×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Civilization: Beyond Earth Announced

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the montezuma-takes-over-the-universe dept.

PC Games (Games) 89

An anonymous reader writes "Today at PAX East, Firaxis announced Civilization: Beyond Earth. It's a new Civ game inspired by their sci-fi strategy classic Alpha Centauri. Beyond Earth is currently planned to launch this year on the PC. According to Game Informer: 'Beyond Earth presents an opportunity for Firaxis to throw off the shackles of human history and give players the chance to sculpt their own destinies. Civilization games typically have a set endpoint at humanities modern age, but Beyond Earth has given Firaxis the opportunity and the challenge of creating a greater sense of freedom. ... The five different victory conditions that represent that next major event in human history are tied to the new technology web. At the start of the game, players will choose leaders and factions (no longer bundled with one another) and choose colonists and equipment to settle the land. Once descending from orbit, the technology web allows players to move in a number of directions.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Could also be name of Scientology film. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46734011)

Whatever happened to CoS? Have they propagandised their way out of the media these days?

Alpha Centauri 2 (4, Insightful)

Ottawakismet (2798639) | about 8 months ago | (#46734085)

I know they say its not Alpha Centauri 2, but thats all it has to be. The original had so much depth and fun, just keep that intact, and don't mess it up, and it will be a brilliant game. Alpha Centauri remains one of the best games in the Civilization world

Re:Alpha Centauri 2 (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 8 months ago | (#46734379)

Try the Planetfall Mod for Civ IV BTS. If you play it on a fairly modern system with a fully patched game it might not even crash before you finish a moderate-length game.

You don't get to design your own units. But they do get upgrades reminiscent of AC.

Re:Alpha Centauri 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46734449)

Alpha Centauri didn't appeal to me because it seemed to have too much emphasis on warfare, on building fancy weaponry. The one computer game that I ever got addicted to in my life was Civilization : Call To Power (I got the Loki versions of both games for Linux, but I presume it was a similar experience to the Windows versions.) I've often wondered why that game got to me, as I seemed to be immune to every other computer game I ever came across. In fact I still play it once in awhile, ramped up to maximum difficulty. In fact, if at the start of the game there aren't a couple of theocracies to play against, I don't even bother because it will be too easy.

Re:Alpha Centauri 2 (1)

Ottawakismet (2798639) | about 7 months ago | (#46816369)

Alpha Centauri gave you a number of ways to win, non-militarily, and there was quite a lot to do without focusing on the military. If you played the Peacekeeper faction, and / or built the wonder to double your votes, and colonized the seas like a madman you could win diplomatically. I'd say a minority of my games were won militarily. Economically the least often, because you had to wait forever to win with money. All multiplayer games are always won only militarily. Humans won't give you the time to win any other way. I played Call to Power, and it was interesting, and a good game, but I would still put Civilization IV, Alpha Centauri and Master of Orion II ahead of it.

The quotes were awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46734879)

Alpha Centauri's quotes that you got with each new technology were thoughtful and poignant. Though a small element of the game, they really did a lot for my enjoyment of it. Galactic Civilizations 2 tried to do the same thing...but...their quotes were stupid. It felt like some game designer thought that the mere presence of quotes was the polish that gamers wanted, and the depth didn't matter.

Maybe he was right, I don't know. I just felt a bit insulted reading the shallow quotes in GalCiv 2.

I hope they get this game right, in that respect.

"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill."

        CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"

Re:The quotes were awesome (1)

Ottawakismet (2798639) | about 7 months ago | (#46816401)

I really wanted to like Gal Civ 2, but it was lacking in fun factor and soul. The combat was terrible, the economy boring. On paper it looked like a great game, but was unfortunately, a nearly unplayable failure. Endless Space is way better. Alpha Centauri had maybe the best quotes of any Civ (or any game ever)

Re:Alpha Centauri 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46735061)

no, the original was SHIT! Not finished on release and so flawed no one enjoyed it (on time of release) It was the worst Civ ever...

