 |
| |
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
I've been keeping loose tabs on the progress, and I know a few video interviews and screens can't tell the whole story, but the game just looks ...well... childish. Hard to think of a better word. HUGE, cartoony "units" slogging it out on goofy maps. Christ. They just don't get how to make maps, do they? I'm focused on the look of the game, of course, because I've heard NOTHING that suggest anything significantly changed in gameplay.
|
Hi Yin! Welcome back! 
Don't beat too hard the newborn horse, please! Let him try a couple of run: you really shouldn't judge by the colour if it can win a Derby or not... 
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Seems so far like a kind of finger painter's version of checkers. Maybe the masses need the pointless graphics, but all I really see is a touch-up to a Civ 3 mess.
|
Graphics is ok for younger players and their money. A darker look would appeal a more mature (old like me and, to some point, you) audience, but given the common use of terrain and units modding, it's not a real annoyance, it's "skin" taste; think about Windows theme & wallpaper or any Linux KDE: you really don't judge the OS by its colour scheme, do you?
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Firaxis' motto these days seems to be: "Why innovate?" Pirates 2. Civ 4. -- None of which was crafted by Sid himself. When they went down the path of something new (Dinos), they hit the abort button.
|
Dino was a mess, too early announced to the fanbase (but IMHO for keeping the publisher EA happy for a while). Firaxis explained at the end they tried Turn based, Real time and also First Person Dino engine: nothing seems to do the job in a good way, so they pulled the plug. Amen.
Civ III Conquests was good enough to spend some time playing, but I used city governors everywhere and sometime automate workers for the clean up of pollution: boring part of the game also at a middle level (regent/prince), IMHO. The limited amount of tactics available to win, compared with SMAC (ask Velociryx for reference), killed the game IMHO.
Civ IV seems more promising, because if I understand correctly Firaxis is now implementing some of "The List" suggestions, and is giving them a try.
I don't know if the game will be fresh enough: I'd prefer something more different on the root level, but I understand a sequel is a sequel: ask Hollywood for mixed examples. 
Firaxis is writing code from scratch, and that's a gift from God IMO, to reduce the biting of bugs and free tester time for game balancing.
OTOH I'm afraid about AI coding. Last time Firaxis killed the strategy point because they chose a bad mantra: "any gamer idea is an exploit", so they put it out of the window nice concept (move the Palace became impossible, bad corruption killed the colonies concept more than ICS, AI nations' crazy trade of discoveries raised warmongering over building & researching, etc.).
Sorens must leave some freedom of strategic choice for the player, and try to give the AI the spin to compete, not sewering arms and legs to any human and try to sell it as an AI improvement... 
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Hate to say it: Civ is dead.
|
Well, not really, maybe it's a bit exaggerated news. It's not anymore a young promising athlete running for Olympics game, but a mature and expert adult that know some really good tricks and must cope with some rust and ache, as many basketball, baseball, gymnast, (put your sports here) old glories showed to us.
If the result still will come, we'd call him/her a legend, if not a sad late retirement.
OTOH, if any game company want to deliver a better "civ like" game, the players will play it and vote. I'm afraid TBS is now a town too small for two champions, and we can only hope for a bold indipendent idea that catch the publisher attention long enough for a starting contract.
My best wishes are for efforts like Snoopy & Jim or Vel and his Candle'Bra friends.
My friend Yin, please try putting some honey or sugar into your next cup of coffee or tea...
Oh, and don't forget my old signature...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:18
|
|
sophist: The difference between Civ 4 and an iPod, for instance, is that an iPod is a tool I can use to play *other* material. In this case, Civ 4 *is* the material...and if it's material that I have virtually memorized and can beat in my sleep, then what's the draw? Now, if I had only played Civ 1 (or maybe 2) but have skipped 3, then the jump to 4 might seem significant. So, from a player who ran 1, 2, 3 into the ground, 4 (from what we've seen) just doesn't seem to offer enough, even if it's a good game in its own right. By the way, my iPod can hold 10,000 songs in solid state. That's pretty darn impressive compared to a walkman!
EDIT: Well, it's on a hard drive, not solid state. But still darn impressive!
Aro: I'm glad some folks are ready to spend their money. Perhaps the game will be properly patched then.
Admiral: Well, hello! Yes, perhaps I expect an Olypic athlete. And you have, my friend, just confirmed in my mind that Firaxis is too scared/bored/worried to really keep the series fresh. But, as others have said, they like the series just fine as it is. Fair enough. But how much predicatable Civ can a person play in one lifetime? I guess Poly will have that stat for us.
