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

[Encomium]

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

I didn't know it was "successful" (other than in sales). A great many of us find it a big disappointment.

It would be LESS of a disappointment if not for Civ II, if that is what you are asking.

NOTE: Five years after coming out Civ II was still going strong, in large part die to scenario-building. You can be CERTAIN interest in Civ III will quickly fade after this year.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by OneInTen
Realism in computer game: Switch computer off, get up, open door, walk out.

That's real.

Wrong again, fella.

There is no excuse in Civ III for LESS realism than in Civ II. None.

Civ III:

Bombers cannot sink warships!! I guess Sid missed Pearl Harbor. LUDICROUS.

Tanks, cavalry, and even elephant units have airlift capablity!! (But cannon and leaders don't!). Never happened, and idiotic.

Immortals did NOT have "swords".

Galleys did not fire cannon broadsides at other galleys (as depicted in the animation) - that a thousand years before cannons were mounted on ships!

Privateers and submarines attacked merchantmen and TRADE - not enemy warships.

Longbowmen should be Engish-specific, and have a high defense value against knights - as occured in actual battle after battle.

An invading army cannot use existing roads even though not pillaged by the defender (as in Civ II).

War elephants were very poor on the defensive (they should be 4.1).

Cruise missiles should NOT have a range of "2'. That's the same as artillery!

Naval units did not spend their time mucking around bombarding "improvements", and the only ship with the firepower to do so was the battleship.

Borders in the real world do not flip over someone else's improvements and fortresses due to some weird AI "culture" value.

Civiilzations do not hold grudges for MILLENNIA as occurs with AI civs.

Garrisons do not vanish if the city they are in defect to the other side. With a strong garison they would not flip AT ALL.

And on and on. . .

All of these, and many more, are examples of lack of realism WORSE THAN IN CIV II, and so very easy to correct - except for privateers and subs effecting enemy trade.

I expect a game that ATTEMPTS to simulate the real world and History, not one that is too careless to give a damn about it.

[Archaetus]

That was impressive.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by 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!

Reading books or activities that take place when you're not playing games has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. Games are only as realistic as the developers design them, the imagination and coding ability are the only two limits. So I completely disagree with you. Just becuase you're happy with it, and you're preference is that 'realism' is a lesser need, does that mean the rest of us share that view? Nope! I'm definately all for realism.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Useless comments

Originally posted by OneInTen
Realism in computer game: Switch computer off, get up, open door, walk out.

That's real.

Actually we had hoped that you would have followed that very exmaple, but you're still here. But OiT what does daily life and activities outside the gaming sphere have to do with gaming preferences? If you don't want to discuss games with us then you can turn off your computer and walk out your door - and leave the rest of us to our discussion. Otherwise make a valid point and move on. I know you can't resist commentary when it comes to criticism - but face the facts not everyone feels the way you do about this game, and we still have the right to discuss it without being sniped for our opinions.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Encomium
All of these, and many more, are examples of lack of realism WORSE THAN IN CIV II, and so very easy to correct - except for privateers and subs effecting enemy trade.

I expect a game that ATTEMPTS to simulate the real world and History, not one that is too careless to give a damn about it.

Not only does Sid Meier support realism in his games, but he once stated that Civ was a "realistic historical journey through time, with a future that only the player can decide" or some variation of that. Ofcoarse we know about the game hype, but that asside - his intentions were true. I don't understand what people like OneInTen and Raion are talking about - realism improves the game, not ruin it. Why would anyone not want realism? I fail to see the logic in this thinking - all the games that are being produced now are using cutting edge 'digital photo imagery' and other variations of 'capturing realism'. I love realism!

Charles.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
Not only does Sid Meier support realism in his games, but he once stated that Civ was a "realistic historical journey through time, with a future that only the player can decide" or some variation of that.

he has also said that if at a point he has to choose between realism and fun, fun always wins

[OneInTen]

Re: Useless comments

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley


Actually we had hoped that you would have followed that very exmaple, but you're still here. But OiT what does daily life and activities outside the gaming sphere have to do with gaming preferences? If you don't want to discuss games with us then you can turn off your computer and walk out your door - and leave the rest of us to our discussion. Otherwise make a valid point and move on. I know you can't resist commentary when it comes to criticism - but face the facts not everyone feels the way you do about this game, and we still have the right to discuss it without being sniped for our opinions.

Charles.

Oh get real. There's no sniping. I'm saying that realism is served up in copious doses by real life. Computer games will never be real because to do so would violate the laws of physics. So to complain that something is not real is like complaining that the sky is blue, or water is wet.

Besides, a great number of philosophers would say that reality is subjective rather than objective and therefore the game can only hope to model one person's reality, not everyone's ...

The bottom line is civ is a game that uses real world concepts to enhance the accessibility of gameplay, not a game that is deeply rooted in simulation. Any game designer who, when tasked with the choice between what works as a game and what is real, chooses reality isn't doing much of a job.

You can debate realism all you like, but you should at least keep in mind that the game is based on the highly unlikely concept of a single ruler living and leading their people for a period of 6050 years. Whether immortals carry swords or even flower pots is hardly an issue compared to this whopper of a reality twist.

