Would Civ 3 have been as successful without the existence of the other Civ games ?

[prince_aki]

Maybe.

[ACooper]

Even more so. People wouldn't have anything to compare it to so it would be freash and new.

[prince_aki]

What about the other games in the market now?

[ACooper]

Originally posted by prince_aki
What about the other games in the market now?

The "Civ" games are unique. (I'm including CTP1 & 2) They follow an expanse of history. As turn based games they are similar to board games for the computer. You can't really compare RTS games to TBS games because, by nature they are very different.

What other popular games out there are like any of the Civs? There are a few clones but they were all inspired by the original Civ. Since in your question you excluded other Civ games, then this would be the "original" Civ game and therefore stand one it's own.

[Heliodorus]

I don't think so.
My opinion is that the modern computer game market is driven more by hype than by reality.
Civ1 was released when the real gameplay mattered. Civ2 was nothing more than a polished version for the market as it was at the time - it existed entirely on hype, and it succeeded only because Civ1 had done so well.
Some people loved SMAC/AX, but I think they were more clones of Civ2 with the names changed. I never caught the fire for these, and never finished a single game I started.
Civ3 was a hype-driven enterprise. Sid Meier is a wunderkind now. Like other wunderkind (e.g. John Romero, John Carmack, and the collectives behind Blizzard's remarkable successes), even if they turn out unimaginative near-clones of earlier titles (Quake3, Diablo2) people buy it in lockstep without really thinking about them. The notable exception is obviously John Romero, who entered into two legendary Greek tragedies, becoming both Icarus and Achilles - doomed by his own pride and ego.

It's comparable to all-star game voting by fans. The folks that DESERVE to be recognized for their achievements only end up being so recognized the year AFTER they deserve it. However, the chain of recognition continues and the player continues to go to the All Star game until one year AFTER his merits no longer warrant it.

[Raion]

Maybe, its the title.

When looking at games, one picks up Civilization, one instinctly knows what it means and is, one looks at it, and says "So What!" -- one looks around, and one looks at the game again.
What could put this guy in the Hall of Fame as a game designer?
One looks again, and says "It must be alright!"
One says "I want value for my money!"
One buys it because it is popular.

"Civilization"
and that is what one gets with the game.
Virtual Reality, that not virtual reality, not merely a game, but an experience, not a reality but a reality, not really a game, but a game.
A Gaming Experience!


Makes young people mad!
Makes adults mad!
Makes everyone aware of - Duh! -- Civilization!


And it comes in a box!
Like the Microsoft OS for your computer!
Another download upgrade what now game!

[AZWildCat]

Originally posted by Heliodorus
Civ1 was released when the real gameplay mattered. Civ2 was nothing more than a polished version for the market as it was at the time - it existed entirely on hype, and it succeeded only because Civ1 had done so well.

I humbly disagree. If Civ2 was a success only on the merits of its predecessor, it would not still be the loved game that it is by scores and scores of people. It may have been a polished Civ1, but its massive success indicates it was not merely due to being a polished Civ1.

Some people loved SMAC/AX, but I think they were more clones of Civ2 with the names changed. I never caught the fire for these, and never finished a single game I started.

I did catch the fire for it, and still play it from time to time. I would agree that they are in some sense clones, but even the name suggests a linkage to the Civ-series, so similarities are to be expected.

It's comparable to all-star game voting by fans. The folks that DESERVE to be recognized for their achievements only end up being so recognized the year AFTER they deserve it. However, the chain of recognition continues and the player continues to go to the All Star game until one year AFTER his merits no longer warrant it.

...and people don't end up on stamps until 10 years after they're dead. I guess it's a matter of if you want to view an All-Star game as a gauge of the flavour of the month, or a recognition of an extended excellent career (or possibly a blend).

---
AZWildCat

[FNBrown]

AZWildCat - What happened to Lute's boys last night?

... just a friendly jab from a former Sun Devil.

