CIV3 a new Perspective

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Firstly to those out there who truly enjoy CIV3 this is not troll bait nor is it an attempt to belittle your tastes or anyones for that matter. If you enjoy CIV3 have at it. I digress....

With regard to CIV3 I have gone through a range of emotions. Joy of discovery, boredome, resentment, and now acceptance.

Upon reflection I have reconciled a few things.

CIV3 is not nor is it intended to be CIV2 or any of the other CIV style (read SMAC) games no matter how much I want it to be.

See I figure its like this, upon embarking on the CIV3 project Sid et.al. made some definitive decisions on who their target market was. On the one hand they could look to the tried and true CIV2 and SMAC crowd to feed yet another version of CIV to or they could be a little daring and try to woo a brand new generation of CIvers. They already had market data in the form of hard sales numbers suggesting that feature ridden perhaps overly complex games like SMAC (while having a rabid following ) was a rather small market segment. OTOH a challenging yet less complex game might have appeal to a much larger market segment as the game could draw in those raised on console like games needing challenge yet simplicity. Was this truly Sid's ploy to make a game that while not fully abandoning the old CIVers looked to a newer and much larger potential customer base?

In reading a little into Sid's comments I think this was exactly his aim. He didn't necessarily say screw the old timers, but more to the point I think he was looking to make a gaming compromise to get the game to the larger audience. With this compromise in mind, I look at CIV3 in a new light. (CIVlite no less ) I'm still not pleased the game is a departure from the rich full featured game, but I can at least chalk it up to good business sense as opposed to incompetence.

OTOH the whole patch affair IMHO has been dreadful. Release of patches without full understanding of the impact on AI is inexcusable.

[Velociryx]

Og...beautifully written and thoughtful as always!

And yes, I'm not fond of knee-jerk patches that are not tested (communism implosion of AI civs, to name but the most profound example).

::sigh::

But...you raise a very good, valid point. These guys aren't dummies, and they never promised "us" the kind of Civ experience we were clamoring for.

Someday, we'll have the Civ-game the diehards are salivating for...the market for it IS there...and someone will tap into it.

I do kinna wish it'd have been Sid, but....whatchagonnado?

-=Vel=-

[Deornwulf]

Hostile Takeover

I still think the plan I suggested a few months ago is a good one. If every Apolyton user bought stock in Firaxis or Infrogames, we could get the game we wanted Civ3 to be produced.

[SpencerH]

I did a quick check, neither firaxis nor infogrames are publicly traded stock. Is there another name?

[SpencerH]

Sorry, I found IFGM! Market cap $459M on 70M shares. Unless you're Bill Gates, there's no way the few thousand hard-core civ players could effect Infogrames. Plus its not a stock I would buy just now.

[Cyclotron]

Would it be possible to point out to me exactly where features were dropped from, say, Civ2 (never played SMAC, sorry)? No argument, I just want to understand your point better.

[Encomium]

All of which proves Firaxis does NOT listen to the fans.

Marketing "to a wider audience" means making the game more simple-minded and dumb.

Civ III realy should have been given a different title as it is so different from Civ 2.


Civ 2 fans wanted a better bigger version of our beloved game... AND WE DID NOT GET IT.

So why should we be satisfied??

[Velociryx]

Hiya Cyclo! I can better speak to what was left out from SMAC/X, so I'll attempt to address that part of it.

There were many, but in my mind, the four biggest steps backwards/conspicuous non-inclusions are:

Set governmental "types" (and not terribly many at that) rather than the much more flexible governmental/value/belief system components to be found in SMAC.

Diplomatic options: "Call off your attack against my friend X," trade embargos (admittedly somewhat simplified in SMAC, but still sorta there, and easily expanded upon), repealing UN charter (which could have had a "no nuke testing" equiv. in Civ, and coordination of allied war efforts), and submissive states (akin to colonies, perhaps).

