 |
|
icet
|
|
Civilization 4 should go on to 3000 and much beyond and it should have the option to limit it to 2000 or even 1500 for those who like it that way. There are two groups here; those who like it to go on to 3000 and beyond and those who like it to go on to 2000 or a little further. The Civilization 4 team should cater on to the needs of both of these groups. Why limit it to 2000 or something and sacrifice the other group's wishes? The players should be able to select the year themselves. If someone wishes to select 500 let them.
Icet
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
The problem with that is the game must be balanced to play itself out. If I arbitrarily decided that all of my Civ 3 games would end at year 1 AD then they wouldn't actually end, they'd just stop. The victory options are all late game (with the possibly exceptions of conquest and dominance).
If we get to pick our end time, then the game has to be able to conclude at each of those end times in a satisfactory manner. If a spaceship ends it in 2000 AD, then what happens when you play a game to 3000 AD?
Since the game must be balanced to play itself out, it must be designed with one particular timeframe for victory to occur.
You can't always compromise by making things optional in games like this. In fact, I'd venture to say that you can almost never do so, and certainly not to the frequency that people on these boards suggest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
icet
|
|
In that case I would suggest to make the game end at 3500 AD since the majority of people desire that. In other case there can be two versions of Civilization 4 games. 1- With the end year 3000-3500 AD and 2- With the end year 2000-2500 AD to satisfy both the groups.
Icet
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
Well, to be fair, nobody has voted in favor of 3500 AD, at least not on this poll. 
But your point is taken.
Now, there is one point of view sorely missing from this poll: the one that wants the game to end in the near future, circa 2050 or 2100 like Civ 3 did. I am supposing that most of those that have this view voted for 2000 AD, since it's closer (as I did), but if anyone read the poll literally they would be stuck thinking that the choice was between the past and the future, and since few people probably want the game to end six years before it is even likely that it will be released.... 
Now, with all of that out of the way... I still firmly believe that Civ 4 should end around 2050 AD (and hopefully tech rates will be tinkered with so that 2050 level tech doesn't exist in 1300!). I think this way because extending the game to the far future puts some 90% of the gameplay in a plausibly historical setting, 5% in plausably near future setting, and 5% in wacky land. Our ability to come up with good predictions of what 1000 years from now is going to be like are probably no more reasonable than those made about today 1000 years ago.
I would rather see time and money put into designing and balancing the game to play from 4000 BC to 2050 AD, then to see those resources spent making stuff up and trying to come up with proper city improvment effects and units for Advanced Cryonic Engineering.
For a great number of Civ players, the game becomes less fun for a variety of reasons as the modern age approaches anyhow, so why exacerbate that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
icet
|
|
I agree with your point of view as a member of 2000 AD group. You are right in wishing to play the game in close historical pattern. However, since there are two groups; the majority belonging to 3000 AD group, I think if there can be an option to select the end year that would be great for both the groups. In the other case, there should be two versions of the game, one with 3000 something limit and the other with 2000 something limit.
I believe that both the groups must be satisfied. And as far as historical pattern is concerned, please understand that this is a game and games are for enjoyment and fun and the 3000 AD group wishes to play the game leading it into the future and explore. This is not to say that the historical pattern should not be taken into consideration up to the present era.
Icet
|
|
| |
|
|
|
okblacke
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
Since the game must be balanced to play itself out, it must be designed with one particular timeframe for victory to occur.
|
The other problem not mentioned so far is the game's telescoping nature. (Microscoping?)
The game ends now at 2050. If it ended at, say, 3130, you'd be tripling its length. 2/3rds would take place in the future era.
Civ embraces a number of dubious philosophical concepts in part to make for an interesting game, but also in part to make for a game that we'll accept as representing history.
One of those concepts is "progress".
The other concept is that "progress" accelerates. The 100 years between 1850AD and 1950AD represent greater change than the 100 years between 1850BCE and 1950BCE.
This is a good artifice because it's basically what allows us to experience four distinctly different eras. It also leads us to some interesting ideas about what would make a fitting expansion into the future, as well as what's wrong with the current "modern era", if anything.
- A future era should be 135 turns, or however many turns previous eras are. (Perhaps fewer, maybe 120 turns per era, so the game is only about 10% longer.)
- A future era's turns, perhaps, should continue to shrink. Six months, maybe. Or even three months at the end. This could possibly add greater urgency to the end game. 2050 to 2100 could be breakneck.
- A future era should represent some dramatic change in the landscape/gameplay. If the modern era has a flaw, it's that it doesn't feel much different from the industrial era.
This last point is interesting. If the modern era had you swapping rails for freeways--which would make the modern era feel different, even if it's not a very good idea--an interesting twist to a future era might be clearing roads, rails and freeways, say with the invention of monorail or hover cars or something.
The modern era could be beefed up a lot before they bothered with future, I think.
But if they did go future, the problem would seem to be what future should they go with. Civ has always had this "isn't where we are and what we're doing wonderful" feeling, so a lot of well-developed sci-fi ideas wouldn't fly.
* Post-nuclear holocaust/environmental accident
Just doesn't seem very "Civ". It might be cool to incorporate elements of this, like global changes occuring as the result of nuclear explosions, but most players wouldn't get much mileage out of it. Most of these end-game ideas are more scenario than epic fodder. "When Worlds Collide", say, where you HAVE to build a spaceship to get off the planet before the end. Or "War of the Worlds", where alien invaders arrive and start conquering. (You'd have to try to get a lot of cooperation from the world.)
* "Star Trek"
This is an obvoius choice, 'cause Civ and ST have "Up With People" kind of mindsets. Unfortunately, the ST pre-warp earth was a mess (see previous note) and since the show is all about leaving earth, there's not much use there.
