Thank God...something to save us from civ3 [Archive] - Apolyton Civilization Site Forums

Alphaman

February 27, 2002, 02:04

Originally posted by connorkimbro

There are a few differences that make it seem like it will NOT just be an Age of Empires or Empire Earth clone.

Riiiight....

Just like Civ3 is "radically different" from Civs 1 & 2. Yeh adding "culture radius" and stripping the tech tree... wow totally different. :q:

When software companies start making claims that their game is not like some other game, you know its gonna be a clone. Originality has become a rare commodity in today's gaming world.

connorkimbro

February 27, 2002, 02:10

Just like Civ3 is "radically different" from Civs 1 & 2. Yeh adding "culture radius" and stripping the tech tree... wow totally different.

When software companies start making claims that their game is not like some other game, you know its gonna be a clone.

Nobody from BHG, nor the author of that preview, ever made that claim or even MENTIONED any other RTS.

If you just want to gripe, than by all means, continue unhindered, but if not, then you really should read the article.

Imran Siddiqui

February 27, 2002, 02:13

Definetly looks like a clone.

There are some decent stuff, but nothing to make me buy it. I despise RTS and this won't make me change my mind.

JEEZ, it even looks like AoK!

--

And the thing to save us from Civ3 was SimGolf... I recommend you play it!

DinoDoc

February 27, 2002, 02:17

I despise RTS and this won't make me change my mind.

Real time isn't bad, Imran. I suggest giving some Blizzard games a try before writing off the genera completely.

Alexander's Horse

February 27, 2002, 02:19

If Brian can find a way to combine rts with tbs that would be very good.

Imran Siddiqui

February 27, 2002, 02:20

I've tried Starcraft.

Like the story, didn't like the game. Though it was better than any RTS I've ever played before (and Warcraft II sucked ass).

connorkimbro

February 27, 2002, 02:43

The thing that bothered me the most about RTS games so much was it was a constant scramble for resources, and this seems to be curtailed rather well in this game. The second thing was it was always a unit rush type thing. Sure, some units countered others, but as long as you built the units in the right perportions and had them mixed well, you could still send in a mass group, and they'd do well enough. This game does NOT seem to be all about warfare, but that there are actual viable alternatives to war. (i don't mean the "alternative" in AoE, build wonders and then, defend them from a military attack. yeah right.)

So, i'm slightly more optomistic about this game. . .

Dis

February 27, 2002, 03:10

real time?

blasphemy

Alphaman

February 27, 2002, 03:46

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
If Brian can find a way to combine rts with tbs that would be very good.

Those two things are mutually exclusive by definition. Perhaps you are asking the impossible?

GePap

February 27, 2002, 03:50

RTS games can be improved, though there are limits. I love cossacks, since it allows for much better tactical control with inbuilt formation commands and so forth. I have a little faith that something new can come of this.

Dis

February 27, 2002, 03:52

I have a little hope

but they better make it like a TBS game

you should be able to pause anywhere and issue commands etc.

Urban Ranger

February 27, 2002, 03:55

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Real time isn't bad, Imran. I suggest giving some Blizzard games a try before writing off the genera completely.

I did. That's why I dislike the genre so much :p

DinoDoc

February 27, 2002, 03:59

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I did. That's why I dislike the genre so much :p

Oh well. That's how I got introduced to the genera and the main reason why I like it.

Urban Ranger

February 27, 2002, 04:27

Some RT (I removed the "strategic" part on purpose) aren't bad. I played Seven Kingdoms Ancient Enemies which was decent though not excellent. I tried Capitalism 2 which is excellent (this is actually a RTS).

I personally don't like Europa Universalis but many respected people swears by it.

Imran Siddiqui

February 27, 2002, 04:38

Ah, EU... it is technically an RTS... but nothing like Starcraft (I guess we should call them RTT - Real Time Tactical). I like Close Combat as well. The whole get the resources faster than the other guy doesn't appeal to me, and this game seems no different. You still have to beat the guy to the resource, they just make the management of that easier.

And the 'idea' has been done... Empire Earth and AoE.

Dis

February 27, 2002, 04:39

and yes play sim golf.

a good game deserves better recognition. but I suppose that is how it goes. usually stupid games top those best seller lists. :)

Sarxis

February 28, 2002, 01:34

Civ1 = Great!
Civ2 = Awesome!
SMAC = Phenomenal!!

