Tweet
Great analogy!
Someone mentioned chess and I believe that is a fantastic analogy here. The players I directed the term "sophisticated" toward are those who desire a game that challenges them every time they play it. They found ways to beat the AI in Civ 1 and 2, even on deity level, and so they were forced to turn to MP in order to be challenged. I could say that it's easy to fall into this rut if you continue to play the game in the same manner every time, to wit: I found a way to win on deity so I continued playing that same way every game and got bored. I also admit that human nature directs one to continue doing that which works and this same group may have been able to win even trying different methods of gameplay (i.e. warmonger, through science, etc.).
Then you have another group that found the game fun, even if they could win at deity most of the time too, and continued to appreciate the game. Thus comes the chess analogy. I've played a fair bit of chess and even got seriously into it for a time. I read books. I bought MCO (the "bible of chess"). I went to Kasparov's site daily to see what was new in the chess world and what he had to say about it. I studied notated games from chess Masters and Grandmasters. Despite all that, I still struggled against my chess computer when it was set at higher difficulty levels. But I still enjoyed the game. If you reach a point when you feel unchallenged, the game loses appeal. Such was the case for some with Civ 2. And so they view Civ 3 as likely to bring about the same problems for them. Others play chess because they enjoy it, not in order to become a Grandmaster. So it is with civvers. I suppose in the end I'm trying to say that if you are one of those who demands a game that will challenge you every time you play, for several years and several thousands of games played, you will be frustrated. Such a game would be difficult to create, expensive to create and produce and would require the most modern PC systems. Also, only a small segment of the gaming population would purchase it and it would be therefore unmarketable.
I hope for the sake of you guys (and dolls) who were easily frustrated with Civ 2 that you find Civ 3 to be a pleasant (no pun intended toward Mr.) surprise. But I do also wonder if anyone who spoke doom and gloom toward Civ 3 ahead of time (such as, "It will absolutely suck and I won't buy it!") will admit you were mistaken if in fact you are. I do respect the position of those who say that regardless of how good it is they won't buy it unless it has MP capabilities. They stand on principle.
Someone mentioned chess and I believe that is a fantastic analogy here. The players I directed the term "sophisticated" toward are those who desire a game that challenges them every time they play it. They found ways to beat the AI in Civ 1 and 2, even on deity level, and so they were forced to turn to MP in order to be challenged. I could say that it's easy to fall into this rut if you continue to play the game in the same manner every time, to wit: I found a way to win on deity so I continued playing that same way every game and got bored. I also admit that human nature directs one to continue doing that which works and this same group may have been able to win even trying different methods of gameplay (i.e. warmonger, through science, etc.).
Then you have another group that found the game fun, even if they could win at deity most of the time too, and continued to appreciate the game. Thus comes the chess analogy. I've played a fair bit of chess and even got seriously into it for a time. I read books. I bought MCO (the "bible of chess"). I went to Kasparov's site daily to see what was new in the chess world and what he had to say about it. I studied notated games from chess Masters and Grandmasters. Despite all that, I still struggled against my chess computer when it was set at higher difficulty levels. But I still enjoyed the game. If you reach a point when you feel unchallenged, the game loses appeal. Such was the case for some with Civ 2. And so they view Civ 3 as likely to bring about the same problems for them. Others play chess because they enjoy it, not in order to become a Grandmaster. So it is with civvers. I suppose in the end I'm trying to say that if you are one of those who demands a game that will challenge you every time you play, for several years and several thousands of games played, you will be frustrated. Such a game would be difficult to create, expensive to create and produce and would require the most modern PC systems. Also, only a small segment of the gaming population would purchase it and it would be therefore unmarketable.
I hope for the sake of you guys (and dolls) who were easily frustrated with Civ 2 that you find Civ 3 to be a pleasant (no pun intended toward Mr.) surprise. But I do also wonder if anyone who spoke doom and gloom toward Civ 3 ahead of time (such as, "It will absolutely suck and I won't buy it!") will admit you were mistaken if in fact you are. I do respect the position of those who say that regardless of how good it is they won't buy it unless it has MP capabilities. They stand on principle.
Comment