[Raion]

Oh, and one knows it can be a great gift.
To Political Leaders of the World, to people everywhere.
Dropped on the heads with computer in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel, whereever.
The Congress.
Your boss.
The Terrorists!

Leave 'em baffled!


Probably cheaper too, or when they get real phone lines overthere!

[GePap]

Law of sequels

Civ3 is a sequel, and thus will be judged not only on its merits , but who it fits into the development of the series. On its own, civ3 is an OK game, not as exciting or easy to play as say MOO2, in my opinion, but its better than most games out there. Yet I judge it, rightly I believe, in comparison with Civ and Civ2 (by far the best of the series), and there, it fails. Civ is much like the Godfather trilogy: Number 1, classic. Number 2, the best, number 3, a disappointment.

[CharlesUFarley]

Re: Law of sequels

Originally posted by GePap
Civ3 is a sequel, and thus will be judged not only on its merits , but who it fits into the development of the series. On its own, civ3 is an OK game, not as exciting or easy to play as say MOO2, in my opinion, but its better than most games out there. Yet I judge it, rightly I believe, in comparison with Civ and Civ2 (by far the best of the series), and there, it fails. Civ is much like the Godfather trilogy: Number 1, classic. Number 2, the best, number 3, a disappointment.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

(I still find Civ2 to be superior over Civ3)

Charles.

[CAB]

I have bin a “Civer” since as long as I can remember, the first version I played over and over, the second instalment I played even more until I grew up.

Now I don't know how many years later, I seek more from a game than senseless killing and bad story.

I have played civ3 I don't know how many times now, and not been able to finish one whole game, why?? (and I don’t play for just a few hours)
I think that I just at some point loose the interest in the game. I ask myself the question, why are this game so unrealistic?
Then it hits me, this game are not written (or made) for hardcore strategists, it is made for the gaming market!!!!

The game feels more like a family board game, not a game who aim for realistic civilisation simulation. This is a simple game for the masses.

Nowadays I seek realism, or at least a game that try. A good game nowadays who aim for that goal, to some extent (that I know of), is Europa Universalis I & II.

Civ3 is a game of just more of the same, nothing develops during the game. In real life civilisations rise and fall, spawn in to new several other great civilisations etc., and I se no such thing in this game.
The military part has nothing to do with reality what so ever. You don't even use your different military units as they where used in reality.
Far example, since when did you ever use cavalry to ever invade a Walled city etc., there are so many flaws (in my view) that the gaming experience gets damaged along the way.
One word; “supply”!!! (don’t exist, except for paying your troops one gold a unit, quite lame)

Now, I only play the game when I'm really bored.... Don't get me wrong here, the game runs smooth, it is balanced well and have some cool new features, but in the minds of many hardcore strategists, realism is now a very important factor.

I doesn’t even matter how much you try to tweak units and other stuff in the game, it can never achieve anything close to reality.

Still.... I love civ.... as it was.... five years ago and now!?!?
I just wanted to play this game five or ten years ago... now I just get irritated of the lack of realism.
Sometimes I just hate to grew old and insightfull....

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by CAB
The game feels more like a family board game, not a game who aim for realistic civilisation simulation. This is a simple game for the masses.

Nowadays I seek realism, or at least a game that try. A good game nowadays who aim for that goal, to some extent (that I know of), is Europa Universalis I & II.

Realism makes or breaks the strategy genre - plain and simple. But I concur realism is everything!

Charles.

[Raion]

Realism in a computer game. Get real!

Who would really ever want to program it!

Civ III is a game, one can play, if one wants realism, read a book about History. No one has the time to try and make money with a game and provide a few people with realism. Every game that has tried that has failed to sell many copies.
Simply no one has time for it.

Play Civ III through a few times, and change the civ3mod.bic file a few times to change it, and wait for a patch if they change some things around; it still is a good computer game, and after some games I have bought, it still is better than most.

Realism, phooey!

[OneInTen]

Realism in computer game: Switch computer off, get up, open door, walk out.

That's real.