Firaxis - Brian Reynolds = Civ3 no so great

Brian Reynolds + Rise of Nations = X

Where X is an unknown quantity of game designing brilliance.

Cookie Monster

February 28, 2002, 11:46

I said in the other thread on this folder that I would give this game a chance even though I despise RTS clickfests.

After giving the subject some more thought I think I'm not gonna waste my hard earn cash on another RTS rush clickfest. I'll try the demo if there is one.

Let's face it. In this life someone always will promise you the moon (doesn't matter who it is game god Brian Reynolds/Sid Meier or the garbageman) but end up delivering you a pizza.

No matter what, this world is only about making money and living large while laughing at the proletariate. We live like dogs in cardboard boxes playing the games they promised would be awesome but sucked and they got our money bwahaahaahaaa!!!When it comes down to it folks, people just want to make money and if they can dupe people into handing over their money they'll do it.

:zzz: no more rts clones....

Make your claims about that "this is different I promise please buy my game".

You know what, then give me my TBS game. There's no such thing as a fun "civ" type RTS game.

I'd rather take a chisel and jam it in my ear. Oooh that smarts when I do that. :lol:

lord of the mark

February 28, 2002, 19:33

Originally posted by Alphaman

Those two things are mutually exclusive by definition. Perhaps you are asking the impossible?

Er, uh Sid Meiers has said that Simcity was an inspiration for Civ 1.
Simcity is realtime.

"oh, thats just technically realtime. When we say realtime, we mean a warcraft clone"

the whole point of combining rt and TBS is based on the idea that RT has advantages beyond the warcraft clone genre.

LOTM

Bkeela

March 1, 2002, 04:03

I admit I'm quite disappointed at this news. I certainly expected more than an Empire Earth clone. I think I may have even foolishly imagined he would invent a new genre or something.

Bkeela.

FrostyBoy

March 1, 2002, 06:54

Do it right Brian, don't fall for anything less, don't say 'oh we can't do it coz its too hard to implement', that's how you will lose, Games SUCK these days, and I mean SUCK

mohaa is the only game (recent game) that has some professional feel to it, ppl just don't make games like that anymore, and its gonna kill the industry one day, you're all backstabbing yourselves, oh you're so proud of what you have created, blah blah blah, on and on and ON. Don't try to be some hardcore guy who has started his own pet company who makes his dream come true and you think everyones gonna love you and you're gonna make lots of $$$. Don't you dare say this is not a clone, not until you can prove it, not until you can say that 50% of Rise of Nations is nothing like Empire Earth, AoE and AoK; because the brutal truth is, your first creation, your beacon to the world, the one that advertises your company as a real player in the industry, must work, it must be replayable, it must be big, it must be huge, it must not be just about war, war should only be 25% of the game, the rest should be about diplomacy, trade, technology, discovery, we are talking about Rise of Nations here aren't we, not Rise of War, right?

Your first game is your last chance, don't screw it up.

ColdFever

March 1, 2002, 08:49

Hi SnOOpy,
you use pretty hefty words, but you express many of my thoughts.

Originally posted by Sn00py
ppl just don't make games like that anymore, and its gonna kill the industry one day

It appears to me too, that the gaming industry might take the way the music industry did, where most of the current titles are only polished clones and to taste something fresh you have to listen to very old stuff.

Originally posted by Sn00py
it must not be just about war, war should only be 25% of the game, the rest should be about diplomacy, trade, technology, discovery, we are talking about Rise of Nations here aren't we, not Rise of War, right?

Applause, exactly my opinion. But I am afraid we belong to a minority. Most player love hefty confrontations and judging by the screenshots RoN will exactly give this to the broad audience.

However, if anybody is able to do something fresh IMHO it is Brian and his team. When I look back at what titles I really love and still play after years, his name his behind many of them. With Brians historical and technical education RoN has to be the fullfillment of a dream for him, so I am pretty sure, if he will love the game, I also will. And as always with a B.R. game the best parts will probably be below the surface and not show on screenshots. I think the long development time speaks for itself.

btw: Sn00py, your additional Civ3 art is so marvelous, perhaps you should apply at BHG. I could not play Civ3 anymore without your work. Excellent!

Jeje2

March 1, 2002, 09:18

I'm too a little concerned that RoN will be too much of WAR.
It's a part of the game, not the game IMHO.

Since the CivIII failure I've been playing BR's Colonization.
Had totally forgotten this masterpiece - sure hope someone would do a sequel to that one :D

Steve Clark

March 1, 2002, 11:14

Originally posted by Alphaman
Those two things are mutually exclusive by definition. Perhaps you are asking the impossible?

