Future Age?

[Superkrest]

lol..yes it would be. i think there would be enough support for an optional "futures" expansion..it would make the money fraxis dumps worth it..i know i would buy(if it says civ..i buy it)

 

[troytheface]

interesting - i voted no because hover tanks in Call to Power just suxed- but i see that "yes" is leading- i think the sci-fi genre dominates games and younger players have no problem with "attack things that don't exsist and mutants with teeth"
however- while night vision and space stations and Shuttles (which should be the Amercian UU by the way- it is truly unique and come at the height of U.S. power-)
are techs that are available today- but -they have to come to a point of finish and there has to be a limit to the number of units- perhaps they should have one tech that u can build during the future age that is real expensive and time consuming like a space station-course they have the space ship thing which maybe fills that role

 

[sir_schwick]

I thought of another reason that a future age should be a modders addition and not Firaxis's. This was one of the major issues that dh_epic and I had with the modern age. What will the future techs and age give you? More units and improvements. Wow, a 30 strength unit with ten different abilties. While "fun" most players will never see this without milking games for time. However it is still just a stat rather than anything interesting and new. The gameplay will be essentially the same in the future age as any of the past ages. Like I have been saying, Firaxis's resources would better be spent taking the proper time to make SMAC 2 or letting modders do this flight of fancy.

 

[Atrebates]

There is no problem with the future age concept- provided fireaxis stays away from killer death bots etc... If they keep things realistic it would be a good addition to civ.
However I agree with schwick that it may not be the best use of Fireaxis' resources, perhaps suitable for an expansion pack? With the option of starting in later ages a future age seems an appropriate step to take.

 

[apatheist]

This was one of the major issues that dh_epic and I had with the modern age. What will the future techs and age give you? More units and improvements. Wow, a 30 strength unit with ten different abilties. While "fun" most players will never see this without milking games for time. However it is still just a stat rather than anything interesting and new. The gameplay will be essentially the same in the future age as any of the past ages.

Well, to be fair, why is that a problem with the future age vs. previous ages? The modern age is just like the industrial age, except with more powerful units and some new improvements and flight. The industrial age is just like the medieval age, except with more powerful units and some new improvements and railroad. The medieval age is just like the ancient age, except with more powerful units and some new improvements. And yet you don't seem to have an issue with that.

I want a future age. I also want to scrap the Alpha Centauri spaceship. I think that's a relic of 1980s-era thinking about what the future would be like, but visions of the future have advanced since civ1. I think it would be much more interesting to have the ending project of the game be Vernor Vinge's Singularity. The discovery of artificial intelligence leads to an intelligence and technology that grows at an exponential rate, something so incomprehensible that we cannot see into the future beyond it (hence the name Singularity).

In the game, the Singularity could be modelled as having all of your cities working together at the end to construct an artificial intelligence. When this intelligence appears, there could be a number of results (with the game selecting one or the other randomly or due to some factors). The artificial intelligence could immediately destroy all human life. It could build an army of Giant Death Robots to take out the humans Terminator style. It could construct nanomachines to infect humans of one or more civs and turn them into cybernetic entities, either hostile drones (like the Borg), or an evolution beyond humanity. It could join humans together in a SMAC-style transcendence. It could appear and disappear with no apparent effect. It could appear and become our buddy pal and bring about an enlightened era of peace and prosperity the likes of which have never been seen before, a permanent Golden Age. It could discover faster-than-light technology, enabling humanity to spread beyond the stars, thus opening the door for a sequel on a galactic scale like Masters of Orion or Galactic Civilizations. Or it could be something else that I haven't thought of. In most of those, the game just sort of ends. In the Giant Death Robot or cybernetic warrior futures, you and the AI civilizations have to band together to defend humanity. It could be any or all or more of those. But it sure would be a lot more interesting and less goofy than the spaceship.

