I hope there's NOT a Civ3 Expansion pack

[connorkimbro]

Maybe I'm alone in this. . but i sure hope that there isn't one. For the following reason. .

Some games, it's GOOD to have an expansion pack. Something like the Sims. . where it's a simulation, you're just increasing the variety of things you can work with. Mission based games. . extra missions are essential to replay value. Or. . if the game just isn't good enough the first time around . .

Hopefully, firaxis gets everything right the first time around, and an expansion pack isn't needed. It seems to me the rational of saying. . "well, we'll just save those ideas for an expansion pack" allows you to be a bit lazier on making the game. i hope that does NOT happen.

Ok, so why did Civ2 get expansion packs? they came with increased scenario editing tools, and scenarios. Hopefully the scenario editing tools that are released with the game are adequate, and if they're not, SURELY i hope you don't have to pay extra to get decent ones. And scenarios, i've always, thought, should be one of those types of things that you can download for free off the internet. . you shouldn't have to buy them . .

If an idea is good enough for civ3, put it in the original game. . don't wait to put it in an expansion pack. Nobody likes buying a game in installments.

Ok, well SMAC had an expansion pack. . big deal. SMAC wasn't as good of a game for a few reasons, that i don't need to get into here really. But it needed the expansion packs. It wasn't as good as civ2, and hopefully civ3 will blow it out of the water. anyway. . that's enough for now. .

anyone else on the same page as me, or am i alone in this?. .

[yin26]

Well, we KNOW it will have an x-pack. The question is, will it be one of those "Now you can buy the game as it SHOULD have been shipped" kind of things or will it truly add to the Civ 3 game in a significant way? The Net and X-packs. Our best friends. Our worst enemies.

I didn't buy the SMAC x-pack, for example. You say it needed it. I guess so. That's why I stopped playing. Any game that NEEDS an x-pack won't see my money for it.

So I agree with you. Our money for an x-pack should be earned from a great Civ3 experience. Nothing less. Where I am a bit more flexible is with the idea that Civ3 would not benefit from an x-pack. No matter how great Civ 3 ends up being, you can always do more cool stuff that would be worth paying some more money for. A mass of new scenarios, maps, civs, music, art, AI routines, etc. could be worth the cash if the underlying game it's built on is worth it to begin with.

[Warm Beer]

I see what you mean... but culturally specific units and animated leaders leaves the door wide open for an expansion. After all, look at all of the controversy over what civs should be in the game... If only 16 are in, then my crystal ball says, "look for a expansion pack to plug in all the other desired civs" (a-la Alien-Crossfire?).

Of course this is entirely based on conjecture...

[connorkimbro]

yin. . good points you brought up. . i generally agree with you i guess. . my only fear is that they'll get lazy with the actual game with the idea that "we'll just add that later" that should definately NOT happen. .

I see what you mean... but culturally specific units and animated leaders leaves the door wide open for an expansion. After all, look at all of the controversy over what civs should be in the game... If only 16 are in, then my crystal ball says, "look for a expansion pack to plug in all the other desired civs" (a-la Alien-Crossfire?).

Well it depends on how it's done i guess. One of the reasons i didn't like SMAC as much was the whole story, along with very characterized factions. You always knew how factions would react, and if you randomized, it didn't fit with the story. This severly limited replay value, IMO.
There obviously isn't going to be a story, but depending on how different they make each civ. . (to tell you the truth, even unique units makes me a bit nervous) . . then either they'll need to plug in extra civs, because they killed the replay value, or they won't, because they didn't kill the replay value.

Replay value is a huge thing for me, especially for civ. I enjoyed smac the first game i played, but if i shell out 50$ for a game, i want to enjoy it for years, IE civ2. I STILL play civ2.
I still want to be playing civ3 years from now. If the GAME is done right, then an expansion pack won't be necessary, IMO.

[connorkimbro]

summed up nicely..

I guess basically what i'm trying to say is. .

If an expansion would increase gameplay, then why wasn't the original game good enough?

If it wouldn't increase gameplay, why buy the expansion?

[yin26]

If an expansion would increase gameplay, then why wasn't the original game good enough?

ANSWER (pick one or mix and match)

Lack of: Time, money, ability...
Use of: Business sense...(assuming the base game is solid to begin with, otherwise please stick with the 'Lack of...' section)

If it wouldn't increase gameplay, why buy the expansion?

I consider this more of a rhetorical question.

[Alex 14]

Re: summed up nicely..

Originally posted by connorkimbro
I guess basically what i'm trying to say is. .

If an expansion would increase gameplay, then why wasn't the original game good enough?

If it wouldn't increase gameplay, why buy the expansion?

I would like an expansion like aoe 2: aok, it should just have new civs, advisers, units, scenarios ect.

[H Tower]

maybe an expansion pack could fix things we brought up in the forums too late for firaxis to put in the first shippment of the game. and if they can't think up new stuff to put into the game with only a reasonable amount of reprogramming, they shouldn't even be making the game. Civ2's greatest strong points are replayability and ability to be modified.

[Juggler]

You're wright on that issue, the expansion pack will probably make the game even better, so I'm for the expansion as long as it brings new ideas (not like HL: Blue Sh(f)it) and comes with a reasonable price.

[Urban Ranger]

Well, I could think of features are nice to have, but may not appeal to a wide range of players. In other words, optional features. Now, the good thing of having an expansion pack is it saves time and money, both for the players and the publishers.

For example, in Civ 3 Firaxis can concentrate on making the core features work instead of spreading themselves thin. This means they can sell the game cheaper, at $40 or even $35 instead of $50, and still turn a profit. The players benefits from the ability to get a nice game at a reasonable price, a game with features that work instead of one with lots of bugs.

I think Firaxis will have to put in a very usable editor to ensure the logevity of Civ 3, but they could always package other stuff like different sets of graphics for various civs, scenarios, modpacks, etc.

Regarding scenarios and modpacks, think of it like Linux. You can download it for free, or you can buy a distro.

[campmajor!]

Re: summed up nicely..

Originally posted by connorkimbro
I guess basically what i'm trying to say is. .

If an expansion would increase gameplay, then why wasn't the original game good enough?

If it wouldn't increase gameplay, why buy the expansion?

Well, things aren't just Black and White.
There is also grey.

Meaning: civ3 can be a good and solid game, but it still can be nice to make lots of different advisors/civs/etc for people who want something extra. This can be put in an expansion pack.

[Seeker]

I want an expansion pack or two...I like (good) scenarios and with the improved graphics, new leader animations ect are only going to be available through expansions.

Maybe the expansion will be a 'dedicated' scenario editor?

[Grumbold]

I'd be up for an X-pack that expanded functionality. New civs, maps and scenarios should be freely downloadable from the official website instead. One new civ per month and one new scenario per quarter shouldn't strain their resources if the continued sales of Civ III warrant the outlay. If they don't, there's no demand for an X-pack either.

[Colonâ„¢]

An expansion pack isn’t necessarily bad as long they pull off such a scam as Microprose’s. ToT would have been a worthy expansion pack (it was a full game) but MGE and the scenario packs weren’t.
A civ3 expansion pack including new civs would be acceptable provided that the civs are truly distinct from each other (graphics, units, tech trees etc) and require some work to put together (à la SMAC) or if you include completely new environments, game concepts and graphics. (a là ToT)

An expansion pack solely offering new scenarios and maps is nonsense. Unless they make it difficult to create them yourself they better leave that to the gamers because it’s obvious they’re way more adept at it.

[Sabre2th]

Unless they make it difficult to create them yourself

Don't give them any ideas.