The Future of Civ

[Wiglaf]

Check out the civ3 forums and join yin's pessimism club, Andy. They're dedicated to telling Firaxis what to do and what not to do through the use of textbook slander. It seems to be working, too. So if civ3 is great we've got yin to thank...

Or if it's bad, we can all blame the optimists!

[The Andy-Man]

personaly, i think the only way to make a game good is to have people who played the previous ones come in and play what has been done so far (on a much larger scale then beta testing). this way, poeple like us can tell the makers they are screwing up.

[Laszlo]

The reason that CivII has lasted as long as it has is its extremely high replayability. It also takes a while to complete a game, so you don't run through the same situations a few thousand times as you would in a racing game or something similar.

I loved playing Final Fantasy VII, but to replay it for 40 hours would be tortuous because there would be no surprises. Not to mention that many games like shoot-em ups and the battles in FF don't actually get much harder as the game goes on because of the new weapons and power-ups.

CivII with multiplayer is virtually infinitely replayable, and
can not die until a nobler successor robs the old playing base.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Space

Originally posted by Meeko
That means I'll have to clear up more space on my hdd...

Even when Civ3 comes out, I would probably not be the first in the shops to buy it for several reasons.

One of which is affordability: I'll be likely short a few coins/notes...

Then there's the issue of content, with Civ2, I've got most of the extras made for it (including patches, FW, CiC, etc.), and I hope Civ3 comes with a multiplayer feature, several scenarios/modpacks, etc, otherwise I would stick with Civ2 until Civ3 at least has some of the features which I really want...

And then there's the case in how much it improves. We may be surprised...in both senses of the word.

I agree - there are two issues here - how much replayability does CIV2 still have, and how good a value is Civ3?

For me the answer is determined by 2 aspects of Civ3 - its quality, and the minimum system specs. I will need to upgrade for it (and my PC works fine for everything else- obviously im not much of a "gamer" ) - and while I think Civ3 has some good things going for it, i dont like the civ-specific units and features (at least not for the basic game)

So I cant see spending $50 US for a game that requires a system
upgrade, and some of whose major feature I will be turning off.

On the other hand there are still plenty of Civ2 Scenarios I havent played, and several others I want to play again.

So I cant see buying Civ3 in October, when it comes out. In say another year, when ive played through more scenarios, when hopefully my PC sitution changes, when the Civ3 price drops, and when they finish working out all the bugs , then I'll probably but Civ3.

I certainly hope the Civ2 community hangs together till then.

LOTM

[Wiglaf]

Not that it needs to...so much has been covered here in the last few years you'll be hard pressed for find a new question to ask. I know I'll be here as long as they still have a civ2 forum on apolyton, and I'm sure many civ3 addicts in the future will still hang around.

ctp was killed off by comlicated ideas being implemented in a comlicated way on a comlicated interface.

Civ3 seems to be doing the same thing. I mean, go to www.civ3.com and look at that features list. If the computer can actually handle all that, we're in for a parade of smilies. I'm sure a few patches and betas will sort that out though.

Since I've got a mac, I still don't know if I'll be able to play civ3 on my machine, as the system reqs haven't been released yet. Hoping for the best..