/me passes to the right ;-)

 

[mhIdA]

By principle I agree with a future age, but it must rethinking the way modern age is now presented.
Really, the game is more balanced in the 2 first eras or whatever in cIV. And half of techs of modern eras is just to build spaceship.
There's nothing or almost nothing who represent more realistically the tremendous changes in economically (neocolonialism tied with colonies and decolonization, emergency of regional blocs or think the reemergency of China and in somehow India - in Civ terms a come back of a backward civ), social (sport, music, movies, TV, entertainment - more improvs but tied to culture and not only to religion) or politic (diplomacy - election of secretary general of UN every 5, 10 turns, WWs and Cold War tied to ideological conflits).
So, regards I like a future age optional I would like see modern era bee more accurate before.
This future age dont necessarilly mean futuristic units or some kind of sci-fi features. It just simply go further with some trends of modern era like regional blocs or political unions (a la Mercosul, NAFTA, EU) and techs that amost are come out: laser troops, electromagnetic weapons, environmental problems, famine, exploration of solar system resources, space stations, begining of Mars colonization and to finish the launch of space ship to a erth-like planet out of solar system.
This stuff and maybe Im wrong, but is not so difult to Firaxis worked on it, and the major problem is always start something. Once maded is just a matter of improv it in later versions of game. And it would be a good scenario to start or optional.
The point is that the developers allways put to much effort in first eras than in the whole game.

NOTE: Even in the 1st era in my point of view the game could be improve if start with more civs and in 20 or 30 turns the number of civs decrease as some of them are bee conquered as they fight for proeminance. Is just a way to put more realism on game but with only 18 playable civs I better keep on dreaming.

 

[sir_schwick]

Well, to be fair, why is that a problem with the future age vs. previous ages? The modern age is just like the industrial age, except with more powerful units and some new improvements and flight. The industrial age is just like the medieval age, except with more powerful units and some new improvements and railroad. The medieval age is just like the ancient age, except with more powerful units and some new improvements. And yet you don't seem to have an issue with that.

In my vision of Civ I would like to see gameplay mechanics that evolved. Leaders do not interact with their people the same way in Pericles' Athens as modern Athens. Game interface, methods, etc., should all evolve so that technology means something other than new units and improvements. However the current Civ model roughly works until the middle of the industrial age. Past there is grossly misrepresents lots of things. Here is a thread detailing many good reasons to not have a future age and maybe rethink many Civ paradigms. I did not bring this up before because I felt it went outside the scope of this thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=110668


@mhIdA

I agree with probably everything you just said.

 

[dh_epic]

First, people can already cite the inaccuracy of historical development and technology. A future age would probably cause more problems with complaints.

Absolutely true. Would oil run out? Would we switch to an alternate mode of production in time? Is Artificial Intelligence really possible in the next 100 years? Nobody can agree on these things. We have a hard enough time agreeing on things that actually happened.

Second, this is content that has to be researched, drawn, written about, and in general requires money and developement time.

Thirdly, a future age extension requires extensive playtesting which takes even more time.

I think this is the big thing that's missing. If the civ developers had an infinite amount of time to produce the ideal version of civilization, a future age would be a great option to extend the play of the existing game.

Here is the main problem: the modern age currently sucks. So does the industrial age. You usually can tell who's going to win the game by the time you've researched nationalism, if not sooner. If 50% of the game is boring, why would you want to extend it?

I think Firaxis is probably doing the right thing now, and that's fixing the existing game rather than making it longer.

And one last point -- if you have tanks that are 40/30/3, and then mechs that are 80/60/4, and then giant death robots that are 120/80/5, you are not actually adding anything to the game. It's just new content. That's something any joe schmoe modder can do. In fact, you could rename everything in Civ and it wouldn't change the game -- changing riflemen to cyborgs or changing the pyramids to 'nanobot HQ' would have no actual gameplay impact.

 

[Atrebates]

I kind of agree with dh_epic but I think the problems currently encountered in the modern age comes from the interface, your civ becomes too bloated to manage and you can churn out more units than you can deal with, the earlier ages feel 'better' because you can micromange your entire civilisation.
Given that fireaxis have made changes to the interface this problem may disappear and the question of a future age becomes pertinent.
Also the modern age (IMO) feels boring because you are resembling the civilisation you see around you and cannot improve on it, Future Techs would hopefully remove this late-game apathy where you reach an unrealistic halt- does anyone believe we are currently at the pinnacle of civilisation

 

[Dudedudeyo]

The major problem with Civ is that by the indusrial age everyone knows who will win (which is usually the Human). there is no I might win. Once the AI is smarter then it wont to to hard to change. I didnt see that in the begining but i now I agree with dh_epic. I must I am surprised that yes is wining

