Civ1->Civ2 versus Civ2->Civ3

[polypheus]

Lately there have been a ton of threads and posts from pessimistic forum participants lamenting on how Civ3 will really be just Civ2.5. This is somewhat understandable since the expectations were unrealistically high and many of the sought after features (many of which were impractical or conflicting) aren't going to be in the game.

Nevertheless, what strikes me as astonishing is that some of these same participants make the ridiculous claim that Civ1->Civ2 was such a "big leap" forward but claim that Civ2->Civ3 will be a smaller leap. This makes absolutely no sense whatsover!

Am I the only one who felt that Civ1->Civ2 was not really such a big leap at all? I mean what truly innovative new features and gameplay idea were there in Civ2 that made it such a big leap?

The AI wasn't better. The diplomacy was only superficially better but the way the AI behaved it was essentially war/peace mostly anyway. The combat model was slighly better (due to implementation of HPs) and the tech tree was deeper and there was more units to play with. Now I enjoy playing Civ2 but to tell the truth when it came out, I was mostly disappointed as I really felt at the time that Civ1->Civ2 only contained a few marginal improvements but nothing close to having any new breakthough concepts!

Now contrast with Civ2->Civ3.
1 The combat model is vastly improved because of implementation of stacked armies and apparently some kind of "bombard" concept (for catapults, etc) and also national support of armies from the treasury.
2 Culture and Borders and Nationality Concept - truly innovative and breakthrough concepts!
3 Strategic Resources and Luxuries
4 Much deeper diplomacy (trade embargoes, non-aggression pacts, mix-and-match negotiations, etc.)
5 An AI that should at least be as good as the best version of the SMAC AI (which though flawed was still a big improvement over Civ2 AI)
6 Great Leaders concept

IMHO, the leap between Civ2-Civ3 is
orders of magnitude larger that between Civ1->Civ2 and yet many claim that they are dissappointed that Civ2->Civ3 won't be the "big leap" that Civ1->Civ2 was.

Do I and others wish and hope that Civ3 could be even better and have even more features than what is currently known? Of course! But the improvements and innovations are still sufficient to merit Civ3 as truly being Civ3 and not Civ2.5. Contrast that with Civ2 which really IMO actually turned out to be just a Civ1.5!

[Father Beast]

Polypheus, thank you.
I was going to post this very thread, but hadn't figured out how to say it.

Yes, civ2 was basically civ1 with a different graphics engine, some tweaks, and a cheat menu.

Go and check the "My review of civ3" thread for a review of civ2 which I wrote in yin style, saying how crappy a game civ2 was. in his opinion.

It seems to me that in EVERY CATEGORY civ2 was improved from civ1, civ3 is being improved from civ2. and there's the new resources and culture also.

In my opinion, you can hate civ3 if you want. you can also hate civ2 for the same reasons. it deserves it more.

I love civ2 and will love civ3 even more

[Recurve]

It’s a widely held view that Civ 2 was in fact Civ 1.5. But it’s a hell of a game nonetheless.

On to Civ 3 then, if you were asked to participate in its development you’d give it 100%, right. Well I believe the Firaxis “team” aren’t giving the project 100% (more like 75% at best). Most of the pessimism you see around here has a solid foundation – for one, we’ve all seen the screenshots.

I’ll buy the game anyway, but I’ve got no illusions. Civ 3 will probably be Civ 2.

[The diplomat]

YES!!! Finally someone who is speaking my kind of talk!

You are so right: civ3 will NOT be merely civ2.5 Like you said, when you look at trade, ressources, culture, we see that civ3 will have brand new concepts that will change the game forever.

With all honesty let's look at civ2

Tiles with special ressources did absolutely NOTHING except increase the amount of shields, food or luxuries. Civ 3 will have ressources that actually CHANGE gameplay. Some ressources will enable the construction of unique units. Other ressources will give the city REAL gameplay benefits like more happiness.

The trade model was nonexistent. It was just about building lots of carvans to make more gold, that is all. Civ 3 will have a REAL trade model where you can actually trade real ressources for money and get REAL gameply benefits for getting ressources from another civ!

