Will Civ V be better than Civ IV?

[mythmonster2]

Welcome to CFC, TorontoCivFan!

 

[Stalker0]

Civ IV is going to be a hard followup. I feel they in IV that they finally got a good balance between small and large number of cities, pillaging vs city conquering, the culture system, the religion system, etc. It felt very solid and polished.

But that said, they can always do better, so here's hoping!

 

[Darth Caesar]

Guys, when Civ V comes out, it will have been almost exactly 5 years since Civilization IV was released. They've had plenty of time to develop a truly revolutionary (and better) product, and I have faith that they've capitalized on it.

Yeah but they have also worked on the Civ IV expansions, Civ Rev and now Civ Network.

 

[MAHRana]

I agree, Civ IV going to be extremely hard to follow up. Possible, but hard.

 

[Lone Wolf]

and that the Romans and Greeks won't have the same freaking architecture to their cities.

Hoping for it is too much. However, expecting different artstyles in all eras according to cultures (Greco-Roman, Middle Eastern, etc), and more culture-specific unit graphics then the half-assed job of BTS (originally BTS had a bit more of them, but they were taken out in the release because, apparently, the leading artist didn't have time to review them, they are still all in pre-gunpowder era, though), is legitimate.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I have faith. It looks like Sid is making sure to appeal to the core demo of Civ instead of pulling what Will Wright did with Sim City and dumbing it down to the point of killing a franchise (Sim City 4 - amazing, Sim City Societies - pile of garbage). I like a lot of the changes with Civ 5, definitely going to force even the most skilled civ players to completely rethink their strategies that worked in one way or another in the earlier versions.

 

[deanej]

SimCity Societies wasn't done by Will Wright. EA took the franchise from Maxis and gave it to Tilted Mill instead.

 

[MAHRana]

SimCity Societies wasn't done by Will Wright. EA took the franchise from Maxis and gave it to Tilted Mill instead.

No wonder.

 

[plasmacannon]

Guys, when Civ V comes out, it will have been almost exactly 5 years since Civilization IV was released. They've had plenty of time to develop a truly revolutionary (and better) product, and I have faith that they've capitalized on it.

That's what many thought abut the Star Wars movies, before Star Wars Episode 1 was released.
Everybody just loved Jar-Jar Binks (Yes, I'm kidding).


I have to say, with all of the down grades I keep reading about, I have become less impressed with Civ V. Aside from the graphics upgrade, and ranged units corrected (they better fix Trebuchets like they are archers), I fear Civ V will be an inferior product.
One can upgrade from an early Yugo car, to the first Hyundai car, give the Hyundai a nice paint job, and still have other auto makers out there producing better cars (such as Toyota and Honda in the 1980s) so, that one will just buy the better product, and leave the inferior one alone. It took me awhile after Rise of Nations came out, to actually play it, and I got over it after about a month.

Activision needs to resurrect Sierra's Empre Earth 1 Art of Conquest, and improve it's graphics.
At least in EE, I could set the maximun number of units before I start the game, then, 0it was up to me to build as many as I wanted.
It also let me set the range of epochs, so, I could battle from the stone age to the Middle ages, for example, if I wanted, or just one Age.
I don't want a war game, that forces me to build so slow, that, I can't even have many battles in the years of the units that I want to use.
That's why I buy the game.

And yes, if this game does end up Steam only, then, I won't buy it.
I buy PC games for my computer and my LAN, not for online gaming.
At times, the internet is down, and I can still play Civ 4, and soon Starcraft 2.
I don't need a game that forces me to rely upon an internet provider to play it.

 

[Gelvan]

civ5 will be like civ3 was... in the beginning... then, modders start their work.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think there will be a fair community that will stick with Civ4. I experienced many times that Civ4 has a strong community of lovers. Just try to open criticize Civ4 in the Civ4 forum, and you will understand how self confident are Civ4 lovers about Civ4.

The reason of that is that Civ4 has no obvious strategy, unlike Civ, Civ2 and Civ3. One key of that are cottages and great persons, that are pretty equal for obvious balance purpose (even if i never use great persons for science, only cottages) They call that unboviousness "refined", because they have to play many games in order to guess Civ4 mechanics. They think it stands for "replayability", when it is in fact only a boring "try & fail" scheme.

As to myself, no need to say that i am happy with what we saw of Civ5 (the only thing that does not please to me is that the great persons are back, but maybe they will be more powerfull this time and obvious to use?), and that i have great hopes about its new core mechanics. (i also kind of like the idea of city states, I have given many ideas for city states in the suggestions forum)

 

[Civinator]

Will Civ V be better than Civ IV?

Do you think that Civ V will be the best version of Civ yet?

