You are right that 7 civs are way too little, but thats the only point I can agree with.

The rest is nonsense, assumptions and made-up scary stories. You in no way know whats going on at Firaxis! You have never known and you will never know. Nobody here knows, so dont try to scare everyone here with your horror stories.

quote: You have never known and you will never know

He (Fiera) and we will know when CivIII is out. And I think this arcticle is not nonsens, it only expresses fears about CivIII, and the author is not the only one who has these fears, when I look into threads hear about "7 civs", "unique units" etc.

The 7 civilization limit is truly worying (especially for scenario makers), but it is not yet certain as new previews seem to suggest, so I have some hope on this issue.

Graphics could also turn out to be annoying in Civ 3. I actively dislike stupid animations and turn them off wherever I can and I really don't need to see some overrendered units. From the screenshots so far it seems that the graphics aren't overdone, so I am satisfied - unless the animations cannot be turned off that is.

I don't know how unique civilizations will turn out to be, but they will definitely be editable - Firaxis stated that on their website already, so I am not worried. If they turn out to be good, so be it. Should they detract from the game, I will simply edit them to make them all the same. No problems there. In fact, the potential of being able (and not compelled) to assign different attributes to civs could be very useful for scenario-makers.

quote: Good column, Fiera, Firaxis and Sid have had more than their fair share of hero-worship, but perhaps it is a little too harsh.

Yes, the column is pretty provoking, but in this case, I think it is better than a "Fireaxis-and-SidMeier-are-Gods-nobody-can-criticise-them" style...

Jeez, I agree with Ata... I don't normally roll my eyes in real life, but I found myself doing it over and over again.

A waste of a column, I think. This is like those Y2K people who said that the world was going to end.

quote: Yeah,MarkG you're right.

Since I recently discovered the secret of "careful reading" in the OT forum I have to say the column is not by MarkG.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The WORST thing that could happen is a Civ 2.5 -- I want a Civ3. If that means playing the game a bit (hopefully a LOT) differently and learning all kinds of new things...GREAT! God forbid if my 10-year-old strategies won't actually work anymore...

As for the 7 civ-limit, not enough is known about that.

As for "eye candy," I'm sick of people who say graphics aren't important in Civ. THEY ARE IMPORTANT! You zero-sum people should go play ANSI games again.

Religion? Would be great but could they really make it work? Europa Universalis has done some interesting things...perhaps Civ3 will rip some of those ideas of Paradox.

And all the other stuff: Who knows yet? Nobody. I bet even Firaxis is still toying around with things.

Its too early to stamp a civ 2.5 label on this product however from what we have been shown so far...... i fear the worst.

It seems pretty obvious the game is going to be a revamped SMAC engine with an interface similar to the CTP series and for all of you RTS players i suppose a AOE set of plus and minuses for each civ (although SMAC factions had this as well)

Personally i didn't like the CTP interface but IF you want a new game i would assume a new game would come with a new interface.

As for not touching all of the ideas..... gee there is a surprise

How many pages did we send them? 501 i believe! Crap if 10 of those ideas are in i say that Apolyton as a community should take pride in their efforts.

Personally i don't want CTP or SMAC..... CTP tried to go way beyound civ2..... and failed miserably for the most part.....

One major problem can develop if the unique civs are too different from one antother, as a few civ's disadvantages make them less desirable than others. But that is topic best saved for another thread.

quote: Originally posted by War4ever on 05-07-2001 12:04 AM It seems pretty obvious the game is going to be a revamped SMAC engine with an interface similar to the CTP series and for all of you RTS players i suppose a AOE set of plus and minuses for each civ (although SMAC factions had this as well)

This is too funny. What if AOE would have never had this? Then it would be good. HAHAHAHA. Most stupid argument I have ever seen.
The unique ability idea is much longer there than AOE. And if you would have noticed in SMAC the factions also had some kind of unique abilities. Not really, but they had their ups and downs. But in SMAC it was okay.

quote: Many games have pros and cons. Civ 2 has them. Before we go radiacally changing things and making a game which doens't work, i think we should fix the things that didn't and revise the ones that do.