Civ 3 will have culture which did not exist at all in civ2. Culture will have REAL gameplay affects, such as faciliting diplomacy, expanding borders to reach new ressources, and converting enemy cities. This is huge!

Diplomacy is revamped with an all new bargaining table allowing any combination of deals.

Civ 3 will have stacked combat, bombardment, and Great Leaders.

I am not bashing good old civ2 but the fact is undisputable that civ 3 will introduce brand new concepts which hopefully will vastly improve the game.

Now, some say that civ3 is not radical enough because the basic core game mechanics is not radically different. I think the real issue is marketing. Either FIRAXIS upsets those who want a radical civ and please the "conservatives" or they make a radically new game to please the "radicals" but then they upset the "conservatives". Firaxis can't please everybody so they have decided to compromise.

I for one can't wait to play civ3. I can't wait to see what the new ressources and trade concepts are like. I can't wait to see the new diplomacy and culture. These features look AMAZING! And, I am hoping that I won't be dissapointed.

[DarkCloud]

Civ III should really have just been

Civ I with Alpha Centauri
instead of the new 'resource' modeling and the trashy new graphics... heck even alpha centauri's units LOOKED like units. These units in Civ III look like horrible Call to Power units...

I hate the way everything is going 3D- look at age of empires, they called its 2D graphics 'backwards' but they also praised how good the game looked 2D is better than 3D right now.

The Civ III units look as if they are too bland for the bland background- can you think of how bad the eyestrain will be.

They should have kept the 'wargame minature' look for the units, with the units on 'cards' that move.

[Wiglaf]

Diplomat,

Personally I think civ3 will be great, too, but there's a problem with all these new features. Alpha Centauri wasn't much more complex than civ2 - sure it added borders, and improved diplomacy, etc - but here we have civ3, aiming to go off the charts on gameplay demands. As stated earlier:
----
1 The combat model is vastly improved because of implementation of stacked armies and apparently some kind of "bombard" concept (for catapults, etc) and also national support of armies from the treasury.
2 Culture and Borders and Nationality Concept - truly innovative and breakthrough concepts!
3 Strategic Resources and Luxuries
4 Much deeper diplomacy (trade embargoes, non-aggression pacts, mix-and-match negotiations, etc.)
5 An AI that should at least be as good as the best version of the SMAC AI (which though flawed was still a big improvement over Civ2 AI)
6 Great Leaders concept
----
This affects two things: AI and micro. The AC computer controlled factions were pretty stupid when it came to beating a human and waging war, mainly because of all the new things it had to take into account. Can you imagine civ3's AI being a revolution with all this going against it?

As for micro, that speaks for itself. I don't really want to have to get all kinds of resources to build units. That's more for RTS games. I understand what they're getting at, but it seems to... out of its genre, know what I mean?

[Imran Siddiqui]

One change that ALL the pessimists overlook (or underestimate) is the Resource model. That innovation basically changes the way the game works, immensly. Civ3 will play MUCH different than Civ2 simply on the basis of resources and the fact that you need them to build!

And that doesn't even mention culture, another big change (but MUCH smaller than resources).

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by SMACed
Diplomat,

This affects two things: AI and micro. The AC computer controlled factions were pretty stupid when it came to beating a human and waging war, mainly because of all the new things it had to take into account. Can you imagine civ3's AI being a revolution with all this going against it?

SMAC's AI was easily beaten by a human, that is true, however it was not all that bad. It's just humans are so much better, that is all. When you play other games, like **cough** ctp2 **cough**, you are amazed at how good SMAC's AI is!

The real question, I think, is: is it better to have new features that make the game more interesting for the human, or is it better not to keep the new concepts so that the AI has a better chance at being excellent? Personally, if I had to choose between new concepts and a better AI, I would pick the new concepts. I personally don't care so much if the AI is super smart, as much as what kind of experience I had playing the game. I am looking for trade, diplomacy, military etc that really captures my imagination. Others would pick the AI, and that is fine.

Originally posted by SMACed
As for micro, that speaks for itself. I don't really want to have to get all kinds of resources to build units. That's more for RTS games. I understand what they're getting at, but it seems to... out of its genre, know what I mean?

