Tweet
yin26 made a very public gesture of leaving because Firaxis did not make Civ3 a revolutionary game. In reacting to that absurd statement, I recalled yin’s failed attempt getting into EU, which in many ways was a revolutionary Civ-like game. This was his own words (which was similar to my opinions as well)…
Don’t you think that those demanding a radical departure from the Civ1/Civ2 model don’t know what they are wishing for? I would rather have a game that is presented clearly and simply and have to explore its depths (like the perception of Civ3) than one that is deep and complex (re: revolutionary) in which you have to find the enjoyment.
Originally posted by yin26
The game is a labor of love. It was made by a bunch of guys who always wanted a Civ-like game in which you couldn't win simply by being a dumbass warmongerer. From what I see, they accomplished that very well.
[snip]
Except, of course, they made the gamer work TOO DAMN hard to sort all the mechanics out and suffer through dozens of tiny annoyances that, for me, killed the game before it ever had a chance. Now, I've seen the number of people on-line who absolutely love the game, and I won't argue with them. They've undoubtedly given the game several (25+?) hours to really get the hang of things, to make sense of the mess of menus and the awkward (horrible?) message system that is "supposed" to make playing RTS style possible.
I guess if you work your way though all that and spend a healthy amount of time looking for answers to the otherwise unexplained gaming elements, you can learn to like and even love the game. But for me, NO game is worth 25+ hours up front simply to feel comfortable playing. No game. I spent about 10, after which I decided I have better things to do with myself when I want to be entertained.
[snip]
Finally, it's just a shame to me that a game with SO much going on simultaneously (econ, military, diplomacy) didn't give a priority to making it all easily digestible to the player. I would likely have stuck with this in my younger days, but now that I'm very, very busy, I demand more, I guess. For no doubt as all the reviews and on-line threads show, there is certainly a great game in there somewhere.
Just be prepared to work to find it.
The game is a labor of love. It was made by a bunch of guys who always wanted a Civ-like game in which you couldn't win simply by being a dumbass warmongerer. From what I see, they accomplished that very well.
[snip]
Except, of course, they made the gamer work TOO DAMN hard to sort all the mechanics out and suffer through dozens of tiny annoyances that, for me, killed the game before it ever had a chance. Now, I've seen the number of people on-line who absolutely love the game, and I won't argue with them. They've undoubtedly given the game several (25+?) hours to really get the hang of things, to make sense of the mess of menus and the awkward (horrible?) message system that is "supposed" to make playing RTS style possible.
I guess if you work your way though all that and spend a healthy amount of time looking for answers to the otherwise unexplained gaming elements, you can learn to like and even love the game. But for me, NO game is worth 25+ hours up front simply to feel comfortable playing. No game. I spent about 10, after which I decided I have better things to do with myself when I want to be entertained.
[snip]
Finally, it's just a shame to me that a game with SO much going on simultaneously (econ, military, diplomacy) didn't give a priority to making it all easily digestible to the player. I would likely have stuck with this in my younger days, but now that I'm very, very busy, I demand more, I guess. For no doubt as all the reviews and on-line threads show, there is certainly a great game in there somewhere.
Just be prepared to work to find it.
Comment