Making of "Brave New World" - article from Polygon

[BluegrassGeek]

True, but I always wondered how far those right's go. Is it just the name or does it include turn-based-strategy game set on another planet in a sci-fi setting? Because if it's just the name, there's no reason to not name it something else. Maybe even tie it in with the XCOMM-games? (I have no idea what the xcom ones are about or if that could even work, just saying)

That's... kinda brilliant, actually. Civilization: the Final Frontier.

XCOMM is based in the near-future on Earth, defending against an alien invasion. I could see an XCOMM faction in such a game (warmongers, naturally), along with the other civs.

 

[God of Kings]

Watch the ESRB rating be bumped up to Mature!

 

[bcaiko]

I think that the idea behind Brazil is that it is going to become an economic superpower within the next few years, while there is no such speculation for Canada and Australia. Also, Brazil's populous is far higher than both of the other two. It also increases representation of the non-English speaking world, but I still want Canada and Australia in my game. The fact that few people know much about Brazil is an even better reason to include them.

It's worth noting that Brazil was independant of Portugal LONG before Canada was officially independent of the UK. Brazil was one of the early independant nations in the Americas, in 1822, though it followed revolts in the Americas trended by Haiti in 1804 (now, THERE would be an interesting Civ...history hasn't been kind to poor Haiti!). The Statute of Westminster granting Canada independence from parliament wasn't enacted until 1931. Even being kind and claiming Canadian independance began with the Constitution Act, that was still nearly a half century after Brazil on July 1, 1867.

In short, for all its accomplishments, Canada hasn't been independently existent for long enough for most of the world (or even many Canadians) to consider it a "civilization." How many people can name a great Canadian leader? I doubt many of us even know who the current prime minister is in Canada right now.

 

[Dunkah]

In short, for all its accomplishments, Canada hasn't been independently existent for long enough for most of the world (or even many Canadians) to consider it a "civilization." How many people can name a great Canadian leader? I doubt many of us even know who the current prime minister is in Canada right now.

Mike Myers ey?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I don't know who the Prime Minister of England atm is, let alone who is President of Ireland atm, and yet England and Celts are in (Celts cover Ireland in Civ 5).

I honestly don't care who they add in, as long as it is unique, a fan favourite, and a new civ with something new as their ability/ies.

 

[whyidie]

It's worth noting that Brazil was independant of Portugal LONG before Canada was officially independent of the UK. Brazil was one of the early independant nations in the Americas, in 1822, though it followed revolts in the Americas trended by Haiti in 1804 (now, THERE would be an interesting Civ...history hasn't been kind to poor Haiti!). The Statute of Westminster granting Canada independence from parliament wasn't enacted until 1931. Even being kind and claiming Canadian independance began with the Constitution Act, that was still nearly a half century after Brazil on July 1, 1867.

In short, for all its accomplishments, Canada hasn't been independently existent for long enough for most of the world (or even many Canadians) to consider it a "civilization." How many people can name a great Canadian leader? I doubt many of us even know who the current prime minister is in Canada right now.

I'd argue its the opposite effect which holds Canada back. Too familiar. More along the lines of your first paragraph. The second paragraph is just as true of Brazil and Indonesia, I think most Western audiences are more familiar with the leaders/great people of Canada/Australia than Indonesia/Brazil.

I think its the "oh, thats different..." factor actually helps Brazil/Indonesia. Western audiences aren't expecting anything terribly different when they open up the Canada box. Before they open up the Brazil box, there is mystery...

 

[gunnergoz]

Venice is basically naval Italy. Just be happy some kind of Italy representation as a civ is in.

Oh my, where to begin...

Venice is hardly representative of all of "naval Italy" throughout history. As you read more about it, you will see there are other candidates for a "naval Italy" civ such as Genoa; what's more, Italian culture as a whole is far more varied and has contributed more to history than one city implies or can encompass - even Rome.

I do have to say that it is sad when a culture and country is demeaned over a mere game. Respect brings respect, after all.

Just my opinion, mind you.

 

[wigwam]

In short, for all its accomplishments, Canada hasn't been independently existent for long enough for most of the world (or even many Canadians) to consider it a "civilization." How many people can name a great Canadian leader? I doubt many of us even know who the current prime minister is in Canada right now.

Every American, at least, should know who the current prime minister of Canada is.

 

[RohirrimElf]

Briljant article.

I liked the last alinea where they hinted of a possible Civ 6 in a couple of years time. And that they are looking at new ways to implement in a new title like terraforming.

