Civ Revolutions = Civ V?

[the Intricacy]

I've posted my theory elsewhere. But yeah, I suspect this is the case. What do you all think?

Listen to the Sid interview carefully... he almost the slips out the possibility of Revolutions on the PC. Then concludes with a "maybe we'll have crossover games for consoles and PC".

Then again, I dunno why I keep pushing this theory. I guess it comes down to whether Firaxis is internally thinking this is "Civ Lite" or "Civ Redux". Time will tell I guess.

There is a drastic difference between Simple and Simplistic.

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

If that's Civ5 then someone slipped Meier some drugs, because he has to be poppin' something to think that garbage is anything like a Civ game.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Well, the main reason why it's advertised to be primary console game (with just possibility of porting to PC), is to emphasize that this is not Civ5.

Remember time when Activision bought Civilization name and used in in first Call to Power game, and whole confusion that it's Civ3?

Making Revolutions "console only" prevents that.

 

[CloudedSun]

My gut instinct is no. It sounds like it's designed to appeal to a different audience - basically people who normally play action games and wouldn't like twice at a game like Civ IV because they'd see it as too complicated. CivRev is an attempt to bridge that gap.

 

[SG-17]

No, its a fast paced console game, when Civ5 comes out, it will be for the computer.

 

[Angst]

Not at all Civ5

 

[Sub]

I sincerely doubt Revolutions = V. You have to keep in mind that Civ IV sold incredibly well. Their pretty much guaranteed to make a profit if they keep the Civilization games faithful to the hardcore where as it would backfire on them if they turned the core of the series into, well, Revolutions.

 

[whb]

The timing is curious. IIRC, Civ2, 3, and 4 came out remarkably regularly at 4 year intervals. I think it's now just about three years since Civ4, so we should be hearing rumblings about Civ5 (especially as the "big" expansion pack is out, much the same as news of Civ3 soonish after Civ2 Test of Time, and Civ 4 after Civ 3 Conquests). But maybe cycles have lengthened now that games have become more expensive to develop.

Edit: that beer I just had must have played havoc with my sense of time -- seems it's only two years since Civ4 was released, so we have a year to wait before we're likely to hear at all about Civ5, even assuming they do keep to previous timings.

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

We won't hear anything about Civ5 and we're not getting another expansion because of this abomination.

Civ5 will be delayed a couple years as this "game" is taking up their developers.

 

[the Intricacy]

Ok but wait a sec. Perhaps I only imagine this because this is what I want, but...

You know how some people customize every freaking component of a desktop rig? Takes them days to research the parts, figure out which components are optimized for each other, and minimizing bottlenecks, etc...

And then other people just plunk down $2499 for a Mac.

My point is, wouldn't it be great if Civ Revolution was both: A simple game, yet a customizable game? Wouldn't it be ideal? Isn't that the general direction of the design of the series since Civ I? Average gameplay time over each iteration has decreased. What used to be a pure micromanagement exercise of city production has become replaced by mayors, automations, etc.

My ideal dream for this game is a simple gameplay exercise for the consoles, which streamlines and simplifies, not made simplistic, the essence of civ in a more digestible gameplay experience, that we'd all find entertaining. Then, a few months later, the PC version of Revolution came out, and it allows you to "open the hood" and get in there and do all the dirty micromanaging (if we'd like) that we've all grown to love from the PC game we're all addicted to.

And yeah, stop all the console h8.

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

And yeah, stop all the console h8.

Stop being simplistic and thinking it's merely "console hate." It's not. I love console games. First Civ I played was Civ 1 on the Super Nintendo. What was cool about it was that it was Civ 1. It wasn't "Civ Dumbed Down" or "Civ Simplistic." It was an actual civilization game. Console gamers CAN... CAN... handle actual Civilization games. Instead of being smart and educating console gamers to try the style of game that Civilization is, they pulled a Nintendo and dumbed it down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

In other words, they sold out the essence of what makes Civilization as a series great. This game is no more a Civilization game than CivCity:Rome was. They're just slapping "Civ" in front of unrelated games like Maxis did with garbage like SimAnt and SimCopter, ruining the power of the brand in general. Dumbing it down, watering it down.

Instead of giving Console owners like myself a great Civilization game, they're acting as though all console owners are morons and can't handle the real deal.

If anything, you as a console backer should be insulted that Firaxis thinks you can't handle a real Civilization game instead of this watered down sellout puke.

 

[Abaddon]

Not a chance, but we may see some developmental ideas from Revolutions make it into ciV.

 

[dh_epic]

Nope. Civ 5 will be much different. This game is being designed for a different audience and seems to have a different experience. But they might take some of the advanced graphical concepts into the new game.

I have my own theory about how Civ Revolutions could help Civ 5, though...

