

I just went back to playing Civ III after the disapointment of RRT3.

I actually did want a logical progression from Civ II- that means as a starter the company needs to listen to what the fans of II really want. Like most companies they totally ignored them.

A Civ III made from the real Civ fan suggestions would have pleased me greatly.

If anyone wants Civ IV to be made from the ground up, lobby another company for a new game.

Almost every single suggestion made by fans of Civ I and II was utterly ignored by the company.

The strongest cry was for a real diplomacy model as mentioned above- completely ignored.

What we got was pre-ordained combat results, to counter the silliness of a tireme beating a battleship.
Now my (6 att) Cavalry unit will get beaten everytime by a Warrior (1 def) if that's what the AI has decided will happen- one daft system to another.

The AI will still try to sneak into any gap within your territory and set up a city, and still shows no sign of any intelligence in setting up cities within her own borders, two squares between each city still seem normal.

The game still rushes through history leaving most combat once you have tanks- I find combat in the dark and middle ages the most fun- you really have to plan well to execute a war.

This is a long strategic game- so leave it that way, that's why we like it!! (My main criticism of Civ- too rushed!!)

In my current game, I've shared a common border with the Germans for 2,000 years, I've seen Knights and Musketmen, yet my foreign advisor still "has no knowlege of the German military"- I've fired the lot of them, as each turn I see ample evidence of her capability, and therefore my foreign office team was clearly rubbish!

In summary, I wanted Infogrames to listen to the improvements the fans wanted in Civ II, what we got was a game made by blokes both blind-folded and using ear-plugs.

When will companies listen to the customers? This must be the only industry where customer satisfaction isn't a criterion in company policy.

Toby

Robert Plomp · August 10, 2004, 09:31

Pherhaps someone who lives close to Firaxis should drive by and walk into their office and make friends with the developers (bring beer)

They might talk and give some good info!
Bring your photo camera and take some real screen-shots when they're playing their famous network games on the alpha version!

So, who's living close to them?

Toby Rowe · August 10, 2004, 09:59

Mate,

How about them simply choosing half-an-hour each day to simply read the official board to see what the customer comments are? I'm sure the tea-boy wouldn't mind doing it.

I noticed with dread that you say Firaxis are making the game, so after the awful "Alpha Centuri" I'll read all reviews before buying the game.

The company needs to move on and leave us Civ fans alone, imagine one company destroying two titles. not just one. (no potential was realised with the Alpha Centuri concept as the Fireaxis game was so bad it killed it stone dead).

How on earth did they get chosen?

Toby

Toby Rowe · August 10, 2004, 10:24

PS,

Where is an "edit" button?
I heard Master of Orion 3 was mucked up- I only own MOO2, so what did they do that made it so bad. (On any gaming site I view, MOO3 seems to be the classic example of a developer really ruining a game, but I don't know why. Was it really that bad? Which company made it, and who released it? (so I'm warned!)

Toby

Nikolai · August 11, 2004, 07:08

1) The Firaxis guys have said that they read the forums, so no panic...

2) The "edit" button can be found to the left of the "reply with quote" button.

3) AC wasn't bad at all.

4) Firaxis wasn't "chosen", it owns the rights to the game.

Lambiorix_be · August 11, 2004, 08:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Mate,

How about them simply choosing half-an-hour each day to simply read the official board to see what the customer comments are? I'm sure the tea-boy wouldn't mind doing it.

I noticed with dread that you say Firaxis are making the game, so after the awful "Alpha Centuri" I'll read all reviews before buying the game.

The company needs to move on and leave us Civ fans alone, imagine one company destroying two titles. not just one. (no potential was realised with the Alpha Centuri concept as the Fireaxis game was so bad it killed it stone dead).

How on earth did they get chosen?

Toby

1/ AC wasn't bad at all...it was even a very good game
2/Firaxis at least is investing money in the project and the fact that so many people bought CIV3 series implies that it was good enough for millions of people.
3/ if you read all the advice given by the civ community you will notice not only that they number in thousands but also that they very often contradict each one another. It is therefor not abnormal that a lot of the advice is not being taken into acount.
4/ If you don't like Firaxis doing the game then don't buy it and wait until another company makes a similar product (although I think that the wait could be very, very long...)

Jon Shafer · August 11, 2004, 15:40

Firaxis has always been the team that's done the Civ games, so good luck in finding someone else to do it.

For Civ 3 the designer and almost the entire programming team left about a year into development. That would hamper adding things compared to the previous two versions, wouldn't you say?

And when Soren referred to building the game from the ground up, he was referring to the code base, not the game concept.

Robert Plomp · August 12, 2004, 01:56

Firaxis doesn't own the rights to the game.
Atari does. Long ago Microprose owned them, later microprose was bought by..... [forgot company]
That company asked Firaxis to make civ3.
That company was bought by Infogrames, which was bought by Atari.

So right now Atari is the owner of the civ-franchise.

Kuciwalker · August 12, 2004, 01:59

Are you sure they own the actual "Civilization" title, and not just the C3 game?

Jon Shafer · August 12, 2004, 02:45

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
Firaxis doesn't own the rights to the game.
Atari does. Long ago Microprose owned them, later microprose was bought by..... [forgot company]
That company asked Firaxis to make civ3.
That company was bought by Infogrames, which was bought by Atari.

So right now Atari is the owner of the civ-franchise.

Yeah, but it's always been Sid and company doing the dirty work. As I said, good luck in finding someone else to do it.

Jon Shafer · August 12, 2004, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Are you sure they own the actual "Civilization" title, and not just the C3 game?

Yes, Atari owns "Civilization."

notyoueither · August 12, 2004, 04:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Hi all,

Hi, Kieth.

Robert Plomp · August 12, 2004, 07:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

Yeah, but it's always been Sid and company doing the dirty work. As I said, good luck in finding someone else to do it.

Well, I wouldn't name that 'dirty' work.
I think most programmers in the world would love it to do that work! And most men in the world would wish they would know how to do it

Jon Shafer · August 12, 2004, 14:11

Mere play on words.

Toby Rowe · August 14, 2004, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Hi, Kieth.

I'm not Keith/kieth.

All,

I heard that company x was hampered by company y over ownership on the "Civilisation" title in a newspaper- I assumed that argument was over.

I noticed Atari (of the US) rose from the ashes from the strength of owning a couple of names on the old machine.

I'm still annoyed Microprose was ever brought- It was an excellent development house and should have stayed independent at all costs. They were the benchmark in gaming quality for me.

About Firaxis- AC encouraged you to develop a colony, once done it slaughtered you with pollution- to the point the game wasn't fun anymore.

Trying to educate people about pollution is one thing, destroying your entertainment is another, Civ 3 also falls foul of this. I simply don't build hospitals or factories as I don't have any control over it, unlike Civ 2.

I can't even prompt workers to "only clear pollution and don't bother me again-ever!" If there is no polluted tile-great! Have a tea break and work once one appears!!

I like micro-management, but some features I also want to totally automate, or else I just won't play the game as designed. Progression through the ages and Industrialisation are keys facets of the game.

Colonisation- I'd loved that title, there were some fans making their own Col2 on the net, but work was very slow. Anyone know of their current progress?

Toby

Max Sinister · August 16, 2004, 07:10

Freecol? They're still working on it, but it's far from finished... look yourself at http://freecol.sourceforge.net

BigFree · August 16, 2004, 14:52

HAHA(tm)!!! What a truley lame looking game! How it plays? I dunno; but they need some help with the GI!

Max Sinister · August 17, 2004, 11:07

I didn't play it yet. Be fair, BigFree. Not everyone is a graphics artist (me included). Could you do it better?