Civ 4 - The List of BAD Ideas. - Page 6

Brent · January 29, 2004, 22:05

Do not make Civ4 inappropriate for children.

joncha · January 29, 2004, 23:18

Is Civ3 inappropriate now?

Brent · January 29, 2004, 23:46

I'd say Civ3 is acceptable the way it is, but I'd want Civ4 to take out the unit animations, or at least allow time to see what's happening when they're turned off, and maybe some of the Civ3 movies are too much. And I don't like human sacrifice.

MattH · January 30, 2004, 00:03

What Civ3 movies? The Intro screens? Those aren't violent, especially not compared to modern games.

(funniest post in weeks)

[edited for clarity]

MrBaggins · January 30, 2004, 10:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Brent
*snip* And I don't like human sacrifice.

How nice for you...

So... lets just ignore the ancient historical practice, in this edutainment game, because it offends your sensibilities.

You do know there is fighting and killing... in Civ, don't you? In fact, its almost a necessity... along with a whole host of other morally ambiguous concepts.

yellowdaddy · January 30, 2004, 14:59

self-censored, because I think arguing on the internet is gay.

Kuciwalker · January 30, 2004, 15:44

yellowdaddy, keep the political stuff out of this forum please. If you need to troll, do it in the OTF.

Spiffor · January 30, 2004, 19:28

The worst idea that ever was in Civ3:

Avoid to make encompassing information screens (such as a detailed intelligence screen), for fear it would confuse the player. Rather, make all this info available across many advisor screens without anyone to sum them up

(yes, the lack of a summing-up information screen in Civ3 is not an unwished shortcoming; it is a design decision

)

Spiffor · January 30, 2004, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Brent
Do not make Civ4 inappropriate for children.

This is indeed a BAD idea

Make Civ4 as violent, as horrible, as monstrous as accurate. Just avoid graphical depictions of the horrors you're responsible for

yellowdaddy · January 30, 2004, 19:51

what's trolling?

Spiffor · January 30, 2004, 21:04

skywalker.

of all the civilisations in the world today, the one which has had the most impact is France, not America.

[blah blah, we're the best, Napoleon was the one who spread modernity and enlightenment in Europe, not some pansy Brit, and certainly not some pansy American]

Let's face it, most Civs available in this game are or have been highly influencial in their area of the world at some point. Either that, or they had an original culture that is worth mentioning in the game.

I think Civs should be more varied: more African Civs (Mali!

), more SE Asian Civs, and maybe less European Civs.

Civilization would probably be more interesting if it stopped being euro-centered. Unfortunately, it may also be much more confusing for the western audience, the huge majority.

Kuciwalker · January 30, 2004, 22:12

Spiffor, my point is that because America has had such a significant impact one history (regardless of whether or not it has had the MOST significant; note that I said "perhaps"), it deserves to be in.

Spiffor · January 31, 2004, 04:25

And I agree with your statement.

Rasputin · January 31, 2004, 07:58

nice to see agreement.

yellowdaddy · January 31, 2004, 15:34

spiffor - remember that Napoleon got his enlightened arse plugged by pansy Brits like Nelson and Wellington, and then spread his French enlightenment to a tiny British island in the South Atlantic.

There is simply no way that France can claim to have had anywhere near as much influence on the world as Britain - it's something the Froggies have a hard time dealing with. (I snipped my rant, but I can back it up all the way mon petit chou!)

Trying to be as subjective as possible I'd probably compare the French to the Arabs in terms of their impact on human civilisation.

(I'm guessing this is what Skywalker means by trolling?)

--------------------

But yeah - the Khmers have never been in Civ (and they had a significant empire), some more African ones - Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Hausa (Kanem-Bornu and Songhay) would be nice for the brothers.
Native American ones have finally got a mention beyond the Aztecs and Sioux, with the intro of Maya and Inca civs.

I think America should be in, but only in scenarios...
...for me, I'm dissatisfied with the whole Romans v Americans thing in the game, and I would like to see a bit more ethnolinguistic authenticity, perhaps having key points in history (ages or eras) where you can enter the game with a choice of appropriate Civs (I suppose this is like scenarios). I'd like the Romans to start off as the Italics, then become the Latins, with one branch becoming the Italians - so there's no "Roman Space Force", same with the Americans so there'd be no American Phalanxes.
Hence I've submitted my detailed tribal evolution tree to the "Clash of the Civilisations" game, as it's shaping up to be a lot more interesting that Civ 4 is ever likely to be.

of course, player choice is important, and I think Skywalker should have every opportunity to start with his Yankie civ in the neolithic era if he really wants to. But not as a standard option.. please!

Spiffor · January 31, 2004, 19:36

This si what Skywalker meant by "Trolling"
Enter at your own risk. It's work-safe, but sanity-risky

Kuciwalker · February 1, 2004, 00:28

Kuciwalker · February 1, 2004, 00:29

Quote:

I think America should be in, but only in scenarios...

That's basically the same as saying America shouldn't be in. I think Rohan should be in, too, but only in scenarios (specifically, Middle Earth ones

). Get my point?

Plotinus · February 1, 2004, 01:02

Hey, I don't know if it's true that France has had less influence in the world than Britain (Charlemagne, anyone?) but I think we all must admit it's an infinitely cooler country. Come on, who's more interesting - Napoleon or Wellington? Louis XIV or Charles II? Descartes or Hobbes? Pascal or Newton? Joan of Arc or Wat Tyler? And I speak as a man of Kent myself, you know.

Bear in mind, when arguing about this kind of thing, that we have a natural tendency to think that a country that is important *now* is more important, period. Assyria were a mighty superpower for far longer than America have been to date, and they're not in the game at all.

yellowdaddy · February 1, 2004, 07:22

Re: Trolling - It's scary what the internet can do to people

what's it got to do with sitting under bridges?!
(we're ALL spods (=nerds) here though really!