Re:Alpha Centauri 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46744135)

I enjoyed it on release, but then I play Elder Scrolls games so bugged out unfinished games are normal to me

Shut up and take my money (4, Insightful)

mseeger (40923) | about 8 months ago | (#46734125)

It's says "Civilization" in the title, so i will buy it anyway... ;-)

Re:Shut up and take my money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46734207)

Won't buy until I see reviews by users on Amazon. I owned every version of Civilization including expansion packs and spinoffs. Love them all EXCEPT Civilization V. It was horrible and I prepaid for that crap.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

mooingyak (720677) | about 8 months ago | (#46734267)

Basically what I was thinking. After the clusterfuck that was Civ V, I'm just hoping they didn't use that as their starting point.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 8 months ago | (#46734313)

Honestly, I have no idea how you can not enjoy Civ V. I've owned all the Civ games except for II. Enjoyed all of them, but V is by far the most tactical, and interesting to play. The hex based system, and the fact that you can only have one unit per tile makes attacking cities much much much trickier than it ever used to be.

Re:Shut up and take my money (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 8 months ago | (#46734493)

The original Civ V release was terrible. Sure, it had some nice tactical flavor to it (which the computer players are completely incompetent at BTW), but it loses a lot of the fun of Civ IV.

For example, there's a lot more restrictions in play - especially the penalties on placing more cities. They dropped the health mechanic of Civ IV for growing cities and population, but they replaced it with a bogus penalty to culture and research from additional cities. It just doesn't feel right. The tech tree is bogus and it's clear that they structured the tree as they did for game balance rather than any sense of realism. Even worse is the culture trees. They don't feel even remotely realistic.

Subsequent releases have helped balance that stuff out somewhat (Civ 5 does have a better religion system an the ideology conflict in the late game is nice) and add more to the mid and late games, but it still needs a lot of work. For example, in the latest variant of Civ 5 there are three different ways to trade.

The city state mechanic needs work too. A more realistic mechanic would be that the barbarians eventually settle down and form the city states (as they adopt the civilization ideas of the core civilizations). But that would mean a lot more city states than are presently in the game and a whole new mechanism for dealing with trade and city state alliances is required.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 8 months ago | (#46735791)

Honestly, I like the fact that they put a penalty on expanding too much too quickly. Early Civs had the issue that the roll your war machine over everyone approach by far dominated other paths to victory. Civ V balanced that out nicely.

You're right though, the way that culture worked (as opposed to just happiness) was completely broken, and completely impossible to win in a multiplayer match, and yes, the expansions sorted that out.

The city state mechanic I felt worked well though –it stopped the AI playing by elimination of dominated strategies, and just always voting for itself, making diplomatic victory impossible.

Re:Shut up and take my money (2)

cbhacking (979169) | about 8 months ago | (#46735803)

Those are good critiques of Civ5. There are a more, of course, but *most* of them boil down to the original release of the game being, basically, too big a change for them to get it right.

Let me say that again: Civ 5 was *badly* flawed at release, because it was too big a change.

For example, in a game where each unit (and tile, since they go together) is so much more precious than they were before, the 10HP system (where even a curbstomp battle costs 10% of your health, and the enemy rolling just a *little* too well can easily kill a unit that should have been wounded but near-guaranteed to survive) is stupid. They fixed that in the first expansion, and it made combat *much* better.

Then there's the silliness where ranged units turn into melee units as they upgrade. That is, sadly, still present in a few units (chariot archers, etc.) but it's way less common than it once was, and there are actual ranged units in the late-game now.

The original culture system was undeniably silly. The new one is better in many ways, although the lines between things that give faith and things that give culture and things that give tourism still feels a bit arbitrary. I mean, shouldn't world wonders *inherently* give tourism? Shouldn't religious buildings have a cultural impact as well? It's weird.

On the other hand, there are good things that I think you missed, too. You complain about three ways to trade in C5:BNW, but I see more than that (unit transfers are not explicitly trades, but they achieve much the same thing, and AI goodwill is effectively a commodity you can sometimes trade) and Alpha Centauri had the same things (Econ tech + treaties, direct trade over comlink, vote-buying in council). The tech tree has plenty of absurdities, but what else is new? That's hardly something Civ5-specific, and the power level progressions throughout the game are pretty good.

Re:Shut up and take my money (2)

sound+vision (884283) | about 7 months ago | (#46744875)

Shouldn't world wonders *inherently* give tourism? Shouldn't religious buildings have a cultural impact as well? It's weird.

Many world wonders (and most national wonders) contain a Great Work slot, or even a slot pre-filled with a Great Work. If you are trying to win a tourism victory, it's difficult if you only rely on non-Wonder buildings to provide Great Work slots. Unless you have a large empire (6+ cities) you will run out of building-provided slots sooner than you'd like - then you're left with slots from Wonders. FWIW there are also 1 or 2 wonders that directly give a tourism boost, not just great works slots.

