c198# THE NATURE OF SEQUELS

[MarkG]

<A href="/misc/column/198_sequels.shtml" target="_top">198# THE NATURE OF SEQUELS</a>
<i>A really extensive review of some of the biggest games series</i>

by Father Beast

[Ironwood]

I can't say the article is especially well written, but the message is good. Civ3 has more improvements over Civ2 than Civ2 had over Civ1 (whether they're actually "improvements" is a matter of opinion; my opinion is that they are).

I think the big problem with Civ3 that makes people think it's a "step backward" in the Civ series is that they insist on comparing it not with Civ2, but with SMAC. SMAC had some *fantastic* concepts in it... but there is a reason that it wasn't sold as "Civilization 3." That's because it's not Civ3, it's SMAC.

Civ3 lacks social engineering. Though I was looking forward to it, it's just fine to me that it was left out.

Related is the insistance on comparing it to Civ2 Multiplayer Gold Edition, or even TOT rather than Civ2 by itself. It seems to the untrained (and unreasonably demanding) eye that if it could be done in MPG, it should be done in Civ3.

Do you guys realize that despite the fact that Microprose was "bleeding you for money" by releasing all these expansion packs, they *still went out of business*?! Obviously, they weren't "money grubbing" enough to stay in the black. Programmers not only have to eat, their talent and years of study and practice have to be rewarded; and shareholders have to have their investment justified. There will be more to Civ3 in the future; no doubt it will go beyond the Test of Time. And yes, you will have to pay for it.

On to other "missing features:"

Civ3 lacks a "neutral" diplomatic stance. Civ2 had this, and I was at first taken aback by this. After thinking about it a bit, though, it makes sense. I mean, think about it. An unprovoked attack is an unprovoked attack, whether or not you've had relations with the other country before. Imagine your explorers don't come back home, and you find their bodies destroyed by unknown invaders. Are you going to care that they had no "formal agreement" with you to begin with? No. They are killers, plain and simple. There was no reason to attack. Thus, the lack of a "neutral" stance from which you can attack without international repurcussions doesn't strike me like a huge problem, but perhaps even an imrovement.

I refuse to entertain the topic of what civs are in or out. No Spaniards. Boo ****ing hoo.

Less techs. Okay, so they actually *thought about* the tech tree and re-arranged it slightly, eliminating a few, adding others. As far as I'm concerned, this is superior to simply lifting it from Civ2 and transplanting it to Civ3.

The fact that they didn't radically change the game's design doesn't seem to me like a problem. As the reviewer mentioned, if they had made a whole new game and published it as "Civ3" (like Civilization: Call to Power), it would have been rightly percieved as an attempt to cash in on the name alone. I have some pretty radical ideas for a very different Civ-like game. I would never call it Civilization.

[Felch]

I rather liked this article, and I'd like to put my two cents in on it.

One of the most important goals for a sequel is that it should be better than what came before it. The obvious reason is that it is rediculous to spend time and money developing a product inferior to what is already being sold, and it would be just as absurd for the consumer to spend money for an inferior product.

Thus, sequels tend to be created with the intent of improving parts of the game that were unsatisfying the first time around, while maintaining as many of the original elements as possible. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

For example, a series that the writer abstained from commenting on, the Warcraft/Starcraft series by Blizzard. The original Warcraft recieved rave reviews in its time, primarily for the innovation of being one of the first real time strategy games on the market. Its sequel, Warcraft II, maintained the high pace of action, and the cartoonish qualities of its graphics and sound, while improving on areas that were underdeveloped in the original. For example, it incorporated naval and air units, an improved interface, and came packaged with an excellent map editor and good multiplayer support.

Its "sequel" Starcraft, which although it has a different name and setting still keeps the same spirit of the other titles, and it kept the aspects of the previous games that worked. Its key contribution was the uniqueness of the three races in the game, which added a new dimension of strategy.

In short, sequels are about making the original better, not about creating new games.

[Urban Ranger]

Let me add that <em>Civ 3</em> is a good sequel to <em>Civ 2</em>. It has addressed some of the most glaring problems, such as ICS (infinite city sprawl), made some improvements (nation-wide support of units, for example), and throw in a couple of interesting twists.

A number of verteran players on 'Poly are pissed because <em>Civ 3</em> didn't incorporate sufficient features from The List, has no multiplayer, etc.

First thing is, any game that incorporates half of the features from The List will be so complicated and unwieldly it's not playable. Realism is fine, but <em>Civ</em> really made no claims to realism.

Secondly, the lack of multiplayer features is not that big of a deal. Even verterans need time to get used to <em>Civ 3</em> and develop new strategies to play. No point in having two (or more) drunkards staggering around, attempting to land blows on each other.

The only valid criticism I have seen so far is the lack of any extensive public beta testing, resulting in the large number of bugs found.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Felch X
I rather liked this article, and I'd like to put my two cents in on it.

One of the most important goals for a sequel is that it should be better than what came before it. The obvious reason is that it is rediculous to spend time and money developing a product inferior to what is already being sold, and it would be just as absurd for the consumer to spend money for an inferior product.
(....)

In short, sequels are about making the original better, not about creating new games.

Actually that agrees with my opinion nicely. I liked the comparison with Warcraft/Starcraft, a series I haven't had enough dealings with to comment on myself.

It would appear that Warcraft II is a "good sequel", while Starcraft, although similar in style and play, only tangentially is a sequel to Warcraft II. now if Starcraft had been called warcraft 3??......

[Urban Ranger]

The very first RTS game I think is Atari's <em>Star Raiders</em>. While mainly a first person shooter there are strategic elements in it.

Westwood's <em>Dune 2</em> is one of the first RTS games, predated <em>Warcraft</em> by several years. It's actually more sophisticated by design and has 3 sides, even though the graphics was more primitive.

Frankly, I have no idea why <em>Warcraft</em> was such a hit.

[Master Marcus]

By definition, a sequel is a ...sequel. Not necessarily an upgrade. It's the next episode. In the scenario era, Alpha Centauri IS the real sequel to Civ I or II or III. SMACx storyline is the real sci-fi continuation of the civ series. However we can always use common sense and put the word sequel for every new video game related to a classic series.

Good article by a veteran connaisseur, but a bit too extended for a column. Of course I don't share FBs criticism about the legendary MoO II, but I agree on most of the other comparisons.