'Advanced Civilization'

[Loppan Torkel]

A quicker, more streamlined gameplay that is easy to grasp for newcomers, is what seems to be a beacon for Firaxis.
It might be a good idea, I haven't played civ4, but the civilizationfranchise for me has always been about through mistakes learning to build a civilization from scratch. To keep my interest up I'd like to see each new installment in the series be more challenging, complex and realistic and atleast as fun as the previous. One big part of the fun in civ, imo, has been it's complexity, where one discovers new things and learns new strategies over a long period of time.

So to make everyone happy, both those who enjoyed their first civgame and those who already were veterans - Should Firaxis make 'Advanced Civilization' as their first expansion to civ4? ...this by depthening the features already in and broadening the gameplay by adding more features, thus making civ4 an altogether more complex experience.

 

[Markus6]

You sound like your assuming that Civ4 is going to be completely dumbed down. As i see it, it's going to be just as in depth but less hard to work out whats going on for newbies.

Personally doing a degree gives me enough complexity. I'd just like a fun immersive game to take me away from it for a bit (well ok months). I don't want to have to do calculations to have any chance of winning.

 

[Superkrest]

i think cofusing micro management with complexity is what your doing...i think your on to something..but im not sure if you or i konw what it is your onto.(maybe options for future age or something) i dunno...im actually looking forward to a smarter AI and more workable system...then one that loads me with tasks.

 

[vStauffenberg]

i agree w superkrest. and in my opinion, before actually having played civ4 it is simply impossible to judge how the announced simplifications will affect the degree of complexity of the different strategic decision-making processes of the game, whose careful balance is, in the end, crucial for beginners and veterans alike.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

i think cofusing micro management with complexity is what your doing...i think your on to something..but im not sure if you or i konw what it is your onto.(maybe options for future age or something) i dunno...im actually looking forward to a smarter AI and more workable system...then one that loads me with tasks.

I'm not confusing MM with complexity, and it's good they're cutting MM down. However you have to admit there's been more talk about streamlining the gameplay and to keep it accessible for new players than giving the old civplayers a more complex civ.

What I'm suggesting is that Firaxis focus on adding content that depthens the gameplay, like focusing on diplomatic options, espionage, civil wars, expands a lot on religion, etc, making the game more complex.... They could flesh out the modern era ridicously for example.

Perhaps they're already doing this, who knows, but from what I've seen it doesn't look like it.

 

[Superkrest]

welcome to the forum vstaffenburg

 

[Loppan Torkel]

You sound like your assuming that Civ4 is going to be completely dumbed down. As i see it, it's going to be just as in depth but less hard to work out whats going on for newbies.

Personally doing a degree gives me enough complexity. I'd just like a fun immersive game to take me away from it for a bit (well ok months). I don't want to have to do calculations to have any chance of winning.

I'd agree, It has to be fun, I've heard about Master of Orion 3 as a scary example of too much complexity. And I play for fun too, all workers automated and so, so it's not calculating things I'm after here, just gameplay options, having civilwars, creating vassalages, getting excommunicated by the Pope or whatever is feasible.

 

[apatheist]

However you have to admit there's been more talk about streamlining the gameplay and to keep it accessible for new players than giving the old civplayers a more complex civ.

Complexity and accessibility aren't opposites. It's just that it's really hard to do both at the same time, so people assume you can't have both. An iPod, a Tivo, and an automobile are all ridiculously complicated devices, but they're also very easy to learn how to use (well, maybe not an automobile). You want it to be as easy as possible to pick up the game and have fun as possible, which boosts sales, but you want depth and complexity that players can discover as they play, which boosts replayability.

Someone with a moderate knowledge of history, politics, warfare, science, economics, and computer games in general, but no knowledge of Civilization in particular, should be able figure out the basics of the interface in 5 minutes and have a fun game at a low/moderate difficulty level. That doesn't mean making it simple. That means making the complexity realistic and intuitive. That means making the complexity the sort of thing that gives you an edge, not something you need to understand to play at all. That should be the driving design goal.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Complexity and accessibility aren't opposites. It's just that it's really hard to do both at the same time, so people assume you can't have both.

I realise that, but it's a pretty decent assumption when it come to sequels. I have hopes that Civ4 will be a great game that I will enjoy, but the features they have shown us doesn't seem so deep, or is it my imagination? Of course they might keep some stuff to themselves and surprice us closer to release, just for fun....or maybe they're not focusing on a 'killer feature' like a deeper espionagesystem...? If not - this is where 'Advanced Civ' comes in...

All of you who have posted seem positive that they will increase the complexity at the same time as they make it more accessible for newcomers, right?! If they succeed with this then there's no need for my suggestion, and they could add new civs, leaders, religions, units and scenarios to the expansion, which is all good. I'm just a bit sceptical....

 

[Double Stack]

Why are you talking about an expansion pack when the game isn't even out yet? It pointless in my opinion. In fact, Civilizations IV will most likely be so good and modabity is so high that expansion packs are not needed at all.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Why are you talking about an expansion pack when the game isn't even out yet? It pointless in my opinion. In fact, Civilizations IV will most likely be so good and modabity is so high that expansion packs are not needed at all.

