I think my main problem with the way that Civ 5 was handled was that each expansion felt like part of the game as originally conceived. That is, they released the game in pieces rather than as a coherent whole. Compared to its predecessors, vanilla Civ 5 was pretty featureless. This rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. It just looked and felt over monetized. G&K, at the very least, should have been the initial release version.

Mansen wrote:
Sure they did - The intermissions would trigger as Planet became more active, aggressive. As the story tells.

Some heralded changes, others reacted to changes.

You got some story (mostly the planet story) as it progressed -> fungal bloom increasing, more worms appearing etc.

Other story you got by certain events happening. Such as your first mindworm unit getting defeated.

[QUOTEusername='[VGN]Albion;174189']seems interesting, i will wait for actual gameplay footage though[/QUOTE]



Seems best with the skepticism around.

BlueTemplar wrote:
Actually, now that I think of it, Alpha Centauri had something resembling it : pages of text telling your story on Planet popping up when specific conditions were met... they didn't have any gameplay effects though.

Sure they did - The intermissions would trigger as Planet became more active, aggressive. As the story tells.

BlueTemplar wrote:
Actually, now that I think of it, Alpha Centauri had something resembling it : pages of text telling your story on Planet popping up when specific conditions were met... they didn't have any gameplay effects though.

Yeah, they were a sort of "proto-quest," if you like--a bit more like the story told between episodes in a campaign in the RTS of the time (Warcraft, StarCraft, etc.).

Actually, now that I think of it, Alpha Centauri had something resembling it : pages of text telling your story on Planet popping up when specific conditions were met... they didn't have any gameplay effects though.

BlueTemplar wrote:
Funny how similar this seems to EL quests... did they take inspiration from it, there's a third game I'm not aware of using this mechanic or it "just happened"?

The "quest" mechanic has existed in strategy games for quite some time. Age of Wonders II had them (as does the new iteration in the franchise; I don't recall if the original did). AoW2 came out about 12 years ago. The quests were static and/or scripted with the campaign and were meant to infuse the fantasy 4X genre with with more RPG elements. I doubt that EL was really even on Firaxis' radar when it came to designing these elements, but the idea of quests has been floating out there for quite some time. I welcome the addition. It creates new storytelling opportunities for developers and has the potential to guide players in a meaningful, thoughtful way.

Quest System: Quests are injected with fiction about the planet, and help to guide you through a series of side-missions that will aid in resource collection, unit upgrades, and advancement through the game.

Funny how similar this seems to EL quests... did they take inspiration from it, there's a third game I'm not aware of using this mechanic or it "just happened"?

seems interesting, i will wait for actual gameplay footage though

Haaruka wrote:
Only downside for me probably is that It takes forever to finish the "game" specially if Im playing with my friends who take forever with their turns

I hardly ever play with friends, or online. I have about a dozen games going at a time, and every now and again I do a doze or so turns in a random game. This works for me.

Only downside for me probably is that It takes forever to finish the "game" specially if Im playing with my friends who take forever with their turns

ZumboPrime wrote:
I only started playing the Civ series with the Gold Edition (G&K + DLC). I tried playing vanilla, but it was just so bad. Balance and feature-wise. BNW makes it much better, but the game itself is unstable as ♥♥♥♥. If you click anything while not in the playing stage or lobby, it will crash. If you're doing something else while playing Civ 5, it will crash. If you're just playing the game with nothing else on your PC running, Civ 5 will ♥♥♥♥ing crash. Lately it's been somehow just shutting itself down instantly sometimes, not even a "program not responding". And Firaxis considers the game "complete" so no stability patches.



As you can probably guess, I'm not going to give them any money until 1) Firaxis has proven they're not releasing another broken game and 2) it's on sale.

Only problem I have is that during the load screen if I minimize the window or go to the steam overlay my mouse cursor will disappear. Easy to fix. I've never had any of the other issues.

ZumboPrime wrote:
I only started playing the Civ series with the Gold Edition (G&K + DLC). I tried playing vanilla, but it was just so bad. Balance and feature-wise. BNW makes it much better, but the game itself is unstable as ♥♥♥♥. If you click anything while not in the playing stage or lobby, it will crash. If you're doing something else while playing Civ 5, it will crash. If you're just playing the game with nothing else on your PC running, Civ 5 will ♥♥♥♥ing crash. Lately it's been somehow just shutting itself down instantly sometimes, not even a "program not responding". And Firaxis considers the game "complete" so no stability patches. [...]

Had none of the crashes you mentioned, so it may be problem with your software.