I do think there is a difference between the way that RTS handles ressources and the new civ3 ressource model. In RTS games like AoE, the player constantly needs to worry about the QUANTITY of ressources. Say a specific unit requires 300 wood, if the players only has 200, they need to get more wood to build the unit. This is not a issue with civ3. All the player needs is access to the ressource, and they can build as many of that special unit as they want. Micromanagement is further reduced because ANY city connected to the city with the ressource AUTOMATICALLY gets the ressource too.

Your post reinforces my point that all civers have vastly different expectations for civ3. Some want a radical new game, others want a civ2 with better AI. FIRAXIS has the difficult task of compromise. They can't please everybody. They also have to think about the new player who has never visited Apolyton and knows nothing about civ. If FIRAXIS stayed with the "wargame miniatures" style that Darcloud suggested, they might satisfy many civers here on Apolyton, but they would NOT win over the new player.

[Wiglaf]

In RTS games like AoE, the player constantly needs to worry about the QUANTITY of ressources. Say a specific unit requires 300 wood, if the players only has 200, they need to get more wood to build the unit. This is not a issue with civ3. All the player needs is access to the ressource, and they can build as many of that special unit as they want.

Oh, that changes things. Nevermind then.

The real question, I think, is: is it better to have new features that make the game more interesting for the human, or is it better not to keep the new concepts so that the AI has a better chance at being excellent?

I think the latter is a pretty reasonable choice. After all, the game will lose its single play appeal if all it has going for it is its 'wow, that's neat!' factor. Know what I mean?

[Nemo]

I agree. The only thing I feel that I have the right to complain about is the graphics. And its not the terain so much as it is the following 3 things: 1. the roads et al. on top of mountains, 2. the rivers/oceans/irrigation being the same color (cant tell them apart) 3. the flourecent colors for teh city names and units (they make my eyes hurt)
Other than that I think the graphics and the game are great (even though i do complain mostly, i am actually more optimistic that i usually let on. i just want them to make a great game)

[Urban Ranger]

Another item that complicates things is SMAC, which is just Civ on another planet with a sci-fi veneer. I reckon a lot of players mentally merge Civ 2 and SMAC before comparing to Civ 3.

Even though Civ 3 is more of an improvement over the older games in the series than Civ 2 over Civ 1. Sure we got used to all sorts of new features in Civ derivatives such as CtP and ToT but none of these have a better overall design than Civ 3.

As far as AI goes the current generation of games will never been able to beat a player with the possible exception of chess. There are many factors to this, but a lot has to do with complexity of the game and time constraints. Additionally most if not all of the game programmers aren't formally schooled in AI so they lack the knowledge of things such as heuristic and genetic algorithms. A human can always beat the AI in the PC games on a level field given sufficient time for the human learns, so to prove "challenges" many programmers make the computer players cheat, which irritates me greatly. I much prefer a handicap system a la Go.

[Robert]

its not the terain so much as it is the following 3 things: 1. the roads et al. on top of mountains, 2. the rivers/oceans/irrigation being the same color (cant tell them apart) 3. the flourecent colors for teh city names and units (they make my eyes hurt)

I promise you that:
1. the roads won't go over the top of the mountains in the final game for sure ! Those graphics we saw were alpha graphics. If Firaxis would release the game that way.......... naaaah, it's really absurd to even be afraid of that.

2. The colors will be good in the final game. Remember that a screenshot / jpg file can never show the same quantity as the game has for real ! Remember what some firaxisian said, the game looks for real much better then on the screenshots, if not only already for the animations etc.

[Fidel]

For the umpteenth time:
- look at civ 3 shakycam E3 preview. now THAT's what colors are like. Anyone telling me that Civ 2 colors are great is blind like a mole - they are nice and cheerful but they are really nothing to hang on the wall...except for sentimental reasons
- AI whiners. You are asking Firaxis to leap about 100years in the future and produce a perfect AI that will not cheat but will think human-like. Heck, why not start producing androids the minute Civ2 AI proves worthy? What we need is a fairly competent AI whose shortcomings will take time to be discovered (and discovered they will get sooner or later coz you people will be playing this day and night). Hopefully, MP features will be good so Civ will be played against 7 highly competent and brutal human players for maximum fun.
- Immran is right. Resources and culture might not catch your immagination but I reckon they will change the strategy and the way we play immensely. Now THAT is, IMHO, much less conservative than patching Civ2 with couple of CTP thingies like PW etc. If implemented properly, resources and culture will really lift Civ3 to the status of instant classic (all other things are in place, it seems).