...Ok we're all alright then...

 

[apatheist]

I have hopes that Civ4 will be a great game that I will enjoy, but the features they have shown us doesn't seem so deep, or is it my imagination?

Well, almost by definition, depth isn't something that's visible on the surface. We won't know how deep or shallow the game really is until we've actually played it for a while. It's true of Civ just like it is of any other kind of design; you can't tell if it's really well-designed (as opposed to just looking good) until you've actually used it.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Well, almost by definition, depth isn't something that's visible on the surface. We won't know how deep or shallow the game really is until we've actually played it for a while. It's true of Civ just like it is of any other kind of design; you can't tell if it's really well-designed (as opposed to just looking good) until you've actually used it.

Of course noone of us knows how deep or well-designed the game actually is. It's all speculation, just like most other discussions on this forum, based on the info Firaxis has released to us. This doesn't mean that it's impossible or pointless to draw conclusions, even about the depth, from that info. Perhaps I'm right, perhaps I'm wrong, there's no way to know this either, one can only make up one's own mind based on the info available.

Even if you find civ4 complex and well-designed enough, what would like to see in a expansionpack? I'd still rather see them adding depth and complexity than content that easely can be modded in by anyone.

 

[evil_linus]

We don't know how complex Civ4 is going to be at the moment. But if the game is made to simple I think it's a pretty interesting way to put a more advanced version in an expansion. But I can't see them do that. Sounds abit strange...

 

[UCFCSGuy]

Regardless of how deep or shallow the gameplay is, I think I would rather see additional civs/units/structures/government traits/etc... from an expansion than I would a rehash of the same game with deeper gameplay.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I would have to say that key foci in making a game that is accessible but still complex is Clear, accessible, knowledge of the effects of your actions.
So when I'm in the diplomacy screen and give a gift of 100 gold it should have a little (+2 attitude ) next to it..as well as a link to Attitude in the Civilopedia that gives me the numbers for everthing that affects attitude. This also implies that those numbers are used in a fairly straightforward way (ie minimal square roots, etc.) I say this because a major complaint I've heard about civ like games is not knowing what your actions are doing.

 

[apatheist]

Regardless of how deep or shallow the gameplay is, I think I would rather see additional civs/units/structures/government traits/etc... from an expansion than I would a rehash of the same game with deeper gameplay.

What a bizarre statement. The first one keeps you interested for a week. The latter keeps you interested for months.

So when I'm in the diplomacy screen and give a gift of 100 gold it should have a little (+2 attitude ) next to it..as well as a link to Attitude in the Civilopedia that gives me the numbers for everthing that affects attitude. This also implies that those numbers are used in a fairly straightforward way (ie minimal square roots, etc.) I say this because a major complaint I've heard about civ like games is not knowing what your actions are doing.

I agree with you in principle, but not with that specific action. The AI should behave just like a person would. That means that they can be opaque, ungrateful, deceptive, and fickle. Having something like +2 attitude would make them transparent. It would also either constrain their ability to be devious or make people angry when they were devious. "I just gave them 500 gold and IT SAID THEY WERE HAPPY AND THEY ATTACKED ME!!!!!" With other things in the game, you definitely should be able to know the consequences of your actions pretty well.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, I think 'Diplomacy' needs to be decoupled from controlling the AI's actions.

So that the effect of a diplomatic action is the same on a human player and an AI player. (ie I give gifts to player X, making them Happy which means that there is more citizen unhappiness, or less citizen happiness if they attack me)

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I would have to say that key foci in making a game that is accessible but still complex is Clear, accessible, knowledge of the effects of your actions.
So when I'm in the diplomacy screen and give a gift of 100 gold it should have a little (+2 attitude ) next to it..as well as a link to Attitude in the Civilopedia that gives me the numbers for everthing that affects attitude. This also implies that those numbers are used in a fairly straightforward way (ie minimal square roots, etc.) I say this because a major complaint I've heard about civ like games is not knowing what your actions are doing.

I really hope they don't make the logic behind the effects of one's actions too accessible. Some things are good to know, like that everyone gets mad at you for breaking a deal and such, basic stuff, but needed to know since it's AI you're playing against.
However showing numbers how much the attitude rise given a given gift, though helpful, takes away a lot of immersion from the game. I'd rather see such information hidden and dependant of a number of, to the player, not known factors. Some of these factors could then be vaguely described in the manual, guessed by logical reasoning and tested to conclusion by some ambitious player.

 

[george_manet]

Civ III is a great game because you have to balance a lot of different things. There are many different ways to play a game (focussing on culture, military, science, etc...) and there are many different ways to win. This isn't very complicated, but it makes the game still interesting after years of playing, because finding a good balance is still difficult, and everybody's got their own opinion on how the game should be played.

It looks like civ IV will add more aspects that have to be juggled around, like religion and health, which will make the game deeper by giving the player more options, without making it overly confusing. The most important thing is to have a smarter AI. I'd much rather be outsmarted by the AI than to have my cities destroyed by monster stacks that cost comp players half what they would cost me.