E3 2005: Civ4 Live Stage Demo (GameSpot)

[Thyrwyn]

Everything is too big, the cities are too far apart, the tiles are too square, the terrain isn't as expansive, I am very very angry?

Let me get this straight: a Civ player complaining about square tiles? Also, please keep in mind that this is probably a Tiny World - which is why things look so big compared to the world/landmass. Also, it is most likely that everything we saw was handplaced for the demo.

I thought Civilization was about realism, and was supposed to look realistic.

We must be playing different Civs then. What, exactly, about any Civ Product has looked 'realistic'?

Now it looks lame, even look at the leaderheads, CivIII leaderheads are way better. In fact, CivIII is graphically 10000% better.

We can just agree to disagree here - I like the Civ IV leadertorsos.

What's even worse is that user-made scenarios for historical events will most-likely look so unrealistic that they won't even be worth attempting. Argh!

Every historical scenario I have ever seen only 'looks' realistic at the start. Once play starts and the units end up massed into SoDs, 'looking real' goes out the window.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

I am so unbelievably upset right now. I was hoping the demos would make me feel more optimistic about this game but now I am more pessimistic than ever.

This game is UGLY!!!!!

Everything is too big, the cities are too far apart, the tiles are too square, the terrain isn't as expansive, I am very very angry.

How could Firaxis even make such a kiddy-looking game. I thought Civilization was about realism, and was supposed to look realistic. Now it looks lame, even look at the leaderheads, CivIII leaderheads are way better. In fact, CivIII is graphically 10000% better.

What's even worse is that user-made scenarios for historical events will most-likely look so unrealistic that they won't even be worth attempting. Argh!

Firaxis is doing the same thing Blizzard did. They're going from a fabulous 2d game to a horrible 3d game. Seriously, if Firaxis doesn't include a 2d terrain, make the city graphics and unit graphics like CivIII, and revamp it's tile structure, I will never buy this game.

Sid, what were you thinking?

your are having "wind waker" tantrum, sir.

 

[Red Wegener]

The videos looked awesome

The graphics looked great

Gandi looked cool

The combat looked fun

All I want to know now is the release date

 

[Tatran]

Finally got a look at the movie after a total clean system install.
(Guess too much spyware,trojans etc.)
The battle outcome looks like a lottery.
Everything looks very nice so far.

 

[Markstar]

<snip>

Well, I agree with you mostly. The only difference is that we should be used to that by now. Every installment since Civ2 has been rather bad-looking compared to other games in their time.

It has been argued that this is Civ and can't be compared to RTS. I agree - Civ has the "potential" to look much BETTER than RTS or other games since the majority of the map is not constantly moving. Thus, it 'should' be much easier to implement high quality graphics.

But actually my only problem with the graphics is that it looks very cluttered unless you zoom almost all the way in. The world view is kinda nice but doesn't provide you with nearly the amount of info you'd get by zooming out from Civ2, for example. Different units look very much alike (like the different motorized units in Civ3) and have similar colors to the terrain (depending on where they are standing).
I agree it looks very nice (compared to Civ3) if you take a close look at the map, but for somebody like me who likes to sit back and look at the grand picture this coloring (or way of presenting the info) is very disturbing.

What worries me most is the units. I like (love?) the idea of the different attributes that you can aquire and think that adds a lot of interesting varieties to the game. However, take a look at the promotions below (those are the ones I could identify from the movie):

[Sentry] +1 Visibility Range
[Mobility] -1 Terrain Movement Cost
[Drill 1] 1 Extra First Strike Chance
[Drill 2] +1 Extra First Strike
[Navigaton 1] +1 Movement Range
[Navigaton 2] +1 Movement Range
[Guerilla 1] + 20% Defense in Hills
[Guerilla 3] Double Movement in Hills, +30% Defense in Hills
[Medic 1] Heals Units in Same Tile Extra 10% Damage/Turn
[Medic 2] Heals Units in Adjacent Tiles Extra 10% Damage/Turn
[Flanking 1] +10% Withdrawal Chance
[Flanking 2] +20% Withdrawal Chance
[Bartage 3] +50% Collateral Damage, +10% vs Gunpowder Units
[A... ] +10% City Bombard Damage
[Wo...] +20% Jungle Defense, +20% Forrest Defense
[City Raider 1] +20% City Attack

They all sound nice, but compared the the +1 HP you get from being promoted in Civ3 these are all rather weak enhancements. Just think about it:
A hurt (-1) elite Civ3 untit is still twice as strong as a hurt (-1) regular unit, thus attacking the elite is (depending on who attacks of course) twice as hard. Here, even a +50% fighting bonus (which doesn't seem to be there, not even close) would be pretty weak compared to additional HPs.
Why do I think this is a problem? Because, as Firaxis also realized (otherwise they would not have done the whole RPG thing), upgrading your units is a large part of the fun.
With these weak improvements I fear that the enthusiasm will be quite lower than trying to get as many elites as possible to be able to spawn leaders.

I had hoped that the RPG element would apply to the leaders that you get from elite wins in Civ3. For example, you create an army with your leader and can then chose some attributes when creating an army (like the promotions in Civ4) which then benefit all units that join under this army.

 

[dc82]

i think u'll prob. stil get +1 HP - 'cuz u see units w/ more than 3 figures, which i'm guessing is veteran and elite status, on top of the promotions.

 

[Markstar]

i think u'll prob. stil get +1 HP - 'cuz u see units w/ more than 3 figures, which i'm guessing is veteran and elite status, on top of the promotions.

