Making of "Brave New World" - article from Polygon

ehecatzin said:

I wouldnt dismiss another expansion just yet, if sales are good enough we could as well get another one.

However its nice to see that if they werent green lighted to make another one, they feel like BNW leaves CiV in a position to be playable for years to come, quite a feat considering the horrible mess Vainilla was.

Tho I would look forward to CiVI as long as they kept Ed Beach and Dennis Shirk on charge. It would be really interesting to see what kind of Civ game they would make from the ground up.

Click to expand...

I really hope they continue with hexes and 1UPT in Civ 6, and keep the combat system.

ehecatzin said:

I wouldnt dismiss another expansion just yet, if sales are good enough we could as well get another one.

However its nice to see that if they werent green lighted to make another one, they feel like BNW leaves CiV in a position to be playable for years to come, quite a feat considering the horrible mess Vainilla was.

Tho I would look forward to CiVI as long as they kept Ed Beach and Dennis Shirk on charge. It would be really interesting to see what kind of Civ game they would make from the ground up.

Click to expand...

I agree I honestly think Ed and Dennis saved Civ 5 from ending up a horrible game, if they stay on, imagine what the diplomacy is going to be like!

I really don't see them jumping to Civ VI just yet. The Civ V engine and graphics are still so fresh. Maybe they will do a spin-off like Colonization or something.

werothegreat said:

I really hope they continue with hexes and 1UPT in Civ 6, and keep the combat system.

Click to expand...

Eagle Pursuit said:

I really don't see them jumping to Civ VI just yet. The Civ V engine and graphics are still so fresh. Maybe they will do a spin-off like Colonization or something.

Click to expand...

This.

The fundamental changes they made for vanilla Civ5 was the most revolutionary since Civ1 came out. You, I and a lot of other people may have been critical of the initial implementation and the unbalanceness of the game (remember the Four Horsemen?), but the foundation was there - the model was sound. They had to build upon that and improve the game tremendously and to their great credit, they did just that. Both G&K and BNW will add onto that foundation, things that were badly done in previous versions - just like how 1upt/hexes vastly improved upon a bad combat model. They can take another Colonization-like expansion pack to further learn and to improve the AI before going on to Civ6, I would think.

ACII Calling someone? I think it may finally be time for the sequel now that colonization has had its sequel with the Civ 4 engine

Ran across this earlier, and it's a fantastic article (other than calling Civ IV a Civ "expansion", of course...)

The way they've explained their motivation with the Shoshone makes them feel a much better fit thematically - the idea of portraying a "victim civ" is a bit odd, but makes sense, however given that Civ players love to crush passive opponents I'm not sure it will evoke the moral crisis they're after...

ACII Calling someone? I think it may finally be time for the sequel now that colonization has had its sequel with the Civ 4 engine

Click to expand...

Since they mentioned specifically that they couldn't make terraforming work in the Civ V engine, and from recollection later-game techs in AC included some with terraforming elements, I think that might be ruled out in this iteration.

I had to laugh out loud quite a few times. So Indonesia is in because it's an up-and-coming economic power? Not because (South East) Asia has been neglected a lot. And they are correct that South America and Africa are empty, but then they give them Morocco who's almost culturally Mediterranean and European and a small native tribe that is only famous for fighting the English and being in the first civilization game?

Click to expand...

These are the two things I found disappointing in the article: the fact that Indonesia was selected because it's a significant market (which in my opinion is a poor reason to select a civ, and one of several reasons I opposed the inclusion of Brazil) rather than underrepresentation or its historic relevance (although it does explain the modern city names and civ name ... as cynicism rather than laziness, basically), and the lack of any discussion of Morocco (which warrants a lot more than "It's an African civ").

Agreed, I was scratching my head on that. I think maybe they aren't telling us everything, because I thought they had included Indonesia for one of two reasons (1) Fan requested or (2) Major empire in Asia. It could very well be those were taken into account, but the modern presence was most important to them. For Brazil, however, the modern presence as the main reason makes more sense.

Click to expand...

As I read it, they were saying specifically that Brazil and Indonesia were in because they're big markets for video games, not their modern geopolitical presence more broadly. Which is cynical but does, indeed, make sense - arguably moreso than pre-emptively including Brazil because it may be a major power in future (although Brazil seems to be the perennial geopolitical equivalent of commercial fusion power - it's 50 years from becoming a major power, and always has been).

Eagle Pursuit said:

I really don't see them jumping to Civ VI just yet. The Civ V engine and graphics are still so fresh. Maybe they will do a spin-off like Colonization or something.

Click to expand...

Two words: Alpha Centauri.

Even without the terraforming ability, it would be awesome to see the game upgraded to the Civ V engine. I'm sure they could come up with some really innovative things to do with that setting.

please no civ6, make Alpha Centauri 2

I'm pretty sure EA owns the rights to Alpha Centauri and they won't give them up for less than the devil's share of the profits.

PhilBowles said:

These are the two things I found disappointing in the article: the fact that Indonesia was selected because it's a significant market (which in my opinion is a poor reason to select a civ, and one of several reasons I opposed the inclusion of Brazil) rather than underrepresentation or its historic relevance (although it does explain the modern city names and civ name ... as cynicism rather than laziness, basically), and the lack of any discussion of Morocco (which warrants a lot more than "It's an African civ").

