Civ 3 and EU2

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by saracen31
EU2 sounds like it will be quite similar to the first. Same time period even. The economic model will be extended, and I'm sure they'll make a complex, fun game even more complex & fun.

But is it enough of a change to make spending your $50 worthwhile?

Firaxis could take a page from Paradox's book & interact with the community, however. That's what keeps and expands a loyal fanbase.

I agree that Firaxis should try to interact more, but it is small company with few resources. I would rather have them surprise me with a kick-@$$ game than talk endlessly about a so-so one.

About fan base: While Firaxis may lose a couple of our pessimist friends, I would say that a majority of people will buy the game as soon as it comes out and will continue to support Firaxis, assuming the game isn't completely horrible and unsupported (ala Craptivision)

[Steve Clark]

One huge distinction:

Civ3 = Fun

EU/EU2 = Not Fun

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
One huge distinction:

Civ3 = Fun

EU/EU2 = Not Fun

LMAO

At least, we hope civ will be fun. (Yin's influence)

[Colon™]

"I agree that Firaxis should try to interact more, but it is small company with few resources. I would rather have them surprise me with a kick-@$$ game than talk endlessly about a so-so one."

Actually, when I heard their first announcement that they'd make a sequel, I was surprised because I didn't expect they'd had the resources for it.

If anything, Paradox is even smaller and has even less resources than Firaxis. Firaxis had a Sid Meier and their reputation to promote their games and they've had games such as SMAC that sold reasonably well.
Paradox OTOH didn't had the back-up of large publishers such as EA or Infogrames, moreover, they initially didn't even had a publisher for US after the game was finished.

[Warm Beer]

One other difference I am noticing as far as the new generation of Empire Builders goes, is that there is an increased focus on domestic policy. Previously, your subjects where your subjects, they followed your commands unwaiveringly and the little civil unrest that was in games like Civ2 was easily remedied.

Now designers are looking into what made running an empire so challenging (yes, I am oversimplified history), Domestic Policy: Religion, ethnisticy, nationalism and the social consequences of your state level decisions. I welcome this new trend. After all, it is only so much fun to crank out the highest level unit and toss them at your enemy (oversimplification, again).

Don't get me wrong, I love Civ2 and I will put it on the top of every "favorite games of all time" list. but I am also ready for the changes which are happening in the genre that Civ 3 (appearently) has glossed over. I'm still buying the game, tho..

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
One huge distinction:

Civ3 = Fun

EU/EU2 = Not Fun

From everything ive heard EU sounds like a lot of fun. Main problems seem to be manual and tutorial, and to a lesser extent interface. One hopes those will be solved with EU2.

It does sound like EU2 will be marginal for those who already own EU. But then again Civ: TOT would have been marginal for me if i had already had MGE

Since I dont own EU, and still have gameplay left in Civ2, I can easily see purchasing EU2 in place of Civ3. (But I am sure I will still want Civ3 eventually, after the price comes down and the patches are out

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MarkG
hey perhaps firaxis should do the same!

release "civ3: ancient times" in october. 7 months later(with enough time to kill more bugs and balance the extra units) the... "sequel"! "civ4: burn the witch", which extends the game to the medieval age and add religion in the model. then a year later we'll have the final part, "civ5: buy those stocks now" which brings the game the 21st century and add a real economic model


disclaimer: i havent played EU and it's probably a very good game. but balancing a game with units from a period of 6000 years is a big task, which is why very few companies have attempted to make such a game....

and how many companies have attempted a historically accurate grand strategic 4X on an EU type time scale?

Granted Civ (and CTP) is unique with its 6000 year timetable - the question that is raised by recent discussions in this forum is whether the 6000 year 4X game is played out. Civ2 was able to evade the question of whether Civ is history replicator, an historically accurate (within limits) alternate history simulator, or a light history flavored strategy game. With advance in techonology, and the growing popularity and sophistication of games based on unique units, etc it seems necessary to choose. Clearly there is large opinion for unique units which make civ both more "historical" in the narrow sense, yet also make it profoundly less historically accurate (since they deny the philosophy of history that was Civ's main claim to historical accuracy) It remains to be seen whether Firaxis will produce a game that satisfies all camps, including the "civ-grognards" Meanwhile it is heartening to know that there will be an alternative.

LOTM

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll probably get EU2... but I never was THAT into EU. I've actually never finished a game, I've never played that much (gotten quite bored a bunch of times).

Civ 2, on the other hand, I played for a year, almost constantly. The Civ-style gameplay is far superior and draws you in much more. Now, if EU had more tech stuff, it might be better, but still... Civ kicks its ass.

[Urban Ranger]

I played EU for several games with a borrowed copy but I decided not to buy it. While it has some strong points and probably very accurate in reflecting European history this accuracy falls way short when it comes to non-European countries.

The main problem was I didn't find it fun. I didn't have the urge to play one more turn. Tropico was at least fun for the first three games or five.


SnowFire,

The more they said about how great MoO 3 will be the more skeptical I become. In the least I don't have a Cray supercomputer to run the game when it comes out

[SnowFire]

UR: Who cares what "they" say? I couldn't care less about the ravings of the previews, I read the "Official Comments" section of the website and have been impressed with the changes they're making to MOO. This game could be great, because I saw, not because they said.

That phrase didn't turn out as clever as I wanted it. Oh well.

[Fidel]

EU 2 is really just an expansion pack.
- first, possibility to play all countries was immediately made as a mod after EU was released (IGC campagn mode). They will simply polish it
- the minute the game was out, Paradox put out a poll asking what epoch they should cover with the SAME ENGINE (Note to whiners, please call EU2 EU 1.1 instead...for the sake of accuracy )
EU is really not as fun as Civ, it's abit more hard core but I will buy 'sequel' nevertheless....less fun than Civ still means LOT of fun

[saracen31]

I'll buy the sequel too....but Civ has always been a lot more fun than EU. No comparison in my mind.

I think Paradox is a much smaller company than Firaxis. Strong support & consumer interaction make me very willing to support the company.

[Urban Ranger]

SnowFire,

They as in QuickSilver

The design looks great on paper, but I doubt they have the programming prowess to pull it off. For sure I'm got going to buy a new box just to play the game.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by MarkG
hey perhaps firaxis should do the same!

release "civ3: ancient times" in october. 7 months later(with enough time to kill more bugs and balance the extra units) the... "sequel"! "civ4: burn the witch", which extends the game to the medieval age and add religion in the model. then a year later we'll have the final part, "civ5: buy those stocks now" which brings the game the 21st century and add a real economic model


disclaimer: i havent played EU and it's probably a very good game. but balancing a game with units from a period of 6000 years is a big task, which is why very few companies have attempted to make such a game....

I'd be delighted if they brought out a new Civ game each year that was worth playing for long enough to justify buying. Personally I'm quite happy to pay £1 per hour to be entertained so any game that keeps me amused for 30-40 hours is fine by me. Both Civ and EU have achieved that and more.

Incidentally, EU does have over 120 tech levels (more than Civ3!) but they are much finer grained than the Civ ones. Your armies are vastly more powerful and your country much wealthier and more productive at the end of the game, but so is everyone else, and large countries cannot dominate smaller ones through technological progress. If it was to try and encompass the same timespan as Civ naturally it would have to radically change which advances it considered noteworthy and which historical events were influential enough to have a chance of occurring in-game.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Incidentally, EU does have over 120 tech levels (more than Civ3!) but they are much finer grained than the Civ ones.

That may be true, but for many of them, you have no clue as to their effect. Some may like that nebulous-ness, but that's too obtuse for me.