Firaxis is trying to be careful not to get much more complex than Civ 3 or Civ 4, in order to remain viable with mainstream customers. The transition from Civ 3 to Civ 4 meant simplifying a few concepts in Civ 3 in order to make room for new concepts in Civ 4. They replaced pollution with health, which took less time to manage. They gutted espionage (until the XP, which is targeted at more hardcore fans), but made government into a more complex civics system. They reduced opportunities for tile-juggling, but made room for specialist-juggling.

I'm working under the assumption that Civilization 5 will NOT be any more complex than Civilization 4. (And you should too, if you understand the gaming industry beyond this hardcore community.)

For Civ 4 --> Civ 5, they'll probably do the same thing as Civ 3 --> Civ 4. Take a step back, figure out what was REALLY fun, and cut out what really only added a bit of flavor. Cut some stuff in order to make room for new stuff. (For example: get rid of the probabilities on Great People to reduce micromanagement there, but actually have internal political struggles between Merchants and Priests. Untangle the tech tree into a few flat branches, but let you do more with culture.) That would produce a solid game, I guess.

But my theory, not that they'll listen to me, is that they should build Civilization 5 off of Civilization Revolutions. If the play times are any indicator, it sounds like they cut the game in half -- maybe more! If they start from Civ Rev, they can introduce WAY more new ideas. (Although, obviously, we'd like a few of the old ideas to return as well.)

I think it would be easier to make for a fresher game by wiping the slate half clean with Civ Rev and then filling the rest up with more new ideas. I worry I'd be more bored if they did the "subtract one thing, add one thing" strategy for Civ 5, like they did for Civ 3 to Civ 4.

 

[Angst]

Nope. Civ 5 will be much different. This game is being designed for a different audience and seems to have a different experience. But they might take some of the advanced graphical concepts into the new game.

I have my own theory about how Civ Revolutions could help Civ 5, though...

Firaxis is trying to be careful not to get much more complex than Civ 3 or Civ 4, in order to remain viable with mainstream customers. The transition from Civ 3 to Civ 4 meant simplifying a few concepts in Civ 3 in order to make room for new concepts in Civ 4. They replaced pollution with health, which took less time to manage. They gutted espionage (until the XP, which is targeted at more hardcore fans), but made government into a more complex civics system. They reduced opportunities for tile-juggling, but made room for specialist-juggling.

I'm working under the assumption that Civilization 5 will NOT be any more complex than Civilization 4. (And you should too, if you understand the gaming industry beyond this hardcore community.)

For Civ 4 --> Civ 5, they'll probably do the same thing as Civ 3 --> Civ 4. Take a step back, figure out what was REALLY fun, and cut out what really only added a bit of flavor. Cut some stuff in order to make room for new stuff. (For example: get rid of the probabilities on Great People to reduce micromanagement there, but actually have internal political struggles between Merchants and Priests. Untangle the tech tree into a few flat branches, but let you do more with culture.) That would produce a solid game, I guess.

But my theory, not that they'll listen to me, is that they should build Civilization 5 off of Civilization Revolutions. If the play times are any indicator, it sounds like they cut the game in half -- maybe more! If they start from Civ Rev, they can introduce WAY more new ideas. (Although, obviously, we'd like a few of the old ideas to return as well.)

I think it would be easier to make for a fresher game by wiping the slate half clean with Civ Rev and then filling the rest up with more new ideas. I worry I'd be more bored if they did the "subtract one thing, add one thing" strategy for Civ 5, like they did for Civ 3 to Civ 4.

Just had to write it... It was a very good post, really.

 

[the Intricacy]

I guess Polycast episode 27 answered that definitively. (No.)

 

[dojoboy]

But my theory, not that they'll listen to me, is that they should build Civilization 5 off of Civilization Revolutions. If the play times are any indicator, it sounds like they cut the game in half -- maybe more! If they start from Civ Rev, they can introduce WAY more new ideas. (Although, obviously, we'd like a few of the old ideas to return as well.)

I think it would be easier to make for a fresher game by wiping the slate half clean with Civ Rev and then filling the rest up with more new ideas. I worry I'd be more bored if they did the "subtract one thing, add one thing" strategy for Civ 5, like they did for Civ 3 to Civ 4.

Does the next Firaxis civ title for desktops got to be Civ5?

 

[dh_epic]

If Firaxis is going to put out another Civ title for the PC, it will be Civ 5. But if I had to guess, I think they're going to try to start a new franchise before they do that. Maybe they'll do a reboot for SMAC or Colonization, that would be cool. I feel like it's too soon for Civ 5 anyway.

 

[rupertlittlebea]

Maybe they'll do a reboot for SMAC or Colonization, that would be cool.

Drool Drool

 

[Yorkshire_14]

Go on www.sidmeier.com and then go on Ask sid and you can ask him questions (your question may not get answered).