Let's make Civ 5

But if the games were separated, it wouldn't be any cheaper. It would just mean a higher cost for those that do want both.

You don't think each part separately could plausible individually be cheaper than both together.

And if you want both (which most probably would),

I disagree with you on the bracketed point, as the impression I have from this forum is that dedicated single-player players and dedicated multiplayer players are fairly distinct user bases and the overlap is relatively small.

Perhaps, but what possible benefit could be derived from having the two games on separate discs rather than on the one disc. It isn't like it will lead to an improvement in quality of one, or both.

I can see the potential for different development tracks focusing on the preferences of the different communities, so there might well be improvement in quality as experienced by the players in each case.
 
You don't think each part separately could plausible individually be cheaper than both together.
This is your assumption not a fact. Unless you are privy to marketing and cost analysis by Firaxis or Take Two. If you are please share the information.

For those that would currently buy the game only for single player, they are only really paying for single player, as that is the only part that they want. Multiplayer can be thought of as an added on extra put in for free. If multiplayer didn't exist, these people would still be willing to pay the same amount for the game, as everything they want is still there. So, Firaxis could take out the multiplayer and leave the price where it is, without any movement in demand. The same goes for those that want to play multiplayer. They wouldn't be losing anything by buying it separately, and so would still pay the same amount for the multiplayer version on its own. And given that demand for popular games is quite inelastic, even if these people did want both, they would be willing to pay the same price for their preferred half of the game. So there would be a situation in which, instead of getting both halves of the game for $x, you would be able to buy the single player version for $x, and the multiplayer version for $x, meaning all that you would be losing is the option to play multiplayer if you so desire, or, of course, losing the option of playing single player.

I disagree with you on the bracketed point, as the impression I have from this forum is that dedicated single-player players and dedicated multiplayer players are fairly distinct user bases and the overlap is relatively small.

I'm extremely dedicated to single player, but I still like the option of dabbling in multiplayer.

Take the current KoTW game by Neal. He is using multiplayer for a single player game due to some settings needed, even though his entire series is based off single player. By excluding multiplayer, you'd be excluding this possibility.

And I doubt the validity of your claim with regards to dedicated multiplayer gamers not wanting single player. You can only play multiplayer effectively if you have more
than one person. And the chances are that a lot of the time, this will not be possible. So in those times, multiplayer gamers would want to, I would expect, play single player. And even if they don't, it makes sense from a marketing standpoint for Firaxis to entice them to play single player through its easy accessibility in the same game, allowing more connection with the brand and the increased likelihood of greater sales in the future.

I can see the potential for different development tracks focusing on the preferences of the different communities, so there might well be improvement in quality as experienced by the players in each case.

And this can't be achieved if the games come on one disc instead of two?
 
i know this hasn't been posted in for awhile, but oh well, i have a few ideas.
a few more techs (100 wouldn't be a huge jump)
another personality trait or two (example: researcher could get 10% faster research, or whatever's balanced, and maybe some kind of bonus to scientists)
a few more civs (for example, brazil would be another south american civ and plus there's already a wonder that's there in real life plus they seem to like scout helicopters and i don't think there are any flying uu's; israel would be good since it's the jewish homeland and judaism is one of the religions, plus solomon could use that researcher trait i mentioned earlier. i can't really think of a ub or uu they might have except maybe templars, if that counts)
bigger maps, since i like to play with tons of civs
a few more buildings/units and yeah alpine units would be awesome, as would robot units (such as the drones we're using in the middle east)
a few more wonders (like wtc [+100% to gold in nearby cities or something like that] for example)
more automation
more realistic money management system (example, you can set a tax rate and with higher taxes, you get more money in the short run but less culture and happiness in the long run, etc)
blah blah blah.
 
more realistic money management system (example, you can set a tax rate and with higher taxes, you get more money in the short run but less culture and happiness in the long run, etc)

The assumption that higher taxes mean less culture and happiness is not a valid universal.
 
The assumption that higher taxes mean less culture and happiness is not a valid universal.
well, since there have been tons of rebellions because of high taxes in both the eastern and western worlds (american revolution, yellow turban rebellion, etc etc), i think it's pretty safe to say that it's universal enough.
 
Okay, I believe I've pitched this idea before, but hopefully this time I'll be able to fully express why it's something Civ 5 should incorporate. The one thing that Civ needs is to play not in turns, but in years. 6050 of them.

