Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Civilization feeling

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Civilization feeling

    Did anyone ever notice that in Civilization I everything felt more like you were actually ruling an empire, as if things were important and slow enough for you to realize everything that was going on. In Civ 2 it seems to me that everything is so rushed that you miss a lot of things and don't get the "Civilization feeling". Some examples of this are listed below...

    Discovery advance
    Civ 1 - Picture of advance fades in with description, and science/military adviser give suggestions for next science...
    Civ 2 - message pop ups.

    Building cities
    Civ 1 - small movie clip of horses coming into the area and cutting to a view of a small village...
    Civ 2 - message pop up with "construction" picture

    Diplomacy
    Civ 1 - Talking on the battlefield with the Civ Rulers
    Civ 2 - talking in a room with some guy that taps his foot a lot

    Of course there are places where Civ 2 improved over Civ 1 in giving "the Civilization feeling"...

    Reaching Alpha Centuri
    Civ 1 - Video clip of a small dot getting closer to some big red planet
    Civ 2 - full length video of astronauts founding the first settlement on Alpha Century. (I'd change the music though...)

    Conquering the planet
    Civ 1 - I believe just a message pop up
    Civ 2 - Video of conquering each Civ with guillotine.

    Wonders
    Civ 1 - pop up of wonder with description
    Civ 2 - Video showing the wonder

    I think Firaxis should blend some of the traits of Civ 1 and Civ 2 to give a Civ 3 that has the Civilization feeling. Civ 2 rushes things a bit, it just doesn't always feel like you're ruling an empire, just going through the motions (expanding, building the same old same old) where as Civ 1 just seems to give you more of a feel for your empire. If you do something important (found a city, discover an advance) don't give it a message pop up. Make it come alive! I don't know about anyone else here but I'd rather have a slow paced out game that I can enjoy rather than one that ends in an hour or two. Any Comments on this?



    ------------------
    ~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
    "Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

  • #2
    IIRC Civ1 had the quillotine also. And Civ2's city view is by far the most rushed-looking thing in Civ games.
    This is Shireroth, and Giant Squid will brutally murder me if I ever remove this link from my signature | In the end it won't be love that saves us, it will be mathematics | So many people have this concept of God the Avenger. I see God as the ultimate sense of humor -- SlowwHand

    Comment


    • #3
      I really liked those settlers coming and settling ..... and all the other thing you said Orange .... totally correct !
      urgh.NSFW

      Comment


      • #4
        LightEning - yes I forgot to mention that! The Civ 1 city view beats the Civ 2 view by far even with the enhanced graphics Civ 2 has. The city view in 2 looks like a small village, even if the city's population is in the millions. Go with a graphic enhanced Version of the Civ 1 city view to give more of that Civilization feeling!

        ------------------
        ~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
        "Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

        Comment


        • #5
          OrangeSfwr, I agree with you
          quote:


          Did anyone ever notice that in Civilization I everything felt more like you were actually
          ruling an empire, as if things were important and slow enough for you to realize everything
          that was going on. In Civ 2 it seems to me that everything is so rushed that you miss a
          lot of things and don't get the "Civilization feeling".



          But that's true not only by graphics choices.
          The full fact is that the game start to fall from a strategical to tactical level in many aspects, some for the better some for the worse. The graphics simply follow the same path: castle view become the throne room, the city view become sort of a village view etc.

          IMHO that's true for so many suggestion we make here at Apolyton about CIV III (I try to avoid it, but still fall in same mistake myself): we often ask for lot of very detailed, tactical, micromgmt things, losing the beuty of the whole Civ greatness.

          May be that CTP II is the first step in the right direction, because it appear to me that the developers are cutting some detail parts that growth too much importance, leaving a better strategic game than original.

          Can Firaxis afford the same challenge? Let's hope for the best.



          ------------------
          Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
          "We are reducing all the complexity of billions of people over 6000 years into a Civ box. Let me say: That's not only a PkZip effort....it's a real 'picture to Jpeg heavy loss in translation' kind of thing."
          - Admiral Naismith

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't remember what Civ's conquering sequence was, but I do remember it being much better than Civ2's. The first time I played Civ2 I remember being dissipointed by the conquer victory. The Alpha Centauri win in Civ2 was very impressive though!
            Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi Wan's apprentice.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the simplicity of the gameplay had a lot to do with the atmosphere.

              For example, when you purchased a CIV1 carrier, it was understood that you weren't building JUST a carrier, but rather a carrier with it's support ships. In Civ2, you have to move the carrier with its AEGIS cruiser.

              Also, when a game is nuanced to death, little tricks always pop up that kind of ruin gameplay, like surrounding your city with airfields to stop incoming bombers and nukes.