P.S> Immran, is that ROnald REagan on your avatar?

[korn469]

i agree with LaRusso and others

while i know that civ3 doesn't have the best graphics of any game out there (right now that honor looks like to goes to Max Payne) it's graphics are exponentially better than civ2's graphics...civ3 has way better graphics than SMAC and like it or not SMAC had better graphics than civ2...if you think that civ2 has better graphics than civ3 you need to stop huffing glue

i will make a prediction, the cinema cut scenes in civ3 for wonders (if it doesn't have cut scence then we know it was rushed out the door) should be easily ten times as good as the cut scence in civ2

i have no comment about the AI, the only thing we know is that civ3 will be more complicated than civ2 and hopefully this wont leave the AI completely clueless

as for culture and special resources...i have posted a great deal on these items and since none of us know the specifics i do not know what extent they will change strategy...if done properly these two things could completely alter the way one plays civ...if done in a rushed and quickly implemented method they might do little more than shift the balance in existing strategies

the diplomacy system is another proud achievement that firaxis has touted on more than one occasion...i'm not expecting the AI to have Machiavellian cunning but it would be nice if it had a few tricks up its sleeve and wasn't always angry at the player...also i really hope that they keep the wide range of options in MP

i look forward to positive changes in the nuclear model and a proper implementation of MAD

the one thing i am most disappointed with is the fact that the civ limit in civ3 will be the same 8 civ (6 enemies minus your civ and the barbarians) limit found in the civ genre since the original civ

also i am looking forward to see if civ3 has the best scenario editor to date...if so that could keep civ3 going on for years...if not then a year from now we might have already forgotten the game

then there are a number of smaller improvements that will hopefully all work together and that the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts

civ3 might be a conservative sequal but if it is well done that wont matter...if it is rushed and incomplete though then i'm sure all of us will show our disappointment

i have a story about genghis khan for the nintendo, it was a wonderful game, one of my all time favorites...then i got a super nintendo and they came out with genghis khan 2...a small change in the game ruined it...they changed from having a number of troops to having a number of units because in genghis khan you only had three different types of units (infantry, cavalry, and archers) and in genghis khan 2 they provied you with culture specific troops (everything from mongols, to light cavalry, to elephants, and cannons it had a wide variety of units), in the original genghis khan you almost always lost troops in battle, and this slowed down your march across eurasia...in gk2 as long as your units survived the battle they would fight at full strength, so a small shock force of good units means you could conquer eurasia without taking causulties...also in gk when you killed the leader of an empire by seizing the territory the leader was in (or by killing a leader without a heir) their empire would collapse with all of the territories becoming independent...in gk2 no matter if you killed the leader or killed the leader and captured their headquarters their empire wouldn't collapse, so where in gk you actually had rise and fall of empires (see it can be done) in gk2 you just had a few empires get bigger and bigger, until there were only two or three empires left and that just ruined the fun in genghis khan 2

the point of that story is that even good ideas if not implemented properly can utterly destroy the play balance, and therefore the fun of a game...and anytime you make a sequal you should always check your game against the last game and verify that every single cool feature is either in the game or has been improved upon, and that none of the features in your game are obviously inferior to the previous game

so hopefully civ3 will be the best...but till we play it we can't know for certain which way it will turn out

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
The Civ III units look as if they are too bland for the bland background- can you think of how bad the eyestrain will be.

They should have kept the 'wargame minature' look for the units, with the units on 'cards' that move.

What was wrong with the CTP units? I liked them myself.

Sliding around my units on a card looks stupid, no matter how its done.

I have great confidence that eyestarin will be minimal. I personally have no problem looking at the screenshots. MMM...Yum!