 

[BluegrassGeek]

Every American, at least, should know who the current prime minister of Canada is.

Should. We don't.

 

[ImperialChaos]

Every American, at least, should know who the current prime minister of Canada is.

Dudley Do-Right? Right?

Spoiler :

Harper

I mean, I think they should, but I understand if they don't. It's not something that you need to know in life to succeed (unless you want to be a Canadian historian, move there, or become the American ambassador to Canada). Same goes with every country. While non-Americans know the President; nobody needs to know our Speaker or Vice Prez.

On topic: good article. The art of Danyolo looks creepy.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I'm slightly worried about the future plans for the civ franchise after the very heavy hints laid down in this article about it being the end of civ 5.

As much as i love the idea of Civ continuing off into the far distance, i do not at ALL like the idea of making Civ 6 when they still have potential for Civ 5. I'm not outrightly against it, but i can see some really easy, lazy and downright disappointing ways for them to approach it that i'm worried about.

I find this particularly grating in two main respects.

Firstly, how they approached Civ 5 in terms of gameplay mechanics. Vanilla was a blank slate, a template and a simplified model to build upon. It has taken 2 expansions to regain what probably should be standard mechanics in the base game alongside a handful of new ones. I am fine with this model in civ V, but for them to just abandon it for Civ 6 now they've pretty much recovered the previous games detail is a slap in the face. I really hope they don't go so modular with Civ 6, i would like to see some real development and progress to justify it, not just the traditional timescale and 2 expansion cycle that this article seemed to imply. Please to not create another game for the sake of it.

Secondly, how civs have been approached in EVERY game so far, and fan expectations. With a new civ game, they will have to add in once again a very similar mix of base game civs. As much as i like to see these civs i honestly hope they do them almost completely differently. I do not want rehashed civ v or even civ 4, 3, 2 or 1 civs. I want something completely different that i have not bought before. And more importantly even, i want variety. With civ v they can keep adding to this variety, but civ 6 they will be starting from scratch. I really REALLY hope they through in some very interesting options and lots of them with any new game.

I don't want to feel like i've taken a step backwards by buying civ 6 from where civ 5 will be after brave new world. I know that's a big ask, but I want to see them really push the game forwards. I don't mind if it takes them longer, i just want a more rounded game and one that really justifies a fresh start by introducing new, maintaining and modifying the old, and maintaining and expanding on diversity and choice. If they can't make Civ 6 better in all these aspects than a finished civ 5, then frankly they should stick with civ 5 until they can, or develop both (albeit civ v at a reduced rate)

 

[dashwinner]

There's a lot of nitpicking going regarding which civs should/shouldn't have been included. Yes, a person who's never heard of civ before won't suddenly buy the game because their country is in it, but someone who's interested might just do so when they find it's inclusion.

As for which country is worthy or not, I'm not even sure why Canada and Australia are mentioned, except by Canadians and Australians. Yes, they are significant nations, but after all the negativity towards too many European civs, it makes sense not to include them. Besides their locations, there is very little to distinguish Canada and Australia from the US and Western (read:English) values, culture, tradition and religion. Brazil, to me, seems like a much more interesting addition. Without even going into historical merit, they tick off several check boxes I'm sure that the devs were considering when they were picking new civs. They might not currently be a great nation, but they seem a much more distinct choice.

People who still seem to think Italy should have been picked are letting their preference,
and most probably their heritage cloud their judgment. It just would not make sense, for many reasons that have already been stated on this threat. When most Italians actively see themselves as descendants of the Romans, I don't really see why Italy deserves to encompasses so much of the space, both geographically and from a historical perspective, that Rome already has. Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, and I'm sure supporters of each un-included civ have their own points and grievances.

At the end of the day, civs are picked for several reasons. Only history purists and nationalists should really have a problem with the choices.

 

[theadder]

Firstly, how they approached Civ 5 in terms of gameplay mechanics. Vanilla was a blank slate, a template and a simplified model to build upon. It has taken 2 expansions to regain what probably should be standard mechanics in the base game alongside a handful of new ones.

My feeling is that we're somewhere between Warlords and Beyond the Sword for Civ V with the release of BNW.

There's clearly room for another expansion. It would be a mistake to drop the game at this point. They have the opportunity to secure a really good ending reputation for Civ V with a third expansion and they ought to take it.

 

[damnyankees]

My feeling is that we're somewhere between Warlords and Beyond the Sword for Civ V with the release of BNW.