There are also several religious buildings that provide a culture bonus. The Shrines and Temples don't, but once you or any other player found a religion, you can add religious tenets allowing you to purchase Mosques, Cathedrals, and I believe one other building. These advanced religious buildings [i]do[/i] increase culture, as well as giving +1 to faith and/or happiness depending on the building. Furthermore, they can only be purchased with faith, not gold or production. Not having to sacrifice gold or production is [i]very[/i] useful in the small empires you'd build trying for a tourism victory. True, you have to spend faith instead - but it's not a lot, and you should already have excess faith if you're taking this strategy.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 7 months ago | (#46743555)

For example, there's a lot more restrictions in play - especially the penalties on placing more cities. They dropped the health mechanic of Civ IV for growing cities and population, but they replaced it with a bogus penalty to culture and research from additional cities. It just doesn't feel right. The tech tree is bogus and it's clear that they structured the tree as they did for game balance rather than any sense of realism. Even worse is the culture trees. They don't feel even remotely realistic.

I agree with all of this, but it's not Civ5's real problem. The real problem is the absolutely retarded AI. The AI doesn't expand (seriously, 1500 AD and China still has 1 city) cant fight a war, wont bother advancing tech very far and the diplomacy system is a complete joke (I've surrounded your last city with battleships and rocket artillery and they wont give me a few gold to go away).

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

sound+vision (884283) | about 7 months ago | (#46744935)

The different leaders have different AI personalities - some just don't give up 'til the last man dies. Others may be willing to crack a deal. Montezuma is more likely to declare war on you than Gandhi, for example. I've played an unbelievable amount of Civ 5 over the past few years, and I'd say it's an 80/20 split in favor of the enemy surrendering if their army is wiped out and you have them surrounded.

I've seen *very* few games where other civs failed to expand. By 1500 AD even the slowest civs will have at least 3 or 4 cities founded. The only exception to this is if they have had their cities captured, or their neighboring civs simply claimed all the territory in the area and had the military power to defend it.
Which difficulty are you playing at? It sounds like it might be too easy and you need to bump it up another difficulty level. I play at 1 higher than the default. I go up to 2 higher if the risk of losing horribly that day doesn't bother me :)
Which version of the game are you playing? Early versions did have worse AI in many respects, but that was mostly resolved even before Gods and Kings came out.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

khallow (566160) | about 7 months ago | (#46745691)

Yea, the game does play differently at higher levels. Still the AI plays dumb especially with the tactical warfare.

Re:Shut up and take my money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46736769)

I found Civ V plainly boring. I had a similar problem with Civ III. Civ II and Civ IV I loved approximately equally -- I still honestly prefer Civ II's unit-based espionage system, but Civ IV cleaned up lots of things. Never tried Civ 1.

Manipulating city states felt sterile. At release there were what, 3 different quest types that were always identical? It dropped bits of Civ IV that I liked, like the way power-blocs tended to form via religion. Depending on the world you formed, it could make for an interesting emergent behaviour when two continents made first contact, and each continent was dominated by a vastly different religion.

The expansions made it better but it still lacked the "je ne sais quoi" of previous entries.

Meanwhile, as much as it may or may not make tactical combat more interesting, and as much as I have to admit that concepts in civ are representational rather than realistic (it does NOT take 50 years for a cadre of spearmen to travel a road from Rome out of Italy), it Just Bugs Me that you can't fit two units of the same nation's on the same square. I can't rationally justify it, other than to say that Civ for me is a strategic game, not a tactical game, and it's very difficult to mix those two layers sensibly. The 50 years to move a spearman 3 squares with roads makes a sort of sense on a strategic level if you squint at it, so I accept it. At a strategic level, I can't really see why you can't have every your entire invasion force landed on Japan before you've captured Tokyo.

I remember ICS (Infinite City Sprawl) being a very effective potential strategy in Civ 2, which I mostly didn't use simply more because it was *boring* to me to manage all those cities rather than to provide myself a challenge. The problem I have is I've found basically every countermeasure in subsequent Civ games also helps make the game boring, and I can't escape it by just not playing that way.

Re:Shut up and take my money (3, Interesting)

TFlan91 (2615727) | about 8 months ago | (#46734435)

I've always hated the end game of Civ's. It's always felt... dissatisfying. Early/Mid game was always fun but if it lasted to the end game, I usually ended up quitting and starting over.