No, I don't mean like a mega-ultra-Marathon speed. See, while there are 6050 years in a full game of Civilization, only about 10% of those will actually be played. So what's the point of it, you ask? Why to create a game with a more realistic and engaging flow of time, of course!

Here's how it works: You give all of your commands to units and cities, which will then be carried out as soon as you hit the End Turn button. (So this means all your units will carry out orders simultaneously when End Turn is pressed.) Once you end your turn, the years will pass and you will watch as your units carry out your orders. Eventually, the game stops auto-playing, and your next turn begins.

So you're saying it's just like the turn-based system Civ already uses, but between turns you watch your civilization carry out your orders? That doesn't sound necessary at all. Don't judge just yet, hypothetical critic of my imagination! :crazyeye: The whole point of this system is that it's much more fluid than playing in turns. Normally, the game will autorun for a predetermined number of years before starting your next turn. For example, in the early game, on Normal speed, after ending your turn, the game plays out 40 years and gives you your next turn. However, it will often be the case that your next turn comes early... say in 34 years instead of 40.

The reason your turn may come early is because an event occurs which requires your immediate attention. Events that warrant an early turn start include:

- Your unit has finished moving.
- Your unit has encountered a hostile unit.
- A hostile unit has been spotten near your territory.
- Your city has finished producing whatever it was making.
- You have researched a new technology.
- Your city is about to grow.
- A rival leader has changed the availability of diplomatic options (Open Borders, Tech Trading, etc.)
- A random event has occured.

An interface not unlike BUG will keep track of any events which require your attention, and when one pops up, autoplay will stop, and your turn will begin. So you may have your beginning turn, your next turn 40 years later, your next 40 years later, your next 3 years later, 39 years, 26 years, 40 years, 40 years, 40 years, 40 years, 24 years, 40 years, 12 years, 40 years, etc. The odd frequency of turns comes from important events.

Not only this, but the pacing of the game will change considerably when you are at war. Because each turn counts, turns will start coming once a year. This means wars can take just as many turns to resolve, but will occupy less of history. A 40-turn war will last 40 years, not 200. Once the war ends, the years begin to fly by again.

Some have also complained that the endgame is uneventful and boring. This system will resolve that issue: the years will not creep by when it is unnecessary. If your units are all fortified, relations with neighbors are peaceful, and your workers are all building railroads automatically, the game will give you your turn every 10 or 20 years by default, allowing you to plow through the uneventfulness. Meanwhile, the game will pick up on anything that needs attention (new orders, etc.), so the years will fly by only as long as there is really nothing to be done.

Basically, turns only come whenever there is something to do, and if there is nothing to do, then every few decades or so, as a precaution. The amount of turns which involve only pressing the red button are severely reduced.
:thumbsup:

maybe it will work, but i thought it might be better to drop years altogether and leave turns. just integer turns. one turn at a time :think:
 
I like Settler because it's easy. I play on Epic game speeds because that's good for a long Settler game. I like to try different methods of play on Settler.
right... a lot of sense i find it boring on settler and now ur saying u like it????
:confused:
 
well, since there have been tons of rebellions because of high taxes in both the eastern and western worlds (american revolution, yellow turban rebellion, etc etc), i think it's pretty safe to say that it's universal enough.

You are entirely writing off all of the people true history who have voted in social-democratic governments, then.
 
One suggestion

Active chat recognition. This technology is available right now, and will be available commercially by the time civ 5 comes out. For example, if you talk to Willem, you can type in, "Can you give me 500 gold?". He can respond in a number of ways, like "no" "you should give us X item for this" or "of course" or even "what the hell?". The more interesting thing with this is that it can integrate all aspects of gameplay, like civics, religion, technology. The AI can even be influenced by your conversation. Imagine something like this happening.

Player: Hello, Willem.

AI: Greetings, Ed (or whatever your name is)

Player: What do you think of Hannibal's civic?

AI: I wish he would accept our civic instead of staying with Slavery.

Player: Can you declare war on him?

AI: Do you think I am a fool?

Player: Well, he is a Christian, and you have adopted Judaism.

AI: I suppose so...

Player: And he made some arrogant demands.

AI: Yeah, I did not like that.

Player: And if I give you 500 gold and Optics, will you declare war on him?

AI: You know what - bring it on, Hannibal!

Imagine if that were to actually happen in game. Advanced diplomatic negotiation.
 
