3000 & Beyond and 2000

icet · February 21, 2004, 06:55

Civilization 4 should go on to 3000 and much beyond and it should have the option to limit it to 2000 or even 1500 for those who like it that way. There are two groups here; those who like it to go on to 3000 and beyond and those who like it to go on to 2000 or a little further. The Civilization 4 team should cater on to the needs of both of these groups. Why limit it to 2000 or something and sacrifice the other group's wishes? The players should be able to select the year themselves. If someone wishes to select 500 let them.

Icet

Plotinus · February 22, 2004, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by icet
Why limit it to 2000 or something and sacrifice the other group's wishes?

Because if you give the option of continuing into the distant future, complete with fictional techs, units, governments and heaven knows what else, that limits the amount of other stuff you can put in the game. Those who would prefer the game to stop in the present day don't want to "limit" it. The choice is not simply between a game that stops at 2000 and one that keeps on going, but between a game that stops at 2000 and has more stuff up to that date, and a game that keeps going with new stuff after that date but which is thinner overall.

Fosse · February 22, 2004, 17:43

Plotinus raises a good point that I don't think I've seen clearly articulated on this subject before. Either you add a far flung future and make the game unbearably long (for most people, not the die hards), or you water down the previous eras in order to throw a few sci-fi techs in.

Thanks for making that point.

lajzar · February 22, 2004, 17:56

Personaly, I'd favour a game that is both broad and deep.

Hands up anyone who reckons thats gonna happen

DarkCloud · February 22, 2004, 18:39

Poltinus' statement is exactly THE reason why Civilization should focus on doing what Civ does best- History rather than Alpha Centauri FutureTechianism

aahz_capone · February 22, 2004, 19:35

Well, they did an awesome job with SMAC imho. All the future techs mean something, comming from well documented sci-fi. It all made sence. Unlike the CTP series which future techs made no sence at all and future vehicles were just rediculous.

However, I agree that sci-fi should be left to games like smac and galciv. I do think though that as we get deeper into the 21st century civ4 could at least have a more up to date limmit like 2200. The techs coming in the next couple centuries will not be so mindboggling as something ridiculous like in 3000ad (in which case one planet is just crazy). Things we are researching now will become household items in 80 years, so the extrpolation is far simpler.

DarkCloud · February 22, 2004, 20:12

Oh well, I enjoyed AlphaCentauri- but the public didn't. It didn't sell nearly as well as civilization.. because people didn't connect with the 'futurism'

CTP probalby would have been a better analogy- many of the CTP future units were just stupid (the lawyer???) Who would hire a cadre of lawyers to fight their battles!

it's just outrageous! Something like that would only happen in "The Space Merchants" (by Frederik Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth)

or maybe in Max Berry's "Syrup"

Frankly, I think a limit of 2025 would be acceptable for Civ IV. although I would accept 2035 if they could extrapoliate some good cloning advances and biotechnology and nanotechnology and maybe a space tech or two

aahz_capone · February 24, 2004, 11:07

well, when would civ4 come out? I wouldn't be surprised if it was almost 2010 by the time a civ4 exp would come out, than it would just be silly if you ended the game 15 years after real time, no space to see if your alternate world would stand a single internet-age war.

When did civ 1 and 2 come out and what were their ending dates? I think more than 15 years afer release.

DarkCloud · February 24, 2004, 22:08

It always takes 6 years for a civ-sequel.

Civ I 1992
Civ II 1996
Civ III 2002

Civ IV "2008"

Fosse · February 25, 2004, 11:18

Civ I to Civ II was four years! We might only have to wait until '06 by that!

Commander Bello · February 25, 2004, 11:41

I'd vote for 2025 as an end of the normal game.
As Civ4 is planned to be released end of 2005 (so it might become early 2006...) this still means an extrapolation of 20 years.
Now, try to remember what expectations we had in the early 1980ies...

Who expected to have multicolor displays on mobiles? Who did even expect mobiles?
Who expected GPS systems in middle-class cars?
Who expected the internet?
And who expected 3.x GHz computers with gb harddisks?

What I want to say is it is almost impossible to make good assumptions of what the future might give us. Any attempt to do this for more than 20 years is just a wild guess.

Roman · February 26, 2004, 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Commander Bello
I'd vote for 2025 as an end of the normal game.
As Civ4 is planned to be released end of 2005 (so it might become early 2006...) this still means an extrapolation of 20 years.
Now, try to remember what expectations we had in the early 1980ies...

Who expected to have multicolor displays on mobiles? Who did even expect mobiles?
Who expected GPS systems in middle-class cars?
Who expected the internet?
And who expected 3.x GHz computers with gb harddisks?

What I want to say is it is almost impossible to make good assumptions of what the future might give us. Any attempt to do this for more than 20 years is just a wild guess.

I completely agree. And let's not forget what we were expected to have by now, but are nowhere near having it:

Bases on the Moon
Colonies on Mars
Personal Flying Cars
ETC...

Simply put, technology predictions for about 5 years ahead are very accurate, as the products are currently in direct development with reasonably precise release schedules. Predictions for about 10 years ahead already begin to get more difficult, because the products concerned are not necessary already in direct development, but they are still relatively accurate, as the relevant products are in the planning stage. Technology predictions for 20 years ahead of time are much more difficult, but much can still be reasonably predicted, though you should expect that some of your predictions are not going to be realized. Still, there is much basis for prediction left. Modern major military systems, for example, take 20-30 years to develop (F-22, for example, took 25 years to develop), so major military systems that are not in development now already are not going to be available in 20 years time. That does not mean, of course, that military technology does not get more effective through upgrades - the development times I cited refer to military platforms. It is also reasonable to expect that technology path dependence (sorry, it is the economist in me speaking

) will still be operational over 20 years and there will not be a fundamental change in our technology system nets (what I mean is that in 20 years we will still have cars, planes and other current platforms - sure they will be better and more sophisticated, but they will not disappear over 20 years). Moreover, you can relatively precisely determine which technologies are going to play a crucial role for the next 20 years.
If you want to be so bold as to make technology predictions 50 years ahead, expect most of the predictions to be inaccurate, but I suppose you still can get something right. At least it is possible to imagine that if you were transported 50 years into the future, the technology you would see might seem wondrous and confusing, but there would still likely be some recognisable features and some common, albeit much upgraded, platforms with what we have now.
Beyond 50 years? Forget it! We simply cannot say almost anything.

Plotinus · February 28, 2004, 09:31

There are cars with GPS? Wow!