From Civ3 to Civ4

Kramerman · December 14, 2003, 23:50

form what ive heard fomr a lot of people here is that a lot of yall want innovation, and a lot of yall dont. A lot of people have the mentality of "if it aint broke, dont fix it" and make it seem they basically want civ4 to be like civ3. But what i say is that if you wanna play civ3, play civ3. If you dont think anything is 'broke' then fine, stay with civ3. If you want just a few things here and there changed, then i suggest you advocate another expansion for civ 3. But if you want a whole new engine and interfcae and graphics and stuff, then i suggest for you civ4

IMO, civ4 should be a whole new game, probably using an entirely new engine. A lot of core elements, such as tech tree, city improvements, resources, diplomacy, etc obviously must stay (it wouldnt be a civ history game with out them), BUT, they do not have to stay in the same form that they have been in for the last C1,2, and 3.

i for one am for a departure from the past, and a radical one at that if need be.

Kramerman · December 14, 2003, 23:54

i personally are torn between radical and significant departure. some things id like radical change, others i wouldnt mind if they kept the same.

Kuciwalker · December 15, 2003, 00:00

I voted "slight", but I'm really somewhere between slight and significant. I want the feel of Civ3 to stay, but some things to change that can only be changed in a new game (I don't want this to simply be an XP in another guise).

Shogun Gunner · December 15, 2003, 00:04

I would like to see a radical attempt of change made in the area of AI

I know all the arguments against....too costly....too difficult...multiplayer is a nice compromise...

Well, i'm not an expert in heuristics and neural nets, but some guys that work at my company are...and from what I've seen with my own eyes, there is a lot that can be done with artificial intelligence. Some of these software algorithms are not just the domain of the military anymore.... large companies are using these software algorithms for making simple decisions regarding business. Answering email seems to be a leading business contender for these products.

Anyway, if Civ4 comes out in 2005, will it be possible to radically improve the AI... I really hope so!

In the other areas, some areas are fine as they are. The basic game layout is okay. Combat could be improved - but it's not broken. Resources and trade is one of those things that could be gambled on.

I voted signficant. The Civ franchise is strong enough to attempt a large advancement in the genre.

Kuciwalker · December 15, 2003, 00:06

Quote:

I would like to see a radical attempt of change made in the area of AI

This, I support. This does not change the fundamentals of the game, but rather the opponent.

Jog · December 15, 2003, 00:49

I'd like a significantly new yet familiar civ4 experience and I'd also like the banana as well.

Tiberius · December 17, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
I voted "slight", but I'm really somewhere between slight and significant. I want the feel of Civ3 to stay, but some things to change that can only be changed in a new game (I don't want this to simply be an XP in another guise).

ditto

Nikolai · December 17, 2003, 17:17

I agree to a great extent with Shogun, but think that it describes "significant".

*Votes significant*

Fosse · December 17, 2003, 21:32

I voted with the hordes!

I feel that if the series doesn't make truly signifigant steps forward in its models and gameplay, that it will degenerate into a series of graphics updates.

Given how far computers and gamers have come since Civ 2, I would like changes from 3 to 4 to be much more dramatic than from 2 to 3.

Naturally, all of those radical changes should only be the ones I want and agree with.

POTUS · December 17, 2003, 22:27

I want a banna to be in the future of civilization. How can people be civilized without bananas?

Slax · December 18, 2003, 10:07

R a d i c a l .

Anyways, I just finished a banana.

TimeTraveler · December 18, 2003, 11:13

I honestly ended up choosing banana out of my current state of mind being somewhere between apathy and not knowing at all how much I want the differency

Straybow · December 19, 2003, 16:41

If getting rid of #^*@ culture flipping

and reintroducing Civ2ish trade as a major component in gameplay is "slight change," that's my vote.

Kramerman · December 20, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Fosse
I voted with the hordes!

I feel that if the series doesn't make truly signifigant steps forward in its models and gameplay, that it will degenerate into a series of graphics updates.

Given how far computers and gamers have come since Civ 2, I would like changes from 3 to 4 to be much more dramatic than from 2 to 3.

Naturally, all of those radical changes should only be the ones I want and agree with.

yes, i think much the same. The advances in other game genres in the past couple years have been leaps and bounds. civ4 should be the same.

rendelnep · January 21, 2004, 09:21

time to get civ kicking and screaming in to the year of the fruitbat....

asleepathewheel · January 21, 2004, 10:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Straybow
If getting rid of #^*@ culture flipping

.

you realize that's optional in Civ3, don't you? Has been for (I think) even before PTW came out.

pg · January 22, 2004, 09:01

the problem with civ is it's design is like 10 years or old or whatever and it shows. compared to newer strategy games(think paradox games for a good example) civ looks childish in it's simulation of history. it's still very fun but it's realism is horrible now compared to newer games. i'd really like to see it strive for more realism as long as the fun doesn't suffer.