One suggestion

Active chat recognition. This technology is available right now, and will be available commercially by the time civ 5 comes out. For example, if you talk to Willem, you can type in, "Can you give me 500 gold?". He can respond in a number of ways, like "no" "you should give us X item for this" or "of course" or even "what the hell?". The more interesting thing with this is that it can integrate all aspects of gameplay, like civics, religion, technology. The AI can even be influenced by your conversation. Imagine something like this happening.

Player: Hello, Willem.

AI: Greetings, Ed (or whatever your name is)

Player: What do you think of Hannibal's civic?

AI: I wish he would accept our civic instead of staying with Slavery.

Player: Can you declare war on him?

AI: Do you think I am a fool?

Player: Well, he is a Christian, and you have adopted Judaism.

AI: I suppose so...

Player: And he made some arrogant demands.

AI: Yeah, I did not like that.

Player: And if I give you 500 gold and Optics, will you declare war on him?

AI: You know what - bring it on, Hannibal!

Imagine if that were to actually happen in game. Advanced diplomatic negotiation.

"I don't know what 'attack' means."
 
Sure, that technology is available now, but if my experience with it is anything to go by (using online versions), then it is pretty horrible. Ambiguity could make decision making quite hard for the AI, unless the chat thing also came with clickable (?) choices.
 
More civilizations -
Insted of having the Romans and Vikings these nations should turn to Italy and Norway over time.
More nations from Africa and Europe.

-More Buildings
-Cities should be named by location not in order of the computer city list.
-Larger Maps:nuke:
-More Civics
-Civil War:mad:
-More Techs:scan:
-Unions should be formed such as that of the EU and USA.
-Large defensive pacts.:confused:
-More Units
-More Civs should play during a game 30+
-Game should last longer 4000BC-4000AD
-Trenches can be built by soilders built.
-Game should be some what more historic.:king:
 
More civilizations -
Insted of having the Romans and Vikings these nations should turn to Italy and Norway over time.

-More Buildings
-Cities should be named by location not in order of the computer city list.
-Larger Maps:nuke:
-More Civics
-Civil War:mad:
-Large defensive pacts.:confused:
-More Civs should play during a game 30+
-Game should be some what more historic.:king:

You should try Rhye's and Fall of Civilization. It has these items of your list.
 
One suggestion

Active chat recognition. This technology is available right now, and will be available commercially by the time civ 5 comes out.

Heh, are you kidding? Chatbots have been 'commercially available' since the sixties and while some progress has been made, an apparently natural conversation is still only feasible in very, very small domains. Moreover, chatbots usually seem to bring out the worst in people, provoking more vulgarities than sensible conversation from the human side.

Scanning for keywords works, but is extremely primitive and limited. Any idea in how many ways people can ask for one simple thing? What do you do about the millions of customers who don't know how to spell in proper English?

I'm not saying this won't ever happen, but it's much more complicated than you make it sound like, and 'available commercially when civ 5 comes out' seems rather gratuitous and arbitrary to me.
 
Heh, are you kidding? Chatbots have been 'commercially available' since the sixties and while some progress has been made, an apparently natural conversation is still only feasible in very, very small domains.
What is civ other than a small, even tiny domain?

You will talk to the AI about ingame stuff after all, which are extremely limited. It is not like you will chat about the weather and ask it if you should get a tatoo and where...
 
What is civ other than a small, even tiny domain?

You will talk to the AI about ingame stuff after all, which are extremely limited. It is not like you will chat about the weather and ask it if you should get a tatoo and where...

Well true it's not like it's completely open ended. But the ontology is relatively complicated, the number of different types of responses (as opposed to just number of different responses) quite high, which I think would just result in a huge number of 'I don't understand' replies and thus annoyed players :p
 
What is civ other than a small, even tiny domain?

You will talk to the AI about ingame stuff after all, which are extremely limited. It is not like you will chat about the weather and ask it if you should get a tatoo and where...

you obviously haven't used irc. obviously that's not really a game, but people tend to ask bots the most random questions just to make the mundane responses funny. example: asking a bot if it's seen its mom lately. the best way to do this probably would be with the clickable choices.
 
Well.. if the player is fooling around with the bot/AI intentionally to get strange/funny responses, then where is the problem? It sounds like fun.

A game is about fun after all, no matter how you get it... even if your idea of fun is to use the game disk as a frees bee, whatever float your boat right? :)
 
Back
Top Bottom