 

[Atrebates]

True, that is often a problem but AI will improve (like you say), it is very hard to say how modern age will turn out in civ IV, if industrial+ ages work the Future age will be worthy. My personal frustration is in being stuck at current levels of development, I would like to see my crafted kingdom beat the one I actually live in

 

[mhIdA]

Sir Schwick
Thanks for support of my ideas. I dont read that thread even I intend to do. But as an aside note I prefer Firaxis improv the bad things on the game than cut it out. As I said before from version to version the devs tried to accurate more and more the 2 first eras and forgett that the game is to present days. Some day they come out with a diferent game for each era a la Age of Empires, and if that happened I stayed very annoyed.

As the problem of know so antecipately the winner I think game should be more dynamic in sense of that the civs who are ahead are not necessarilly the some from era to era. Even China and India still around in the other parts of the world things so much and from era to era and that it was not presented in Civ. But once again how features inherited the game could provide this. Plagues, more early wars between civs, barb invasions against huge civs a la Roman Empire, civil wars, natural disasters, exausted of eco-system a la eastern island or anazazi?

 

[RegentMan]

I don't like the idea of super laser infantry and tanks that pwn everything in their path. Massive space weapons are a as well in my book.

 

[Himalia]

No harm in it afterall it would only be an optional extra. No different than switching varioues victory conditions on or off. But prehaps a fully worked out extention may be the best way forward if it happens.

 

[Kurioku]

Without a doubt i find it a little frustrating that once you have develpoed everything all you get is this future tech stuff that dont do anything other than earn you victory points. Even if the future techs made older techs more efficant or something would be a start. By that i mean future tech 1 may earn you a plus 1 on th attack value of a certain unit of your choice or reduce the shield cost of a certain unit or building etc.

I beleive that the implementation of the call to power series did, for the most part, future ages quite well.
1. First off, you could build units with better hit points, attack points, greater cargo sizes, and more useful travel and engagement/recognizance options.

2. Secondly, you hade more improvements and tile improvements to build as well.

I'd definitately like to see future ages put into the game as I beleive it gives a greater finnish. I feel more satisfied knowing I dominated the rest of the world with the knowledge of fusion conductor power and fuel ceel technology rather than say, mircowave power and composite materials which by todays standerds is already becoming old news.(if you look past all the bullsh*t publicity regulated for television.)

 

[Kurioku]

But you win way before, so it doesn't matter. If there is a future age, I would never play it because I win in industrial age or when fission is discovered (UN)

Ok fair enough, I know that feeling too. Though I did come to the conclusion after a while from always being a "BIG SHOT", beating the game always so early on, which does feel rewarding. Though, to keep the element of a future age, gives more play to the game, one of which adds what has potential to be fun to explore and highly ego driving to conquer. If you like power gamming, why not give the future age ago, affraid it might not present acurate implementation?

 

[Kurioku]

I agree with mastertyguy, the game is usually over when you hit Fission (in Civ III anyway).

Ok, that's civ 3, this is the thread for civ 4, meaning, that I've heard will be a great diffrence from the previos civ games due to great modifications. And once again, a change is not a requirement, some might enjoy the freedom to explore the more areas the game can offer.

Perhaps, and perhaps those tech and weapons you may refer to, that are in the not all to distant future, yes?

 

[Kurioku]

I agree games are as a rule won way before future tech becomes an option even on multiplayer it would seem that way. Even so there ar many who would like to see it. Theres a few good mods that have future techs on them and at the end of the day there is an editor so its not that difficult to add them if you want.

Almost 100%, the argument a little weak, yet your point is stated, IT'S OK TO ADD AN EXTRA AGE THEME!

 

[RegentMan]

You do know you can copy and paste quotes into one post. Just use the [*QUOTE=username]text[/QUOTE] format (remove the *).

 

[Kurioku]

You do know you can copy and paste quotes into one post. Just use the [*QUOTE=username]text

format (remove the *).[/QUOTE]


Ok, though as you might see from actually reading the replies I've posted, that they address different people, thus replying one person at a time makes more sense as it is direct and I've not found a plausable way to reply to more then one post at a time. Forgive any lack of knowledge in this instance.