Kuciwalker · January 22, 2004, 19:22

Yup, RoN is so realistic.

Face it - no strategy game spanning history even approaches realism.

Paddy · January 23, 2004, 05:31

I would like to see growth from the developers in the game.

Yet, I play Civ because I like the Civ concepts.

So my hope is that the designers can take on board the many discussions that are on this and other sites, and then come back with the next generation of the game.

Brent · January 30, 2004, 00:19

I want Civ4 to be about 10 to 20 % Civ1, 15 to 20 % Civ2, 15 to 20 % Civ 3, 10 % Colonization, 3 to 10 % SMAC, 1 to 5 % CtP1, 1 to 5 % CtP2, 0 to 1 % other, and 10 to 40 % new.

Rasputin · January 30, 2004, 00:38

just want a game that is good for MP ......

LzPrst · March 27, 2004, 16:26

Voted significant. civ3 is basically a pretty spiced up version of civ1. with the exception of resources and the tweak of certain combat elements it is much the same. Civ1 was based on the board game civilization. for those who havent played it you build cities that generate trade and you try to develop your nation and get the best score before time runs out. sound familiar?
the board game and civ1 couldnt take more factors into consideration or every turn would take several hours to work through. but now....
A civilization is not just its cities. they are merely the centers of technology and production. and cities produce very little food... the availability of food is a basis for a city, but as it grows it imports that food from other places, usually outlying farms and such. which is why I propose the following radical change: eliminate the city radius totally! the square you build the city in must be fertile or else theres no basis for its existence, as it grows it will have to get food from the surrounding area. early on when transportation is slow you need good squares right nearby but as time goes on you can get the food from further away.
example: america's biggest cities are not in the grainproducing midwest, but elsewhere. the food made in the food rich areas are transported to where the people are, not the other way around. the basis for most cities is trade. the possibility to prosper is the most fundamental base for a city, thus the more trade the more people, limited by availability of food.
Other factors should be taken into consideration as well, certain governments will draw more people and speed growth.
Point is that the possibilities we have are not as limited as they were when civ1 was made. thus more things could and should be implemented. The computer can easily take care of things outside the cities filling up a big empty hole in the civilization series.

Flinx · April 30, 2004, 03:43

Civ is Civ. If you change it too much then it will not be Civ it will be something else. Do you want Civ4 or do you want CTP3 or AOE2 or....

Addled Platypus · May 8, 2004, 17:45

MUST HAVE

multi player allready with the game, no more buying another game

Kramerman · May 8, 2004, 23:26

amen to that

Panag · May 11, 2004, 05:23

hi ,

A significant departure. i want a new game, but i dont want it to be alien from my good 'ole civ

but there should be things , innovations , etc , .... and more realism , unit trading , more techs , food trading , etc , .... but we should also have the option to play a huge game with loads of options , techs etc , .... and a shorter more limited game , .... and way more prepared options

have a nice day

H Tower · May 11, 2004, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
MUST HAVE

multi player allready with the game, no more buying another game

:worship:

grap1705 · May 12, 2004, 04:46

I vote "significant" because I like the Civilization concept, but found Civ3 to be a very poor successor of the serie.

Aside from the resource control concept, I have mainly bad grades to dispatch to Civ3: very poor military handling, limited scope with no vision offered of future development, poor diplomacy that gives the image of an effort without actually making it, poor economic model, some completely unrealistic concepts maintained such as the "magical railway" of "Beam me up Mr Spock" type, many oversimplified items like trading without bothering about viability of trade routes through enemy territory, etc... And not even an effort to ofer some eye candy in compensation, most having been sacrificed, such as the wonder movies, or an end sequence other than just a bunch of statistics of economic nature while all through the game you had very little macro economic control tools... Very disappointing indeed. Looked much more like a version 2.0 of Civ2 than like a new Civ3!

It seems like the Sid Meier team was sleeping while Activision released Call To Power 2, which is more satisfying in many ways...

Civ3 as it is appeared to me as a cheap game. Someone (Shogun Gunner I think) said he'd understand some features may be hard to developp because too costly or complicated. I disagree. Todays computing power allows for very complex algorithm. If the developper team cannot conceive them, then let them retire and hire me, because without being a computer analyst, I am able to develop such complex algorithms. And as for the money side, Civilization is a major item of PC gaming. If it's not worth investing money in it, then let them retire and go fishing!
As you see, my disappointment in Civ3 is deep.

H Tower · May 12, 2004, 11:52

if you're talking Civ3 vanilla, then I might agree with you. But Conquests fixed most of my problems with the game.

Panag · May 13, 2004, 00:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
MUST HAVE

multi player allready with the game, no more buying another game

hi ,

, but XP's would be nice every year or so , ....

or to put a couple games and scen's inside that can only be reached after playing all civs on the hardest level or so , ....

have a nice day