 |
| |
|
|
curtsibling
|
 |
of the Kill!
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ew0054
Before we dive into how great Civ4 will be (I for one am losing sleep over the anticipation), let us step back and notice a few things.
First off, they're only going to have 18 civilizations. Civ3 offered 31, but only with an expansion pack.
Being a die-hard Civ fan since the beginning (I own the DOS and SNES versions of CIv1), I can see how this company works. They'll be releasing Civ4 vanilla at the end of the year. As soon as sales drop off, they'll be releasing another "pumped up" version, like the Civ3 Play the World, which may offer a few more civs and buildings.
Why am I so skeptical over this? Do the math. Civ3 vanilla cost me $49.99 at Staples. Within, I got all (I forget how many) civilizations and buildings that came with it. No problem so far.
But then, when I bought the Play the World expansion pack, all I got for my $24.99 (half the cost of the original game), was three new city improvements, a great wonder, and a handful of other civilizations. Hardly worth it; I didn't get anythign close to 50 per-cent extra goodies for my 50 per-cent-of-the-cost investment.
Not to mention they also made multiple installments of Civ2.
The bottom line? I think that, as heartbreaking as the thought may be, I'm gonna stay playing Civ3 for a year or so after the Civ4 release, and I would suggest others do the same. Maybe Firaxis will take a hint and put out a full-fledged game at once instead of a mediocre one.
Lastly, if they do make updates, here are some ideas for that. they should either make them free downloads, or if they want to charge, it should be only a few dollars. Or perhaps they can sell a subscription for unlimited updating your software for $X/month.
Just don't get sucked in!
 |
To each his own...
I plan to buy the game, and I will buy the XP packs if they seem cool...
I am a CIV addict after all - I need my fix!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:33
|
|
Locutus is quite right on this. Also remember that it's not like Firaxis are intentionally making Civ4 without some feautures they'll add later. Of course, if Civ4 sells well, it will get an expansion pack, that's how game business works and that's how it also should be, as it will improve the game anyway.
Besides, as it has been pointed out, Civ is possibly one of the cheapest entertainments out there. A movie ticket = 5 USD, 2 hours of entertainment, 2.5$ per hour. To take a very popular and well-selling game, Half-Life 2 - 50 USD, max of 20 hours to complete once, if you play through it twice, it's 40 hours by the maximum strech, 1.25 USD per hour. A Civ game, even if it's 50 USD, lasts much longer. An epic game seems to take around 20 hours for most people here. 10 games is 200 hours is 0.25 USD per hour, and you'll play even more than that. It doesn't get much cheaper.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Also remember that it's not like Firaxis are intentionally making Civ4 without some feautures they'll add later. Of course, if Civ4 sells well, it will get an expansion pack, that's how game business works and that's how it also should be, as it will improve the game anyway.
|
Aehmm, I beg your pardon sir. You don't work for a software house, do you? 
Any expansion is a planned opportunity: how many open ended movies we had see in the last years? Books series? Harry Potter anyone?
Expansions are mostly sw reuse, some late patches, spare arts and tuning of game parameters. Add a bunch of revamped weapons or enemy, polish few new maps/scenaries.
A lot of juice for the industry, squeezing the same orange again.
Developing cost of a game: 2 to 3 years full team;
Developing cost of an expansion: 6 to 9 months of half a team or less. A bargain.
That's not wrong, if you know the real game enhancement are clearly written on the box, still you think the added price is right.
Nevertheless it is mostly planned from the start and we can (should?) cope with it.
Troubles begin if you are forced in a "obsolescence mode":
"well, no more patches for the original, you see we are concentrating our effort on the improved expansion"
or
"sorry, you can't MP anymore, because others players are enjoing the "improved expansion" and we introduced a compatibility issue, while the game servers are just migrating to the "new, improved expansion"...
Ok, you can see where I'm going.  Let's hope Firaxis will play a fair game (pun intended ).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ew0054
|
|
Heck, if Civ3 was $100 I'd still buy it without hesitation, but I think their sales would drop considerably.
But isn't anyone even the slithest bit bothered that we'll only be getting 18 civs in Civ4? Civ3PTW has 31 which is almost twice that number. If anything, they should add more, not reduce the number.
They probably will add more in an expansion pack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bogdanovist
|
|
This may go against the grain a little, but is it really that important to have heaps of different civs? The differences between civs in CivIII was not gamebreakingly huge and it didn't fundamentally change the way you played the game, not like say the much bigger difference and fundamentally different playing styles in SMAC(X). Civ II had thousands of civs but there was then no difference at all between them. If the difference between civs becomes more in Civ IV than in III (not that I've heard that will be the case, but I'm hoping) then the increase in variety gameplay will be enormous even for (only) 18 civs.
I'm sure that after all expansion packs there will be 30+ civs in Civ IV, but I doubt that it will really be the shear number of civs that change the depth of gameplay. The Civ III Xpacks were good (well conquests was great anyway) beacause of the broader changes and scenarios, not the fact that they doubled the number of Civs available.
For me 18 civs is plenty, I'm more interested in exactly how the civs will differ, offering the chance to be guiding into many different playing styles.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bogdanovist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Lots of civs matters in Civ3 (traits), but not CtP 1/2 because it was just the name - no specific uniqueness.
|
But my point is that the different traits in Civ3 don't really make that much difference. Do you really play that much different with an militaristic/industrious Civ compared to a religious/scientific etc etc. The traits and UU are tweaks around the edges, but I have never seen a strategy post that deliniates particular strategies based on the traits of a Civ. Not in a truly fundamental way. I guess it comes back to that fact that I've played SMAC a lot more than Civ3. You need a completely different approach when using the different factions in SMAC, whereas in Civ3 the traits play a fairly minor role by comparison. Hence my ambivalence to how many Civs will be available in Civ4, unless they are made much more unique, which hopefully will be the case via the civics (as was the case in..... yep SMAC).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-06-2005 16:31
You lucky bastard!
I refuse to pay fulll price for a movie, which is now about $9-10 US.
|