Civ 4 (If Civ 3 works out) - Page 2

Rasputin · July 17, 2001, 11:37

lord of the mark · July 17, 2001, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
Personally I hope Firaxis will skip any Civ x after Civ III.

I hope they'll support Civ III and expand it for at least a year, with downloadable added units, mods, maps, leaders (civilization), not to mentioning enough patch to crush any relevant bug.

I know people are happy with the fans and enthusiast level add-on, but I still mentioned that a great game need a great professional support. It's enough tha Firaxis put a couple of designer to bring best fans add-on and enhance them to a professional level. I.e. I understand many people can build a great custom civilization, but probably lack graphics expertize and tools to model 3D leader and unique units animation. Any help by Firaxis can keep the game (and its selling) fresh and alive for a year with a very limited effort and cost (better than any advertising).

That said, we can't squeeze forever the same orange

It's time to pass to innovative concepts and a new mix of ideas to resurrect TBS genre (may be by Simultaneous Turn Execution: should we call it an SBS, then?

).
That's debated for long here at Apolyton, so I assume that a relevant number of fans feel disturbed if anyone will change the game main body keeping the same name.

So let the glorious Civilization end with third version. We still know that a civ game will smell the same perfume, whatever the name you call it.

Added pray: Shakespeare, forgive me.

I tend to agree with Naismith. The discussions here lead me more and more to the belief that Civ is played out - that the particular combination of actual history, alternative history, and historically flavored but ahistorical "fun" is not possible anymore. In the more primitive world of Civ2 it was possible to intrepret deviations from history EITHER as ahistorical deviations, or as necessary abstractions, depending on your taste. But things have moved on - the potentials both for much greater realism and much more extravagant fun increase with advances in technology and game design but this means choices about the flavor of the game.

It is unfortunate that Activision chose to go with generic civs for Call to Power. There is clearly a market for a game that emphasizes fun, strategy, and a high degree of historical atmosphere, but dispenses with Brian Reynolds' philosophizing. There is also, I beleive a market for a game with a serious commitment to a philisophy of history expressed as an alternative history game, with leanings toward a civ-simulator, though still a game. Ideally Activision would have made the former, Brian would have made the latter, and Sid would have moved on to the new projects he craves - Simgolf, Dinosaurs, etc. But, alas, history does not always run smoothly. So Activision came out with a generic civs clone of Civ2, Brian went off to make an RTS, and Sid remained behind to lead his new proteges in a game which must combine yet again whimsy with realism.

So I do not want to see a Civ4. At least not by Sid, at any rate. Its time to liberate Civ from Sid, and Sid from Civ. I hope that Brian's new RTS addresses civish themes in RTS mode. I hope that EU is very successful, and is copied. I hope that Jeff Briggs takes the civ franchise and develops soemthing new, responding to brian, EU, and to the Maxis phenomenon. I hope Sid goes on to pursue his colloboration with Will Wright, hopefully turning to something more serious than golf.

LOTM

Your.Master · July 17, 2001, 21:16

Bah, if it's a good game, play it. Civ 4 would likely be similar to Civ 3, and thus, likely a good game. I say go for Civ 4, and similar games. If you don't like it, don't buy it, it's not like it directly affects the number of other games there will be. And who knows, you just might like it.

As for the genre war heating up: don't. Just don't. People are different: I like strategy, turns or no turns, and I like Adventure and Roleplaying. Jonny Opposite here likes FPS, Sports games, and simulations. Dream about your own genre, but note: there'll always be those who like turns but hate simultaneous turns, those who like RPG but not Adventure, those who like FPS but not arcade. Live with it, however inconsistent it seems to you.

BTW: I hate sports games with a wild passion and I'm not to fond of most FPS' either. And simulations...*shudders* boring. Not awful, just boring.

Alex 14 · July 18, 2001, 02:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
as time passes and computers get better, the game needs to evolve, there are things that our modern PIV computers can do now that civ 1 devopers couldnt dream off,... perhaps civ 10 will bring in Virtual Reality, you get to attend the Diplomatic sessions with your sexy Foriegn Advisor !!!!!

Yeah, exactly why they should start working on Civ 4 before 2005, i bet Pentium 6 5.5Ghz will be avalible in about 4-5 years.

lord of the mark · July 18, 2001, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Your.Master
Bah, if it's a good game, play it. Civ 4 would likely be similar to Civ 3, and thus, likely a good game. I say go for Civ 4, and similar games. If you don't like it, don't buy it, it's not like it directly affects the number of other games there will be. And who knows, you just might like it.

As for the genre war heating up: don't. Just don't. People are different: I like strategy, turns or no turns, and I like Adventure and Roleplaying. Jonny Opposite here likes FPS, Sports games, and simulations. Dream about your own genre, but note: there'll always be those who like turns but hate simultaneous turns, those who like RPG but not Adventure, those who like FPS but not arcade. Live with it, however inconsistent it seems to you.

BTW: I hate sports games with a wild passion and I'm not to fond of most FPS' either. And simulations...*shudders* boring. Not awful, just boring.

People are different - most certainly - i play Michael Daumens "the great game scenario" after reading Peter Hopkirk's book "the great game". For me civ is an extension of my interest in history into the computer world - NOT an extension of an interest in computer gaming into the historical world. FPS and sports games have less to do with Civ than do historical books and movies. Quite frankly I dont care what other people like - not everything people like is of equal quality - call me a snob, i dont care. there will always be people who like pulp fiction, but i dont see any relevance to that during a discussion of Byron.

And yes games DO interfere with each other - IF sid makes civ4, there is another game he wont make. and there is a limited market for these things - had CTP been successful it would have been necessary for civ3 to distinguish itself from CTP, as is not the case now.

LOTM

death_head · July 18, 2001, 12:44

The only reason Civ4 should be made is if they discover a revolutionary new AI programming method, which would make the gameplay amazing. Otherwise, why mess with a classic?

Trdi · July 19, 2001, 06:33

Well, surely they will be able to make much better games in 2006. The concept stays the same. I don't care which civilisation it is. I allways say: "Civilisation" not Civ 2 or Civ3.

Provost Harrison · July 19, 2001, 06:36

Quote:

Originally posted by death_head
The only reason Civ4 should be made is if they discover a revolutionary new AI programming method, which would make the gameplay amazing. Otherwise, why mess with a classic?

Well technology doesn't tend to go up like this but in more incremental steps. Civ does need to be updated from time to time. How would you find it if we were still stuck with the 320x200 graphics of Civ, because it hadn't been updated, and that your battleship could lose to that phalanx. Updates do need to be made. Perhaps not very often, but all the same, they are needed every so many years, even if that is half a decade. If I only have to update every so often, then on a per annum basis, the cost is very low...

TechWins · July 19, 2001, 19:32

If Civ3 does work out why wouldn't they make a Civ4? Most people to do like to make as much profit out of a product as possbile, I don't think the people at Firaxis are any different. Even if Civ3 doesn't work out they might still make a Civ4. Again for the same reason, more money. Games to them are a buisness and in buisness you try to earn as much money as you can.

tniem · July 20, 2001, 01:01

Oh there will be abother Civ after Civ III. I just hope they wait a while and that Firaxis does some other games. If all they decide to make are TBS games and Sid side projects they will see more defections like Brian Renyolds. No one likes to make the same games over and over again it gets boring and repetitive and it lacks a challenge. That is why Sid will not make a sequel, he has already invested himself into the original and wants to make something new. So hopefully Civ IV will be a while.