Sherlock
Just one more turn...
The next big announcement has GOT TO BE CiVI.
Any guesses on when? When's the next big trade show?
Any guesses on when? When's the next big trade show?
The next big announcement has GOT TO BE CiVI.
Nothing personal, but this is one of the problems with the gaming industry: A willingness to lap up anything that has a specific name on it. There hasn't really been any technology breakthroughs since Civ 5. In fact, Civ 5 isn't even 64-bit. They'd do a LOT more for the series by doing this than spitting out a sequel with no major improvements to the series to justify one. I'm pretty sure I had read somewhere that they said they wouldn't make a sequel unless they had some major addition to give to the series.
Civ is a license to print money. There will be another.
I don't understand your reasoning at all. First you say no major tech advances has been done since Civ5 (hence arguing as I see it: No need for Civ6). Then you say it's a major problem that Civ5 is not 64 bit (thus: Making a great argument for an advancement for Civ6). I'm confused.Nothing personal, but this is one of the problems with the gaming industry: A willingness to lap up anything that has a specific name on it. There hasn't really been any technology breakthroughs since Civ 5. In fact, Civ 5 isn't even 64-bit.
I don't understand your reasoning at all. First you say no major tech advances has been done since Civ5 (hence arguing as I see it: No need for Civ6). Then you say it's a major problem that Civ5 is not 64 bit (thus: Making a great argument for an advancement for Civ6). I'm confused.
This is what I'm talking about. You're so eager for Civ 6 that you didn't even read what you assumed was anti-Civ 6.
I never said that on a long enough scale, there will never be a Civ 6. I said that wanting it before you know anything about it other than it will be called Civilization leads to a "license to make a partial/unsatisfying game."
64-bit software was not a fad back in 2010. Civ 5 is a game that relies more on memory and CPU than graphics. To not make the game 64-bit is a huge mistake. So large that to not address it despite numerous DLC, xpacs, and patches later is catastrophic. Don't take my word for it. Look at this recent thread where people come right out and say they don't play Civ 5 for this reason.
This does not inspire in me any confidence that Civ 6 will be worth buying. Especially given their track record of intentionally releasing a partial game. Go back and read the game reviews of vanilla Civ 5 and you'll see almost unanimously that it doesn't hold a candle to Civ 4. If people were more willing to say, "No, you have to release a real, full game if you want my money," game makers would have to make more of an effort. I would've loved the option to pay $150 for 64-bit Civ 5 Complete Edition back on its original release date. Because the game would delivered that level of value. Compare this to a $50 32-bit Civ 5 vanilla. There is no comparison.
AFAIK switching to 64 bits may allow larger map and other memory related improvements, but I don't see how it will make the game run faster than a 32 bits version.
I've read accounts of people running Civ 5 out of a RAMDISK with almost no advantages over an SSD. This simply shouldn't be the case! I have 32 GB of RAM, so I find it hard to believe that if the game was able to use more it wouldn't at least be somewhat faster.
From my point of view, the technical question is not what's important at all. Yes, Civ5 does take (unreasonable) long time to load, but this is a minor quible. Yes, it does seem to tax my computer more than one would expect, but it's not a critical issue.Fair enough. Until it was pointed out that the game is only 32-bit, I always just assumed it was poorly optimized anyways. I've read accounts of people running Civ 5 out of a RAMDISK with almost no advantages over an SSD. This simply shouldn't be the case! I have 32 GB of RAM, so I find it hard to believe that if the game was able to use more it wouldn't at least be somewhat faster.
Anyways, my main point is that while I love Civ 5, it doesn't instill in me a confidence that Civ 6 would be worth my money just because it's called Civ. I have yet to hear anybody reassure me that BE was much better optimized, so Firaxis got their game together and Civ 6 would run very well on high end machines.
It's so very far from perfect, but no one does it better.
the reason we should look forward to Civ6 is for what it brings the game in terms of game design.
the tech web of BE seems like an intriguing perspective for Civ6
I have been advocating for a third expansion pack for Civ5 as much as anybody, but that does seem like a moot point by now, chances of that happening are all but zero. Plus, a functional AI will probably require a new game. Anyway, I don't see much point in discussing this, I'm simply making the points about why I'm excitet about the possible prospect of a Civ6 anouncement, it's entirely acceptable for you to feel differently.You went on to list areas in need of improvement, but this only reinforces my point that improving Civ 5 would be a more prudent focus than leaving it unfinished to put out the next, partial, will never be finished game because there will be X people who will buy it in spite of all that just because it's called Civ.(...)
From what I've read, the tech web was BE's biggest mistake. Admittedly, I've never played BE, but this is an alternate viewpoint. It wouldn't fit into a less fantasy, more historical game because certain techs requiring certain requisite techs is representative.
I have been advocating for a third expansion pack for Civ5 as much as anybody, but that does seem like a moot point by now, chances of that happening are all but zero.