Of course Civ V will be better than Civ 4, as in my eyes Civ 4 was the worst part of the complete civ series (especially the unit graphics were horrible). I can´t say if it will be the best version of civ yet, as it must be compared with much better versions of the civ series and Civ 5 isn´t available yet.

 

[chris.giddins]

Will Civ V be better than Civ IV?


Of course Civ V will be better than Civ 4, as in my eyes Civ 4 was the worst part of the complete civ series (especially the unit graphics were horrible). I can´t say if it will be the best version of civ yet, as it must be compared with much better versions of the civ series and Civ 5 isn´t available yet.

I absolutely agree with you, although I thought it might look like heresy to do so. I gave Civ4 a lot of effort but found it just too drawn out and inconclusive (maybe I have a small concentration span). I regularly go back to SMAC or SMAX as I still consider these the best versions of the Civ franchise. IMO gameplay has suffered for pretty graphics and convoluted variables. It's all in the balance isn't it. In the end though it's all subjective.
Another thing that is bugging me a bit is all this talk about the need for the games designers to include the Modding ability...if you want to do that, just create your own game FFS.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Another thing that is bugging me a bit is all this talk about the need for the games designers to include the Modding ability...if you want to do that, just create your own game FFS.

I find that a strange thing to hear. Modding is creating your own game, the way I see it. You're just using an existing game as a basis and for its assets (graphics etc.). If I were to try and make my own game from scratch, I probably couldn't even make a halfway decent UI, and I certainly wouldn't have the time to do it.

I think you've just completely missed the point of modding. Modding is for people who want to change or modify a game, and only in rare cases people who want to practically build a new game. People who want to build new games can still do that.

 

[Gelvan]

the point in modding is, that dedicated fans can make a game (out of a franchise) which is much more complete, than the thing wich is produced mainly to make money. only AC or moo2 or master of magic had no need of modding because back then developers finished their products before putting them on the market. but these times are long gone, and it's nowadays up to the fans, to finish the things which more often than not, have nice graphics but lack in complexity. to produce something with high mod-ability is therefore honest and, more importantly, it gives a future to a game, which otherwise - after one year of advertising - would vanish in the haze. to make a long phrase short: modding makes (good) games better. but it can't do much for bad games. the easier it is to mod, even for non-programmers (e.g. via Wordpad), the more ideas from thousands of people can ENHANCE an existing franchise. this IS necessary because developers only have that much money: to produce something more or less stable with nice graphics. only modders can finish those products, because they work for free in their sparetime. a compony is a company it's oblieged to make money, and there is nowaydays not ONE company like Microprose once was. and why is that so? thanks to EA and Acitivision, the destroyers of creativity. so: thats the situation: Firaxis is surely more dedicated than EA, Firaxis still has some of the HONOR it had when they wrote the manual for AC. although they have to withstand against EA. (ea = evil alignment, just in case you haven't noticed). this means: they CANT produce games like AC or MoM without going bancrupt. They HAVE to appeal the Masses (console gamers) who buy their games, or they won't have enough sales, to further produce anything. This means: concessions. this means a Civ:Rev-UI. But who cares? as long a Civ5 is complex "behind the eye" it's more than great. And if it is VERY highly moddable, it WILL be the best civ.. after the fans laid their hands on it. that's why modding is SO important to good games. to make them even better. the developers have to concentrate on producing the back bone of a good game (like civ4 was a backbone for great mods) and to survive against the dark forces of EA. in a perfect world, gamers would want games like MoM out of the box. but in the real world, most gamers are consolers, civRev gamers without interest in a real game. so: concessions. and modding. the way to go.
rant over.. lol ^^

 

[MAHRana]

Modding let's you add something more personal to the game; it can give the game much more potential and would appeal to a wider audience and would also be a hit with Civ fans.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Allow me to finish that for you.

The point in modding is, that dedicated fans can make a game (out of a franchise) which is much more complete, than the thing wich is produced mainly to make money. Only Alpha Centauri or moo2 or Master of Magic had no need of modding because back then developers finished their products before putting them on the market. But these times are long gone, and it's nowadays up to the fans, to finish the things which more often than not, have nice graphics but lack in complexity.

To produce something with high mod-ability is therefore honest and, more importantly, it gives a future to a game, which otherwise - after one year of advertising - would vanish in the haze. To make a long phrase short: modding makes (good) games better. But it can't do much for bad games. The easier it is to mod, even for non-programmers (e.g. via Wordpad), the more ideas from thousands of people can ENHANCE an existing franchise. This IS necessary because developers only have that much money: to produce something more or less stable with nice graphics. Only modders can finish those products, because they work for free in their sparetime.

A company is a company it's obliged to make money, and there is nowaydays not ONE company like Microprose once was. And why is that so? Thanks to EA and Acitivision, the destroyers of creativity. So: thats the situation: Firaxis is surely more dedicated than EA, Firaxis still has some of the HONOR it had when they wrote the manual for AC. Although they have to withstand against EA. (ea = evil alignment, just in case you haven't noticed), they CANT produce games like AC or MoM without going bankrupt. They HAVE to appeal the Masses (console gamers) who buy their games, or they won't have enough sales, to further produce anything.

