Shoudl we wiki this?

[rhialto]

http://lajzar.co.uk/wiki/index.php?civ

Some of the ideas we have come up with are quite involved, and it is often hard to hard in the many threads where an idea that someone is referring to is. I've set up a wiki site where interested parties can record what ideas they would like to see in the new game.

Important point: I think it would be best if this is used as an archive for well-developed ideas and ideas which branch off those. Many threads here are one-shot ideas that are good, but lack depth. I want to see this site remain the main discussion point. Think of the wiki more as a communal resource for placing the ideas online in a hopefully well-organised manner.

 

[warpstorm]

Honestly, I think it is pretty much too late for Civ 4 ideas that are radically different than Firaxis intended to actually be incorporated. They've been working on the game for quite a while already and hopefully have the main parts of the design nailed down already.

There is always Civ5...

 

[rhialto]

Maybe too late for civ 4. But not civ 5. Or 6...

And if that is your only reason to be against the idea, we may as well close this here forum too, eh?

 

[frekk]

Two words: expansion packs. You know there will be.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Expansion packs are just that... expansion. You very rarely see radical and gameplay-changing additions in XPs.

 

[warpstorm]

And if that is your only reason to be against the idea, we may as well close this here forum too, eh?

I've already suggested that and opening a Civ5 ideas forum.

 

[Jon Shafer]

That's essentially what this is anyways, might as well just rename it.

 

[Moss]

I've already suggested that and opening a Civ5 ideas forum.

I don't think Firaxis would like TF to start a Cv 5 ideas forum when there may never be one...or at least one for 5 years or so.

 

[frekk]

I think you're guys are jumping the gun a bit here. Civ4 has been in development a bit less than 2 years now. Civ3 took 5 years to develop. And Soren says that Civ4 will be more "mature" because civ3 was "rushed" and they plan to take their time with civ4. So I'd guess, its far from complete, and I wouldn't expect to see it on the shelves for quite some time yet.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Just because there were 5 years between Civ 2 and Civ 3 doesn't mean that they spent that entire 5 years working on the game. In the meantime, Microprose split up, Firaxis was founded and Alpha Centauri was developed. Civ 3 was based off of Alpha Centauri, so I don't think Civ 3 was officially begun until Alpha Centauri was finished in late 1999.

 

[croxis]

true, and it is hard to say whats going to happen until firaxis gives us more information. I knew there were some drastic changes to smac late in production, but i'm sure at this point they have the basic vision down.

 

[warpstorm]

Just because there were 5 years between Civ 2 and Civ 3 doesn't mean that they spent that entire 5 years working on the game.

IIRC, Civ3 had around 2 years in its development cycle. It was started by the SMAC team (although you won't see their names in the credits as they left to form their own company).

I assume that Civ4 will have the same or a little longer and the required expansion or two. In any case, as long as it sells I'd expect to see Civ5 around 2007 or 2008 (depending on whether they do 1 or 2 expansions and whether they decide to do them in-house).

I don't think Firaxis would like TF to start a Cv 5 ideas forum when there may never be one...or at least one for 5 years or so.

Actually, I think that they'd be flattered that people thought the series had enough legs for people to be thinking that far ahead.

 

[Jon Shafer]

IIRC, Civ3 had around 2 years in its development cycle. It was started by the SMAC team (although you won't see their names in the credits as they left to form their own company).

Right, which is what I said.

 

[frekk]

Since Civ3 runs off the SMAC engine ... add that to the figure.

If they said "2005" some months ago, we all know that means 2006 if things go well, early 2007 more likely, and possibly as late as fall 2007 if things go real bad.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

To be fair, though, I feel that C3C had quite radical changes from the Vanilla game-for an XP pack at any rate! I do agree, though, that many of these ideas will have to wait AT LEAST until Civ5. Its also important to point out, though, that MANY-if not ALL-of the ideas in this forum appeared in one form or another in the Civ3 suggestion forums way back around 1998-99 !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

Whether this wiki ends up being a rough design for civ 4, 5, or even 66, that doesn't strike me as being a reason not to place our ideas there.

 

[warpstorm]

Since Civ3 runs off the SMAC engine ... add that to the figure.

It doesn't really use the SMAC engine. It's just that they had a bunch of code lying around from previous projects that made its way into Civ3. There are bits and pieces of code that go a lot further than SMAC in it. Gettysburg code is in there as well as old code from before Firaxis split off from Microprose.

Most development houses have a bunch of libraries and classes that they use on multiple projects.

 

[Jon Shafer]

To be fair, though, I feel that C3C had quite radical changes from the Vanilla game-for an XP pack at any rate! I do agree, though, that many of these ideas will have to wait AT LEAST until Civ5. Its also important to point out, though, that MANY-if not ALL-of the ideas in this forum appeared in one form or another in the Civ3 suggestion forums way back around 1998-99 !

Really?

While I enjoyed Conquests and greatly respect what the people who worked on it did, I didn't think it was that much different from the standard game. What's new? Scenario support, standard XP function. New civs... same. New traits, both somewhat imbalanced. Things like plague and volcanoes and VP scoring. Not monumental by any means.

 

[warpstorm]

I have to agree with Trip on this (even though the guys who made Conquests are people I have to see every day). While it was good and fun (and a little more refined), it was not fundamentally different in the core gameplay from vanilla (of course, being different was not the goal).

 

[ybbor]

assuming you want an index of ideas for civ4 so you cna easily discuss topics, as this is what i gather you want to do (correct me if i'm wrong), then you should be aware such a thread already exists, you would know this if you had simply



READ THE STICKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=84849