Mark Asher is right.

[Tokolosch]

I have been a Civ and Sid Meier fan since puberty. But there has been a disturbing trend in game design recently, to repackage and re-sell instead of redesign.

Mark Asher is right when he states: “So what's CivIII like? It's CivII with improved graphics and a few new wrinkles.”

What has really changed?

Colonies… I can really see how this will change the genre… NOT! Nice addition, but not earth shattering.

Better Diplomacy… This has become a standard improvement. In every TBS we hear “Better diplomacy” Hopefully they’ll get it right this time.

Better graphics! When will games companies learn… just updating graphics, doesn’t constitute a new game! Activision thought that when they released CTPII… they only sold 40 000! Who’s next? Firaxis?

New stacked battle… i.e. mobile forts. I have never known a military to defend by sending in one unit at a time. How lame! Usually you defend with whatever’s available. CTPII had it right. CivIII’s system is worse than CivII’s.

Culture. Good idea. Religion would’ve been better.

I think it’s time that games companies start listening to their client… us… and build the games that we actually want. Not what they think we want.

[Gramphos]

You missed Minor Wonders.

About the thing you say about religion, I agree it would be good together with culture, but I don't want to wait until 2003 to get a game where your citizens believe in things and builds up religions from the beginning. Some features of religion would effect culture and vice versa. The only thing you should be able to control was to build religious improvements and set if all citizens in your civilization have to have the same religion, or if they are free to choose. What? Unhappy people in newly captured cities because they have to leave their religion, but it would truly increase the effects of your crusaders. Or the other way around would your crusaders be strong enough if the didn't convert barbarians? And what about all the missionaries you would have to bless just to convert a barbarian encampment into one of your cities.
Lets face the fact that the implement of religion would take one year of extra development and AI improvement.

[Dienstag]

I still want simultaneous turn in CivIII, but oh well...

Mark Asher is right when he states: “So what's CivIII like? It's CivII with improved graphics and a few new wrinkles.”

Well, what do you expect? They probably improved the graphics not because they thought that's what we wanted, but because they could and it would be good for the game. We could debate forever how significant the 'few new wrinkles' are, but of course it doesn't mean a complete departure from CivII. From what I've seen, CivIII will be a richer, smoother gameplay, with new features not just added but integrated into the game. That's the result of some serious effort. I'm excited about it, I think it will be a unique gaming experience, and anyone who thinks otherwise can keep playing CivII if they want.

[Footie Mad]

The reason they call it civ 3 is that it is a sequel wich they are making for the people who enjoyed civ 2 but want more of the same thing. It should NOT be changed to much or it will not be civ anymore.

[Inverse Icarus]

Better graphics! When will games companies learn… just updating graphics, doesn’t constitute a new game! Activision thought that when they released CTPII… they only sold 40 000! Who’s next? Firaxis?

i agree with this, and only this point.

graphics have nothing to do with the ADDICTABILITY of a game.

hey, if you could make a monochromatic game with a bunch of moving blocks, but it was catchy enough, i bet it would sell.

[TechWins]

Really how much different was Civ II from Civ? Everybody loved Civ II (if you didn't something is seriously wrong with you) so why wouldn't you love Civ III. They can't just make a new game. It wouldn't be Civ then. Civ III will be the best game ever. Civ II will become the second best and Civ will become the third best. In my opinion. In each new version there trying to come up with some new, innovative ideas that will improve the game not change the game. They also try to improve on the already implemented ideas and get rid of the useless ideas. It's just like when Windows makes a new version they only make it better not completely change the whole system. That's the way things are.

[Gramphos]

Civ was better then Civ II, and I think Civ III will be the best.

[Grim Leaper]

Civ was better then Civ II

At last, unless i have missed something.

Civ was a better game than CivII, even though i've been playing civII for longer (i still do )

To me civII was civ with better combat and ai, but still the second best game ever. civIII may be just be civII with better dimplomacy, combat,...etc, but isn't that what the civ seris is all about. (sid meier perhaps) ->'Let's make the best god damn game ever. i know, we will start with some ideas (civI) get feedback, and continue to improve (civII). Now let us take a slightly different view (SMAC). hmmm, what now... I know CIVIII '

[KrazyHorse]

I don't understand how any one can complain about the lack of innovation from CivII to CivIII. CivII was virtually an exact copy of CivI, plus a very few new improvements, wonders, and techs. CivIII promises to be much more.

