CivIII is not sequel to CivII

[Ozymandous]

Re: Re: CivIII is not sequel to CivII

Originally posted by Pembleton


I know I probably shouldn't respond to this, but I can't help myself.

My response is a huge "WHO CARES?" and "What is your point"? Should they call the game Civilization 6?

I don't understand why you are posting this.

Man, talk about coming up with a pointless idea to spam up the board.

Actually this could be a valid attempt to tell people not to expect Civ3 to be the same game as Civ2 with better graphics to forestall all the complaing that might insue.

Of course people will likely complain and whine when anything changes anyway so...

[Pembleton]

Re: Re: Re: CivIII is not sequel to CivII

*spam*

[Deathwalker]

It is the sequal to Civ 2 Just becuase they are lessons learned in other games does not mean it's not a sequal. MOO3 uses lessons leanrt in other games beside MOO2 and it is still called a sequal to MOO2. So Civ 3 is the sequal

[Pembleton]

Re: Re: Re: CivIII is not sequel to CivII

*unnecessary*

[Be Quicker]

Ozymandous:
I played Civ for 2 years and was highly disappointed that Civ2 was the same game with different graphics and virtually little other improvements (other than game balance issues like unit hitpoints, etc).

Wait a second. I disagree. Although Civ2 was clearly the same game as Civ in the sense that it was not a different game, Civ2 was IMHO opinion a very big step forward from Civ1. Much more balanced, much longer needed to play, much more actual necessary use for modern age development, need where previously there was none for changing governments, a complete new age (the industrial age), a better tech tree (no ridicilous short-cuts to computer for example), much more need to build wonders, more difficult (i.e. emperor in Civ I was easy, while in Civ II it was at least somewhat challenging) etc. Evidently you don't think so, but ok.

Now, with time is has become very evident that there is a need for such changes again, and I look forward to them. I personaly would already have been happy enough with only better path finding, building queues, and better automated engineers, on top of CivII. So I guess I am not so demanding.

[Sarxis]

Re: Re: CivIII is not sequel to CivII

Of course, I have to agree with this.

[Pembleton]

Re: Re: Re: CivIII is not sequel to CivII

Originally posted by Anunikoba

Please leave.

I'm here to stay and you can't stop me.

[Grumbold]

Why do I get the feeling this is now devolving into a meaningless attempt at upping personal post counts?

[Grumbold]

upping personal post counts

[Grumbold]

Upping personal post counts

After all, Anikornikovatennisplayer has 90 more posts than me and is a king, which might somehow make his posts seem more important than my merely Princely ones

[Pembleton]

I just wanted to apologize for my harsh post. With further thought, perhaps this thread wasn't as useless as I thought. Sorry.

[Grumbold]

...and fresh from looking at that gamespy article that supported the "no multiplayer" announcement:

GameSpin: Were there any other games besides Civ that you looked to for inspiration when designing Civ III?

Johnson: Hmmm … not really, though we'd announce some idea and fans would say, "You got that from Call To Power, didn't you?" It would be my idea, but I never CTP.

I think this proves my point. At least some, if not all of the design team did not look at the Civ-like TBS genre to find the best features to incorporate. Some features have appeared that emulate ones we have seen before, simply because they are obvious improvements over the previous games. I suppose we could put all the blame on Activision. Firaxis would have found it much harder to ignore CtP's good bits had they been strong commercial successes.

[Sarxis]

I too wish to extend an apologetic hand. I get too defensive on message boards, which always leads to exchanges.

...Anikornikovatennisplayer...

What the hell are you talking about Grumbold?

But anyhow- let's try to keep this discussion on course now.
Again I state that CivIII is much more than just a sequel to CivII, but is the pinnacle of all that has been CIV up until now. Surely this is much more than a mere sequel?

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I think this proves my point. At least some, if not all of the design team did not look at the Civ-like TBS genre to find the best features to incorporate. Some features have appeared that emulate ones we have seen before, simply because they are obvious improvements over the previous games. I suppose we could put all the blame on Activision. Firaxis would have found it much harder to ignore CtP's good bits had they been strong commercial successes.

Well CTP1 was fairly successful, which is one reason why they made CTP2 in the first place.

I think Johnson wants to avoid any relation to the CTPs because basically they were pieces of ****.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
What the hell are you talking about Grumbold?

Every time i catch your board name out of the corner of my eye while working on something else I misread it as Anna Kournikova. Purely a sign of my one track mental processes and no slur intended


I believe both SMAC and post-mod CtP's are far superior to Civ II. The quantity of insults levelled at both CtP games are somewhat unjustified in my opinion. The developers were forced to release early and then reassigned onto other projects otherwise CtP2 could have become a truly polished game and allowed the efforts of the dedicated Mod makers to be devoted to other areas. I actually welcomed many of the ways in which CtP1 advanced from Civ2, particularly in the special units, army stacks and bombardment rules. CtP1 + MedMod is still my game of choice if playing any of the genre.