              I'd like to see the option for a return to simple Civ1 type gameplay... while fixing some of the things that Civ1 got wrong (quickstarting, diploblitz, etc...).

              And let my bombers pillage goshdarnit!

              Comment


              • #8
                IntgrSpin has hit the spot. I mean, in SMAC, it's a case of, "Oh, it only Industrial Nanorobotics". The focus on the big picture is starting to infrige on the little things that count.

                (And the airbase idea is cool! I didn't even know that!)

                ------------------
                No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
                No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

                Comment


                • #9
                  One of the few things that CTP improved over Civ2 is its video, although Civ2's Alpha Centauri video is better than CTP's alien video. CTP's opening video is better than Civ2's. CTP uses a nice cut scene when you conquer the world as opposed to Civ2's picture. The wonder videos of both games are about matched (I like Civ2's wonder videos a bit more). The point I'm getting at is that videos enhance the Civ feeling a great deal.

                  ------------------
                  Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

                  Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    On another note Civ games do take a long time and it would not be wise to slow down the game a significant amount for the sake of the "Civ feeling". The best would be if Firaxis could implement the "feeling" without large reductions to speed or if there was a option where you could chose a slow, detailed game for someone who is relaxing and playing against the AI and a fast but drab game for people who like to play fast or multi player games where people may prefer to wait the least amount of time for their opponent.

                    ------------------
                    Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

                    Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Actually, I'm hoping for a game that can't be played in 2 hours. The longer the better, make each year really count. I can't stand how Civ 2 has the BC times last the same amount as from 1900-1950. I just feel like I missed so much, and with extra time it will give a chance for the whole world to be colonized and change hands.

                      ------------------
                      ~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
                      "Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
                      Dealer of the POBS Poker Club - The next game starts at 12:00 AM (EST)
                      Webmaster of Apolyton Picture Contest IV

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        One idea for making the time right. How about good and bad rulers, on a scale of 1 to 10. Under an excellant ruler a lot gets done quickly, under a bad ruler the country stagnates. Alexander the great conquored the eastern world in 13 years, impossible in civ 2. under the 1970s British governments the economy collapsed and very little was done. This could also show periods of recession, when building projects are delayed by funding losses, business investment decreases, etc.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "Civilization feeling" was more important in civ1 because it was a new type of game. Before each turn it was a discovery, I was unable to know what is going to happen in the next turns.
                          With civ2 all was already known. It was just an "industrial/insipid" version of civ1. However I liked civ2 but not as much as civ1.
                          I think that civ3 should be very different from its precursors to give us a new taste of discovery.
                          It isn't the number of civs, wonders, military units,.. that will make a new great civ game but new concepts and deep inovations.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ferdi, I agree with you 100%! Still a lot of people ask for a "CIV II with better graphics and some fixes".

                            What opportunity they'll miss! Civ was a great game because it was a great, innovative idea.

                            IMO sequels are too often only a good "easy money" opportunity for a game company.

                            My hope is that apparently Sid doesn't like to repeat himself (as he designed others at CIV II project), so to had be forced to take care of CIV III may add some interesting twist to the original idea.

                            ------------------
                            Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
                            "We are reducing all the complexity of billions of people over 6000 years into a Civ box. Let me say: That's not only a PkZip effort....it's a real 'picture to Jpeg heavy loss in translation' kind of thing."
                            - Admiral Naismith

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I also noticed that. That was partly due to the fact that civ 1 was a full screen game with it's own interface, while civ 2 was in a windowed interface. If I want a strategy game in a windowed interface I'll play solitair. Also the iterface was grey while it should be made of warm colors like CTP or the HEROES games. It can also change according to your civ color, race, charachteristic and science. It did so a little. FOr instance when you had WE LOVE THE *** DAY it was a different picture for every era, and a different pic for founding a city.

                              Also, colors should be nice, not too bright and contrasty (CTP has this problem a bit) and not too cold and dark colors (civ 2 ToT, or Alpha centauri).

                              Also the interface should be costumizable (i liked ToT function of expanding or collapsing certain city view tabs) It should fit the time line (although alpha centauri was dark the design was very fitting for the game. I only don't understand why do they persist having the future PC interface orange/green/red/white over black like the old DOS interface. Come on, a few centuries has passed since then (in the game time of course).

                              Also I agree that the events are now as if less significant. You build a city and you get a lousy message box. The city view screen was very unfitting. Oh, and would you believe a market place built in the 20th century would look the same as one built in the 20th century BC?

                              We need something to give us the worm and fuzzy feeling of exploring and really ruling and empire. Mommy, make it magical again.... like the first time we played CIV 1...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X