Civ5 discussion

[warpstorm]

Since Civ4 won't make people some happy because it will still fundamentally play like Civ (see Soren's GDC presentation), maybe it's time to start discussing radical changes so that they can be incorporated in the next go round.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Do you have a link to that presentation?

 

[Colonel]

jumpin the gun with the Civ 5 thing arent you Civ4 hasnt even come out

 

[warpstorm]

http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2004/johnson_soren.zip

The gist is that Firaxis is trying to maintain a franchise. This means not changing the game radically from iteration to iteration. Radical changes will take a few iterations to work their way in. I'm trying to be forward thinking here.

Remember for a series to not wither, it must be a little better than the last while still giving you that feel that made you like the game in the first place. Change too much and you lose fans. In the slides, Soren eludes to the fact that about 2/3 of the game will be similar to whatr is there. Some people are proposing things for Civ4 that go way beyond the 1/3 mark. They will, no doubt, be disappointed that these changes weren't made.

That's the point of this thread.

 

[Ant509y]

Hmm... I wonder if provinces will be something that could be added? if not, at least for Civ 5. (btw, I'm still waiting for that presentation to load, so I haven't read it yet. x.x)

 

[Esckey]

I hope they don't take out pollution, corruption/waste, rioting, and maintience. Just put those in as an on/off option or slider so you can control how bad it actually it is.

 

[CenturionV]

I hope they don't take out pollution, corruption/waste, rioting, and maintience. Just put those in as an on/off option or slider so you can control how bad it actually it is.

Well I could live Without corruption/waste (or at least with it almost totally gone) but personally I think they should actually expand on stuff like rioting/pollution (possibility of new civ forming out of civil wars/different types of pollution, Chemical/air/radioactive)

I'm really hopeing that there is some kind of unit countering relationship, (pike beats horseman, archer beat infantry, etc) though it looked from the "developers rant" that they did not like the idea of that.

I have to say that I'm a little disappointed. They said they want to "simplify, simplify, simplify" the game, that tells me that there buying into the console-enduced "dumb" gamer, who can't handle complexity, games over 45 minutes, or anything that might actually require thought or serious effort. Hopefully I'm mistaken, but most of the things I dislike about civ 3 are in its LACKING of complexity and realism, not in its complexity.

 

[Ant509y]

Unfortunate for me, I do not have powerpoint, so I could not see Soren's presentation. Oh, well. What kind of details are on it, Warpstone?

 

[warpstorm]

I have to say that I'm a little disappointed. They said they want to "simplify, simplify, simplify" the game, that tells me that there buying into the console-enduced "dumb" gamer, who can't handle complexity, games over 45 minutes, or anything that might actually require thought or serious effort.

I wouldn't say that Soren is trying to simplify Civ, so much as streamline it.

 

[CenturionV]

this is what I used to view it (for ant509y) http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...8e-5513-46c4-aa4f-058a84a37df1&displaylang=en

wouldn't say that Soren is trying to simplify Civ, so much as streamline it.

Well that would be good, though its poor choice of words to say "simplify" when streamlining has a different meaning, plus if you where to streamline civ3 you could actually make it more complex without bogging down the player. Which is what Im in favor of.

 

[Tholish]

Yeah, new civs emerging in mid game, somebody said. Civ3 leads to empires, consolidations, and no new civs emerging. In reality, civs both differentiate and consolidate. There are conquests, but there are also fragmentations. The germanics broke up into the french and english and others. The english further spawned the americans who in fact spawned a further split off that failed (the confederacy).
This is represented perfectly in MOO3.

There should be a change, per turn of discontent, that a city will form a branch civ. There could be a list of names of branch civs for each civ, like the list of city names or the list of leaders.

They could streamline the base game while expanding the editor, to make everybody happy. Take pollution out of the main game, so you can add some new feature I guess, but let the editor put it back if one wants. The editor is basically a related bonus game for the hard core, a form of advanced game perpendicular to difficulty level. As such it can disobey what the slides talked about, that is you can add to the editor without having take away from the main game. Do your trade offs in the base game, then give us back all the lost stuff in the editor. Sort of a cheat.

 

[Loaf Warden]

There should be a change, per turn of discontent, that a city will form a branch civ. There could be a list of names of branch civs for each civ, like the list of city names or the list of leaders.

I agree that new civs should be able to break off from old civs. In fact, we've developed a whole system that will do that, among other things. You can read all about it here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=87761

 

[Colonel]

Well I could live Without corruption/waste (or at least with it almost totally gone) but personally I think they should actually expand on stuff like rioting/pollution (possibility of new civ forming out of civil wars/different types of pollution, Chemical/air/radioactive)

I'm really hopeing that there is some kind of unit countering relationship, (pike beats horseman, archer beat infantry, etc) though it looked from the "developers rant" that they did not like the idea of that.

I have to say that I'm a little disappointed. They said they want to "simplify, simplify, simplify" the game, that tells me that there buying into the console-enduced "dumb" gamer, who can't handle complexity, games over 45 minutes, or anything that might actually require thought or serious effort.

hey i play games like that but if you made Civ games like it would be gay. Civ games should be Civ games and Shoot'em to hell games should be shoot'em to hell games.

 

[Ant509y]

Hey, thanks Centurion, for that dl! Also, nice to see you back Loaf. Still with you on the province system.

 

[Colonel]

"province system".

is that like states like in the US

 

[brianshapiro]

Colonel,

I think its also dangerous to give in every time players complain something is too 'unfun' because a lot of times they say its unfun just because it makes the game more difficult and challenging; if they listened to every complaint like this, it would be impossible to lose a game because losing is 'unfun',ie dont have the computer start aggression towards you because its 'unfun'.

As for corruption there has to be something like it so it makes it difficult to maintain empires, but it should be easier to manage; my suggestion was to make corruption controlled by culture, so if you have a city with high culture it reduces corruption in surrounding cities; plus corruption should be tied to unhappiness and revolts more directly

 

[Chieftess]

Yes, pretty much. I tend to think of provinces like territories. Large areas of land.

 

[Ant509y]

Yeah, provinces are kinda like states. Multiple cities. Check Loaf's thread on it! Oh, Chieftess beat me to the punch. Oh, well. Here's hoping we get provinces, you know?

 

[Cuivienen]

Well... I don't think Civ provinces would have as much autonomy as the American states. It would take a lot of the fun away if your governors and province assemblies got to decide the tax rate in the province.

 

[Ant509y]

Read the "Again, Provinces" thread, Cuivienen. Loaf, myself, and some others have been creating a province system that would still allow you to control it. It isn't fully realized yet, but it's still doing very well.