I read on Kotaku and PC Gamer that this is only planned for Korean release so not much point in paying any attention or even putting too much thought into this until a North American and European release is even on the table.
Originally posted by CharSol I read on Kotaku and PC Gamer that this is only planned for Korean release so not much point in paying any attention or even putting too much thought into this until a North American and European release is even on the table.
Originally posted by CharSol I read on Kotaku and PC Gamer that this is only planned for Korean release so not much point in paying any attention or even putting too much thought into this until a North American and European release is even on the table.
It's a serious mismatch of what Civ players are interested in and what the game promises to deliver. Civ players want to make high-level decisions for a civilization; this is a game where it appears that players will mostly be doing the low-level tasks. In Civ, you order the pyramids built; in Civ Online, you're the serf carrying the stone blocks from the quarry to the top of the mound. I don't see players tripping over themselves to sign up for that.
Also, MMO grand strategy games have a number of deep and persistent problems that nobody has been able to satisfactorily solve yet. The most widespread problem is "that guy who lives in his mother's basement that has way more time than you", which inevitably results in the least socially adjusted individuals ending up on top of the online social order, just because they have more time than anyone else. Along the same lines is "those guys who only talk to each other and not to anyone else and always band together and crush everyone else with no chance for diplomacy." Fun!
While I'm on a pessimistic streak, a prediction: this will be all warfare all the time. Winning Civ has always been about warfare, and I don't see this as being any different. (Oh sure, there are diplomatic or cultural victory conditions - but those are primarily there for when you're bored of crushing your enemies through warfare and just want a change of pace for a game or two, before you go back to crushing your enemies through warfare.) They can add in vague penalties for declaring war all they want, it won't change the simple fact that the easiest way to get stuff is to find someone who has it and hitting him over the head.
Final pessimistic prediction: cash shop. Ask players of CivVille on Facebook if you think Firaxis has any aversion to pay-2-win.
Unusually it seems, I very rarely complete my CIV games through warfare, it is very much on the backburner for me. I primarily win through science but with the new CIV V expansion I am still trying to achieve the illusive culture victory (Although I don't really understand all of this Culture/Tourism business yet). I tend to build strong defences, keep my army up to date and generally at least matching all of my competition then bump up my economy as high as I can while I attempt to reach my chosen victory condition. I don't start wars, I just end them.
Happy to see this. It feels like a natural step in the evolution of that franchise. I really hope that they can make it work. Building it the way that they intend to puts a lot of trust on the playerbase, and that's a fickle lover if ever there was one, but if I know one thing about Mr. Meier (and I know a couple of things), even if the first run doesn't exactly hit it on the mark, he will keep on improving the design until it becomes a really good game. I'm looking forward to it.
Originally posted by acelee74 i heard this game was going to be only an asian release only, that it would only be released in Skorea. i hope this is not true. but i already read about it so we will soon see i guess.
well, they have made a english homepage for the game.
While I'm interested, but that summary sounds like it's doomed for some of the worst "realm problems" you will have ever experienced..
They really have to think about how they're going to handle the whole "most players wins, PERIOD" aspect they've developed with the systems described..
Comments
All I see is a game called Civilization Online and not Sid Meiers Civilization Online. Also no mention of Firaxis at all...
Meh. 2K might have the rights to the name, but that does not make this a true Civ game.
Yeah, just reading the same thing myself
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/08/08/civilization-online-north-america/ <<<<<< Link to the article.
Just wait for the hype
It will get to here. 
# A GRIM, ODD, ARCANE SKY
# ANY GOD, I MARK SACRED
# A MASKED CRY ADORING
# A DREAMY, SICK DRAGON
I'm pessimistic.
It's a serious mismatch of what Civ players are interested in and what the game promises to deliver. Civ players want to make high-level decisions for a civilization; this is a game where it appears that players will mostly be doing the low-level tasks. In Civ, you order the pyramids built; in Civ Online, you're the serf carrying the stone blocks from the quarry to the top of the mound. I don't see players tripping over themselves to sign up for that.
Also, MMO grand strategy games have a number of deep and persistent problems that nobody has been able to satisfactorily solve yet. The most widespread problem is "that guy who lives in his mother's basement that has way more time than you", which inevitably results in the least socially adjusted individuals ending up on top of the online social order, just because they have more time than anyone else. Along the same lines is "those guys who only talk to each other and not to anyone else and always band together and crush everyone else with no chance for diplomacy." Fun!
While I'm on a pessimistic streak, a prediction: this will be all warfare all the time. Winning Civ has always been about warfare, and I don't see this as being any different. (Oh sure, there are diplomatic or cultural victory conditions - but those are primarily there for when you're bored of crushing your enemies through warfare and just want a change of pace for a game or two, before you go back to crushing your enemies through warfare.) They can add in vague penalties for declaring war all they want, it won't change the simple fact that the easiest way to get stuff is to find someone who has it and hitting him over the head.
Final pessimistic prediction: cash shop. Ask players of CivVille on Facebook if you think Firaxis has any aversion to pay-2-win.
wonder if this is ingame, or a prerendered movie
well, they have made a english homepage for the game.
http://civilizationonline.com/
While I'm interested, but that summary sounds like it's doomed for some of the worst "realm problems" you will have ever experienced..
They really have to think about how they're going to handle the whole "most players wins, PERIOD" aspect they've developed with the systems described..