This newly announced game has so many paths it could take and the possibilities are truly endless, if the dev's decide to make it so that is. I had faith, but after Civ V, the Sid Meier's brand has faltered in my eyes.

(i've been playing his games since Sid Meier's Civilization (holy shit that was a long time ago), my favorite, to this day, is still Gettysburg)

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 8 months ago | (#46734539)

I won't.

Civ 5 had no Pitboss, then when they made Pitboss ... it had to be logged into a steam account ... so you can either play ... or be the pit boss server and not play.

Civ 5 was 'revolutionary' in the sense that it took many steps backwards ... but OMG HEX CELLS INSTEAD OS SQUARE!$!@#%!@#%

How the fuck can you play long term games that don't suck without a Pitboss server? Sure, play by email but holy fuck thats obnoxious to manage

Re:Shut up and take my money (3, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | about 8 months ago | (#46734859)

Because Civ is a single player game. It isn't meant for multiplayer, and multiplayer has always been a terrible experience. I'd prefer if they dropped it entirely and spent more time on polishing the AI or released it earlier. Because they shove in a half baked multiplayer we get a worse game.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#46737637)

... The Civ 5 AI was pathetic, calling it a single player is dishonest.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

Bardez (915334) | about 7 months ago | (#46747937)

Or completely honest.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

oKtosiTe (793555) | about 7 months ago | (#46745247)

Because Civ is a single player game. It isn't meant for multiplayer, and multiplayer has always been a terrible experience. I'd prefer if they dropped it entirely and spent more time on polishing the AI or released it earlier. Because they shove in a half baked multiplayer we get a worse game.

I've had lots of fun playing Civilization 4 over LANs, so please allow me to disagree, for the most part, with your statement. That said, the AI in Civ 5 is rather flawed.

Re:Shut up and take my money (2)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 8 months ago | (#46734631)

The worst part is I know the gameplay is probably going to be so similar to old versions of the Civ franchise that I might as well just dust them off, but because it's shiny and new I'll pay any price and waste many hours of my life on it. Only game that ever beat Civ in terms of replayability for me was nethack.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 8 months ago | (#46734779)

Last that I used was Civ II, and after that, once FreeCiv installed & worked, it replaced Civ II for me.

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

vandelais (164490) | about 7 months ago | (#46739775)

Never heard of it...

Re:Shut up and take my money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46736857)

Why don't they just call it Oxymoron?

Re:Shut up and take my money (1)

Erich Pace (3630799) | about 7 months ago | (#46839011)

If you want to buy a computer game, you'd better know what the others say..Civilization is not bad (I played Civ3 and Civ5), I like the style of this game, but just like the others say, can't be multiplayer, about that, it's a pity..

I'm really excited to play this, because... (1)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about 8 months ago | (#46734177)

...based on the description, I also really enjoyed this game the last time I played it when it was called "Deadlock".

Re:I'm really excited to play this, because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46734369)

Haha! Yes! Deadlock was fuckin awesome. Time Dilation muthafucka!!

Re:I'm really excited to play this, because... (1)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about 8 months ago | (#46734667)

"Give them a rock and they'll invent the war cry before lunch."

Maug RULE.

Re:I'm really excited to play this, because... (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 8 months ago | (#46734975)

Time to get myself an GOG account... Even AC is available there!

Re:I'm really excited to play this, because... (1)

Phrogger (230179) | about 8 months ago | (#46737399)

Time to get myself an GOG account... Even AC is available there!

And it works great with WINE.

Re:I'm really excited to play this, because... (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 7 months ago | (#46738747)

How the compatibility of GOG games with Wine in general?

Re:I'm really excited to play this, because... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46739177)

Extremely mixed bag. But most of the ones that won't run in WINE will run in a windows virtual machine in VMware Player. You do have a VLK XP ISO, don't you? Even most of the D3D games will work using that combination. Indeed, games that won't work in XP Mode on Windows 7.

Re:I'm really excited to play this, because... (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 7 months ago | (#46739187)

Last time I touched the VMware Player, full screen mode wasn't supported. Ditto VirtualBox.

Has that changed?

P.S. Fullscreen works in QEmu and DosBox.

Re:I'm really excited to play this, because... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46745535)

Last time I touched the VMware Player, full screen mode wasn't supported. Ditto VirtualBox.

