Originally posted by LordShiva
Is there anyone else who's a little uncomfortable with what looks like going further down the whole UX path (unique units, unique buildings, etc. What next, unique civics, techs, GP?)? I admit my position isn't entirely rational, but I've seen something like this happen before, and destroy a perfectly good franchise in the process - Warcraft. WC2 was awesome, but then WC3 came along with it's fewer units, greater differences between Civs, "Heroes," magic, experience points, etc., amounting to the RPGing of my beloved series. I hope Civ4 (or 5) doesn't do the same with the Civ series (if not RPGing, then RTSing).
Maybe I'm not making any sense.
Is there anyone else who's a little uncomfortable with what looks like going further down the whole UX path (unique units, unique buildings, etc. What next, unique civics, techs, GP?)? I admit my position isn't entirely rational, but I've seen something like this happen before, and destroy a perfectly good franchise in the process - Warcraft. WC2 was awesome, but then WC3 came along with it's fewer units, greater differences between Civs, "Heroes," magic, experience points, etc., amounting to the RPGing of my beloved series. I hope Civ4 (or 5) doesn't do the same with the Civ series (if not RPGing, then RTSing).
Maybe I'm not making any sense.
Unique buildings and units are effectively a way of introducing unique technologies. What else, beyond units and buildings, can be introduced to make unique technologies have an effect on the game?
It's a valid worry but I suspect that it will not happen because, unlike Warcraft, the further Civ goes down a path of specialising each civ the more it leaves itself open to accusations of racism/anti-something.
The best indication that Civ won't go down this path is the stance taken - which was printed in the manual - on religions. The exact same thing can already be seen in the Great Generals and Scientists of CivIII - each civ had unique names but no unique traits.
Comment