Too many ideas?

[Bibor]

Alas, the only two things that we are guilty about are:
1) we like the CIV series and want it to be better and better
2) we are all egoists and want "our" vision implemented

Both are fine till we become fanatical about our own ideas (look who's talking )

-kirby

 

[dh_epic]

Well i think everone here has similar ideas...

I humbly disagree. There so many mutually exclusive and impractical ideas here thatit would be impossible to get one clear picture of what people want.

Allow me to offer some parity.

There's a lot of disagreement. And when you get down to the smallest details, there's absolutely NO agreement except between groups of 3 people at a time.

But there's also quite a few things that people are agreeing on.

People are generally happy with religion, even if there's all kinds of ideas of what it should / will do. Almost everyone will argue about it doing more to tear people apart, while others add that it should have a greater role in building law and trust. And people can't decide if civs are born with religions, if they pick one, or if they make one up.

People want provinces -- even if they can't decide whether it'll add civil war, allow you to acquire vassals, or change the way domination is done.

People want more freedom in government -- but can't decide on the government types, the bonuses and penalties, or if there should be sliders allowing you to modify existing governments.

People are even cool with quantifying your resources -- but can't decide on if they should run out, what should happen if they run out, if there would be a technological solution to running out, or the economic implications of having a supply.

People want more uniqueness to civs -- but can't decide if that's more new units, new technologies, new traits, evolving traits, unique tech TREES, unique game-art, grouping civs together, or what.

Some people agree the game has boring parts, but can't decide if that's because of micromanagement throughout the game, the repetitive expansionist rush at the start of the game, the modern malaise of having no new frontiers to expand into, or if the game actually needs new ages altogether.

Everyone think espionage sucks the way it is, but don't know if that's means assassins or secret arms deals or installing your own puppet dictator, and some people think espionage is a waste of time altogether!

Everyone wants better AI -- but nobody can agree on something better than Civ 2 (unrealistically gangrape the leader) and Civ 3 (play so realistically that you don't care about winning).

Likewise for better multiplayer -- nobody knows what that will mean in terms of making the regular game run faster. You can't have a 250-turn 2-minutes-per-turn game and have a fun multiplayer game.

Firaxis should not even BOTHER trying to sort through the detalis, but they'll find new fans for the game if they expand any of those concepts in a word. ... and make the hardcore players happier than if they listened to every detail.

 

[Prismhead]

I really don't want too many changes for the next Civ. If Civ become TOO complex it might loose some of the fun.

I would just like to see Civ improved.....

Better graphics\battle animations
Better\smarter AI
Better\smarter diplomacy

A few new units
A few new Civs

A few new abilities, like building bridges over lakes and short areas of ocean, building canals...a few things like that.

That would make me happy.

It could just be a $20-$30 upgrade from Civ3.

 

[Bibor]

With all the ideas combined (on this forum), Firaxis could make 10 new games

-kirby

 

[Trade-peror]

With all of the suggestions on this forum, Firaxis has no excuse to not at least include a few novel concepts (whether in the form suggested here or of their own making is less important). Whatever happens, I hope that Firaxis recognizes that Civ4 better be a new version of Civ and not a third expansion pack for Civ3!

 

[crimson238]

If they do one thing, I'd like to just see better AI. Less bells and whistles in thge end, let's work on making the Ai play better.
Afterall, in the end, we can pretty much mod anthing we'd like but the AI.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

With all of the suggestions on this forum, Firaxis has no excuse to not at least include a few novel concepts (whether in the form suggested here or of their own making is less important). Whatever happens, I hope that Firaxis recognizes that Civ4 better be a new version of Civ and not a third expansion pack for Civ3!

Amen! I certainly hope you're right.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I feel that Trade-Peror makes a fairly good point. I for one do not post all of these ideas in the belief that ALL of them will be taken up in full. This is not only unrealistic, it would also be incredibly arrogant. Instead I just hope that, along with all the other ideas posted here, it will give the Firaxis a wealth of items to pick and choose from when deciding what goes into the next game !
As I have said previously, I also posted a huge number of ideas prior to Civ3's release, and about 30-40% of those ideas got through in one form or another-which I consider a good strike rate. If I achieve that again, then I WILL be happy !

