Will there ever be a market for Civ IV remake?

[crashmon]

I'd buy it but I don't see enough people buying it to make it profitable..... Unless it was quick and easy to do, and could be released as a filler while the masses wait for a civ 7.
Hopefully not derailing the thread but would the folks who still play and prefer 4 to the later ones (5 or 6), buy 7 if its released. Of course we don't know what 7 would look like, and how the mechanics would work, but that would be interesting....
I love civ 4, but I was brought up on Civ 2 (and test of time, used to love playing the fanatsy map).... One of the things I really miss from civ2 was the ability to have multiple maps in the same game, but considering the micromanagment required in civ 4, have 2 maps (or 4) maps to micromanage would probably drive deity players insane....

 

[Fippy]

Boring times, everything done just for profit (or social media attention).
When i see how motivated Sulla still talks about IV, they still had visions other than money back then.
I don't like the direction things are taking at all, and would happily time warp back 15 years.

 

[crashmon]

Boring times, everything done just for profit (or social media attention).
When i see how motivated Sulla still talks about IV, they still had visions other than money back then.
I don't like the direction things are taking at all, and would happily time warp back 15 years.

There are a lot of things which could have been better in the last 15 years, but I'm not sure I want to go through the stress of proposing again, its the most wonderful feeling when she says yes, but the days and weeks leading up to it as a Man are always preceeded by "what if she says no"...

Also most civ players have cats, I love the two I have, but have lost 3 in the last 15 years (all old age). I still miss them terribly, not sure I could bear having to go through losing them again

 

[lymond]

I'd buy it but I don't see enough people buying it to make it profitable..... ..

I'm no business guru. Hard to say whether or not the project would be profitable. What I do know is that remakes of older classics have been somewhat popular recently. Age of Empires II got a redo and actually they started releasing new DLC for the game.

Just speculation on my part here, but IV still seems to have a fairly strong base of players and modders. I suspect an upgraded version could draw some many dormant players back as well. And you still see new players pop in now and again, some coming from being introduced to the series by V or VI, and wanting to try something better and deeper. But who knows. I don't know exactly what kind of effort it would take to enhance/upgrade the game. Does it require a complete new engine, or can the existing engine and assets be overhauled? I don't know. I do know some workarounds exist here and there to improve things a bit from a performance/os standpoint, but I think there are bits of the engine that no one can access.

I don't like the direction things are taking at all, and would happily time warp back 15 years.

I'd take a 15 year do over. Does that involve a de-aging process as well

 

[drewisfat]

This is a pipe dream guys. They couldn't even be bothered to support HoF for civ 6

 

[sampsa]

Also most civ players have cats

 

[drewisfat]

Is it bad that when the pandemic started I got a cat, named him Corona, and still have no plans on changing it?

 

[lymond]

I like cats. They taste like chicken.

 

[shakabrade]

I do not wish for a remake. That would definitely cement the Civ IV as the relic and would just mess up the mods. I want a contemporary game with hexes and multiple units on one tile with meaningful decisions, with multiple paths which all do not work alone but require some not so obvious leverage to get you ahead. I am far from Civ V and VI expert but I beat deity in couple of games there.

I want a game which takes advantage of mouse and keyboard. All the simplifications and unit count reductions were done for the controlers. I will probably never get used to the UI and UX of the cross platform strats as it is simply worse. It is slow and inflexible and has nothing to offer in return. I never have problems handling 150 units in Civ IV, but 14 of them in Civ V can feel frustrating. Just give us PC strategy and that is it. For me there are many things in new civs I like, but it is awkward to handle your civ.
Maybe Humankind will be ok, but you will not see me preordering anything.

 

[lymond]

I do not wish for a remake. .

Remake is really not the term I meant to use for lack of a better word at the time. I'm thinking more an enhancement or overhaul of the existing game. Like the Definitive and Enhanced versions we've seen lately of older classics. It would certainly require quite a lot of mod work to bring things up-to-date, but that's what modders do.

