Will there be another expansion after C3C?

[Alexnm]

hehe, good to see that Jeff has a good sense of humor...

but, despite the fact that the man himself neither confirmed nor denied the possibility of a third expansion, my opinion is that C3C is the last one for Civ3, and now we can wait for Civ4, which, by the way, won't take that long to get to the store shelves as some people may think...

 

[CDR Warren]

Not too soon, I hope. I have barely scratched the surface of C3C, which I am finding lightyears ahead of the earlier CIV3 versions in playability and complexity.

I had CIV1 and CIV2 beaten into submission in about a year each, here I am just taking on my first deity game and am finding, like each step-up before, that it is like a new game. Add to that the chance to play with all the different civs, or at least the different traits, and allowing a month or so for a game on large, I need about two more years before I can think about CIV4.

 

[Alexnm]

Yes, I also hope that Civ4 only hits store shelves in 2006 or (better yet) 2007. Not only because I want to fully explore every aspect of C3C, but also because I hope the game will not be infested by bugs when it is released. Hey, I like to dream...

 

[ArmPilot]

Originally posted by Greyhawk1
RTS isnt strategy in my opinion. RTS is just "lets see how fast we can click a mouse". Completely unrealistic and no joy at all to play. Only when there is pseudo real-time like Imperium Galactica 2 or Star Wars Supremacy does real-time begin to be strategic.

Rise of Nations is another case in point. Supposedly based on civ yet is a fraction of the scale and complexity that civ affords.

RTS works on consoles because it suits the physical makeup of the machine itself but with a full PC, RTS seems like a waste of potential.

Last time (and only) console rts was a toal waste of time. I like RTSs but i like the depth of turn-based alot more.

 

[warpstorm]

I don't think that consoles are well suited for playing RTSs. You really need a mouse and keyboard to play them well.

 

[yoshi]

Okay, so if Firaxis were to consider another XP for C3, which they're not as far as I know, it would be at the beta testing stage by about mid-2005 (judging by above estimates). Civ4 on the other hand, would be out sometime in 2006 (if they start now, which apparently they are). I don't know, 2006 just seems a little soon for a whole new game (i.e. new engine, new bugs, etc.).

People seem pretty sure that Firaxis has its hands too full with other games (Civ4 included) right now. That may be true, but all I can say is that Civ3 and its expansions have done quite well –hell, even I bought C3C after all my scepticism (I don’t regret it BTW –a marked improvement), a patch is still in the works and the civ community can’t stop asking for more features. It doesn’t look like the Civ3 story is over just yet.

I guess it comes down to this: who’s making the decisions and which will give returns within the shortest amount of time, a C3 XP or Civ4.

C3C addressed a lot of bugs and fixes and also added quite a few new features.

Civ4 will probably be on a new engine. The question is, what can Civ4 add that Civ3 can’t. Sure, there are the advantages of a new engine with fewer limitations but what is really left to add to the original concept that can’t just be added in another C3 XP? A more advanced graphics engine, faster play using a more efficient engine (which as I understand it would probably allow for more features without consuming as much CPU time as Civ3’s engine), enhanced internet play, uh… oh, right, a scripting language (although this one’s unlikely since this wasn’t added into Civ3 when it was possible to do so) and maybe enhanced combat using a battle view or something. That’s all that comes to mind without changing the game too much.

Consider this: how much more can you elaborate on the original concept without changing the nature of the game --and alienating a large part of your audience in the process? In other words, what can Civ4 have that Civ3 can’t (aside from what I mentioned above)?

Another thing to consider that will determine Civ4’s popularity is how advanced the play and graphics are; if the requirements are too high, part of Civ4’s potential audience will be lost –just as part of Civ3’s audience was lost for the same reason.

It also depends on how long Civ4 will take to be released. Some people may not want to wait.

Personally, the announcement that Civ4 was under development was a real shock. At the time, I was pretty certain that Civ3 was the end of the line or at least the last release for a while (in part, because I figured there was nothing else that would justify a new CIV…except maybe Events ).



Here's what a Firaxis spokesman said about Civ4:

“We are in the early planning stages of Civilization IV ... truly the very beginning stages."

"Based on sales of Civ III: Conquests, clearly, people continue to want more Civilization. As long as people continue to want more, we'll deliver."


Here’s how the people at Apolyton took the news:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=103185

(Who would’ve thought that such ambiguous information could be the cause behind such blatant use of the 'danceparty' smiley. )

You’ll notice that much of the discussion is centred on how they would prefer the effort to be placed into other games.
I'm no expert but I'd say that many of their Civ4 requests are more than feasible using Civ3’s engine.