Civ 5 announced!
- Thread starter Shylock
- Start date
- Status
the Intricacy
Khaaaaaaaaaan!
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 84
People... Citizens!
C'mon, I just posted a very simple way to get around this 2D/3D conversation... it could be both, can't it? And let me be clear, if you're still using a machine that's incapable of playing Civ IV by the time V comes out, you're not going to able to play any other "new" game that's coming out in 2008 (?) anyway.
Let's talk Civ MMO... How can it be done right? Is it spore, but more limited, and more capacity for online war? Perhaps the player plays a unifying scenerio in SP, and then confronts other nations in MP. Perhaps the architecture and ethnicity meets a Spore-like editor? Does anyone else think this is possibility? I bet it's the 1 million dollar question at Firaxis.
Perhaps everyone customizes their civ ahead of time, picks the UU, UB, traits, civ art, etc. and goes to a massive lobby to see who's vision for all of time excels... ? Maybe if you choose cheaper grans, your courthouses get more expensive. Maybe if you have +1 Spear, you'd have -1 rifles. I don't know what the fair mean value of things, but perhaps that's what the collective minds of Firaxis are there for. And when you pick a customized Golden Age, you're also digging your own grave of a latter/prior Dark Age.
Perhaps when you pick your attributes, the lobby will run simultaneous simulations of an AI of your civs vs. an AI "average" civ, and tell you by what factor you're allowed to improve or worsen your creation. When everything is averaged out, you can play against other custom civs. Maybe my China will beat your China because I've tailored my civ to play with my playing style better than you have.
C'mon, I just posted a very simple way to get around this 2D/3D conversation... it could be both, can't it? And let me be clear, if you're still using a machine that's incapable of playing Civ IV by the time V comes out, you're not going to able to play any other "new" game that's coming out in 2008 (?) anyway.
Let's talk Civ MMO... How can it be done right? Is it spore, but more limited, and more capacity for online war? Perhaps the player plays a unifying scenerio in SP, and then confronts other nations in MP. Perhaps the architecture and ethnicity meets a Spore-like editor? Does anyone else think this is possibility? I bet it's the 1 million dollar question at Firaxis.
Perhaps everyone customizes their civ ahead of time, picks the UU, UB, traits, civ art, etc. and goes to a massive lobby to see who's vision for all of time excels... ? Maybe if you choose cheaper grans, your courthouses get more expensive. Maybe if you have +1 Spear, you'd have -1 rifles. I don't know what the fair mean value of things, but perhaps that's what the collective minds of Firaxis are there for. And when you pick a customized Golden Age, you're also digging your own grave of a latter/prior Dark Age.
Perhaps when you pick your attributes, the lobby will run simultaneous simulations of an AI of your civs vs. an AI "average" civ, and tell you by what factor you're allowed to improve or worsen your creation. When everything is averaged out, you can play against other custom civs. Maybe my China will beat your China because I've tailored my civ to play with my playing style better than you have.
egaonogenki
Warlord
Civ 5 had better finally have CANALS.
I think 250 gold per square for a canal is a fair price; 500 gold after the Industrial Revolution, since they'll have to be made bigger to accommodate the later bigger ships.
(Please don't fall back on the rationale that building cities on isthmuses will do, because not only is the Panama Canal in a rural area of Panama, you can't build cities on squares next to each other. Even if you could, the fact that cities cannot share squares with each other for resources will cause them to stunt their growth and often see their inhabitants starve.)
I think 250 gold per square for a canal is a fair price; 500 gold after the Industrial Revolution, since they'll have to be made bigger to accommodate the later bigger ships.
(Please don't fall back on the rationale that building cities on isthmuses will do, because not only is the Panama Canal in a rural area of Panama, you can't build cities on squares next to each other. Even if you could, the fact that cities cannot share squares with each other for resources will cause them to stunt their growth and often see their inhabitants starve.)
I seriously doubt that since that would drive up the cost. From my understanding, art is very expensive so you would have to draw each unit/object for 2d and 3-d.
And it doesn address the basic issue - trying to get Firaxis to focus on gameplay rather than graphics.