There's clearly room for another expansion. It would be a mistake to drop the game at this point. They have the opportunity to secure a really good ending reputation for Civ V with a third expansion and they ought to take it.

What room is there for another expansion? What basic gameplay mechanics are still missing? Health and sanitation? Other than that (which seems to me would be functionally redundant with happiness), I don't know what people think is missing.

 

[theadder]

Health seems like it could be implemented as a purely local mechanic for each city.

Nationality is something I'd also like to see. That's the logical extension of the culture game too. I'm sure they could do something very interesting, given what we've seen about religion and the new cultural victory in BNW.

 

[Loaf Warden]

There's plenty of room for another expansion, as even a cursory look around these forums proves. Even with the new additions in BNW, the conversations about what more people would like to see continue. Civ V is only done if the developers decide it's done. And if they do, it's not because there were no ideas left.

 

[mitsho]

But it does get harder and harder to include more gameplay systems and additions, especially if you don't want to clutter things up. Each new system, i.e. health, would need to be able to coexist alongside Religion, Espionage, the new Trade and Culture System. That's one really complex game. We need to play the game first to see whethe the game needs those things. Many players are demanding these things in here for "flavour" reasons, which is an okay reason to demand something, but not a really good reason for the developers. That of course doesn't mean they can't do "content" additions not affecting the gameplay (but adding scenarios, civs and stuff). Or re-inventions of the game a la Civ4:Colonization.

But it's hard to judge these things from outside, so many variables we don't know about: how the game plays itself, the financial situation of the company and the longterm plans, how this expansion sells itself/presales, etc. ... . And the messages from Firaxis have been very mixed, so I really can see it going either way...

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

But it does get harder and harder to include more gameplay systems and additions, especially if you don't want to clutter things up. Each new system, i.e. health, would need to be able to coexist alongside Religion, Espionage, the new Trade and Culture System. That's one really complex game. We need to play the game first to see whethe the game needs those things. Many players are demanding these things in here for "flavour" reasons, which is an okay reason to demand something, but not a really good reason for the developers. That of course doesn't mean they can't do "content" additions not affecting the gameplay (but adding scenarios, civs and stuff). Or re-inventions of the game a la Civ4:Colonization.

But it's hard to judge these things from outside, so many variables we don't know about: how the game plays itself, the financial situation of the company and the longterm plans, how this expansion sells itself/presales, etc. ... . And the messages from Firaxis have been very mixed, so I really can see it going either way...

A lot of what you've suggested is very inside the box and that's fine, but they do still have options that wouldn't necessarily hurt the game (in my opinion )

An expansion doesn't necessarily have to add new features. They mentioned in this article how they were shocked that they had "got it wrong" all this time by starting in 4000 BC because of everything they'd discovered as early as 8000BC.

Building from this they could expand the game through more eras. Back to the iron/stone age and forward into the future even. I know this would make a long game even longer, so they could add it as a separate play mode with shorter eras.

OR they could do something completely different. Have you ever played spore? They could divide certain eras in human history up into different games within civ. They could have different mechanics and different victory conditions in each game mode. And they could treat it like a campaign, with recorded information from previous game modes carrying forward through history with certain perks and debuffs that result from your decisions in the prior game mode affecting the following game mode. So a new "pre-historic" era game based on constructing a civilization and the development of complex human society could lead into the current game, which then leads into a "future" era game based on expansion beyond the planet.

They could also add new nomadic mechanics to give an alternative method of gameplay to the forced settlement gameplay that seems so clunky in a game with the Huns and the Mongols. Civilization these days as a term covers more than simply societies with cities and farms and writing and art. It can mean so much more than that, so why not represent that with an entirely different and equally viable gameplay option?

As has been said, there are millions of suggestions beyond these just on this forum that could all be introduced without cluttering the game, though i can appreciate your concerns! I worry about that too. However, i think that a new Civ 6 would inevitably be a disappointment if it was anything less than this game and would only hurt firaxis and civ fans. If they can keep going with civ 5 while developing civ 6 to a point where it is suitably progressive from 5, i think that would be the best option

 

[BluegrassGeek]

I could see adding some more civs as DLC, but I don't think there are enough gameplay changes they could make to justify another expansion.

More likely, we'll see them re-use the engine for another game, or they'll start working on Civ 6. At this point, I think the designers & programmers have figured out what works & what doesn't, so a brand new game would give them the opportunity to do it right from the start.