Civ4 Catering to RTers?

[Brian Mc]

Obviously developing a game is a business, but I'm worried that Civ4 is trying to catch a market by sacrificing the gameplay that has made it a classic among strategy fans. Granted, I've only seen a couple of reviews, but the one on gamespot really bugged me. It looks like a worked over RoN.

Can't say much until I play it, but I have my doubts. RT fans are a lower life-form and God knows they already have enough games. I'm really worried about my Civ getting snatched away just so that the graphics are prettier and the gameplay "more fun". Thoughts? Can someone reassure me?

 

[Sub]

You do know Rise of Nations is basically Civilization in real time, right? Anyways, I don't know why so many people are worried about this. They won't ruin the game by trying to get RTS fans to play. The game will still be as deep and as awesome as the previous versions. To me, all this means is that they’re making the interface a lot easier to use and implementing shortcuts to make a lot of the games tasks less tedious. A perfect example of this is the rally point feature in Civ 3. I love this feature, and do you know where it came from? Thats right, RTS games.

 

[Civrules]

I'm really worried about my Civ getting snatched away just so that the graphics are prettier and the gameplay "more fun".

But isn't that the whole point? Civ being more fun?


BTW, welcome to CFC!

 

[henry k c]

I played a rise of nations demo and it sucked like crap. The combat was confusing and it was too fast paced.

 

[warpstorm]

Well, Firaxis said that it will stay a TBS game.

 

[Tomoyo]

Well, Firaxis said that it will stay a TBS game.

I should hope so.

 

[Sub]

It wouldn't be Civ if it wasn't.

 

[vbraun]

Ok, How are they sacraficing gameplay?

I hate it how people keep claiming "There putting graphics over gameplay" yet no one knows how the game will work.

 

[tcjsavannah]

World's not big enough for a lot of cities when you look at the screenshots. Less cities = sacrificing gameplay.

 

[Red Door]

Rise of Nations is fun but Henry K C is right, sometimes it goes too fast and they'll invade you before you even start to think about building an army.

 

[Sub]

Actually, less citys = less micromanagement. It kind of gets rid of the thinking "the more citys I have, the better off I am."

 

[vbraun]

Less cities = sacrificing gameplay.

Prove that.

 

[henry k c]

Civ 4's interface does have a Rise of Nations feel to it. You can't be positive until you play it, but so far i'm dissapointed in the looks/graphics.

 

[general_kill]

civ 4 will be crap and we'll settle at that. happy?

btw, i'm looking foward to this game.

 

[tehsensei]

Civ is not Civ unless its Turn based.

 

[Dale]

I've always thought of cities as being regions actually, a bit like a region in Paradox games has one city.

Besides, smaller worlds means more fights over living space.

Dale

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Henry, has it at all occured to you that all the graphics we have seen thus far are from the Beta Build of the game? Remember that the graphics will be the very last thing they will do on the game, because it is a hundred times easier to do than the gameplay mechanics. Therefore I wouldn't doubt that the graphics we will see in the final release will be miles better than the ones we have seen to date. Even if they aren't though, who cares??? -as long as the game plays well!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Raggamuffin]

I disagree there. The graphics seen now is probably what we will get with some slight adjustements here and there.

 

[remconius]

I dont think we have to worry too much, although I am a bit concerned.

I have been playing Settlers until the 4th edition, and I was real excited when I found they built a part V (called Heritage of kings). Downloaded the demo recently, but it was a total let down. They completely raped the game. No more logisitics management, careful control of where and how to place buildings, no more carriers. It's just another RTS.

You set serfs to gather wood and food. You put buildings in appropriate places, mines on mountains, farms on grassland etc. Fill them with units, do science just like RoN (4 types, 5 advances --> no depth...) build units and fight. It used to be so much fun to build an economy, now its the same as all RTS games.

Coming back to Civ 4, it's still turn based. You still gain exact resources for each tile you work. There are no gatherers as in RTS's(hate those). There is still a tech tree (but you dont have to discover all). Concepts like culture, diplomacy, trade have improved. You still build stuff with shields (although called hammers). You still grow a city if the food box fills up. You still cultivate your squares with workers (sea with work boats) only more options. Annoyances like corruption and pollution have been replaced by more managable concepts.

What I expect is a similar game with a different look (3D) and a lot more depth in decision making. What to build where, which improvements to build. What your trade network looks like, which techs to go for, etc.

Personally I can't wait.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@Raggamuffin. Just ask anyone who works in the computer gaming industry-like Warpstorm, for instance-and they will tell you the exact same thing: Graphics are almost always the last thing to be finished before a game's release, and this usually doesn't occur until the last 4-6 months of a game's development life.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.