I thought so at first as well, but it it is said specifically that 3 is the max amount of HPs.

 

[dc82]

hrm, i wonder y they have up to five-figure units. maybe they're from an earlier version then. <<shrug>>

 

[Markstar]

I was pretty sure I heard/read that it's 3 HPs max.
But I might very well be wrong since indeed it seems like there are up to 5 guys in a combat unit even in recent screenshots. I sure hope I'm at fault here.

But of course there are other issues (besides the cluttered map).

It looks like the tech tree is greatly simplified compared to previous Civs (especially in regard to Civ2):
In the movie he takes Gunpowder as an example for being able to come from two directions an being able to research the tech. Since there are only leading two techs to Gunpowder this implies that you only need one tech to get to the next one. WTH? Does Firaxis assume that it is too much to ask having to research Code of Law AND Philosophy before going for The Republic?

Edit: Just read the interview at IGN and it is indeed so that you only need one of the prequisites.

Plus, no leaders. While it took me a while to get used to them, I really got to like them.

 

[CellKu]

I really liked the video. The game looks much better than the screenshots implied. What does worry me, however, is the 1v1 combat. Doesn't look good and takes a lot of time. And why did they discuss almost every aspect of the game, but didn't say anything meaningful about espionage?
And btw, they should get rid of this shiny element of missionaries. What should that be - some sort of religious spirit?

 

[Carolus]

Reducing the number of units under one's control in the game is a good idea and should cut down on some of the micromanagement from previous versions of Civ, but looking at the video it seems like the game could have benefited from an even more thorough overhaul of the combat system. Introducing armies in Civ 3 was a good first step but I feel like this idea could have been expanded on further to eliminate the linear progression in the number of units you control that happens as you move through the ages (at the expense of gameplay). Seeing the same old combat in the new 3D world seems strangely dated.

 

[oldStatesman]

Reducing the number of units under one's control in the game is a good idea and should cut down on some of the micromanagement from previous versions of Civ...

But to play the devil's advocate, won't having around 40 bonus traits to deal with increase micromangement? Especially if you have a military force of 100's of units and you must choose their bonus's individually? (They decreased the types of units you have to choose from- I have not heard that you will be allowed to have only a set number of built units...)

Personally, I never mind moving the units around...once I get too many I keep them in stacks and move the stacks as needed. That is one part of mm that is okay.

 

[Speaker]

Say, if "phony peace" issues are fixed up and rules of that sort aren't part of the Civ4 Epics, any chance we'll see you around again?

I sure hope Arathorn will come back. Civ4 looks great and I am looking forward to learning it and playing the Epics with all you guys: Sullla, Sirian, Arathorn, T-Hawk, Reagan and more...maybe even Sirp...and Charis?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

My hope is that building lots of units places pressure on both your required resources AND on your cities' health-thus tying your military size more directly to your population. As for unit promotions, I would prefer it if they were applied automatically, based on the unit type and the kinds of battles you have fought, but I will reserve judgement on this until I hear more officially!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[alco75]

The video - amazing.

Civ4 is shaping up to be everything I've ever wanted in a game.

 

[a space oddity]

I sure hope Arathorn will come back. Civ4 looks great and I am looking forward to learning it and playing the Epics with all you guys: Sullla, Sirian, Arathorn, T-Hawk, Reagan and more...maybe even Sirp...and Charis?

Here's to hoping to seeing them all here playing the game again!

 

[777]

Greatness!!!! Thank you for sharing Thunderfall

 

[DocTom]

Waving "Hello" to all ....

To those who dislike the new look of cIV or think about hwo to handle more than 100 hundred different units...

Still rememder your first civ2 impressions? Mine where simple: I had no clue whats going on. The squares were gone and the civ2 settler was impossible to be recognized as... uhhh as what.. unit ??

Things went better as other units came into play and the first time I saw a wondermovie was quite touching (and still is). Later on, I built Leo just to watch the movie one more time.

Civ3 had a more familiar look... but gameplay changed a lot. Loosing on monarch was something I had to get used to.. forget about emperor OCC... tried it just once to learn that its not my cup of tea any more

Civ4 looks like a combination of the two. Graphics will change a lot (they look greater than ever) and they got hopefully rid of the large amounts of units you have to controll ever since civ1.

Its probably not a good idea to compare the new features with the stuff we are used to. Having to manage religious units might be interesting as long as you dont need to move 50 of them across the map. 3 Hitpoints could be perfect if it helps to simplify warfare MM. Having 10 different types of legions could be quite a chalange if you loose your units not to often. I like the idea of a unit that "upgrades" by centuries full of battles. It would turn into something special, that money can't buy. This ads to a more realistic warfare, since soldiers are something of value and no unlimited ressource you just pump out of your country / cities.

I trust on Firaxis that cIV will be a better game than all other civs before

.. got to go to be first in line at the local software store

Thomas

 

[Chieftess]

Waving "Hello" to all ....

To those who dislike the new look of cIV or think about hwo to handle more than 100 hundred different units...

Still rememder your first civ2 impressions?

No. I was on hiatus from Apolyton (never registered at the new site until much later) so that I wouldn't be distracted in college. (granted... I did wind up playing Civ2 a lot...)

 

[Markstar]

Well, I guess we'll just have to be patient to see how it plays out.

I am not very confident to be honest (because of Firaxis' performance in the past) but cIV certainly looks promising enough.

I don't know if I could get used to units not having defense/offense values however...