A clarification about Civ3 and discontent

[Capt Dizle]

In order to understand the process of making sequels you have to look at what a sequel is. Think of the Star Wars movies, the LOTR triology, many sucessful RPG computer games. In these cases you had simularities, i.e. settings, charactors, mechanics, and so forth, but the story changed. Even bad sequels, like the Rocky movies, pretend to be new stories.

OTOH, sometimes things get remade. Old movies and computer games, and songs. Same basic story, prettier and technically up to date, but basically, the same, a remake.

So, you have two things, sequels and remakes.

Civ3 is not a sequel. All of those who expected that are discontent.

Civ3 is a remake. And a lot of people are discontent. Why?

Think of all the remakes that you have seen, movies for example. Which were the worst? The ones that changed the original the most. When people love something and you change it, thats bad, the original is holy and those who transgress can only expect fire and brimstone.

Most of the people who like the current version of Civ, the third, are probably not the people who were diehard fans of one and two.

Another reason that Civ3 engenders such discontent is that Firaxis incorporated ideas from all over the place. Ideas from forums, ideas from god knows where, but listen folks, too many cooks spoil the soup.

The best games are basically the product of one mind, I am speaking concept and gameplay, not bells and whistles, sound and graphic. The core of a game is the story and gameplay. The rest is window dressing. Does anyone think the Sid Meier's great games were designed by committee?

Firaxis could have decided they were going to remake the remake (Civ2), tweaked the gameplay by adding some of the great fixes like the combat changes and then wrapped it up with nice state of the art packaging. That would have been okay for a remake. But instead, they gutted the gameplay elements that people loved in the name of better AI. Better AI is the ultimate oxymoron. You can't build a game around the AI, humans will figure it out very quickly and then the game is a coaster, as Civ3 is. (just look at site traffic here and other Civ sites for proof, sales be damned) Then they added new stuff that was hardly tested and rushed it out the door. That is sad.

The other option, and the better one, would have been to do a sequel. Civ3: Return to Earth. Following up SMAC with a new story makes sense. Humanity evolves on Earth (Civ), flees the collapse of civilization to a new home in the stars (SMAC), then comes home to rebuild in the wasteland of the apocalypse. Not a new story, but it would work.

Instead, we are in our season of discontent.

[Ninot]

You make some good points, but I just have a single point to argue... i think

You can't compare movie sequels to Civilization sequels, and mostly for one reason: Story/plot line

In the instance of the Rocky sequels, 2-5 were lackluster because, in general, it was the same story with different faces, repeated again and again for profits. Heck... you can stretch to say there was only one Rocky movie, with 4 remakes... but that would just be to slap the Rocky makers in the face. After all, they DID switch the names....

But, in the instance of a game like Civ 3, there is no TRUE plot or story line, because the player is supposed to make their own.

So, to that extent, I don't believe you can't compare these builder type games (games that generally don't have story lines) to movie sequels at least. Because, the bottom line is, to make a sequel to a builder game would be to do the impossible.

Sure, thats not all true. SMAC can be said to be a sequel of Civ... but SMAC isn't labeled as a game in the line of Civilization, its a spinoff.

Now, games like the C&C Red Alert line, or the Diablo line, Those have true sequels because they have stories. Sure, technology gets better between games, but they do as well in movies. But, they have (succesful) SEQUELS because the story evolves.

If Firaxis were CLAIMING they had a true sequel, then they would be claiming a Civilization game with a preset story. No one wants that. What they released was merely another game in the line of Civilization. That meant game tweeks, a few new concepts, and nothing more.

I say blame Infogrames for the rushing out the door with a kick in the behind.. but thats my opinion.

Now, the sequel you propose sounds like something more of a sequel to SMAC. But, in the Civ line... they already had two basically storyless games, one being an improvement and update on the other. To break that line for a game that starts after SMAC, WITH a story would be even more outrageous than a second remake, me thinks.

However, as for the matter of them spoiling the soup, gutting the beast... so on and etc... Well, I admitt, Civ 3 is my first civ game. I am a fan of it. I admitt, it had and still has faults, i see them as a gamer.

But, look at it this way. People who see the original versions of movies, they don't always love the remakes. The same can be said of many who played Civ 1 and 2... they dont love Civ 3.

But there are fans of Planet of the Apes, the remake... (heh, i am one... and i saw all the originals first too. both are great imho). Just like there will be fans of civ3. It may be different, the AI may be solvable, but it may be acceptable to some...