Looking back through the various wish lists, I see a lot of things that would easily fit into an expansion, rather than have to wait for CIV 5 (which I hope does provide some major new approaches to the game, apart from graphics). So lets hope there is another expansion to CIV IV, and sooner rather than later!
diablodelmar
no comment
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 945
Anyone who thinks Civ 5 should be 2d is clearly heavily deluded.
potatokiosk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,292
Deluded? What's wrong with someone wanting the game to run faster on their computer?
the Intricacy
Khaaaaaaaaaan!
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 84
<sigh> please re-read my earlier post. What I was saying is as 3D art gets more sophisticated, and it is, a screenshot of the model could work as a sprite. I was also arguing that perhaps this could be a short cut on dev costs, that wasn't possible when 3D art was cruder.
Not that I know of any game that scales this way, but most 3D games are pretty dependent on the fact that they're 3D. The Civ series is not. Yet.
But perhaps the particular issue shouldn't be for firaxis to figure out how to make Civ more "immersive" in 3D, (I'd argue it's achieved it's immersiveness 15 years ago) but how to use the technology to utilize the machines of wider demographic of gamers, from the early adapters who buy $3000 rigs every year, to the stubborn folk who insist on playing on their 6-year old machines (like this thread seems full of), or even the players who play on portables, ultra-portables, etc.
We are now in an era of PC DIVERGENCE, imo, since people are cutting the cord and expecting to have productivity capacity even on their (i)phones. If they can expect to use Word or search the web in a coffee shop, why shouldn't they play Civ?
Anyway, just a thought. But again, I think if someone thinks the work of making the game more scalable will rake in more profit in sales than the dev cost, they might find this a good idea. If not, you're SOOL with your pentium III, and Civ can go on to becoming an increasingly marginalized niche activity.
manu-fan
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,005
Finally. Someone posted some thoughtful ideas about what Civ 5 should contain, instead of all this 2D vs 3D drivel.
Good job.
Cheers.
Taras Bulba
gone
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 1,442
Are you saying im not a casual gammer?
going backwards is 1 step, but it loading faster and looking better is 2 steps forward...need i say where you ended?
so far, by what i read of these posts, you're an army of one. The zoom function is cool, but the 2d is better. with the zoom function
im hoping you're joking, seeing as 2d looks coolor, has better graphics, and if someone offered me a free civ 3 complete, or civ 4 complete (that would be if i didn't have it.) i would choose with no doubt in my mind civ 3 complete because the graphics look better i think on civ 3, so stop the mud-slinging and just say that you think it should be or you think it should not be, don't say that if you think this you are this. frankly, im sick of it.
Moderator Action: Let's cool down a bit, alright?
This is how the Civ3 graphics were done. All the modeling was done using 3D tools, then "stills" were produced, and tweaked pixel-by-pixel for the best look. It was done this way because it was *cheaper* than finding/re-developing 2D tools and using them. That is *one* reason Civ4 is 3D: they were already using the 3D tools, anyway....the Intricacy said:
the Intricacy
Khaaaaaaaaaan!
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 84
INDEED!
How about a lobby with a ranking system, or attributes that get acquired over the course of many games. Maybe the attributes you acquire work in contrary to how you play, and forces you to play differently (on 2nd thought, no, that could be horrid.)
How about a lobby history system that discourages quitters?!?
what if the game allows scenarios to be linked, so say you fight the war to unify china, and then are pitted against a game winner to unify rome, africa, the americas, etc.? and the map/game scales down to address that era? Perhaps, as the eras get later in history, instead of the units getting more moves, the map gets smaller?
How about a continuous game from the beginning of civ to the end of alpha centauri? Or even Masters of Orion? Too much like Spore? That IS, in the end, the main competing franchise, I suspect.
How can user content be better integrated into the game than just modding?
Does civ work as an incremental experience between games? Or is the beauty of it that all players start equal? Can it be both?
volkanbadem
Chieftain
i bought civ4 in june 2006.
still i am playing at noble level and i haven't finished a game yet.still i am learning lot's of new things and it is getting more excited.at each time i learn new things i understand that i was playing in wrong style and restart the game.i don't need a new game for at least 1 year.But may be an expansion set after Warlords.
still i am playing at noble level and i haven't finished a game yet.still i am learning lot's of new things and it is getting more excited.at each time i learn new things i understand that i was playing in wrong style and restart the game.i don't need a new game for at least 1 year.But may be an expansion set after Warlords.
thenooblet22
King
You're not the average gamer. Just because you're too stubborn to pay at least a hundred dollars for a new equipment, doesn't mean everyone else should suffer.
