Strategy Informer interview and preview

[cuc]

There's not a lot of new gameplay info (such as new building: Caravansary; old trade routes are renamed City Connections) here, but the interview provided some explanation of Firaxis' thought process.

Interview:
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/civilizationvbravenewworld/interviews.html

Preview:
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/civilizationvbravenewworld/1011/preview.html

 

[bite]

that was a really interesting interview

 

[cybrxkhan]

While I'm not against the DLC model, it can and often is done in a less-than-spectacular way, so I'm glad to hear the devs learned a bit from the initial DLC model. Hopefully they'll have a better release model for the next Civ.

I also find it interesting that they're more explicit in making sure the civs fit the new mechanics.

 

[moysturfurmer]

"your cities might start flipping to my civilization if they riot too much"

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

That interview makes it sound like they would be reluctant to do DLC again.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Dennis mentioned that people didn't like having DLCs and preferred expansions. Hope that doesn't mean they'll completely give up on DLCs...a few of us have mentioned packs we'd like to see!

 

[cybrxkhan]

I wouldn't mind larger DLCs (so smaller than the expansions) that added a new mechanic or two or something like that (so something sort of like the current CKII model where each major DLC adds in new mechanics), alongside the big honking expansions.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yes, a mini-expansion type of DLC would be good. It might complicate things though with regards to mixing and matching with full-fledged expansions.

 

[Matthew.]

I don't think people mind DLC's... they just mind the obvious money-grab rip-offs that EA likes to push.

Of course a lot of criticism was the Civ packs were a bit expensive (What was it, like 5 dollars each originally?) and I'd agree. Although given the choice I'd rather have expansions over DLC.

 

[Uberfrog]

Strategy Informer: So, let’s talk about the new civilizations to start off with – do any of them have an unique units/buildings that target the late game? The majority of civs seem to have uniques that are early-mid, yet this expansion also targets late game play.

Dennis Shirk: We’re not so much targeting ‘late game’, but targeting the new mechanics. Take Portugal, for example, they’re really focusing on the new Trade mechanics. Pedro II of Brazil is one that focuses more on the late-game as he’s all about generating tourism. His Carnival trait means he gets tourism bonuses every time he goes into a Golden Age, for example. His unique unit is from the late game as well. Some of them … I’d say two-thirds of them focus on game-mechanics from the late game, and the other third is fan requests. Fan favourites of civs that they wanted to see in the game. Shaka (Zulu) is one such faction.

This might provide an interesting new slant on the already-fertile speculation in these forums.

If there are nine civs, then the two-thirds that are built on new gameplay concepts would have to include Portugal and Brazil.

The "other third" would almost have to be Poland, Assyria, and the Zulu, not only because they are the sort of thing that's commonly requested, but because their abilities and units don't really have anything to do with the new mechanics.

Hence, we can probably deduce that at least three of the final four will be intimately tied to the new game systems, whether they also feature in the African scenario or not.

Nothing too surprising, though: as you'd expect any new expansion's civs to focus primarily on the new gameplay areas.

 

[bite]

This might provide an interesting new slant on the already-fertile speculation in these forums.

If there are nine civs, then the two-thirds that are built on new gameplay concepts would have to include Portugal and Brazil.

The "other third" would almost have to be Poland, Assyria, and the Zulu, not only because they are the sort of thing that's commonly requested, but because their abilities and units don't really have anything to do with the new mechanics.

Hence, we can probably deduce that at least three of the final four will be intimately tied to the new game systems, whether they also feature in the African scenario or not.

Nothing too surprising, though: as you'd expect any new expansion's civs to focus primarily on the new gameplay areas.

While generally I agree with you, Assyria's Unique Building is tied in t the new features

 

[Nujabes]

This might provide an interesting new slant on the already-fertile speculation in these forums.

If there are nine civs, then the two-thirds that are built on new gameplay concepts would have to include Portugal and Brazil.

The "other third" would almost have to be Poland, Assyria, and the Zulu, not only because they are the sort of thing that's commonly requested, but because their abilities and units don't really have anything to do with the new mechanics.

Hence, we can probably deduce that at least three of the final four will be intimately tied to the new game systems, whether they also feature in the African scenario or not.

Nothing too surprising, though: as you'd expect any new expansion's civs to focus primarily on the new gameplay areas.

Poland's UA references ideology and enables them to get one more quickly.

 

[Lord Xavius]

There will be more scenarios added to the game than the ones that have already been talked about – The American Civil War and the Scramble for Africa. Unfortunately we’re not allowed to talk about them, but for any of you who enjoyed the scenarios from the last expansion, know that your needs are being looked after.

This part is rather interesting, especially since I thought they said they weren't going to have more scenarios.

 

[AriochIV]

I'm really glad that they actually learned from the DLC experiment. Seems like such a rare thing among game developers these days.

 

[Deggial]

Or, those who didn't like DLC simply were louder than those who like the concept.

Don't get me wrong - I definitely prefer a full expansion with new game mechanics and all. But I really enjoyed those DLC civs and the fresh air they brought into the game when they came out.

 

[Nujabes]

DLC is alright. It becomes a problem when you feel like the developers are just shoveling you half-assed content to make money without really fleshing out the game. If BNW does what it seems like it'll do, and really makes the game more "whole," I don't think many of us would object to some DLC civilizations afterwards, especially if this is to be the last expansion.

 

[AriochIV]

Or, those who didn't like DLC simply were louder than those who like the concept.

If Dennis says people didn't like DLC, he means they didn't sell well. No company is going to be swayed by complaints, however loud, if people buy the product anyway. Luckily, the G&K expansion did sell well.

 

[kingchris20]

I'm really glad that they actually learned from the DLC experiment. Seems like such a rare thing among game developers these days.

yeah, for example EA in particular , but yeah, I'd much rather buy an expansion that a single civ or a double civ pack......

 

[labrynianrebel]

I much prefer expansions...

 

[roguesaw]

Love the idea of DLC Civs, bought everyone when they came out and would continue to do so. My complaint at the time was "these Civs are great, but the game is @#$×%■, please use your resources to address the problems first, then make us new Civs maps etc"
GnK was a big step in the right direction. Hopefully BNW is as cool as it is coming off to be. Multiplayer multiplayer multiplayer....
If this expansion really does "give gameplay a complete feeling" then by all means sell me some more dlc Civs wonders etc.