| Main Civ II Civ III CTP II SMAC RoN GalCiv MoO3 Alt.Civs Misc About | |||
![]() |
News | Archive Interviews The Column Newsletter | Radio Contests Forums Links | Chat |
||
|
| |||
| |||
|
THE COLUMN CIVILIZATION III By Tim Bromige July 15, 2000 NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.
Civilization was a great game. No-one reading these pages is going to disagree with that. Meier and chums updated it in Civ2 without breaking a single thing. All that was good about the original stayed and what could be improved was improved. Result: Civ2 was a great game. Why then, do the various spods and geeks who infest sites like this, seem to think that the same can't be done with Civ3? Are they so dense that they cannot see that major surgery of the sort they are discussing (e.g. no micro-management, no cities, spherical worlds) will mean that the game is not Civ3, but Something Else 1? So, here's a question. If, as we are all agreed, Civilization was so great, why don't we play it any more? The answer should be, "because we have Civ2." If Sid and his boys do a major hatchet job on Civ2 in creating Civ3, then the link will be broken. Therefore, I say, do unto Civ2 what you did unto Civ and if you disappoint the sort of people who have been urging a complete departure from the original, then you have my vote.
Want to comment on this article? The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.
|
|
Apolyton Civilization Site -- Copyright © Daniel Quick
All trademarks and trade names are the property of their respective owners. | |