Yet if you can swallow that one down whole, that which is the whole basis for the entire series, why so much trouble with the rest?

[morb]

Re: Re: Useless comments

Originally posted by OneInTen
Yet if you can swallow that one down whole, that which is the whole basis for the entire series, why so much trouble with the rest?

because the rest is what kills the fun.

You're missing the point. If realistic elements enhance gameplay and make it more fun, they should be included. Sid's mantra failed here. He didn't deliver neither fun, nore realism. Everything that works in this game, such as the fun beating realism in the case of one ruler over all ages, is a relic of the first two games.

The game is broken beyond repair. I've given up and went back to SMAC. Or what should more accuratly be called BRAC, for Brian Raynold's Alpha Centauri.

[CAB]

I do not see the logic of walking out the door and feel "real life", normally real life is boring and not much is happening.

But to introduce you to a good realistic simulation of civilisation through history would put you on the edge.
If you play a game, and at one point say to your self, this is so weird, I don't feel like manipulating history, this feel like a kids game.
You build some, research some, build military units and attack... feels more like the streamlined masses of crap games out there. Granted that Civ III is better than most games, but as a realistic simulation game quite badly.

I seek the thrill of govern or control a civilisation, make decisions that to me seem sound and realistic, to wage war like you did a thousand years ago, or at least in a way that seems logical.

I do know that a game of this magnitude would be very hard to make, but there are a few good games out there that have allot of realism in them.

CivIII is a good game is it is, it just lack that thing for me now. I will continue to play it from time to time, but it will never be any of my favourites. Civ II was a greater experience when I first played that, even though it had less new features over Civ I.

But back then realism wasn't so important to me as it is now.

[Ironikinit]

I like Civ III a lot, but I want to say that I appreciate what CAB just said. Real life is a bore sometimes. If my life was exciting, I wouldn't play computer games.

Unlike a lot of people who liked Civ II but dislike Civ III, CAB says that the difference isn't so much the change in Civ, but that his taste in games has changed. Civ is still pretty much the same. You build cities, you explore, you expand, you research, you try to dominate. The basics are all still exactly the same. What's changed is CAB's perceptions and values. It's silly to blame Civ III for not being Civ II when (in a matter of speaking) for many, Civ II isn't what it was. People change whether they want to acknowledge it or not.

CAB wants more realism now, and Civ has never been realistic. It's not a simulation. Just as an example, even on huge maps, the cities are way too big. They take up an area bigger than a small country or at least a state or province. How many cities can you fit in the British Isle, for example? How many are there in reality? Then there's things like the the combat system, and how units don't need supplies. While it works fine from a gameplay point of view, it's just goofy in terms of realism that guys mounted on horses and armed with rifles can destroy a tank battalion.

Other games are a lot more realistic. Historical accuracy is a big deal in Europa Universalis, for instance, and a there are flight simulators that attempt to make flying a simulated plane as realistic as possible. EU only covers a few hundred years, of course, and it's still really ambitious. Many realistic wargames only cover a single battle or campaign. Civ is more for fun, and I'm fine with that. A game doesn't have to be realistic to be challenging, either. Chess isn't a realistic representation of war.

About the original question, no, I don't think Civ III would even have been made if not for the built in market created by Civ I and II. If it had been, it probably wouldn't've sold as well as it has or made as big a splash with the awards.

[Raion]

Reality to me is in the sense that one try to even get through the game.
I read where Sid was originally an engineer.
It's not so much that the game is historical, which is the reality some of you are talking about, the reality of this game, is even playing through it!
That the real part!
The fun is what anyone makes it!

I just rather not have reality in any computer game!

Yuck!

A time machine would be needed first, to even know historical reality!

By the time one would read all the books and all the viewpoints about history, one probably would be dead.

Reality is the Library of Congress, I guess I am just not ready to actually read all the books in that Library though.




The reality comes from playing Civ III or talking about it, because it gives one a different reality!

[Raion]

Oh, and in History, probably no one will even remember that people even played CIV III.

Won't even be mentioned!

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Raion
Reality to me is in the sense that one try to even get through the game.
I read where Sid was originally an engineer.
It's not so much that the game is historical, which is the reality some of you are talking about, the reality of this game, is even playing through it!
That the real part!
The fun is what anyone makes it!

I just rather not have reality in any computer game!

Yuck!

A time machine would be needed first, to even know historical reality!

By the time one would read all the books and all the viewpoints about history, one probably would be dead.

Reality is the Library of Congress, I guess I am just not ready to actually read all the books in that Library though.




The reality comes from playing Civ III or talking about it, because it gives one a different reality!

Oh yeah that makes alot of sense. I have no problem with the fact that in your opinion you would rather play an un-realistic game. Me on the other hand, I lean more toward the realistic games. But Civ is not only renowned for its Historical realism but its "playable" realism as well. For example: Can submarines be bombed by bombers (in the game they can't) but in reality they can. That's what we mean by realism.

Charles.