I am not aware of a time when vmware player didn't have full screen support. I have been using it for years. Virtualbox, on the other hand, is an unremitting piece of shit. It also has full screen mode, but the d3d passthrough never works. It always crashes something, usually the VM.

I wonder if it will acutally work (1)

Gilbert Turner (3604601) | about 8 months ago | (#46734197)

After Civ V's horrific performance, They better pick up their game. I'll have to wait until after it releases to decide to purchase it.

Re:I wonder if it will acutally work (2)

Arker (91948) | about 8 months ago | (#46734469)

As a fan of the franchise all the way back the original, I gotta say, I did not buy 5, and I doubt I will buy this either. The days when I thought it was fun to spend as much time in a debugger fixing deliberate breakage as I actually spent playing it are in the past.

Re:I wonder if it will acutally work (1)

Ottawakismet (2798639) | about 7 months ago | (#46816425)

I have 5 and dont play it much. I went back to IV, which I consider to be the still the high point (along with Alpha Centauri) of the franchise. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who was disillusioned with V, my friends like it a lot.

Re:I wonder if it will acutally work (1)

kolbe (320366) | about 8 months ago | (#46735647)

Was just thinking this...

After being bitten by Firaxis on my CivV pre-order, insisting Valve shutdown of my Steam account to ensure I could prove I never played it and then threatening litigation with Firaxis for false claims on a product I wanted a refund for (which I got from them); I have serious doubts about anything they put out.

All they need to do is remake Alpha Centauri like MS is doing Age of Mythology and I think a majority of people will be happy. Anything to the contrary and I'll pirate it just so I can continue giving the bird to EA/Firaxis.

What graphics card will be enough? (3, Interesting)

ChefInnocent (667809) | about 8 months ago | (#46734415)

Is the NVideo GTX TITAN Black or Radeon R9 295X2 going to be enough GPU for the game? Will I have to 3-way SLI or CrossFire them? It seems all the last Civ games have really pushed the graphics envelope which never made much sense to me since I find them to be almost spreadsheet games. I love Civ (particularly 2 & 4), but the video requirements seem excessive. I remember buying a GTX 8800 for Civ 4, and GTX 580 for Civ 5.

Re:What graphics card will be enough? (2)

Nyder (754090) | about 8 months ago | (#46734485)

Is the NVideo GTX TITAN Black or Radeon R9 295X2 going to be enough GPU for the game? Will I have to 3-way SLI or CrossFire them? It seems all the last Civ games have really pushed the graphics envelope which never made much sense to me since I find them to be almost spreadsheet games. I love Civ (particularly 2 & 4), but the video requirements seem excessive. I remember buying a GTX 8800 for Civ 4, and GTX 580 for Civ 5.

I thought you were joking, but I think you are serious.

Civ doesn't push the graphics boundaries at all. You seriously thought you needed a GTX 580 for Civ 5? Runs great on my Nividia 285 from like 5 years ago. Currently I have a 460 in my main gaming machine and it has no problem pumping out high graphics at 1080p on modern games. I'm probably going to need to upgrade in a year or so when the next gen titles start coming out, maybe. But in the last 5 or so years, games have not taken advantage of the power of the graphic cards, except for a few exceptions.

Re:What graphics card will be enough? (1)

ChefInnocent (667809) | about 8 months ago | (#46734517)

I was half joking. I bought the GT 8800 because before Civ4, I was running onboard graphics which wouldn't run the first month (maybe week, that was a while ago), and was severly hobbled until I acquised to buying a better card. I continued to use the 8800 until Civ 5 when it was very clear, it would not even cut the most basic settings. I only upgraded when I was absolutely forced to.

Re:What graphics card will be enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46739567)

I have first hand experience with CIV 4 and CIV 5 being ridiculously demanding on GPUs. I have no idea why, like the previous poster stated, but it is not a joke. Look at a lot of the benchmarks for differing video cards - you'll see how BF3 gets 100 fps and CIV 5 gets 75 fps on the same hardware. Granted this is first hand knowledge but my experience is mirrored in the numerous CIV forums.

Re:What graphics card will be enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46735019)

My own system (Quad 4, 2.5 GHz, 8 G RAM, but with the Intel G4/G5 chipset) simply can't run Civ 5. It worked at the initial release, but one of their updates killed it. So ... I probably won't even consider buying the game; it's too big a waste of money. Sad, I liked it.

Re:What graphics card will be enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46734933)

Not just video Civ games are terrible at memory usage. Never finished a game since Civ4 due to "lack of memory" bugs.