I've been playing since CIV2. With the release and balance patches post BNW aka CIV5 Complete, the game is pretty good. I hate 2 things. The warmonger penalty and the stupid diplomacy. The A.I. is okay, but it's weak when it comes to naval combat. Oh well. I have lots and lots of hour sin to it, so I will be getting Beyond Earth when it comes out for sure.. after a couple of patches and expansions. I will not put up with the b.s. that was Civ 5 vanilla, never again.

Varadhon wrote:
I think my main problem with the way that Civ 5 was handled was that each expansion felt like part of the game as originally conceived. That is, the released the game in pieces rather than as a coherent whole. Compared to its predecessors, vanilla Civ 5 was pretty featureless. This rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. It just looked and felt over monetized. G&K, at the very least, should have been the initial release version.

I only started playing the Civ series with the Gold Edition (G&K + DLC). I tried playing vanilla, but it was just so bad. Balance and feature-wise. BNW makes it much better, but the game itself is unstable as ♥♥♥♥. If you click anything while not in the playing stage or lobby, it will crash. If you're doing something else while playing Civ 5, it will crash. If you're just playing the game with nothing else on your PC running, Civ 5 will ♥♥♥♥ing crash. Lately it's been somehow just shutting itself down instantly sometimes, not even a "program not responding". And Firaxis considers the game "complete" so no stability patches.



As you can probably guess, I'm not going to give them any money until 1) Firaxis has proven they're not releasing another broken game and 2) it's on sale.

Firaxis took the opportunity to announce a new game at PAX East: Civilization: Beyond Earth. It is billed as a true spiritual successor to Alpha Centauri. Here's a little info from the game's main site: http://www.civilization.com/#info



Here's some additional press coverage: http://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/12/civilization-beyond-earth-breaks-free-from-history-heads-to-th/

Mansen, I can. G&K really improved vanilla CIV5, and BNW... well, since it came out I put a lot of time into CIV5.



Vanilla was around 25 hours. The game was a mess.

Gods and Kings added another 100 or so hours.

Brave New World... well, I'm at 400 hours now.



/Shame

Can't comment to the Civ 5 expansions - I bought both of them on sale and never really tried them out or got an idea of how much I actually received.

Mansen wrote:


(A lot of people are going to complain that they could have made it a DLC, not a stand alone and that they are becoming greedy - See my Colonization reference in my earlier post)

Becoming greedy? imo they have been greedy for a while now. Lets not forget that Gods and Kings as well as Brave New World were both retail priced outside of bundles.



and to me that means they were pretty much charging customers $60 to fix a game that should have been good in its vanilla state. This time I'll wait until after they release the DLCs that fix the games and get the bundle...

Varadhon wrote:
I'm not prepared to be cynical about Civ: BE just yet. lol

Too many promising titles that have turned out... poorly for me not to be cynical up front - Especially when they are already talking about making it more casual before any gameplay has even been shown.



I'll stay cynical for now and be unexpectedly happy if it does turn out good.

Nasarog wrote:
I am excited but this game, but it does bear a striking resemblance to Pandora.

That's another problem - Barring the storyline of Alpha Centauri, they're all basically just "empire building in space" games. Firaxis are going to have to work hard to make Beyond Earth seem unique and fresh - Especially when they're demanding full retail price for what is essentially the same basic engine and presentation as Civ 5 (A lot of people are going to complain that they could have made it a DLC, not a stand alone and that they are becoming greedy - See my Colonization reference in my earlier post)

I am excited but this game, but it does bear a striking resemblance to Pandora. I'll wait 'till the 2nd or 3rd expansion before deciding. I'll have plenty of games to keep me occupied in the meantime. Hello Endless Legend, I'm looking at you buddy......

Igncom1 wrote:
I still think Pandora made a more then valient effort to become a spiritual successor, and most people tossed it aside!



And I loved civ 5!...Was never a fan of civ 4.

I actually think they got a lot of things RIGHT. The tech tree with its simple randomized elements kept things startlingly fresh each run through without making things too unpredictable. The environment was fun. I enjoyed the game, even during beta. What felt off was tile exploitation and population management. The population growth mechanic had an evil relationship with the carrying capacity of any given city's exploitable territory. You could easily overpopulate your cities and then wind up in a nasty starvation death cycle. It's oddly realistic, but it felt a little TOO uncontrolled. The doughnut world maps were also just . . . weird. All-in-all, I enjoyed it, but it didn't quite get to where I wanted it to go.