For the first time, specific commodities will be of importance, and will in fact make the difference between winning and losing. If the Russians are sitting on a large supply of uranium as the atomic age begins, and the Americans don't have any in their territory, the Americans had better hope that they're friends with another civ that has some (like the Canadians, as was the case in the real world). In pre-Roman times, the sole reason for the exploration of Northern Europe by members of the civilized world was for the sake of the generous metal deposits to be found there. These same deposits were the source of the cheap and readily available iron and steel which allowed the astonishing rise of Europe from a cultural backwoods cowering under the threat of Islaamic domination in the 10th century to the position of world hegemony it enjoyed in the 17th century. The impact of geography on development was underrated in the first two Civs, and we now see in Civ III a long overdue step towards correcting this error.

Chieftain!

[Zanzin]

Re: Mark Asher is right.

Originally posted by Tokolosch



New stacked battle… i.e. mobile forts. I have never known a military to defend by sending in one unit at a time. How lame! Usually you defend with whatever’s available. CTPII had it right. CivIII’s system is worse than CivII’s.

This is sadly true.....what's sad is that Firaxis can't realise this

[Chuckles]

Well I kind of agree that this is just Civ2 updated. I was expecting a leap forward I guess but it sounds like a step forward. Based on initial views I was getting quite dissapointed that there wouldn't be much to it.

However based on new info it sounds like there are enough little tweaks to get me interested enough to buy it and try it out. But the same thing happened to me with CTP, there were enough tweaks that I tried it out, but then I moced on.

One thing I worry is that Firaxis thinks that good graphics and sound will make everyone go buy the same game. Activision already did that.

[korn469]

graphics have nothing to do with the ADDICTABILITY of a game.

hey, if you could make a monochromatic game with a bunch of moving blocks, but it was catchy enough, i bet it would sell.

no matter what you people say, horrible graphics do not sell games no matter how great the gameplay is...no graphics don't make a good game but a great game today has good graphics

ugly graphics are distracting and they make the overall gameplay value worse, and turn most people off from a game

come on really, if you are playing a WWII scenarios and you see grey blocks fighting on a little tiny green monochrome background fighting against some red blocks how emotionally involved are you in this representation of the eastern front? just imagine if civ3 had better special effects than the movie pearl harbor that you could watch when two units fought...that alone would sell games

if civ3 wants to be the best game of it's kind it has to have some of the best graphics in it's genre...and if a genre falls too far behind of another in terms of innovation then it's going to die

[hexagonian]

What it will boil down to is whether Civ3 will be able to make a game that will have an AI that will provide a decent challenge to all the players who have sucessfully cut their teeth on previous games.

Elements such as graphics, features that reflect historical trends, and realism are all nice, but if the game does not provide a decent challenge, then it will fall flat on its face. I do find it interesting that many of the features being promoted in Civ3 are elements developed in the CTP series - however, only time will tell if those elements are better implemented in Civ3. ( but there are elements in CTP2 that were stolen from SMAC, so that argument cuts both ways)

Say what you will about CTP2, but as I remember it, there was actually a lot of initial positive reviews about it, the interface, and the balance. Many of the issues that plagued CTP1 were fixed in CTP2 too.

What has sunk CTP2 was a passive AI - and a general lack of faith in the civ community for the CTP series in the first place. The game is very modifiable (and if a hack like me can get into the files and do stuff, than anyone can), but a bad name has turned off a huge base of potential players.

I will say this - if Civ3 does fall short in the AI department, it will probably get a whole lot more grace from the civ community than CTP ever would.

Loyalty breeds FANaticism, but that is a fact of life!!!

[Ralf]

Re: Mark Asher is right.

Originally posted by Tokolosch
What has really changed?

We already know whats changed, Tokolosch (far from all is revealed, though). You dont have to waste time on writing a post telling us how disillusioned you are about these changes. At least not a post ONLY about that.

Much more interesting is instead: What exactly did you expect???
Give us some bulleted specific design-solutions here that infact YOU expected in Civ-3.

Also; did you enjoy playing, and had high expectations on the design-solutions in CTP & CTP-2? Im asking out of curiosity. You see; if you did - that would certainly explain much about your disappointment.

[TechWins]

I don't care if the game is very innovative or just an updated version of Civ II. That will be good enough for me.