Re:What graphics card will be enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46735631)

Is the NVideo GTX TITAN Black or Radeon R9 295X2 going to be enough GPU for the game? Will I have to 3-way SLI or CrossFire them? It seems all the last Civ games have really pushed the graphics envelope which never made much sense to me since I find them to be almost spreadsheet games. I love Civ (particularly 2 & 4), but the video requirements seem excessive. I remember buying a GTX 8800 for Civ 4, and GTX 580 for Civ 5.

Civ5 is not GPU bound. Its CPU bound. That being said, if you built your gaming rig circa 2010 (when the game was released), you WILL be waiting a long time between end of turns. Recommend a Core i7.

Civilization Reskinned? (2)

poity (465672) | about 8 months ago | (#46734437)

Where is the unit workshop? Just a bs reskin without unit workshop.

Re:Civilization Reskinned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46734677)

The PC Gamer interview mentions that Harmony players can "design" alien units. Whether that actually means "design" or if they meant "researching X unlocks alien-type units" I don't know.

AC successor? Doubt it. (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 8 months ago | (#46734713)

AC successor? Very much doubt it.

The Civ III/IV/V were indicatory of the direction they want to move the game: simplify, make it connected.

I'd say it is an achievement to have a Civ game play out in matter of hours. Marvel of game design. But that is also what made it shallow. When you start the game, you already know approximately how it is going to end. There are few surprises there.

AC to me was THE immersive game. You could play it short way - but that was boring. Or you could play it long way - and see your and game's limits. There are simply more possibilities in the AC, compared to the Civ. As time progresses, there are much more surprises in the game.

To me also it was the first game of the genre I could play on the highest difficulty level. All the info and numbers were there. Unlike the Civ where you have to guess and count number of the icons on the screen.

Re:AC successor? Doubt it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46734903)

i am also pessemistic. spending money on a cgi trailer, and more civ games. the original didn't m they could just released a successor with bug fixes, rebalancing of the units, air power was overpowered, and ways of planning out former activity, better multiplayer, and better ai. they didn't even call it alpha centauri.

on the other hand, firaxis did the impressive job of making a worthy x-com successor. firaxis might surprise me.

With Linux Support! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46734873)

Not even a single person that mentioned it will support Linux?
This fall on Linux, Mac and Windows PC for $49.99, Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth will [...]" [polygon.com]
This is incredible news.

Re:With Linux Support! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46735167)

Indeed. Talk about missing the boat. Twice even. Failure as a heavily linux themed site and failure market. Guess us AC's have to do all the work around here.

Re:With Linux Support! (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 8 months ago | (#46735295)

Indeed, I was about to post something along the lines of "can we stop saying it's for PCs when we all know it means Windows-only?"

I'm glad to hear about the triple-OS release, hopefully the Mac and Linux versions will be native and not Windows executables wrapped inside a shell such as Cider.

Re:With Linux Support! Multiplayer? (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about 8 months ago | (#46735527)

Used to play Civ until breakfast or out-of-memory errors called for a break at LAN parties (Starcraft/BW, too, until they took that away and lost my sales). Better with multiple PCs that hot-seat 'cause you could think ahead more easily.

Still playing AC from the Loki release for Linux. It will be interesting to see how well a simultaneous release works.

Re:With Linux Support! Multiplayer? (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | about 7 months ago | (#46740785)

Man... Loki. I still crack up thinking about the bankruptcy hearings where Scott Draeker was all "as myself, I cannot confirm blah blah but as president of the company, I can tell you that ..."

-l

Re:With Linux Support! (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 7 months ago | (#46738915)

People say that Slashdot has fallen a long way...but that's just sad. A thread about a AAA game which is being released on Linux- with no mention in TFS, nor the chosen TFA, and only a tiny comment batch discussing it.

Even Reddit managed better coverage of the fact this is a Linux game than Slashdot. If I was just relying on Slashdot for my news, I wouldn't even have known this WAS a Linux game.

It will run on linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46735057)

Why the hell isn't that in the post?

AI Optimization? (1)

ITEM-3 (3348273) | about 8 months ago | (#46735245)

The AI in Civ 5 is terrible. Civs have trouble organizing their armies (ranged units up front?), and trying to get a friendly civ to join you in going to war with a common foe is next to impossible unless you go to war when your ally brings it up. If you're already at war, there's no way to get a friendly civ to join you (except for the diplomacy screen, but I've never heard of anyone successfully asking a civ to declare war).