As for the Civ 5 v. Civ 4 debate . . . I'm not restarting that lol I enjoyed both, but was disappointed by Civ 5 because of three things:

(1) it was apparent that Firaxis was going to add lots of additional game mechanics later, so the initial release just felt like less game than Civ 4 (this was done, I presume, to get maximum value out of each expansion release);

(2) Civ 5 didn't address the primary flaw of 4X games: horrible, irrational, unreasonable AI;

(3) Civ 5 removed a lot of diplomatic options that existed in Civ 4 that were really enjoyable and frankly worked better (vassal states, rebellion, the effect of religion--which got over "gamified" in Gods & Kings).



There were plenty of elements in Civ 5 that I liked MORE than in Civ 4 (the policy trees in particular), but it didn't feel like the evolution of the game that it should have been. It felt more like an alternate reality Civ 4 than it did like Civ 5.

I still think Pandora made a more then valient effort to become a spiritual successor, and most people tossed it aside!



And I loved civ 5!...Was never a fan of civ 4.

Igncom1 wrote:
There is no pleasing you AC people is there?



Hell i'll get it, although as a rule you should wait an expansion or two before the game is fully fleshed out.

Lol. I can't fault someone for being passionate about older games, especially the first title in a franchise. If a new Master of Orion were in the offing, I could just imagine the uproar. That all said, a little circumspection is not a bad thing. Firaxis may have missed the mark or wandered down an odd path with Civ 5, but we're still talking about the same studio that produced the original AC. I hope they learned the RIGHT lessons from Civ 5 and I'll watch Civ: BE's development with interest.

PANCZASU wrote:
Ugh... Not overly happy about this tbh. Not to say I didn't like Alpha Centauri, I did, but I have doubts about firaxis being able to make a great 4X. It took them forever to make Civ5 good.

The annoying part is that people will still pre-purchase and buy this game just because it has "civilization" in its title. And if this game is coming out late Fall, then it might end up competing with EL (I think I read somewhere that the plan is to release a full version of EL near the end of this year, I could be mistaken though). I guess that I simply have to hope that by that point EL will have enough positive opinions behind it to be able to compete against Civ:BE.

I mean, sure, it's possible that I'll end up liking Civ:BE more then EL... But no matter what, judging by Civ's screenshots, EL will always be the better-looking game.

Those are all justifiable concerns, but at the end of the year, there are probably more dollars available for multiple gaming titles. I'm slightly more worried that the spate of titles coming out between now and EL's ultimate release might turn people off to the genre if they aren't worth the money. Amplitude is lucky that it produced ES BEFORE Horizon, StarDrive, and Star Lords--had the reverse been true, I'd have been tempted to give ES a pass.



And, yes, hurray for the Unity3D engine.

There is no pleasing you AC people is there?



Hell i'll get it, although as a rule you should wait an expansion or two before the game is fully fleshed out.

Mansen wrote:
Let me sum why quickly why I have no interest in this - or why it should even be a thing.



1. It is not Alpha Centauri - nor a Spiritual Successor in any way.

They've made it very clear that the "alien" population is little more than a "barbarian" nuisance in the early game, and the the only sentient beings around are practically livestock for breeding.



2. It is not Alpha Centauri - Part 2.

EA? Owns the IP for Alpha Centauri and have done so for years - Don't expect any kind of references or similarities. Firaxis (and more importantly big brother 2K games) don't want to risk getting sued.



3. It's going to be casual - More so than Civ 5.

The producer and several articles has made it very clear that they're going for an even wider and more casual audience (how is that even possible after Civ 5?) than previous games.



4. It's basically just Civ 5 : Space Stage.

Civ used to have an actual space stage with colonization abroad - This "game" doesn't deserve to be anything more than an expansion of Civ 5, let a lone a stand alone title (at full retail price of course - Just like Civ 4: Colonization, which was basically Civ 4 with Colonization features that could have fitted in a free community mod)



5. No actual gameplay yet - It's a teaser trailer people. Stop getting hyped from literally irrelevant CGI.

Self explanatory.

I felt burnt by Firaxis on Civ 5 too, but . . .



