Tweet
I think of Civ3 as a Civ sequel (with the aforementioned problems of no history or plot in Civ games, since the motto is "rewrite history"). It's IMO a sequel because whole new concepts were brought without being only candy : culture and resources are at the core of the game, as much as diplomacy and city management. It's a sequel also because the AI changed deeply : it's not the dumb one we knew with Civ2, CTP1 or SMAC, but is really challenging for most casual players (I still don't dare to play higher than monarch). SMAC was not a sequel, it was a whole new game with empire-building principles ; considering SMAC a mere sequel would be like considering HalfLife a sequel of Doom.
I was a true fan (ok, not diehard) of Civ2, I miss the lack of scenarios in Civ3, but Civ3 is a game I love. I couldn't play Cv2 anymore because it would seem me so poor -no resources and all.
About discontentment : I suppose a sequel always disturbs some fans of the original, who would like to play the original again, while a remake would make some others fans whine because of the lack of innovations. Recieving fan's whining is a must in the game industry, every great game with great sequels reieve much negative feedback from those who wanted the original better, but in their own way. Some examples : go on Chrono Trigger/Chrono Cross, or Diablo1 / Diablo2 forums, and you'll see how solid games get bashed by psychorigid people.
But I think Civ3 recieves many complains because some of its flaws are unanimously admitted -lack of scenarios, lack of MP, still incomplete rules editor... When they'll be fixed, much whining will abate, but not all : there will always be people who think things must be on their way, or otherwise the game is sh*t.
(Btw, I don't like the idea of a "return from Alpha Century, if Civ3, or Civ4 had to be released like this, with an advanced technology from the beginning on planet earth, I would have found it pretty lame. Since Civ1, I enjoy eginning at the dawn of civilisation and arriving at today. That's why I was less involved in the sci-fi SMAC or the late CTP1)
I was a true fan (ok, not diehard) of Civ2, I miss the lack of scenarios in Civ3, but Civ3 is a game I love. I couldn't play Cv2 anymore because it would seem me so poor -no resources and all.
About discontentment : I suppose a sequel always disturbs some fans of the original, who would like to play the original again, while a remake would make some others fans whine because of the lack of innovations. Recieving fan's whining is a must in the game industry, every great game with great sequels reieve much negative feedback from those who wanted the original better, but in their own way. Some examples : go on Chrono Trigger/Chrono Cross, or Diablo1 / Diablo2 forums, and you'll see how solid games get bashed by psychorigid people.
But I think Civ3 recieves many complains because some of its flaws are unanimously admitted -lack of scenarios, lack of MP, still incomplete rules editor... When they'll be fixed, much whining will abate, but not all : there will always be people who think things must be on their way, or otherwise the game is sh*t.
(Btw, I don't like the idea of a "return from Alpha Century, if Civ3, or Civ4 had to be released like this, with an advanced technology from the beginning on planet earth, I would have found it pretty lame. Since Civ1, I enjoy eginning at the dawn of civilisation and arriving at today. That's why I was less involved in the sci-fi SMAC or the late CTP1)
Comment