 

[troytheface]

I suspect that the ideas and comments are mostly entertainment for the writers and readers more than anything else...(besides bug complaints) When conquests came out it appeared that the makers neglected most ideas and came up with their own (which i believe is more important anyway...the guys creating this stuff need to have their own ideas, not pander to everyone else's. That destroys creatvity. )
and by the way...there should only be armies, no individual units, i mean when a civ was threatened it did not send out groups of men to counter the problem...it threw together an army...which would make the game more streamlined and would still allow for individual units to be made and utilized.

 

[crimson238]

You mean somthing like the locking of units in Call to Power I Torytheface?

 

[superpelon]

I think it is important we voice our opinions about what we want and dont want in Civ4. Such as combining Civ4 with a FPS and Future Techs (true ideas, check the forum)... most of the people on this forum do not want these.

One of my favorite FPS (yes i play FPS....so what?!?! I LIKE sniping people) Ghost Recon, was, IMO totally screwed over for its sequel, Ghost Recon 2... Im hoping that our ideas here on this forum might give the developers an idea of what REAL CIVERS want in a game... and what we DONT want.

So, while I have to agree that there are alot ideas floating around here... I also have to agree that keeping quiet would be much worse.

POWER TO THE CIV-gamers!!!

peace out

 

[troytheface]

to Crimson- not neccessarily, but i think that style worked and in many ways made more sense in so far as the second rank bombarding first. But more importantly it is a way to reduce the number of units moving around-a part of the game that is not all that interesting after 20 seconds.

 

[warpstorm]

Whatever happens, I hope that Firaxis recognizes that Civ4 better be a new version of Civ and not a third expansion pack for Civ3!

They do. I suspect that those who want Civ3+more+more+more will be disappointed, but those who want a game that feels like Civ but with some new twists will be happier.

 

[warpstorm]

One of my favorite FPS (yes i play FPS....so what?!?!)

Hey, you won't hear a complaint from me. I play them too, as well as playing RTS games. But, I don't want either mixed in with Civ's TBS gameplay nor do I want Civ to migrate into either of these genres,

Thankfully, I think Firaxis realizes this.

 

[warpstorm]

With all the ideas combined (on this forum), Firaxis could make 10 new games

Only 10? I think it could be quite a few more.

 

[Lennon]

I agree to some extent that if there are too many little things included in the game, it'll soon feel like too much and you lose interest. The thing is that it takes forever to learn it, but once you do you often come to absolutely love the game. I also think it comes down to how much you've played Civ1 and Civ2. There is a learning curve, where every game enjoys improvements. If you've played them all you've learned all the new things piece by piece. I'm all for improving the game as much as possible, but too many innovations at the same time can cause fatal confusion.

 

[warpstorm]

The problem with games is that if the first 15 minutes don't grab you and get you into the game, most players won't bother with the learning curve.

Firaxis can't cater only to those players who have played the previous civ games. If they did they would have a continuously decreasing market share. The game has to be able to be played within the first few minutes by those players new to the series if they don't want the series to plunge into a death spiral.

 

[dh_epic]

I'd be all for reforming the start of the game. Let war be something that happens right off the bat. This would piss off a lot of civ-loving players now, but a handful of people have suggested barbarian city states at the start of the game. I know as a civ lover, even if I want big changes, this feels a little drastic to me, and I'd rather see changes elsewhere...

But how compelling would the first 15 minutes be if you could just start pumping out a military and go invading? I think you'd get a lot more casual players into the game.

 

[Diogenes183]

Agreed. Whats worse is its impossible to get a consensus on anything.

 

[warpstorm]

Why should it be possible to get a consensus with this many people? Would it even be a good idea? A consensus means that some people are agreeing just to move things forwards, not because they actually agree with what you are saying.

There is nothing in it for me to agree to anything on this forum just for the sake of getting a 'consensus'. In fact, if I am a dissenter on something that the majority agrees on, it is in my personal best interest to speak up against it.

In any case, Firaxis has absolutely no need for a consensus in this forum. They can ultimately do what they want (assuming the publisher likes it enough to keep sending money). It's their game.