Design Workshop for unit types (players could have been able to create any number of historically accurate units not represented by the default designs. Among these, some of what could have been created coulda been: Crossbowmen, Light Infantry/Skrimishers, Hobilars(SP?), Javlineers, specialty troops with multiple weapons (more costly, but also more versatile), Slingers, etc. Maintaining historical accuracy, the middle ages could have seen a REAL kicker with the additions of various armor/shield types, including the full range from simple leather jerkins to fully articulated field plate). This would also have allowed more cavalry options with various types of barding and lance. (IMO, the design workshop concept rocks! I'd not even mind paying a premimum for player-designed units!).

More terraforming options (not to the extent of SMAC of course, but esp. in the modern age, it seems like there should be some nod to the ever-increasing efficiency of advanced farming techniques).

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

I wasn't a fan of the unit workshop idea for civ3 (purist notions about the game), but now I have another thing to be pissed off about.

[notyoueither]

There's the crux of it. The die-hards were expecting the best of Civ2/SMAX combined. The designers chose not to make that game.

I wish I'd said what Ogie did (wait a minute, I kind of have I think), but nobody would believe it without the resentment bit. I did not expect Firaxis to produce anything other than a playable game. They have done, and are doing that. Hence, no disappointment in this camp.

BTW. Few bad things can come of there being a larger civ community. It bodes well for their future projects and those of others.

[D.K]

well, i have to disagree with some of what is said here

firstly, i like Civ 3
i think it is an enjoyable and engrossing game thats easy to get into.

i also liked Civ 1 on the Amiga and have played most incarnations of the civilisation Genre


i think what needs to be understood, is Civ is NOT SMAC, and is in no way trying to be

Civ 3 is not trying to progress from smac, and nor should it be.

for me, smac was flawed because of the endless complexity without an easy foothold

in years gone by, i would have been quite happy with such a complex beast, but now i have a job and as such, limited gaming hours per week, the game being easy to pick up and play is critically important

this, i believe, is the case for the majority of PC games players

and this is where civ is so good

on the one hand its easy to get into and the various aspects of the game are not overly complex, but at the same time, its deeply engrossing and provides a good challenge, although i prefer to be challenged by good AI playing on equal terms, rather than the CIV method.

For me, the biggest dissapointment of Civ3 by some way is the AI


To sum up, i think the reason many of u hardcore fans are dissapointed, is because u wanted SMAC 2 and u got CIV 3

SMAC and CIV are 2 distinct product lines

one is easilly accessible and attracts a large market
one is the opposite


i guess u could liken it to rpg's
diablo is very simple but is easy to pick upo and play and still offers a very enjoyable game

however, many rpg fans dont like it because of its simplicity

its horses for courses really

[Cyclotron]

Thanks, Vel... sorry I can't relate to SMAC. The thing is, I have had the different experience of only comparing Civ3 to its predecessor, Civ2, and I am quite pleased.

Diplomacy got better in Civ3. I miss not being able to give units to another player, but I think the diplomacy options and the AI's conducting of diplomacy both improved.

Combat... well, I know what happens when I mention combat, so let's leave that.

I very much liked the new culture idea, and although it is not perfected it is prefereable IMO to the static borders of Civ2.

There are more winning conditions, and all of them are optional. It's too bad they took away design variability from the spaceship, however.

Governments lost Fundy, but Fundy was way too powerful anyways. Because of Anarchy penalties, I find myself using more governments than just Commie and Demo as in Civ2.

Could improvements have been made? Of course. Could the game have been better? Of course. I think many things you mentioned about SMAC are intriguing ideas. I will definitly admit that there are flaws in Civ3, and I won't be an apologist for Firaxis or anyone else. But as Civ3, a sucessor to Civ2, and without any other observation of SMAC, etc., I think that Civ3 is no dissapointment.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by D.K
well, i have to disagree with some of what is said here

firstly, i like Civ 3
i think it is an enjoyable and engrossing game thats easy to get into.

i also liked Civ 1 on the Amiga and have played most incarnations of the civilisation Genre


i think what needs to be understood, is Civ is NOT SMAC, and is in no way trying to be

Civ 3 is not trying to progress from smac, and nor should it be.

for me, smac was flawed because of the endless complexity without an easy foothold

in years gone by, i would have been quite happy with such a complex beast, but now i have a job and as such, limited gaming hours per week, the game being easy to pick up and play is critically important

this, i believe, is the case for the majority of PC games players

and this is where civ is so good

on the one hand its easy to get into and the various aspects of the game are not overly complex, but at the same time, its deeply engrossing and provides a good challenge, although i prefer to be challenged by good AI playing on equal terms, rather than the CIV method.