The worst part is how long it takes the game to process the AI's turn. During the first 100 turns, it takes maybe a second to process the next turn, but it grows to 30s - 1min in the late game depending on the map size (at least in my case with a 3.0GHz quad-core CPU and an 8800GTS). It would be great to see some effort put into the optimization of the turn processing algorithm to dampen the exponential increase of processing time.

Also, for once I'd like to play a strategy game where the higher difficulties are differentiated by the intelligence of the AI instead of simply giving them stat bonuses and extra troops/policies/technologies at the beginning.

Re:AI Optimization? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46735701)

You can't have it both ways pal. Either the AI is very smart (and it costs $$$$$ to make and takes lots of computing time) or it is fast and stupid.

  The good solution ofc is to make multiplayer good (contrary to civ V...)

Re:AI Optimization? (2)

cbhacking (979169) | about 8 months ago | (#46735873)

Your requests are, unfortunately, somewhat contradictory. You ask for a smarter AI (that doesn't put ranged units in front, for example) and then ask for one that processes faster. You complain about the late-game AI time (where the decision trees are *huge*), then say you want the AI to give a harder game without handicaps.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see optimizations too. But, I think they did a pretty decent job of balance, especially in the expansions (the original game was kind of bad in many ways, AI included). Diplomacy has gotten a *lot* better, partially because the AI's motivations are more transparent.The AI unit management is non-ideal, but it's rarely outright bad anymore (and can in fact be really good at specific goals, like "capture that barbarian camp"). As for handicaps, the AI *does* play dumber/friendlier at the lower difficulties, and always has; the point at which the AI starts needing to cheat, and the degree of its cheating, has crept up over time though.

Here's a better (and cheaper) game (3, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#46735619)

Here's a better (and cheaper) game:
Banished
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:Here's a better (and cheaper) game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46736215)

Well, does it support linux? Civ claims it will so....

Re:Here's a better (and cheaper) game (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46738187)

Here's a better (and cheaper) game:
Banished
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Banished isn't even in the same genre. You're telling people looking forward to getting a TBS 4X game to go and buy a non-TBS city sim. Even ignoring that, you state it's "better" than a game that has yet to be released (even in alpha/beta form) or reviewed. I suppose it could be considered better in that you can actually play it now, but that's obviously not what you meant.

M-U-L-T-I-P-L-A-Y-E-R (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46735683)

Please, for the love of mankind make the multi NOT suck.

  I love civ V, and civ V (with BNW) is really great but the multiplayer experience is so frustrating. I just can't understand how it can suck so much. Really. There isn't any technical reasons for it to suck that much. Hier someone who has experience in such matters and make the multi awesome. I demand it.

  AI will always suck on civ so multi is the only thing that makes it awesome

It's taken 25 year to decide to build off earth. (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 8 months ago | (#46735703)

When we played Civilization 1 we just assumed the next version would involve the Moon at least, as to win the game; was to conquer the world, or be the first to launch a space ship, when it takes off that's game.

And play it we did, but how much of a step can it be to continue on the moon.

Play the heck out of the Civilization, Microsoft did jump in with Ages of Empires 1 and 11 (only ones I played) which I felt a much better game, but they did have one to copy from.

Re:It's taken 25 year to decide to build off earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46738617)

There was Alpha Centauri, which in my mind is still the best game in the Fraxis/Civ franchise.

Do I need a 12 step program for Civ? Or is it OK? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46735769)

I've been playing this series since the first came out when I was 9. Steam tells me the last few games have claimed man years of my time. No other series has ever captured my attention quite the same way with the feeling of epic strategy.

but... The way I half-assedly justify this vice to myself is that Alzheimers runs in my family on both sides and cracking out on Civ hopefully gives me a decent brain workout, e.g. researchers and those asshats at lumosity saying people doing crosswords, puzzles, etc... stave off the disease longer.

There are worse vices right?

Produced by Team Fail (4, Insightful)

kolbe (320366) | about 8 months ago | (#46737335)

The game is being produced by the same group that put out the failed Civilization V ala Lena Brenk, Dennis Shirk and Lisa Miller. They can pay off all the game reviewers they want, but the simple fact remains that Civilization V sucked when it came out. It might as well have been an expanded version of Civilization Revolution!

For me an countless others out there @ CivFanatics, I am heartbroken that this series has lost its way and any games they have put out since Civilization IV lack any merit as they play like garbage.