This means: concessions. This means a Civ:Rev-UI. But who cares? As long a Civ5 is complex "behind the eye" it's more than great. And if it is VERY highly moddable, it WILL be the best civ.. after the fans laid their hands on it. That's why modding is SO important to good games, to make them even better. The developers have to concentrate on producing the back bone of a good game (like civ4 was a backbone for great mods) and to survive against the dark forces of EA. In a perfect world, gamers would want games like MoM out of the box, but in the real world, most gamers are consolers, civRev gamers without interest in a real game. So: concessions and modding are the way to go.
Rant over.. ^^

Nice post.

 

[chris.giddins]

I find that a strange thing to hear. Modding is creating your own game, the way I see it. You're just using an existing game as a basis and for its assets (graphics etc.). If I were to try and make my own game from scratch, I probably couldn't even make a halfway decent UI, and I certainly wouldn't have the time to do it.

I think you've just completely missed the point of modding. Modding is for people who want to change or modify a game, and only in rare cases people who want to practically build a new game. People who want to build new games can still do that.

Yeah, sorry if it sounded a little harsh, and perhaps ignorant. I'm a gamer, not a "Modder". What I felt was a bit over the top was some of the opinions expressing that the creaters had an obligation to make the ability to "Mod" as important as the game itself. IMO the game comes first, if the manufacturers are generous enough to share and open their creation to other people it should be appreciated not demanded. I do appreciate the benefits Modding might lend to a game but I've rarely ventured into that arena myself. I suspect Modding for modding sake might be a whole other area that is a spin off from the game itself not its Raison d'etre.

 

[chris.giddins]

the point in modding is, that dedicated fans can make a game (out of a franchise) which is much more complete, than the thing wich is produced mainly to make money. only AC or moo2 or master of magic had no need of modding because back then developers finished their products before putting them on the market. but these times are long gone, and it's nowadays up to the fans, to finish the things which more often than not, have nice graphics but lack in complexity. to produce something with high mod-ability is therefore honest and, more importantly, it gives a future to a game, which otherwise - after one year of advertising - would vanish in the haze. to make a long phrase short: modding makes (good) games better. but it can't do much for bad games. the easier it is to mod, even for non-programmers (e.g. via Wordpad), the more ideas from thousands of people can ENHANCE an existing franchise. this IS necessary because developers only have that much money: to produce something more or less stable with nice graphics. only modders can finish those products, because they work for free in their sparetime. a compony is a company it's oblieged to make money, and there is nowaydays not ONE company like Microprose once was. and why is that so? thanks to EA and Acitivision, the destroyers of creativity. so: thats the situation: Firaxis is surely more dedicated than EA, Firaxis still has some of the HONOR it had when they wrote the manual for AC. although they have to withstand against EA. (ea = evil alignment, just in case you haven't noticed). this means: they CANT produce games like AC or MoM without going bancrupt. They HAVE to appeal the Masses (console gamers) who buy their games, or they won't have enough sales, to further produce anything. This means: concessions. this means a Civ:Rev-UI. But who cares? as long a Civ5 is complex "behind the eye" it's more than great. And if it is VERY highly moddable, it WILL be the best civ.. after the fans laid their hands on it. that's why modding is SO important to good games. to make them even better. the developers have to concentrate on producing the back bone of a good game (like civ4 was a backbone for great mods) and to survive against the dark forces of EA. in a perfect world, gamers would want games like MoM out of the box. but in the real world, most gamers are consolers, civRev gamers without interest in a real game. so: concessions. and modding. the way to go.
rant over.. lol ^^

Are there Mods, in your opinion, that actually improve gameplay and fix areas of irritation rather than converting the game into a bespoke copy for specialist interest groups? I'm genuinely interested. Whenever I've checked Mods out (and I have to admit this hasn't been a regular hobby) they've mainly concentrated on changing the graphics to say (for instance) Star trek sprites or some such like. Are there Mods out there that fundamentally change and improve the game beyond mere cosmetic appearance?

 

[deanej]

I guess you haven't done more than glance at the mods then. Most mods are more than just graphics. Star Trek, for example, has a unit cloaking ability and changes tile and resource management completely. Also the units/techs are completely different. Civs have unique wonders and traits in addition to leader traits. Though I do admit with Star Trek, my though process was "what would Sid make civ like if civ was made in the 25th century in the Star Trek universe".

Fall From Heaven is another great example. It's practically a completely different game. And Rhye's and Fall of Civilization adds civs spawning at historical times, replaces leader traits with unique powers, adds a stability system, and has plague.