 |
|
Emperor
Canada
|
Dec 2001
time: 18:28
| |
|
|
So what if there isn't, Civ 4 is a very good game anyway. There's lots of years of playing left in mine.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
State Of Denial
|
Apr 2007
time: 20:28
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johnmcd
I really think there will be, I'm nervous it will be designed by marketeers though. |
While this is certainly a valid concern, I'm hoping they learned their lesson about the difference in reception between well designed and poorly designed games with Civ 3/ Civ 4. And given the quality of Civ 4, I think it is reasonable to assume they have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I personally would like a more open ended tech tree.
e.g., have the gameplay such that the "default" is along the lines that history has gone.
But, should the player so choose, he could pursue advanced pneumatics early, or steam technology, or what have you. Particularly if you have no contact with othe areas of the world. There should be some "bleed through" for cultures which have contact.
For example, the Inca were purportedly quite advanced in medicine and in some other areas. Yet they knew nothing of gunpowder, semi-advanced metallurgy, and other technologies.
Taken to an alternate universe, which is what Civ does, I as a player should be able to pursue some of those alternate technology lines.
Whereas in CIV I have to know steam power before I can discover medicine. Wait... what?
There are some very interesting science fiction alternate universe novels which deal with cultures based upon advanced genetics, or steam power, or what have you. It would be nice to be able to do this in CiV.
(Keep in mind the default especially when a beginning player loads the game should be the "normal" tech path.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
See... what CIV lets me do is recreate Earth's history, but within limits and along the same lines.
There's nothing that allows me to recreate history with a totally fresh start, and where I can honestly prioritize in totally new directions. THAT's what I'd like to see in CiV.
As mentioned, I do think there should be some bleed through. e.g., if I have contact with a civ, and it researches X, then I should get some amount of research toward X for free.
Basically, let's change the tech tree to have prereqs of only what honestly makes sense from a physical sciences standpoint. NOT because of what actually happened. Because in CiV I do not want to recreate what actually happened. I want to create a brand new world and a brand new history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe
There are some mods out there which provide that. Hephmod Beyond, for instance. If you play it, don't come complaining that AI civs won't trade for very-obsolete techs, since they have gained substantial research for it through your suggested bleed-through. |
Two things.
1) The bleed through is a secondary point. It is ancillary to the main desire to allow a more flexible tech tree.
2) AI implementation must be interpreted in the context of the gameplay. You bring up a good point, which is: how would the AI perform under this? Nevertheless, we can't casually throw out the current AI under a proposed hypothetical Civ 5 system, and use that as an implied opposition to the proposal. I think we have to expect and demand a good AI under Civ 5 which fits within the Civ 5 context. If all we get is a Civ 4 AI, then obviously that isn't good.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 20:28
| |
|
|
Jaybe, to a large extent that comment means that most players don't want a competent human player, they want a fun game to play. A strategy game needs to have opposition at the right level - not too easy, not too hard, and in the right manner. Lots of people like SP far more than MP - and a truly human AI would be like playing MP. The SP folks would not like that, as the game wouldn't be as interesting for them.
I think Sid has a lot of theory-based knowledge of game design, that goes well over the heads of most of us - and occasionally forgets this, and says things that sound bad if you don't have his level of understanding of game design theory...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaybe, that comment was in context of the game. I don't have a big issue with that goal for the AI. However, I do think we need to extrapolate the comment to different games.
"The AI is not MEANT to simulate a human player, only to provide an "entertaining experience for the player in Civ 5."
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
Maryland Heights, MO
|
Sep 2002
time: 20:28
| |
|
|
On the base topic. Of course evenually they'll be a Civ 5, but I'm thinking probably not for a least a while.
Say if the version of Windows after Vista (or the one following that) doesn't run Civ 4 then Firaxis will time a release of Civ 5 that runs on it next November.
Or when machines the average person has are a similar level above the ones people had when Civ 4 was new vs when Civ 3 came out and Civ 2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ColdPhoenix
They already have that in Civ4 as the technologies are quicker to research if other civs know it. |
That mechanic works regardless if you have contact. I'm thinking of a stronger bleed through but it only works if you have contact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
There are other ways to do that. I think artificially inflating tech progress both isn't very historic and isn't very interesting gameplay. It turns every game into a clone of each other.
How about providing effective alternate victory types? e.g., enable an isolated Civ to have a good cultural victory. Right now you really need multiple religions to do that, and that means if you're isolated then a CV is almost certainly not an option. Whereas that could be one of your best options in CiV.
Alternately perhaps there could be mechanisms whereby the more you're behind the more "catch up factor" is applied. Not only is this useful for an isolated CiV, it also is good game design to help prevent snowballing and "rich get richer" runaway games where the leader is impossible to catch.
There also could be tech paths that make more sense if you're isolated because they have few prereqs or fewer branches in the tree. e.g., if you know you have a lot of neighbors then you're going to get a lot of bleed through, so if everybody is researching different branches of the same basic path then that's the most efficient for everyone involved. If, OTOH, you're isolated then if you research one or more standalone parallel paths then that would make more sense for you. And perhaps those tech paths have bonuses the more isolated you are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare, your objections boil down to "that can be modded". I might point out that Col could be modded yet it's a saleable product.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator (Reasonable One)
Lord of the Ferrets
|
Nov 1999
time: 20:28
| |
|
|
It's really a very basic question that can be answered quite easily.
DID THEY MAKE MONEY ON CIV IV?
IF YES, then there will be a CIV V QED
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
Canada
|
Dec 2001
time: 18:28
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blaupanzer
We talked at one time about what we'd like to see next, like a more robust economic model with booms and busts and an economic victory; |
With the introduction of Corporations, there's lots of room for improvements in this area. I'd like to see early industries being developed, sort of like in Colonization, where you can actually produce something for trade.
Another area that could use a vast improvement is the Worker and Governor automations. There's been so many complaints about how poor these are that having them completely revamped would justify a new game, even if nothing else was changed. And diplomacy could use a number of improvements as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Porto Alegre, RS
|
Nov 2002
time: 23:28
| |
|
|
I think Civ IV will have a fairly long lifespan, as compared to the time between III and IV, but this is just a hunch, not based directly on any theoretical thoughts as well devised as some that you brought here.
The only thing that comes most readily forth to me is that Civ V should be a gigantic game, with enough material to the experienced player to make easy-to-do mods that recreate all these scenarios that are being sold separately. I know I would like that.
Being able to create new technologies, create/download figures to these technologies, devising diferent worlds or perhaps only future technologies (allowing an do-it-yourself Alpha Centauri), diplomatic options and effects, new Civs...
Ok, this is just crazy talk - that would just screw their money-making.
Or not? I keep thinking about the "D20 effect" translated to a "generic computing game", that easily transforms you a Civ game master. With books that made huge cash... Why wouldn't that be good with Civ? I know the comparison isn't good, but I hope you see the point.
Such a Supreme Civ would be the ultimate game, and anything else would just expand more and more, offering new scenarios and options, eventually a graphic revamp.
Sorry for the long useless post.
|
|
| |
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
  |
|
King
Ashes
|
Jan 2001
time: 02:28
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