Not at all. Gangsters had a turn-based planning screen then a real-time action screen. But perhaps the best example is Shogun, a turn-based strategy game with a real-time battle game.

It's not that real-time is bad, remember many of our favorites games are real time: Pirates, Railroad Tycoon 1 and 2, the City Building series, and so on. It's just the combat-centric, ant-management crap like AoE that many here rails against and for very good reasons.

RoN looks more like an EE clone than an AoE clone. But that is what Brian has always wanted to do...appeal to those gamers that have an attention span of gnat's burp. What a waste, imo.

lord of the mark

March 1, 2002, 12:07

Originally posted by Steve Clark

RoN looks more like an EE clone than an AoE clone. But that is what Brian has always wanted to do...appeal to those gamers that have an attention span of gnat's burp. What a waste, imo.

Im not sure. The notion of making a real time civ has been challenging for some time. Thats what AOE originally was supposed to be - but it ended up being warcraft in historical dress - civish names for units and techs, but not truely civish gameplay. Nonetheless it created its own successful subgenre, historically flavored real time tactical(with some grand strategy) games (AOK, cossack, america, even to some extent Shogun, IIUC) with greater and lesser degrees of combat accuracy.

I've never played empire earth, but IIUC what rick goodman did was take the AOE formula and make it more "civish" by going to the full 6000 years +, thus making it "more like civ" than AOE/AOK. but in other respects it remained very close to AOE/AOK, not civ.

Brian seems to be making another go at civ in real time. While starting with an AOE/EE approach (building, peasants, etc) rather than an EU approach, I cannot rule out that he will make a truer compromise than Goodman or Shelley did. He certainly understands the unique aspects of TB civ. His comments look positive - he mentions a political aspect of development - shich is completely absent from AOE/AOK, (and AFAIK from EE) which is one of the crucial aspects of Civ) It also sounds like a city will be more a coherent entity not just a collection of buildings. So i will hold my breath

LOTM

Apocalypse

March 1, 2002, 16:29

One of the great things about RoN is that you can make it as little or as much about war as you would like. If you want mainly a peaceful game, just make the attrition much higher. If you want war to be the main aspect, you will be able to turn on unlimited resources so combat will be the only thing you focus on.

ColdFever

March 2, 2002, 01:24

Originally posted by Jeje2
I'm too a little concerned that RoN will be too much of WAR.
It's a part of the game, not the game IMHO.

Regarding this I just found this interesting statement at
http://pc.ign.com/articles/354/354570p3.html:

Big Huge Games is making sure there's plenty of ways to play and win. In addition to the various skirmish modes, you'll find historical campaigns, conquest victories, territory victories, team multiplayer games, free-for-all, purely diplomatic games where peace treaties are strictly enforced, a team diplomacy game, as well as any number of user-defined game types. "What I find when I play RTS games online are many rooms with names like 'No Rushing,' so we have a whole set of 'No Rushing' game types," says Brian. "For example, you might pick 'Peace Until Gunpowder,' so you can't attack anyone until you develop gunpowder. You can even have a peaceful game all the way through and make it so the winner is the first player to the Information Age."

This certainly is good news for "civilized players". However regarding game speed the following info somewhat concerns me, taken from
http://www.gamespy.com/previews/march02/riseofnations/

You really can play it on your lunch hour. Playtesters so far are able to go from the Stone Age to the Information Age in roughly 56 minutes, so you'll really get to feel the march of time.

Capt Dizle

March 14, 2002, 02:38

Thats silly. It should be more like 56 hours. Rubbish game, garbage game. I am giving up hope.

Apocalypse

March 14, 2002, 16:50

You can play it in that time. If you ad in pauses (which can sometimes be very long) and use the various settings to make for longer games, it can be many hours long.

Jack_www

March 20, 2002, 20:52

My experence with Civ3 has taught me a huge lession when it comes to buying computer games, dont take anther person's word for it. Play the demo yourself first, then decide if you want to purchase the game. I do like Civ3, but I have already gotten tried of it. The stupid computer does the samething all the time, and you can wipe the floor with AI. All the AI does in Civ3 to stay ahead is cheat, and they do this for every other game. Getting off of the topic now. I am going to play the demo first before I will consider buying the game. I dont want to waste $50 on a game that I will get every little enjoyment form.