For me, the biggest dissapointment of Civ3 by some way is the AI


To sum up, i think the reason many of u hardcore fans are dissapointed, is because u wanted SMAC 2 and u got CIV 3

SMAC and CIV are 2 distinct product lines

one is easilly accessible and attracts a large market
one is the opposite


i guess u could liken it to rpg's
diablo is very simple but is easy to pick upo and play and still offers a very enjoyable game

however, many rpg fans dont like it because of its simplicity

its horses for courses really

D.K.

Perhaps you are right. I'll not lie, I'm one of those rabid SMAC fans. I thought SMAC had made dramatic improvements in the game over CIV2 for many of the reasons Vel describes namely Social Engineering vs. fixed govs., unit workshops, Better diplomacy actions, factions/civs with real agendas, terraforming, etc. etc.

So when I made mention in my post I made sure to include reference to SMAC. But I also included CIV2. Believe it or not I believe that CIV2 is more fully featured than CIV3, graphics aside. (And for me graphics in a TBS mean next to nothing) Less units, less governments, less facilities, pretty much less off everything. I'll grant CIV3 some interesting ideas re: culture/borders and resources and given time I think Firaxis will work out the kinks on those to make them a little less happenstance.

So IMHO level of complexity equating to bells/whistles/features call it what you will is something like this:

SMAX>SMAC>CIV2>CIV3

and correspondingly that is my preference of games as well.

Your point is well taken that CIV and SMAC are distinct product lines, also point taken that I might have been wishing for SMAC2 not CIV3. Realistically I knew CIV3 wasn't going to incorporate some of my favored elements of SMAC, I guess I was hoping for something different yet even better b/c as time moves forward I was expecting the genre to be advanced rather than taking a step backwards.

The whole point of the post is a kind of closure for me. The game is what it is. I personally think Firaxis is going in the wrong direction (again my personal tastes are biasing me) with this genre of game. They may have targeted and had market success to the wider audience. The question remains will the game hold the imagination of that audience as did CIV2 and SMAC. Time will tell.

If the gamble was the wrong one, then the future of TBS gaming (which I feel was mostly held together by the rabid fan) is in question. OTOH Sid maybe right, appealing to more people may make more converts. Too bad CIV3 isn't offered in a CIVlite, CIV standard, CIV deluxe fashion thus allowing the converts the opportunity to upgrade to more fully featured version thus becoming even more addicted as they start hungering for new and different features/options. (but perhaps we already have that in CIV3---> CIV2 -----> SMAC)

P.S. Eco -- I feel your pain really I do. But I also realize that like it or not the Civ 2 & SMAC fans were not the target market. Hey I'm not happy about it, but from a pure business POV I know why Sid did it.

[Tuberski]

I personally like Civ 3 more than I did SMAC/SMAX. SMAC just didn't hold my attention very long at all, whereas, I have already played Civ3 longer in terms of amount of games, and length of time.

[Locus]

Og,

Thanks for your post. You have given me and probably many others some closure, too. I was so disappointed in Civ III, then really angry. Now I have come to an acceptance, too. I hope Vel's right about there being a SMAC II some day. I definitely would buy even if it costs over a $100.

I don't feel the same way that DK does about Civ III. I think Civ III is really boring and not as engrossing as SMAC. Dk's analogy between RPG's and Diablo is right on, though. I loved the Baldur's Gate series and hated Diablo. Different strokes for different folks.