You already have that option with 3D. You lower the Graphics and stagnate the Animations
No. If we're going to just make assumptions, I would say the whole 3D community doesn't care to argue because it's obvious that TakeTwo wouldn't risk its investment on a game that would lose a lot of its appeal.
That is YOUR opinion. You don't represent the majority of the gaming market. Who says 3D cannot look as great or even better than 2D? The only reason CivIV was so limited was for cheap people like you.
By the way, I only spent less than a hundred dollars for a 6600GT graphics card and another hundred for a better processor. For furture games, I would suggest you do the same.
Jamesds
Great Scientist
Hey, let's not argue over 2D and 3D. We all have opinions, lets respect those opinions. I think that 3D is great, and personally I wouldn't want to return to 2D, but I realise I am playing with a PC that can handle Civ4 better than some others. Then again, I thought many of you would have specs much better than my laptop. I've only got 128Mb shared graphics, but Civ4 runs well!! And if someone doesn't want to spend money on their PC, maybe they've got better things to spend it on.
For this next Civ (which is what this thread is all about), what about features like; artillery with a range, attacking with several units at once on the same square (would that work?), a resource system that benefits those with 2 or more of the same resource, more leader traits for a more diverse game, better modern era music like in civ3, unique improvements (like +1 move for roman roads, +1 food for irrigated egyptian farms, etc)...
I really think each Civ should be more unique to make the game a different experience each time. It would be nice to see an expansion pack coming out, but not so expensive.
For this next Civ (which is what this thread is all about), what about features like; artillery with a range, attacking with several units at once on the same square (would that work?), a resource system that benefits those with 2 or more of the same resource, more leader traits for a more diverse game, better modern era music like in civ3, unique improvements (like +1 move for roman roads, +1 food for irrigated egyptian farms, etc)...
I really think each Civ should be more unique to make the game a different experience each time. It would be nice to see an expansion pack coming out, but not so expensive.
Ankh-f-n-Khonsu
forth-speaker of Mentu
Artillery with range makes sense -- although it does call into question the scale of the tiles in the game. I mean, it can take several decades to move from one tile to another in the early game, so just how big are these tiles? 
Similarly, missile weapons should have some range; or at the very least, a missile-wielding unit should not have to move to the target's tile after the target is destroyed. (Along these lines, I'd like to see archers kill their foes with arrows, not bows!)
The current resource system already benefits those with two or more of the same resource. If I have two dyes, for instance, I can magically transform one of the dyes into silk through the use of the Magic Trade. What additional benefit do you envision?
Unique Improvements would be a nice addition to UB and UU.
I find the game to be a different experience nearly every time I play it, fwiw.
Similarly, missile weapons should have some range; or at the very least, a missile-wielding unit should not have to move to the target's tile after the target is destroyed. (Along these lines, I'd like to see archers kill their foes with arrows, not bows!)
The current resource system already benefits those with two or more of the same resource. If I have two dyes, for instance, I can magically transform one of the dyes into silk through the use of the Magic Trade. What additional benefit do you envision?
Unique Improvements would be a nice addition to UB and UU.
I find the game to be a different experience nearly every time I play it, fwiw.
Jamesds
Great Scientist
Good point!
Well, I wasn't very clear about my idea, but I don't really know. It's just that, for example in my last game, I had 6 iron at on point near the end of the game, and I was no better off than when I had 1/2 iron near the start. Maybe you can only build limited units simultaneously with 1 resource? Maybe someone else has other better ideas...
I'm with you man...every time I play an Earth map I bring a settler with me to Panama and build a city there JUST to get across...sometimes I build it at the wrong spot, and after it's too late, I see its not connected...
But seriously, if they are gonna make a Civ 5 they better concentrate more on the game...I mean Civ 4 is much more meant for multiplayer... And if they try to add even more graphics and features, my computer will explode.... Civ 4 was bad enough, using like 1 Gb+ of memory by 1200 AD.
And besides, like mentioned earlier, if they make a Civ 5 this early after Civ 4, it'll....suck.
Artosoft
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2006
- Messages
- 402
- Status
