Tweet
Working off of my review in which I used an 'Expectation Scale' to help makes sense of why some people like Civ3 so much and others are actually angry, something has hit me:
It's Firaxis itself that seems to have changed. Let me explain.
Gettysburg and SMAC were great (and rather serious) games. Sure, I had problems 'getting into' SMAC, and the infinite range missle issue caused me headaches, but I immediately recognized both games as serious efforts made for serious gamers. Gettysburg simply awed me with its brilliant use of terrain and morale / leaders.
Now Brian Reynolds has left (along with some other key talent), and look at what's being developed:
1) A Golf Sim that, even if it makes millions, belongs on the shelf next to Redneck Bowling and Goat Cart Racing. It's a cheap hack (a knock-off modeled --stolen with permission?-- from the King of Pop Garbage, Will Wright). Don't get me wrong, the masses need to be kept occupied by such drivel. I *want* the masses kept busy, so this is a kind of public service I guess.
I just never thought Sid would go in that direction.
2) A Civ3 game that actually goes BACKWARDS in the tech tree and, IMO, overall seriousness. And what I mean by seriousness is that things like combat and diplomacy and unit management (including workers) actually REWARD mediocre play and mindless clicking. Units that are a few AGES out of date are still competive: This rewards mediocity. 200 units or more can only be moved one at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time (<---typing that was just as fun as mid to late game Civ3). This rewards mindless clicking. Firaxis clearly did not have a serious gamer in mind when making Civ3. They made fluff.
I just never thought Sid would go in that direction.
I won't even begin to go into their choice of publishers and the fact that they let Infogrames bully Civ fans in the name of Firaxis' copyright. And I won't even begin to go into how Firaxis' PR has gotten worse -- as if such a thing were possible.
But all this spells out very clearly: Serious gamers should give up on Firaxis. They are NOT a serious gaming house dedicated to serious games for serious gamers. If you want deep games and solid support from the developer, move on: Nothing to see here but a car wreck (which, I agree, has its own twisted attraction).
They no doubt realize that it's just easier to make sub-par games for a mass market with little ability or desire to ask for more. I can't blame Sid too much, I guess. He's earned his right to milk (again and again and again and again, I guess) great games of the past, even if some of those were NOT his creation to begin with. (Colonization, Civ2 and SMAC were all Brian Reynolds' games)
Now that I realize Firaxis is targetting the Deer Hunter and Who Wants to Be A Millionaire crowd, it all makes sense.
It's Firaxis itself that seems to have changed. Let me explain.
Gettysburg and SMAC were great (and rather serious) games. Sure, I had problems 'getting into' SMAC, and the infinite range missle issue caused me headaches, but I immediately recognized both games as serious efforts made for serious gamers. Gettysburg simply awed me with its brilliant use of terrain and morale / leaders.
Now Brian Reynolds has left (along with some other key talent), and look at what's being developed:
1) A Golf Sim that, even if it makes millions, belongs on the shelf next to Redneck Bowling and Goat Cart Racing. It's a cheap hack (a knock-off modeled --stolen with permission?-- from the King of Pop Garbage, Will Wright). Don't get me wrong, the masses need to be kept occupied by such drivel. I *want* the masses kept busy, so this is a kind of public service I guess.
I just never thought Sid would go in that direction.
2) A Civ3 game that actually goes BACKWARDS in the tech tree and, IMO, overall seriousness. And what I mean by seriousness is that things like combat and diplomacy and unit management (including workers) actually REWARD mediocre play and mindless clicking. Units that are a few AGES out of date are still competive: This rewards mediocity. 200 units or more can only be moved one at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time at a time (<---typing that was just as fun as mid to late game Civ3). This rewards mindless clicking. Firaxis clearly did not have a serious gamer in mind when making Civ3. They made fluff.
I just never thought Sid would go in that direction.
I won't even begin to go into their choice of publishers and the fact that they let Infogrames bully Civ fans in the name of Firaxis' copyright. And I won't even begin to go into how Firaxis' PR has gotten worse -- as if such a thing were possible.
But all this spells out very clearly: Serious gamers should give up on Firaxis. They are NOT a serious gaming house dedicated to serious games for serious gamers. If you want deep games and solid support from the developer, move on: Nothing to see here but a car wreck (which, I agree, has its own twisted attraction).
They no doubt realize that it's just easier to make sub-par games for a mass market with little ability or desire to ask for more. I can't blame Sid too much, I guess. He's earned his right to milk (again and again and again and again, I guess) great games of the past, even if some of those were NOT his creation to begin with. (Colonization, Civ2 and SMAC were all Brian Reynolds' games)
Now that I realize Firaxis is targetting the Deer Hunter and Who Wants to Be A Millionaire crowd, it all makes sense.
Comment