I truly hope Sidney Meier actually puts his foot down and ensures this game is done right without the constant pressures from the asshats @ 2K Games & Take-Two shits, but I highly doubt it considering the current industry trend of releasing unfinished games and then gouging their supporters by forcing them to buy DLC and fixes.

Re:Produced by Team Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46737589)

Every major PC franchise has either shifted to console as their base development platform, or attempted to make a casual-friendly, PC-lite experience in order to push more copies. It's sad, but that's the state of PC gaming these days. If you're wanting to get a decent experience that's not built for the lowest common denominator, then you've got to reject any and all familiar IP, as that's the primary way they sucker people in.

Re:Produced by Team Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46738909)

I loved how Master of Orion 2 dealt with that problem: There was a "normal" mode, which allowed you to just play that game and easilly deal with your fleets. Ships received upgrades from new technologies by simply reaching a system of yours.

The tactical mode made the game a different beast. Technology and Upgrade-wise Fleet management became the most important part of the game allowing for numbers of strategies in designing your ships

Re:Produced by Team Fail (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46739171)

They have a console-friendly Civ already though, it's called Civ Revolutions. I actually think it's quite good for a quick game, though it lacks any kind of depth at all. But who wants to play a complex simulator with a gamepad? Hopefully the plan is to develop both lines further. It would be cool if Civ Rev Sequel would have more complexity under the hood, but I'd never want to actually be exposed to it. That's what a PC is for. On the other hand, Microsoft wants the Xbox One to be more PC-like, so perhaps it would make sense to have a bi-modal game (ala moo2, see sibling, I guess. Never was a moo fan.)

w00t! I died! (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 7 months ago | (#46737531)

Now aliens can swoop down and destroy the two cities I finally got updated with a wooden wall. I can't wait! Anyone know what tech in the tech tree comes after pottery? I don't expect I'll get that far in the new version either.

Steam? (1)

J_Darnley (918721) | about 7 months ago | (#46738841)

Will this game be riddled with steam DRM just as Civ5 was?

Re:Steam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46739929)

Oh give it up already. DRM was a hot topic around 2003-2007 timeframe when digital distribution was new and games still sold on CD's with nefarious copy protection mechanics. It is no longer an issue except for a few of the holdovers who still think it's trendy to complain about. You are about as anachronistic as the goofballs who have probably never gone to a lanparty in their life, complaining that a game doesn't have support for LAN multiplayer, in the 2010's, as if high speed internet access was a rare and hard to come by commodity.

Re:Steam? (1)

J_Darnley (918721) | about 7 months ago | (#46739995)

Oh fuck off!

I want to know whether I can play it without being forced to sign up for an account or tie to some account I am uninterested in having.

Re:Steam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46741135)

"probably never gone to a lanparty"

hahahahahaha. Wait, are you being serious?

Re:Steam? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46746693)

Oh give it up already -- DRM is still an issue. Some of us still believe in the concept of ownership. Some of us still do play over the LAN all the time. High speed internet access IS a rare, hard to come by commodity for many. Some of us don't believe in having our accounts able to be banned and having our "access" to all of our supposedly-purchased games vanishing. Etc.

Re:Steam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46746617)

Of course it will be. 2K doesn't publish anything that isn't for the Steam DRM platform.

Just...one...more...turn. (1)

rocket rancher (447670) | about 7 months ago | (#46740313)

Sid Meier, you rock.

Based on Civilization V's engine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46746925)

We must dissent...

Will it be any better than CIV (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 7 months ago | (#46751883)

... vintage 1991.

I'm still playing my original copy, in DOSBox. And for entertainment value, it sets a steep profile to match, let alone beat.

jordan release dates (-1, Flamebait)

fdsdiiom (3616735) | about 7 months ago | (#46754203)

To start with work at your own desired goals, consider what you need outside of spirit. In which will you see yourself with about three, all 5, tenner, 20 or so-several years? How do you envision all your family members? Personalized living? Occupation? Pension? In case you can do anything in the world, what can or not it's? Record all you toy with. The resolution to most of these original queries will help you kind your lifetime ambitions.( http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] | cheap jordan shoes | Jordans For Sale | Air jordan 13 | cheap designer handbags | cheap sunglasses | mens sunglasses | michael jordan | Jordan for cheap | Handbags Wholesale | cheap Jordan | designer sunglasses | jordan release dates | handbags On Sale | http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] )
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?