Is the Graphics Tail Wagging the Game Playability Dog in Civ 3's Design?

[Arator]

After perusing all the info at the new Civ3.com and the posts here at Apolyton, I am very concerned that fundamental improvements in game play have been sacrificed for the sake of amazing, but ultimately superfluous, graphics. The prime example, I think, is:

Leader Graphics vs. Civ Variety and Customizability

It seems that Firaxis has devoted a great deal of its redesign effort to creating AMAZING LEADER GRAPHICS. These leader graphics not only morph to reveal a leader's every "emotion" but they even "age" as time goes by.

Now, this would be great if it didn't come at a price. But, unfortunately, it seems that the price has been all too high. Let's tally it up:

1) We have even fewer built-in Civs than Civ II when we ought to have had more. Gone are the Spanish, the Mongols, the Celts, the Carthagenians, and the Vikings. Why? Apparently because 16 fancy leader graphics were all they could muster in the time allowed.

2) We (apparently) have no ability to ADD CUSTOM CIVS to the playable mix in a standard, random map game. Why? Apparently because providing a CUSTOM OR GENERIC fancy leader graphic was too burdensome.

3) We can only play with a maximum of 8 Civs/game. Why? Apparently because it is simply not possible to fit more than 7 fancy leader graphics in the diplomacy screen.

So, Civers, which would you rather have -- more built-in Civs, the ability to add CUSTOM CIVS, and more Civs/game OR fancy leader graphics?

To me, these fancy leader graphics hardly compensates for the loss of these three game playing advances. Give me a generic graphic which gives me the basic info I need to know about each leader instead if it will also mean that I can enjoy playing with more Civs, my own CUSTOM civs, and more Civs/game! After all, this game is called "Civilization" NOT "Leaders w/ Morphing and Aging Faces"!

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Hmm ive heard this before?

This is becoming a broken record.

Hey i like the title of this thread though.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Hmm ive heard this before?

This is becoming a broken record.

ditto..


you people evaluate the game too much before you've played it..

[Juggernaut]

So when did you try the editor out Arator?

[Steve Clark]

Arator, your childish whine is becoming quite tiresome, you want to keep it up until everyone calls you stupid?

[Arator]

Originally posted by uncle_funk

So when did you try the editor out Arator?

I haven't. All I have to go on is their "Player Set Up" screenshot which has no apparent allowance for additional custom civs.

If, in fact, this IS possible via the editor, I hope they will confirm it and, if they do, I'll happily shut up. If, on the other hand, it is not possible, I will continue to vent my frustration over that fact in the hope Firaxis will FIX IT before its too late and the game FLOPS as a result. I'm sorry, but 16 civs and only 16 civs with no ability to add custom civs to the playable mix in a standard, random map game just does not cut it. That's NOT what we've waited 10 long years for. I and millions of other CIV FANATICS will not waste our money on what is, for those of us who value highly the Civs we play and play against, a step backwards in game play.

[tniem]

I don't know why they needed to add more Civs. CtP added tons, but I played with only those that were in the original civ. With a small number of civs they were able to balance out the attributes and make it so that the slight differences add to the strategy and gameplay without unbalancing multiplayer.

And if you really believe that they have sacrificed gameplay for graphics then we are in trouble. Look at the map screens. Yeah they look good - have a painted quality to them, but they certainly are not top of the line. If they detracted from game play then civ III is not going to be worth buying

But I really don't think this is the case. It is not that hard to implement changing backgrounds by age. Heck, civ I had it in its diplomacy menu with people smiling behind the leader. It is a nice touch and I am glad they implemented it. Certainly something most games are now doing. Because it really is not that hard to do.

[Brent]

I happen to agree with Arator.

[Urban Ranger]

Arator, please stop

1. Why would we need more than 16 slots when you can only have 8 at a time and you can customise at will at any rate?

2. You're talking this as if it's a fact

3. Is there any rationale on wanting to have more than 8 civs in a game?

Most importantly, how would any of the problems you found be a major hindrance to gameplay? Are you saying that the game's going to be bad because you can't have more than 8 civs, or that the AI routines are going to break down if there are only 16 slots?

[Arator]

Re: Arator, please stop

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
1. Why would we need more than 16 slots when you can only have 8 at a time and you can customise at will at any rate?

Because I would like to be able to play a standard, random map game with my own custom civs IN ADDITION TO the 16 built-in Civs. It is NOT YET AT ALL CLEAR that you can "customize at will" in the standard, random map game. In fact, the indications from the "Player Set Up" screen shot is that you can't.

2. You're talking this as if it's a fact

I am expressing my concerns based on the information we have to date. I am anxious for FIRAXIS to disabuse me with FACTS.

3. Is there any rationale on wanting to have more than 8 civs in a game?

That's not my big beef. I can live with only 8/game though more, say 10 or 12, would be ideal.

My big beef is being limited to playing with and against only the 16 built in Civs in a standard, random map game.

Most importantly, how would any of the problems you found be a major hindrance to gameplay? Are you saying that the game's going to be bad because you can't have more than 8 civs, or that the AI routines are going to break down if there are only 16 slots?

No, I am saying that the game will not be enjoyable if I cannot play with and against the Civs I prefer to play with and against. Which Civs I play with and against MATTERS TO ME. I know from many posts to this forum that I am not alone in this. Are you listening Firaxis?

[Slax]

I agree with Arator. I think it is the gradual RTS-ing of Civ.

[Arator]

Bump to the top!

[Steve Clark]

Re: Re: Arator, please stop

Originally posted by Arator

No, I am saying that the game will not be enjoyable if I cannot play with and against the Civs I prefer to play with and against. Which Civs I play with and against MATTERS TO ME. I know from many posts to this forum that I am not alone in this. Are you listening Firaxis?

How many times do we have to say this, stupid? Create (or download) a rules.txt file (are you in any way familiar with this file???) that has all of your favorite civs, just the way you want them and play a game with that file. We do this all the time in Civ2 when we feel the need. But I and several others think you are too stupid to comprehend this because you keep repeating the same old whining rant.

[Arator]

Re: Re: Re: Arator, please stop

Originally posted by Steve Clark


How many times do we have to say this, stupid? Create (or download) a rules.txt file (are you in any way familiar with this file???) that has all of your favorite civs, just the way you want them and play a game with that file. We do this all the time in Civ2 when we feel the need. But I and several others think you are too stupid to comprehend this because you keep repeating the same old whining rant.

No I can't. That primative, lame, make-do, ought-to-be-improved-upon-in-a-revision-10-years-later method requires me to REPLACE and ELIMINATE the other built-in Civs. I want to ADD TO THEM. Get it, Einstein?

[To_Serve_Man]

. Is there any rationale on wanting to have more than 8 civs in a game?

Yes.... Scenarios! I cant count the number of Civ2 Scenarios I've played with a 'Neutreal Alliance'. Thats lameness to the max right there. Usually its Japan, maybe Australia, some middle east states and india.... come on. "NEUTRAL ALLIANCE" Its SO lame. At least with more Civs per game, I can actually make a Scenario that doesn't need Neutral Alliances.... WW3... Teams: USA, Europe, Commie Russia, Neutral Alliance, China, Arab States. Tada... cant ge tmuch lamer.

The reason why I rant like this is, I too am very disheartend that we arent getting more civs. Although, I agree that in normal random map or random games on premade map civ games,having to many civs wasnt much fun because techs spread like wild fire. I usually only played with 4 civs... but scenarios get the short end of the deal with only 8 civs.