Markos: Of course, somebody will have to send a copy of the game for me to review ...and, possibly, eat. Right?
Last edited by yin26 on 11-07-2005 at 21:04
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
Yin, yes, ipods and civ4 are different. That's why I named a couple of more examples. Lots of little, intelligent changes can have a seemingly disproportionate effect. The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. I understand your skepticism, but it's a little premature. We only know some of the ingredients, not how they've been "baked." Something that seems small and insignificant on the civ4 news page could in fact have a profound effect. Or it might not. You just have to keep an open mind until you can see the whole thing the way it was meant to be seen.
Adm.Naismith, vegetarian, so no bolognese.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
inca911
|
|
St. Paul, MN
Jan 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
Like yin26 (dangerous way to start a sentence) I want Civ4 to do more than "fix problems".
We used to stockpile trade caravans and build every wonder immediately. Boring, and that got fixed.
They added culture to the mix. Interesting concept, but minor impact to game play. I can flip a city now and then, but more often it's used by me to stage settlers near AI war zones ready drop cities into culture gaps post-city capture.
I want faster wars. Maybe even an option to forego individual unit management as a way to speed play. (Imaging you start a war, and the game gradually reveals an outcome of events for you to react to each turn. You don't have a huge advantage against the AI and the military prep, staging, and continued building choices are your key contribution to the outcome.)
I want less micromanagement of individual happy citizens.
I want to invest $/"energy" against one unhappy city and fix it rather than up the luxury slider for my entire empire.
I want small civs to have a chance to win, perhaps via benefits for extended peaceful activities.
I want published probabilities for combat so I don't have to calculate a thing on my own.
I want greater than 20 turn deals between Civs, deals where you are agreeing that you are true allies. Maybe to the extent that civs can merge.
I want a rule book that truly tells me what I need to know.
I want options to try and beat the game in multiple ways. I want penalties for expansion and bonuses for stability. Coruption tried to get at that, but it didn't give a bonus for stability so it became an annoyance.
I want to optimize my civ attributes in comparison to the rest of the world's attributes and develop a winning niche.
I want something that *significantly* changes the fundamentals of the game when I hit "random civs" in the startup. When I see the Babs, I want to know that my gameplay will need to be different than when I see the Germans. Many-games-in-one.
The "how" of doing all this is feasible. Today's Civ is binary, it's all about expansion (i.e., grabbing resources and luxuries, working more tiles) or being smarter militarily than the AI. Tomorrow's Civ should be more.
Last edited by inca911 on 12-07-2005 at 01:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:18
|
|
The great "solution" in Civ 3 was to make settlers cost you two population points. All this did was to slow down the process, not eliminate it. I suspect the same would be true of upping the food requirements in cities.
In the end, I think one of the best routes to take is something like you see in other games: you can't found cities at all (well, read on). Instead, there are ruins set at measured areas around the map, and you have to own them to develop them. For my money, this would force some fierce battles over a limited (and now very important) population/production center. It would also, once and for all, kill ICS. An added benefit here, too, would be the computer could be programmed much better to deal with this much easier rule set.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
In the end, I think one of the best routes to take is something like you see in other games: you can't found cities at all (well, read on). Instead, there are ruins set at measured areas around the map, and you have to own them to develop them. For my money, this would force some fierce battles over a limited (and now very important) population/production center. It would also, once and for all, kill ICS. An added benefit here, too, would be the computer could be programmed much better to deal with this much easier rule set. |
...Only problem being is that once you have a clear majority of the ruins/cities, you end up with the same 'bigger-is-better' endgame that is the end result of ICS. More cities under your control means you outproduce your opponent.
The game also falls into a warmongor strategy every time once all of the ruins are controlled.
Last edited by hexagonian on 12-07-2005 at 01:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
The great "solution" in Civ 3 was to make settlers cost you two population points. All this did was to slow down the process, not eliminate it. I suspect the same would be true of upping the food requirements in cities. |
I'm not suggesting of upping the food requirement of cities. That would indeed only slow down ICS.
What I'm suggesting is that an equal amount of food is needed for the city to grow, no matter what's its city size. So instead of a size 1 city requiring 20 food to grow, a size 2 city requiring 30 food to grow, a size 3 city requiring 40 food to grow, etc... a city always requires a constant amount of food accumulated in the food box (or whatever it's called again in Civ - nutrient tanks in SMAC) for the city to grow to the next size.
As far as I can see, there were two main causes for ICS prior to Civ3:
1) When founding a city with a settler, you get two citizens: one in the city square and the other working the fields, while the settler only costed one population point/citizen. This was dealt with in Civ3 by increasing the population reduction of creating a settler.