1. True, it is not Alpha Centauri II (see 2), but to say that it's not a spiritual successor in any way is plainly premature (see 5: there's no gameplay from which to judge anything, just descriptions, a teaser trailer and a few screenshots). NB: some of the same people who made the original AC are the individuals who are aboard to make Civ: BE; note also that Civ 5's lead designer, Jon Shafer, isn't with Firaxis any longer, so how similar this game would be to Civ 5 is far from clear. I suppose that people's idea of what a proper "spiritual successor" is varies from person to person. I wouldn't expect JUST a graphical update with a bunch of name changes to avoid a lawsuit. It's 2014 and it has been 15 years since AC came out. There should be important iterative differences. It's also not my impression anyone was terribly attached to any faction in AC. Would anyone care if there are no "Peacekeepers" in Civ: BE? I very much doubt it.



2. While I would not expect references for the reasons you suggest, similarities are bound to occur. IP rights are NOT absolute. What Firaxis certainly cannot use would be the Alpha Centauri title, the characters, MOST of the factions in original game, and actual code from the original game (along with potentially anything that may be subject to specific contractual rights as agreed upon between Firaxis and EA). These items are subject to the protections (and limitations) of copyright, trademark and unfair competition law. The rest is pretty much up for grabs because elements like the setting, the presence of aliens on a foreign planet, variable biology on a foreign planet, humanity on a mass exodus from earth, etc. are all items in which EA cannot assert any copyright or trademark rights.



3. That's pure speculation at this point. Without gameplay or greater description we really have no idea HOW causal it would be. Given the turn that Civ 5 took, I certainly think it's justifiable to be concerned that it could turn out that way. I read several of the articles on point, but I don't see anything pointing to Firaxis pursuing a more casual audience for this title. In fact, the description of what they are aiming for looks deeper than the gameplay in Civ 5. Perhaps I simply have a different reading of the articles in question. Here are some of the ones I read:



http://www.gamespot.com/articles/beyond-earth-takes-civilization-to-the-stars/1100-6418906/



http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/04/12/civilization-beyond-earth-trailer/



http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/12/5600008/civilization-beyond-earth-trailer-screenshots-announcement-sid-meier



http://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/12/civilization-beyond-earth-breaks-free-from-history-heads-to-th/



4. The entire tech tree is arranged in a different character, and the devs are cited as not being bound by having to deal with historical expectations, so the creative avenues available are at least as open as they would be in a fantasy game. The starting options sound a lot more involved (closer to MoM/MoO2/ES/EL than Civ). The game features a quest system and lore-driven victory conditions that frankly sound similar to the faction quests in EL. Civ 5 was a huge disappointment, but calling this game Civ 5: Space Stage, especially at this point, strikes me as too ungenerous.



5. There's absolutely no reason to be hyped yet. Perhaps I should have been more careful in my wording of this thread title. I'm pleased to see Firaxis taking this game on--Pandora was interesting but disappointing. I'm also very happy to see a burgeoning renaissance of 4X game development. I'm not prepared to be cynical about Civ: BE just yet. lol

Let me sum why quickly why I have no interest in this - or why it should even be a thing.



1. It is not Alpha Centauri - nor a Spiritual Successor in any way.

They've made it very clear that the "alien" population is little more than a "barbarian" nuisance in the early game, and the the only sentient beings around are practically livestock for breeding.



2. It is not Alpha Centauri - Part 2.

EA? Owns the IP for Alpha Centauri and have done so for years - Don't expect any kind of references or similarities. Firaxis (and more importantly big brother 2K games) don't want to risk getting sued.



3. It's going to be casual - More so than Civ 5.

The producer and several articles has made it very clear that they're going for an even wider and more casual audience (how is that even possible after Civ 5?) than previous games.



4. It's basically just Civ 5 : Space Stage.

Civ used to have an actual space stage with colonization abroad - This "game" doesn't deserve to be anything more than an expansion of Civ 5, let a lone a stand alone title (at full retail price of course - Just like Civ 4: Colonization, which was basically Civ 4 with Colonization features that could have fitted in a free community mod)



5. No actual gameplay yet - It's a teaser trailer people. Stop getting hyped from literally irrelevant CGI.

Self explanatory.

Ugh... Not overly happy about this tbh. Not to say I didn't like Alpha Centauri, I did, but I have doubts about firaxis being able to make a great 4X. It took them forever to make Civ5 good.

The annoying part is that people will still pre-purchase and buy this game just because it has "civilization" in its title. And if this game is coming out late Fall, then it might end up competing with EL (I think I read somewhere that the plan is to release a full version of EL near the end of this year, I could be mistaken though). I guess that I simply have to hope that by that point EL will have enough positive opinions behind it to be able to compete against Civ:BE.

I mean, sure, it's possible that I'll end up liking Civ:BE more then EL... But no matter what, judging by Civ's screenshots, EL will always be the better-looking game.