CIV3 a new Perspective

[notyoueither]

Hey Ogie. Stay tuned. After XP(s) and Gold, you may find more governments, more units, more buildings, more, more, more. Then there's the modders.

A big part of the problem may be that Firaxis had to release a product prematurely. The play of the Modern Age attests to that. Man has Firaxis (and this forum) been paying for it.

When it's done, if it's done, might be a better time for final verdicts.

[Nostromo]

IIRC, Firaxis stated that they wanted to return to the spirit of the original Civ game, that is a fun, relatively simple, light-hearted strategy game. Now a number of people prefer Civ 1 to Civ 2. Bruce Shelley, of Age of Empires fame, is one of them. And maybe a good number of Firaxians feel the same way. Maybe they designed Civ 3 the way it is just because they think that Civ 1 is more fun than Civ2 or SMAC/X. It's an alternative explanation worth exploring. I'm not denying, of course, that marketing considerations were involved, but they don't explain everything IMO.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by 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=-

Vel, it´s true that they never promised us another Civ2. But as yourself among others have pointed out they could at least have given us a playable game, right?

They are not dummies (some things ARE a great improvement) but IMO rather arrogant profit hungry bastards that think that we should be damn thankful for a 45$ public beta...

How´s your own game development going?

[planetfall]

SMAC huh, what now you want me learn a new game. civ3 was hard enough. And I think that is where the flaw of design is. The game designers did not think thru the problems for newbies. Difficulty levels which only change the AI bonus for play are dumb.

It does make sense to make play easier for settler, or level1, play, but why make the learning curve so hard? Why restrict AI to just bonuses?

I would reset civ## to this type of play level:

level1 -- very slow ai aggression
1/4th number of units and improvements

level2 -- slow ai
1/2th of units/wonders/improvements

level3 -- moderate ai
3/4th units/wonders/improvements

level4 -- moderate ai
all units/wonders/improvements

level5 -- normal ai
units/wonders/improvements

level6 -- aggressive ai
optional user defined units/wonders/improvements

level7 -- very aggressive AI
optional user defined editor units/wonders/improvements
optional user import of mods meeting fixaxis published mod descriptions

My guess is level 6-7 would meet the needs of the SMAC type player, but the earlier players don't have the support they need. One of my sons doesn't have the patience to learn civ3
{he is an experienced civ2 player} and how to win a game in a reasonable amount of time. End results: 1) here come the nukes, 2) less excitement about the game.

Not everyone enjoys masters chess and not everyone enjoys level 6-7 game play.
Curious about 1.21, but the "fun" in the game is too often missing. Simplier games like Risk and Axis and Allies have less options and take much less concentration, but they are fun. No I don't want to go back, but rather searching for ways to bring fun aspect of turn board games to civ##. Now I will have to try SMAC {whatever that is} to see if it is more fun, but do think changing the level of play, number of pieces to move, and AI play would be a step in the right direction.

later

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Planet,

At the risk of a thread jack, if you are serious 'bout trying SMAC. Head over to the SMAC forum, get yourself a copy of SMAC and read Vel's definitve guide to SMAC playing. Some don't like SMAC for it's complexity, others for its SCI-FI genre, and other just don't like it. Whatever the case and whatever your opinion of SMAC might be, I think it's worthwhile to see what Firaxis was able to come up with 2 years ago verses what they have put out recently. Very very different approaches and to my mind different target consumers.

Og

[Cookie Monster]

Anytime someone tries to market a updated classic to a new crowd the end result is alienation of the original fans.

Take what George Lucas did to Phantom Menace as compared to the A New Hope Trilogy. He tried to cater to much to kids and ruined the Star Wars story for us adults.

Now Sid totally blew us true civers off in favor of capturing a whole new generation of civers. Boo! He has betrayed the hardcore civers by giving us this monstrosity and I'm not sure if he did any better winning over new fans.

I'm totally disgusted...................Never will I buy another Firaxis product again. I used to think that Yin was crying to much but now I'm thinking he was right all along.

Yin if you read this post, please accept my apology for trashing you before.

[Akka]

It's the sad truth about everything that starts to bring a lot of money : the bigger the market, the more tasteless the product, so it's targeted at the wider audience possible.

For a Deus Ex, how many faceless clones of Doom ?
Same for Civ serie, sadly.