2) The food requirements for small cities to grow are much smaller than for large cities to grow. Ten size 1 cities grow much faster than one size 19 city, despite having just as many workers. This can be fixed by the idea suggested above.
Would this be implemented, personally I can't actually see many reasons anymore to found new cities, except for wanting access to special resources & strategic locations, or because the city improvements to maintain and grow a large city (temple, aquaduct, etc) are too expensive. Unlike the two gamey reasons outlined in the previous paragraphs, the reasons mentioned here are actually sensible and realistic reasons for people to move elsewhere, settle new areas and found new towns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:18
|
|
EDIT: Cross-post.
Yes, but you have to actually fight over them in the first place, and the computer, by virtue of knowing where these places are to begin with, can have a much better chance at going after them. In the end, of course, there should be a winner, right? The problem as it stands now is that I'm the winner in my games *early* on by virtue of ICS. At least this way I'd have a chance of losing.
As for warmongering, that comes back to the core of how Firaxis make the game, doesn't it? Certainly if I have fewer cities with which to crank out units, the computer might have optimized his econ better, etc., and could stalemate my attacks via superior technology. You see, once you slow down the economies of scale problem, you allow for a lot more interesting gameplay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Yes, but you have to actually fight over them in the first place, and the computer, by virtue of knowing where these places are to begin with, can have a much better chance at going after them. In the end, of course, there should be a winner, right? |
The winner still ends up being the largest civ on the map, which means that becomes the optimal strategy every time (Get Big- which ends up making a predictable game - something that I was under the impression you wanted to eliminate...)
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Certainly if I have fewer cities with which to crank out units, the computer might have optimized his econ better, etc., and could stalemate my attacks via superior technology. You see, once you slow down the economies of scale problem, you allow for a lot more interesting gameplay. |
To some degree, that was the intent of corruption - get an optimal core of productive cities in your empire that is hamstrung by the remainder of your cities that were almost worthless because of the corruption problem - Thus, ICS is limited for the player (and is maximized for the AI by giving them substantial bonuses and cheats).
I do agree that the player usually is forced into an early build program to counter the AI hyper-settling routines. Which ends up giving the impression of ICS tactics as the best and only means to win, but I do understand why Firaxis did this - and I feel that at least, the AI is better at keeping up with the player over what was the case in civ2.
Put in Manic's suggestion, in conjunction with the two-for-one worker requirement for a new settler that is already in place, and you probably will give more weight to a smaller civ being able to keep up with the big boys.
Last edited by hexagonian on 12-07-2005 at 07:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
I think the ruins idea for killing ICS is an interesting start. I would modify it to be a little different. Instead of there being only certain places where you can found cities, have there be much more variation in terrain so that there are only certain places where it's a good idea to found a city. I think terrain in civ games is too simplified. There's relatively little difference between this location and that one over there. If there were natural harbors, navigable rivers (with fords), elevation, etc. that created more varied environments, the difference between a good city location and a bad one would be greater and more obvious.
Another way to combat ICS is to have bigger cities have more advantages. One way is by improving the trade model, so that it is based on network effects and local economies rather than resulting from the mere existence of a road. It would be balanced so that two cities of size 5 would produce less trade than a single city of size 10 (or maybe size 9?).
The suggestion of eliminating the free square isn't a bad one. It might weaken things too much, though. Maybe settlers should found cities at size 2 to start. Or maybe the base city square should produce no food. We should rid of the ridiculous idea that mines produce things. Mines should only exist to extract resources; production is a function of labor. Two size 5 cities would produce less food than a single size 10 city occupying the same space because the free square produces no food, and so could support fewer people and thus have less labor available for non-farming tasks.
There should also be greater benefits to a city being old. There's a culture benefit from old improvements that should be extended to all improvements. Older universities should produce more beakers than new ones. Older marketplaces should produce more gold, etc.
It should be impractical to work every single tile on a continent. Even today, even in places like Japan, most land is uninhabited and unworked. Once you get into the industrial age in civilization, though, it is unlikely that any of your land is unworked. That's neither realistic nor attractive nor enjoyable. Maybe there should be more inaccessible land. In civ4, food doesn't lead to growth, so that's a step in the right direction. Your growth should slow long before you are farming all of your land. The early game should be heavily dependent on population, but the later game should depend far more on culture, control of strategic resources and locations, the quality of your citizens, and the strength of your economy.
Last edited by sophist on 12-07-2005 at 02:11
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2005 19:58
, I know... 
. I'll try to be honest in my opinion about it too.
|