Regardless, I too would like to see Civ go in a different direction with VII, like you said. I doubt it does though.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

So am I the only one that really hates the idea of hexes? Civ is a square game not a beehive.

 

[TheBirdMan]

You shall not walk alone on that path - I also prefer map with squares.

Besides it gives you 2 more directions to move your units at, it's can actually be very nice to look at:

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Are those peppers? What mod is that screenshot from? Those icons look delightful.

 

[shakabrade]

Are those peppers? What mod is that screenshot from? Those icons look delightful.

It is Realism Invictus. Really cool mod. The only that got me so far.
Regarding hexes, the thing is that it makes moving in all directions equal. Diagonal is square of two times longer. Not fair.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

It is Realism Invictus. Really cool mod. The only that got me so far.
Regarding hexes, the thing is that it makes moving in all directions equal. Diagonal is square of two times longer. Not fair.

Only if you care about math. Which you absolutely shouldn't. Moving from one square to another can and should cost 1 irregardless of their position as long as they are touching in at least 1 point. And corners are points.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Regardless, I too would like to see Civ go in a different direction with VII, like you said. I doubt it does though.

Since we're talking about investment, and return on investment, for Civ VII, we need to consider consoles. Civ VI was the first game in the franchise to be available on a platform not a PC or Mac. Yes, Linux with WINE exists, but it's never been a significant revenue stream. I don't have the numbers, but I expect that Firaxis knows how many people are playing Civ VI on iPad Pros, XBox series, PS series, and even Ninetendo Switch. Let's be honest, they're not going to walk away from that revenue easily. They would need a reason to not support consoles for Civ VII, such as, insufficient revenue to justify their development costs.

If they have already chosen a game engine, and development tools, that makes running on consoles and PCs equally efficient, then I expect them to continue to support consoles. That decision, in turn, affects their UI design; it could inform the complexity of the game mechanics. I could imagine the Civ IV-style mechanics of Civics, whip/chop overflow, sliders, and large stacks still working on a console implementation of Civ VII.

Alas, I could also imagine the Civ VI-style mechanics of multiple game modes, districts, limited-charge builders, policy cards, and 1UPT working on a console implementation of Civ VII.

 

[shakabrade]

Let's be honest, they're not going to walk away from that revenue easily.

I agree and they should not do that. I do not stop using slavery/caste and switch to emmancipation just because it is more humane.
I expect some smaller scale developer with much lower fixed costs would fill that niche at some point if ever.
My wife always tells that I am bad at analogies so bear with me:
In nature, you have high energy spenders/consumers (predators) who are forced to eat only high density food, otherwise they risk a net energy loss and then you have vultures who are very energy efficient but rely on the predators to do the work. We need a vulture to take an opportunity on our disappointment in mainstream Civ created by Firaxis.

 

[lymond]

My wife....In nature.....

Tell your wife that we agree ...jk

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Console, mobile, PC, tablet, whatever. For the Civ franchise to survive, Civ7 must be designed so that each multiplayer game can be finished in a few hours, with random matchmaking support. I think this is not difficult. Also monthly fees! Take the money and provide proper service.

Having played Civ1 to Civ6, I feel that the entire "city screen" can actually be removed entirely. The essential elements of the game can be preserved without having to double-click into the city screen. This speeds up the game greatly, helps the console, and does not diminish strategic complexity. I can explain in detail but that will be off-topic. Basically, unlike most other turn-based strategy games, food / gold / science / production in Civ are produced from tiles, not cities. If units are also produced directly from tiles, then we don't need cities anymore.

 

[civac]

Changing Civ in such a way that you can finish an MP game in a 2-3 hours is not easy. Unless there is typically a lot of ancient/medieval warring which could be the case I suppose.

The city screen already is integrated into the main window in later Civ games. Even in Civ4 you can do a lot with your cities without zooming in. It's faster but you play with less visual clarity.