And, in the end... thats all a remake can be said to be for... get new audiances in a new age.

Another respectful post
with all due respect
Ninot

[Tarquelne]

Re: A clarification about Civ3 and discontent

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Civ3 is a remake. And a lot of people are discontent. Why?

I think of Civ3 as a game called Civ3, which may or may not be alot like other games, and I may or may not like that..... but I'll judge the game as the thing-it-is, not the thing-it-isn't.

Think of all the remakes that you have seen, movies for example. Which were the worst? The ones that changed the original the most.

I think that has more to do with Hollywood than the nature of remakes.

[QUTOE]
When people love something and you change it, thats bad, the original is holy and those who transgress can only expect fire and brimstone.
[/QUOTE]

WHen the "people" refuse take that narrowminded sort of attitude, yes.

Most of the people who like the current version of Civ, the third, are probably not the people who were diehard fans of one and two.

Got any evidence, or is that just a guess?

The best games are basically the product of one mind, I am speaking concept and gameplay, not bells and whistles, sound and graphic.

Lets see a list.

Firaxis could have decided they were going to remake the remake (Civ2), tweaked the gameplay by adding some of the great fixes like the combat changes and then wrapped it up with nice state of the art packaging. That would have been okay for a remake. But instead, they gutted the gameplay elements that people loved in the name of better AI. Better AI is the ultimate oxymoron. You can't build a game around the AI, humans will figure it out very quickly and then the game is a coaster, as Civ3 is. (just look at site traffic here and other Civ sites for proof, sales be damned) Then they added new stuff that was hardly tested and rushed it out the door. That is sad.

Yeah, it looks rushed. I accept that. All the rest though: Looks like "revealed knowledge" to me.

The other option, and the better one, would have been to do a sequel. Civ3: Return to Earth.

I want you to be the head of the planning and marketing division of my game company. Because - and this is your claim - you _know_ what would have been better, right?

Instead, we are in our season of discontent.

You are. Some others are. "WE" are not.

[Capt Dizle]

Tarq,

Yes, I do claim to know better. Whatever you are prepared to pay me will never be enough. Best investment you could ever make. Do you provide dental?

jt

[rpodos]

Serious:

Interesting analogy. Don;t really buy it though... aren;t all Civ games re-makes? I'm no expert, but here's my sort of overview:

Empire
Civ1 - Empire with a LOT of other good stuff
Civ2 - Civ1 re-make
CTP - Civ1 copy
CTP2 - CTP re-make and Civ2 copy, with some other stuff
SMAC - Civ2 sequel, with some good new stuff
Civ3 - Civ2 re-make, with some good new stuff and some flaws

And then there are all the other similar concept games.

It's sort of like the Dracula series:

Bram Stoker's original book
Nosferatu, which was un-friggin-believably innovative for the time, but for copyright reasons had to be re-branded
The series of Drac movies in the 30s through the 50s, which ranged from the original Bela Lugosi stuff (camp but cool) ot Abbott and Costello
Here's a great one: Batman Dracula, by Andy Warhol!
Francis Ford Coppola's version, which is inspiring except for Keanu Reeves hair
The new Nosferatu, with Willem Dafoe, which is a new and different kind of masterpiece
Dracula 2000

Different strokes. Call'em remakes, sequels, whatever, each is an evolution, for good or bad, and some people will like'em and some'll puke.


Humorous:

If you are having a discontent problem, I suggest temples, cathedrals, colosseums, marketplaces and many luxuries, and also there's this slider thing that makes people happier.

R

BTW,, jt, I really do like the idea of returning from AC... that's a great sequel.

[AnnC]

I agree. A return-from-alpha-centauri sequel would be a great idea.

[Thrawn05]

You're entire post Jimmy is exactly what I thought when I played AvP2. But even still, you're always going to get people who are blinded about things like Graphics, Game Company, etc...

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king!

[rpodos]

AnnC,

I miss spies too!

R

[Samudragupt]

Even though he is a self confessed hater he sure spends a lot more
time on the game than most people who like it. Something to think
over while counting sheep tonight JT ?

Samudragupt (laughs at the idiocy of it all)

[Samudragupt]

or rather I shd say while unistalling CIV 3 for the 63rd time and saying goodbye to the forum for the 71st time
sorry cdnt help that

[The Thinker]

I'd accept it as a remake but I don't think it is. One of the new ideas they added was to make every wonder less powerful, another was to make corruption devistating to "large" empires, another was to make spy games worthless, another was to make Democracy a weak form of government that can crash because a nation with only one city and spears claims it's at war with you and another was to give perks (golden age and great leaders) to war makers.