That would mean creating Civ2.5

I also do expect something new. It should still be Civ, but I expect a completely different look and feel.

BUT I WANT PORTUGAL IN A REAL CIVILIZATION GAME!!!!

Portugal wasn't on Colonization (wich I consider a big flaw, not having heard about a country called Brazil), not in Civ2, just in CTP...

I think you are right about Firaxis not listening. I noticed that at least 3/4 is missing from the list SO FAR.
I could agree that there are just too many things people want, but why not include the MAJOR ones??? Why not include 32civs???
Do they think that a 3 digit binary # will cut the lag from the game if replaced instead of a 5 digit #?
Cant they make 8-civs supported and the rest NOT?
I wouldnt give one boogie if they didnt provide support for the whole game if it was good enough.
But the point is: It just aint!
I did never expect to see a civ(infinite) or even civ(very large number) or even the Last Civ There. But I wanna see AT LEAST civ 5!
from Everything what i've heard: it sounds like civ 4.3
Adding civ1+civ2+ctp1+ctp2 and plus this improvement.
Of corse it will get better when its released, but I dont expect it to be what Firaxis claim it to be! NOT civ3(5), but civ 4.5

quote: Originally posted by ancient on 05-06-2001 09:21 PM but i still have greaty hopes for the game and still put my trusts in sid and the rest of the firaxis team (except for steve chao.. dont know whats up with him.. just look at him.. ). [This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 06, 2001).]

Hey, get off my monkey.... uh, I mean uh.... that's not nice.

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 05-07-2001 12:39 PM Snapcase, Fiera is talking about the ideas in the "Essential Civ3 List". a list of ten items which came out after a lot of discussion and participation of lots of people....

Does that necessarily make them any better?

My impression is that theyve found a really good balance between making this civ3 rather than civ2.5 on the one hand, and losing the essence of "civ-ness" on the other. Many of the changes like limiting ICS, and adding a more elaborate culture model will make Civ3 MORE "civish" than civ2 was, IMHO. I am on the whole pleased. Which is why i find the whole unique civs thing so annoying. If they were really screwing up the game it wouldnt matter so much, but they're not. I doubt its possible to eliminate the idea at this point, since they have mentioned it in public, and i dont think its just units you get as result of what you do, cause i think they could have explained that already. My hopes are raised by the fact that they dont seem to have mentioned it much lately, so I'm hoping it wont dominate gameplay a la AOE.

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 05-07-2001 03:43 PM Hey, lord of the mark, I don't think you need to worry about unnique civs at all. Firaxis said the civilizations will be editable, so you can just erase all the differences. That will also keep everyone happy - those that do and those that do not want unique civs.

Good but this leaves 2 concerns -
1. the AI. IF the unique civs are important, and AI expects them, and i turn them off, this will make AI even easier to beat, no?

2. The civ community

I dont want strategy boards to be dominated by how to play different "races"

3. Im a bit of a grognard (if you havent noticed) Stupid things gall me. I dont care if its just a game, i treat games like movies, books etc. I dont want junk around(yeah i know thats too strong), especially not from the likes of Sid Meiers.

LOTM

But the biggest problem I had with it is that he first says that he does not want Civ 2.5 but a new game. But then says that the best way to make the game is to fix what is wrong in the previous games. I am sorry but that isn't what I want. That is how Microprose made Civ II, a few changes from the original and I quickly became bored. I am happy with what Firaxis appears to be doing with Civ III. It appears to me that I will have to learn entirely new strategies, that the old ones will not work and that I will have to become a new type of Civ player. I can only hope.

I think that a better implementation for the special unit idea would be to create "paths." If a particular civilization follows a certain path through the game (i.e. focuses on war, economics, peace, happiness, exploration, etc.) then it could be awarded special opportunites along the way (like units). This would allow the player to chose his or her own destiny rather than have it dictated by the choice of civ. It wouldn't be something you'd be stuck on once you started, either; you'd be able to shift between them gradually througho