)
---
Plotinus - I don't believe you're from Kent if you use americanisms like "period"!

who's more interesting? How is France "cooler"? isn't that a bit subjective?
I'm trying to be objective and consider not just important figures and inventions etc... - and I think you'll find if you flap through the pages of an encyclopaedia that Britain outnumbers France at every point in history.
You've cherry=picked a few names, but there are loads more.

But if the question is "which is the most influential Civ", then we've got to look at real impact on the way the world is.
France is a major Civ, but Britain is more major.

I think calling Charlemagne French is a bit like the English claiming King Arthur isn't it?
Is William the Conquerer and Doomsday book English or French, both or neither? Is Adam Smith American or Scottish?
And anyway, what did Charlemagne actually do that's any more significant than a host of other imperial rulers?

I know that other Civs at other times were great, Egypt, China... but their impact is limited both in time (most never made it beyond the dark ages), reach (most only affected their immediate region) and number of things they have created that the rest of the world depends on. OK, Britain's influence is mainly only the last 400 years, but it's impact is so much greater than any others - we live in a world largely (ie. the biggest percentage) defined by British ideas.

You could say that someone else would have done what Britain has eventually, but the fact that such a small place with the odds so stacked against it did it, is enough in itself.

I think Assyria are sort of covered by having Babylonia - as they spoke the same language and were culturally pretty much the same.

...stop me if I'm trolling

------------------

SkyW - I'm not sure I agree

I said I think the USA should be in, in post-revolutionary scenarios, didn't I?
and only if you are playing a custom non-historical game where most of standard features are thrown to the wind.

What I mean is the standard game from the dawn of time should haver reasonably relevant Civs (no European or post-colonial civs), but if you want them ou go to the bank of Civs and add them in.

The only differnce with Rohan is that it's fictional. I s'pose it makes almost as much sense having it in as having the Americans battle with the Sumerians on the plains of Mesopotamia? At least their all supposedly human!

SMIFFGIG · February 1, 2004, 10:49

A bad idea for civ 4 i would say, is to buy it.

As i can only go with my experience of wasted money and time with civ3 and its tacky unproffesional addons, I would say why waste your money on some shallow civ game, with such a bad foundation since its predosessor.

They have the source code for Call to Power2 (incase anyone didnt realise)
Now this is where i advise to find your next civ game, not the crap spewed out rubbish from firaxis.

P.S.

Quote:

I think America should be in, but only in scenarios...

I agree, but this is sales where talking about here, theres no chance that America wont be in Civ4.
Can you imagine, a game WITHOUT america!!
Lol i certainly can, but the majority of americans cant and that would lose Firaxis alot of money :|

yellowdaddy · February 1, 2004, 11:31

aye, it's the great unspoken,

i'm more interested in seeing the Clash of the Civilisations game finished (though I think the names crap, i think the game's much more exciting than Civ4).

(are any of you familiar with it? http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml )

and as i've never had the time even to finish a game of Civ 3 or SMAC, I'll not be in a hurry to rush out and get my £1 oriental pirate edition just yet either.

btw I think Test of Time is still the best version of Civ!

Fosse · February 1, 2004, 13:09

yellowdaddy, can't agree with you more about Clash being a great looking game. A bad idea for Firaxis (that's what this threads topic is?!?

) would be to ignore those guys.

They should all be hired on the spot, in my opinion, and given free reign and unlimited budget.

yellowdaddy · February 1, 2004, 14:56

I disagree...

...I think they should by hired by one of Firaxis main competitors, and pound Civ 4 into dust!
like this ->

the Civ series shows how good ideas get hijacked by lazy minded marketeers and instead of great sequels building on top of great ideas. If Civ got taken on by a credible alternative it might force them to innovate.

I think Clash could be to Civ what Linux is to Windows...

Spiffor · February 1, 2004, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
I think Clash could be to Civ what Linux is to Windows...

An inconvenient complex system designed with the sole satisfaction fo geeks in mind?

SMIFFGIG · February 1, 2004, 20:08

Quote:

An inconvenient complex system designed with the sole satisfaction fo geeks in mind?

quote of the year
the sheer ignorance is hilarious

Kuciwalker · February 1, 2004, 20:51

@ SMIFFGIG

Spiffor happens to use linux (at least on one computer) so I wouldn't call him all that ignorant...

and Clash, so far, is utter crap.

SMIFFGIG · February 1, 2004, 20:59

Quote:

Spiffor happens to use linux (at least on one computer) so I wouldn't call him all that ignorant...

Ahh good, got the impression there he was ppl who hated linux just because they had (heard) it was crap :P

back on topic
why is there such a hype about civ4, civ3 was a total peice of crap. It was like the Civilization from "3 months to 4 years" age category, with nice little animations, advisors with cartoonish looks and childish humour and with the same depth as Pops Idol the computer game!

bah, well..... maybe Firaxis know what there doing and aiming at a large market

(of which im not included and quite happy not to be)

BlueTrin · February 1, 2004, 21:22

Maybe to avoid stacking, it should be possible to attack from multiple sides at once. If you got flanked, it should lower your units defense.

Kuciwalker · February 1, 2004, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by SMIFFGIG

Ahh good, got the impression there he was ppl who hated linux just because they had (heard) it was crap :P

back on topic
why is there such a hype about civ4, civ3 was a total peice of crap. It was like the Civilization from "3 months to 4 years" age category, with nice little animations, advisors with cartoonish looks and childish humour and with the same depth as Pops Idol the computer game!

bah, well..... maybe Firaxis know what there doing and aiming at a large market

(of which im not included and quite happy not to be)

Who's being ignorant now? C3 was an incredible improvement on C2.