These changes mean I cannot play a game AT ALL the way I used to play Civ 2 which is why I cannot think of it as a remake but a new game based on some of the old ideas. The loss of the wonder movies only underscores that the changes are in the wrong dirrection, that one of the things I like was that it made you think about history and how things changed and where we came from and where we are going.

My main problem with the new game is that the AI is stupid/insane and tries to cover this up by cheating and we do not have a halfway decent scenario editor (but it hardly matters because the AI cannot adapt to new rules). Multiplayer would be nice but I knew that was not in the box when I bought it.

Rik

[heidlejohn]

The NEXT sequel will be Rise of Nations by Brian Reynolds due out in 2003. For some reason I have a free subscription to Computer Games for a while and the May 2002 has a preview of the game.
It looks great but so did Civ3 when it was announced.

[DrFell]

I'd hate the idea of a SMAC sequal as a replacement to civ. Maybe as another in the series, but I will always prefer historical games.

Tarquelne:

'Got any evidence, or is that just a guess?'

A lot of the diehard civ2 MP players, I'd say 80% (who I know having played on the zone and from several other circles) hate civ3 or are disappointed by it.

'Lets see a list.'

A list would take ages... basically most classic games (which spawned many sequals and clones) like Civ, Elite, Populous, Lemmings, PacMan, Space Invaders, and millions I've missed off. All in the list were the idea of one person, and turned out to be very successful games.

'You are. Some others are. "WE" are not.'

I think he speaks for the critics in general.

Jimmytrick:

'But instead, they gutted the gameplay elements that people loved in the name of better AI.'

Exactly. Everytime I look at how weak some of the 'special' units are in the game, I think of how many problems the AI would have using them. So the designers just make them virtually worthless. When I think of how diplos were completely removed from the game, I remember back to civ2 when the AI didn't have a clue how to use them properly. But man, were they a killer in MP in the right situations. Now we have espionage, which is next to useless. When I think of the ages system, I think, this just forces the human to research along an AI tech path. That's all it does, realism has little to do with it. When I think of the tech caps, I remember how the humans could out perform the AIs on civ2 with 2 tech per turn tech rates. No more, in fact there is almost no need to research at all now. And when I think of how humans could defend cities so as to make them almost invincible to AI attack in civ2 with the right precautions, and I look at civ3 and see how their unfortified cavalry on grassland can kill of 3 of my attacking tanks, I long for the civ2 combat system. This game has been built upon strengthening the AI, things have been brought too far. I hope some of the damage is repaired in MP.

[DrSpike]

I like the return to earth idea. However, I thought humans evolved to a higher form of life at the end of SMAC!

Also I think a civ game should span the history of human civs. Overall I would have been most happy with civ2 with no bugs and a few tweaks. But many people wouldn't like buying a very similar game, it is a tricky one for developers.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by DrFell
'Got any evidence, or is that just a guess?'

A lot of the diehard civ2 MP players, I'd say 80% (who I know having played on the zone and from several other circles) hate civ3 or are disappointed by it.

Because Civ3 has no MP, and looks like MP might have real problems if implemented, or for other reasons? I think MP fans have good reason to be disappointed in the lack of MP/MP support.

But I do strongly believe that poor MP in a game doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong with SP play - just with MP play. That really seems pretty obvious to me.

'Lets see a list.'

A list would take ages... basically most classic games (which spawned many sequals and clones) like Civ, Elite, Populous, Lemmings, PacMan, Space Invaders, and millions I've missed off. All in the list were the idea of one person, and turned out to be very successful games.

True - I should have said "Lets compare lists - great games from1 person, great games with multiple designers." (Also: Sequals controlled by 1 person vrs sequals controlled by teams.)

'You are. Some others are. "WE" are not.'

I think he speaks for the critics in general.

The critics who agree with him, yes.

This game has been built upon strengthening the AI, things have been brought too far.

What jt seems unable to understand, but I think you will, is that the effective quality (good or bad) of the changes depends on what you want out of the game. I don't care much about MP, so I'm happy to see MP suffer to make SP better. You want MP, so you don't like many of the changes, and I think that's perfectly reasonable.