As I read it, they were saying specifically that Brazil and Indonesia were in because they're big markets for video games, not their modern geopolitical presence more broadly. Which is cynical but does, indeed, make sense - arguably moreso than pre-emptively including Brazil because it may be a major power in future (although Brazil seems to be the perennial geopolitical equivalent of commercial fusion power - it's 50 years from becoming a major power, and always has been).

Click to expand...

I was also rather disappointed to read their process of decision making. I don't know if many people can understand that. The whole notion of, whoever has the most power gets the most representation is so old fashioned and outdated. I had hoped civs would be picked based on their credibility instead of their current market base. This is still a good step forwards, but the regulars feel overdone and rehashed. Why can we not have a Caucasus region civ? Or a Tibet or Uyghur civ? What about Mughals? They played a pretty damn important part in history.

Ugh. No Alpha Centauri please. The original was one of the most ludicrous versions of Civ ever put out, filling a silly niche that was at best a glorified scenario. You don't turn a game that is based on history into something that is not reality and cartoonish as if from a child's fantasy of aliens or robots or whatever. Yes, I have a strong bias towards history and deplore science fiction but that doesn't affect my opinion.

Buccaneer said:

Ugh. No Alpha Centauri please. The original was one of the most ludicrous versions of Civ ever put out, filling a silly niche that was at best a glorified scenario. You don't turn a game that is based on history into something that is not reality and cartoonish as if from a child's fantasy of aliens or robots or whatever. Yes, I have a strong bias towards history and deplore science fiction but that doesn't affect my opinion.

Click to expand...

I hear Rome 2 is going to be historically accurate.

ptoss1 said:

I was also rather disappointed to read their process of decision making. I don't know if many people can understand that. The whole notion of, whoever has the most power gets the most representation is so old fashioned and outdated. I had hoped civs would be picked based on their credibility instead of their current market base. This is still a good step forwards, but the regulars feel overdone and rehashed. Why can we not have a Caucasus region civ? Or a Tibet or Uyghur civ? What about Mughals? They played a pretty damn important part in history.

Click to expand...

It's a perfectly valid and smart way to chose (not on some obscure tribe or civ that only some fanatics would care about ..cough..Zulus..cough). They have to maintain and/or grow the market for a PC game in a world where the platform will become less relevant. Otherwise, the cost justification for making Civ6 will not be there.

Maybe you are willing to work for free but the talented developers and artists making this game should be paid well for generating a brilliant product that appeals to markets all over the world.

As you see just in our little corner, there are those excited to have "their" civ in the game. Imagine the emerging mass markets and the selling points. Nothing old fashioned about that; if you want your obscure civs, then mod them in and leave the bigger decisions to professionals.

ptoss1 said:

I was also rather disappointed to read their process of decision making. I don't know if many people can understand that. The whole notion of, whoever has the most power gets the most representation is so old fashioned and outdated. I had hoped civs would be picked based on their credibility instead of their current market base. This is still a good step forwards, but the regulars feel overdone and rehashed. Why can we not have a Caucasus region civ? Or a Tibet or Uyghur civ? What about Mughals? They played a pretty damn important part in history.

Click to expand...

who chooses what is credible? and what's the benefit of having a more credible civ? it seems to me that you want a smaller group (that would judge a certain civ "credible") to take precedence over a larger group (that would identify with a certain civ).

edit: wanted to add that, personally, i think that considering a range of factors (as is described in the article) is best. that includes popularity, the designer's interests, and "credibility" of some forms. these arguments that try to place the decisions in the worse light possible just bug me.

Heres my question: Who buys a game they've never been exposed to/had interest in simply because their nation makes an appearance in an expansion?

Villager720 said:

Heres my question: Who buys a game they've never been exposed to/had interest in simply because their nation makes an appearance in an expansion?

Click to expand...

Patriots.

Villager720 said:

Heres my question: Who buys a game they've never been exposed to/had interest in simply because their nation makes an appearance in an expansion?

Click to expand...

maybe some small group . . but i think the article shows that a lot more goes into the decisions made in the game than how many people will buy it. obviously, making sales is a factor, but i think the developers also want to make the game as enjoyable as they can to the most number of players, and people get enjoyment from playing civs with which they identify.

ptoss1 said:

Patriots.

Click to expand...

All jokes aside, its not like Indonesia/2K is suddenly going to unfurl CiV banners across the nation proclaiming their inclusion to a historical game. In an expansion. With magic swords.

Buccaneer said:

Ugh. No Alpha Centauri please. The original was one of the most ludicrous versions of Civ ever put out, filling a silly niche that was at best a glorified scenario. You don't turn a game that is based on history into something that is not reality and cartoonish as if from a child's fantasy of aliens or robots or whatever. Yes, I have a strong bias towards history and deplore science fiction but that doesn't affect my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree with alot of what you say on the forum but am a bit surprised at the hate on Alpha Centauri. That was a really really good game when it hit the scene. You did sort of explain why with he whole historical thing but I'd be fired up over a remake even rebranded.

Buccaneer said:

Ugh. No Alpha Centauri please. The original was one of the most ludicrous versions of Civ ever put out, filling a silly niche that was at best a glorified scenario. You don't turn a game that is based on history into something that is not reality and cartoonish as if from a child's fantasy of aliens or robots or whatever. Yes, I have a strong bias towards history and deplore science fiction but that doesn't affect my opinion.

Click to expand...

Well, they aren't making it for you!