Civilization MMORPG

[KMFJD]

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/0...ive-jake-song-introduces-civilization-online/

not sure how this will go, sounds like horrible pvp

 

[CPA]

noooooooooooooooooooo....................

Did no one learn anything from SimCity?

 

[Bateluer]

My God . . . hasn't Civilization been dumbed down for kiddies enough in Civ5.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

How can you call it an MMORPG when it's not an RPG?

 

[lupi]

How can you call it an MMORPG when it's not an RPG?

I don't see it referred to as such anywhere in the article.

And this sounds like an epic failure, at least in so far as having anything truly to do with civilization.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I don't see it referred to as such anywhere in the article.

And this sounds like an epic failure, at least in so far as having anything truly to do with civilization.

I don't see anywhere I said the article referred to it as such.

 

[Sulaco]

I'm waiting for a Civilization-themed modern military FPS myself.

dude brah, thatd be fckin awwwesum.

 

[acheron]

It's "probably" F2P, so fuck it. It's kind of a cool idea but there is no way it will work.

Anyway this has nothing to do with the real Civilization series; Firaxis is completely uninvolved. 2K is just slapping the name on it.

 

[lupi]

I don't see anywhere I said the article referred to it as such.

Yeah sherlock, and I don't see where I said you did.

 

[hans030390]

I thought it sounded interesting.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Meh...Sorry I just don't get the appeal of turning this game into MMO.

 

[Via]

I think Civ online could work.

But it would have to include everything.

- starting your village from scratch on a simple plot
- delicate balance between available inhabitants and available food
- detailed resource management: for ex. - you can only wield clubs until you mine or trade for minerals and learn forging techniques.
- the morale of your populace would be a major factor in growth and expansion, and adhering to a dominant culture's philosophies would bring hefty bonuses.
- wonders would take forever if you don't collaborate with other players
- you can't be completely obliterated by larger empires. Remnants of your tribe would always remain to be rebuilt. That way you could secretly restart within another culture's borders and destroy them from within. This would force dominant societies to consider accepting you rather that just wiping you out.

Can you imagine being the "Roman Empire" on a server of hundreds of players, and having to delegate authority to vassals you hope you can trust?

I like the idea.

 

[Chiropteran]

There are already hundreds of mass multiplayer web games like civilization, so it's a proven concept.

Tribal wars, ikarium, etc.

 

[Slammy1]

"But even though the MMO is based on the series of strategy games, CO is not to be mistaken as simply an online version of turn-based warfare or a continuation of the canceled Facebook game. In fact, Civilization Online will definitely be a MMORPG, where players are a single character within the civilization -- as opposed to, say, a unit of armies -- and will influence a persistent and dynamic world by helping to advance their civilization through the ages. "

EDIT: Am I missing something?

 

[soccerballtux]

^hm thats interesting.

 

[darkewaffle]

It could be kind of cool to be part of a country/continent/empire and each one would progress through the various ages/gain different benefits/tech/etc depending on the aggregate actions of the players. But I feel like having the right number of 'factions' and ensuring that one doesn't become all-powerful could be difficult to balance; additionally unless civilizations rise and eventually fall and the player's intent is to 'hop' from one to the other, it seems like a given civ would inevitably run out of stuff to do at some point.

Though I think the elephant in the room is how do you alter the scope of the civ mechanics to be fun and playable for an individual 'civilian'. Combat and trade are easy, but I'm not sure how culture/religion/diplomacy/technology/etc would all fit.

 

[JTsyo]

"But even though the MMO is based on the series of strategy games, CO is not to be mistaken as simply an online version of turn-based warfare or a continuation of the canceled Facebook game. In fact, Civilization Online will definitely be a MMORPG, where players are a single character within the civilization -- as opposed to, say, a unit of armies -- and will influence a persistent and dynamic world by helping to advance their civilization through the ages. "

EDIT: Am I missing something?

You play civ to be king not sheeple. I got a feeling this is targeting someone other than traditional civ players.

 

[Via]

I just had a great idea for an online Civ-type game: the ability to create your own wonders and tech.

If your civ is rich enough you could design from scratch and build a huge monument or temple to yourself. The bigger the better. If your wonder is great enough others would travel from all over the server to see it and pay homage.

As far as tech goes: you can amass some kind of "tech" or "research" unit that you can use to refine your own technological advancements.

 

[SunnyD]

I think Civ online could work.

But it would have to include everything.

- starting your village from scratch on a simple plot
- delicate balance between available inhabitants and available food
- detailed resource management: for ex. - you can only wield clubs until you mine or trade for minerals and learn forging techniques.
- the morale of your populace would be a major factor in growth and expansion, and adhering to a dominant culture's philosophies would bring hefty bonuses.
- wonders would take forever if you don't collaborate with other players
- you can't be completely obliterated by larger empires. Remnants of your tribe would always remain to be rebuilt. That way you could secretly restart within another culture's borders and destroy them from within. This would force dominant societies to consider accepting you rather that just wiping you out.

Can you imagine being the "Roman Empire" on a server of hundreds of players, and having to delegate authority to vassals you hope you can trust?

I like the idea.

That's called EVE Online.

 

[Via]

That's called EVE Online.

Meh, I played Eve for a bit and it didn't feel anything like a civ game.

 

[SunnyD]

Meh, I played Eve for a bit and it didn't feel anything like a civ game.

I didn't say EVE was a good game, but the mechanics of what you describe essentially match the corporation/alliance user experience of EVE to a tee. Just transpose the term "civilization" with "alliance" and you essentially have it.

 

[acheron]

Turns out this is only being released in Korea at first.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/08/09/awww-civilization-online-korea-only-for-now/