* Cyberpunk
Corporate oligarchies, nerve stapling, neural implants, advanced AI, eugenics--it all sounds so, y'know, nasty. But workable from a game perspective.
* Some kinda optimistic Civ reality
Come up with a new government, maybe a Randian civil liberty thing which genuinely handles corruption, include advanced terraforming, alternate fuel sources, hovercars and monorails to eliminate pollution--make it so that the player can build an actual utopia at the end game. That might be fun to feel like, at the end of the game, you built a perfect society.
I dunno. I'm not against a future era in theory, but in practice it seems like a whole lot of work for dubious return.
[ok]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TheOutlawTorn
|
|
I take it we are all talking about the technology of the future?
You do know that the technologies that will come to use in your so-called sci-fi era are being developed in our present, interplanetery space travel, bioengineering, advanced robotics, supercomputers(AI) and so on. i fear it is you that are too quick to label these things as sci-fi.
In SMAC there was a nice little secret project called The human genome, in the present this has actually already come thru, in SMAC it was available in 2100. There is nothing wrong with peeking into our imediate future, 100-200 years maybe only 100. I would also not like civ to become to much of a history lesson, its a game, its supposed to be entertaining, not nesseceraly education.
The future is now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OliverFA
|
|
Leeds, UK
Sep 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
The game should end in 2000 AD. One of the expansions should extend the tech tree up to 3000 AD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
grap1705
|
|
Why would we want to limit this game to 2000 when we can satisfy everybody by:
- building a technology tree with futurist techs like in CTP2
- keeping the "by era" organization
- giving the player the control of two separate parameters: last year, and maximum tehcnological period.
Thus, if you like playing sci fi, which was a part I did enjoy in CTP2, you can. ANd if you like playing medieval or even only antiquity, which I sometimes tried by changing some game parameters, you still can.
So why try to make unpopular choices when two simple parameters can satisfy everybody?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plotinus
|
|
As I'm sure I've said earlier, any development time and resources that goes into developing futuristic stuff is time and resources that doesn't go into developing other areas of the game. For example, perhaps if Civ3 had gone up to 2500 they wouldn't have been able to add the element of culture. The game would have lasted longer but had less depth. So the choice is really between a long thin game and a short deep one, if you see what I mean. Perhaps the ideal is a long deep one but that ain't going to happen. Civilisation is a history-based game, and I would rather it kept the same scope but tried to be as deep as possible within that scope. Sid and co gave us Alpha Centauri for those who like the futuristic stuff.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord_Davinator
|
|
Kathmandu
Nov 2000
time: 11:02
|
|
face the future with unwavering eyes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zeiter
|
|
I like the idea of ending the game at 2050, and having a "launch to Alpha Centauri" option. Then, just pop in SMAC and continue the fun.
What we really need is a SMAC 2, or at least a patch that drastically improves the AI. I'd be very happy with that.
I agree about leaving the future stuff out of Civ4. Maybe they could have several expansions - one could be a futuristic one with alien contacts and invasions, mech walkers, inter-planetary travel, nanorobots, whatever.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeiter
I like the idea of ending the game at 2050, and having a "launch to Alpha Centauri" option. Then, just pop in SMAC and continue the fun.
What we really need is a SMAC 2, or at least a patch that drastically improves the AI. I'd be very happy with that.
I agree about leaving the future stuff out of Civ4. Maybe they could have several expansions - one could be a futuristic one with alien contacts and invasions, mech walkers, inter-planetary travel, nanorobots, whatever. |
So are you popping in SMAC or MOO2 after you finish Civ?
With the colony to Alpha Centauri and all, I think they have to end it around 2000 or so. Afterall, we really don't know what the technology will be like in 50 years, let alone 100 or 1000. I think it is possible that in 1000 we won't be worrying about war and the like. I won't place odds or bets on that though, just that with the right tech it could happen.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:32
|
|
Perhaps a mix. The date is not so important, but 2050 is nice because it's near future, and it's the traditional end year. A few 'future' techs could be included, I think, but make them not so much 'future' as 'emerging technologies', like fuel cells, superconductors and (maybe) fusion. As a physicist I know such things are achieved in labs (exept for the fusion, well maybe, but just a little bit) all the time, and it will only be a question of a decade or two before some of them find their way into military, consumer or business applications. Look at the Giant Magneto-Resistive materials in todays' hard disks - those were pioneered in the 80s in labs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
What if you want to keep playing after 2050, just to finalise the conquering you weren't able to do earlier?
Maybe set a cap on the tech tree, but let people play on!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zeiter
|
|
I would pop in SMAC.
The SMAC launch was said to be in the year 2060, so I figure if you finish a "colonize Alpha Centauri" wonder in Civ4 by the year 2050, then that leaves 10 years for the final preparations, so I figure it would be realistic and feasible.
I've never played MoO2, but I guess players could instead pop that in, if they would so choose. What is the backstory for that game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
How would SMAC trail on from cIV?
It's just one nation that builds the wonder.
How does the guy in the nation you just PWND manage to stow away on the UNS Unity?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
How would SMAC trail on from cIV?
It's just one nation that builds the wonder.
How does the guy in the nation you just PWND manage to stow away on the UNS Unity? |
IIRC, the factions in SMAC are because you were an idiot who picked people of such divergent personalities they couldn't get along without their leader. The leader gets killed en route, hence the factions split. Tsk, tsk.
You would think you could find a qualified group that could get along with each other.
-Drachasor
PS. MOO2 you start just on your homeworld, with perhaps one colony ship, I don't recall. You can travel to nearby worlds and colonize them. The era is 2050 or so at first, I think. There are humans, but also other species.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2004 05:26
)
|