Tweet
Disclaimer:
Despite all appearances, I am not intentionally throwing down the gauntlet to anybody here at Apolyton. These opinions expressed herein are my own, and I wanted to share them specifically for the purpose of seeing the response of a community such as this.
In all honestly, I will likely purchase 'Play the World' shortly after it is released, what I write below notwithstanding.
A Worthy Successor?
As we are all no doubt aware, Civilization is a legacy unto itself throughout the computer gaming world. Nearly all of today’s strategic, real-time, and management-oriented simulations such as Empire Earth or Roller Coaster Tycoon draw from Sid Meier’s original template of nation building. Yet after a pair of runaway successes in Civilization I and II, was the third installment worth the wait, and more importantly, worth the name itself? Unfortunately not.
It wasn’t just the lack of a multiplayer mode or even second-rate scenario editor that have spawn the widespread malcontent evidenced by fans the world over which robbed Firaxis’ latest creation of greatness. Even these omissions (however obvious as marketing ploys for the upcoming Play the World) were forgivable in the long run. After all, every game comes with its own set of faults, no matter how great. What nobody expected, however, was that Civilization III would be replete with the same to the point of overflowing.
Not only was the finished product prohibitively expensive (a problem when compared with its over-abundance of flaws), but it also clearly lacked in options, flavor, and diversity. All had been so expected of a game too long in coming; the letdown was significant. In essence, Civilization III was an over-priced shadow of what it might have been. In practice, it was a pretty face (that might have been far more pleasing still) over a body of limited worth, value, or attraction. Sid Meier somehow missed his mark, and as with Alpha Centauri, stopped remarkably short of a true masterpiece such as had been earlier found with the first pair of Civilization titles.
From the first time one loads Civilization III, irritation and speculation are constant companions. Why is the Artificial Intelligence so trying? How is it that most other civilizations seem to have clear access to resources not even available to the player after centuries of diplomacy and development? Where is the justification for agonizingly slow “processing” times between turn on computers that digital image fanatics would kill for? These troubles, however, represent only the tip of a far larger iceberg.
The game lacks first and foremost the range offered by even Civilization I, where the customization of one’s own empire was permissible. Although a hastily prepared, low-budget package might get away with the claim that initial creation of each individual civilization was in itself a massive undertaking, Civilization III, with its terrific budget and lengthy developmental period can take no such defense. Certainly, allowances should have been made for additional civilizations (the Inca, Carthage, the Netherlands, or Mongols for instance) even if customization was not an option. Somebody should have had the foresight to include a “pool” of images, special units, and technologies for the creation of a player’s own unique civilization, however – again because the game was so anticipated.
A dirth of units, attack options, and resources then becomes the next issue. Peltasts, phalanx, slingers, and horse archers are woefully absent. While it is true that combat in Civilization is essentially a beautified imitation of ‘Risk’ – there is no true use for anything more than basic counters -, eye candy is expected. The existence of a literally massive network dedicated to special unit creation should have tipped off Firaxis of the need for many nation-, area-, or era-specific units at the least. The designers might also have attempted to deliver more than one unique unit per civilization – perhaps, again, by era. America is known not only for the F-15E strike fighter, but also for its infamous colonial riflemen, vaunted cavalry, and elite commando units. Each would have offered a satisfying compliment to the single air unit offered. As certain others have noticed in the past, some unique units are simply out of place entirely. England, for instance, should receive the longbowman or dreadnought in lieu of men ‘o war, which should instead by revived as ships-of-the-line available to all nations. The game would also do well with special units as seen in the Conflicts in Civilization expansion; Napoleon, Wellington, Patton, Sun Tzu, Pancho Villa, Attila the Hun, and Yamamoto would make welcome additions to the unit pool. Designers might have considered “auras of improvement” or “special conditions” for these units, largely to represent their impact on history as was historically experienced. Units stacked nearby could gain minor advantages in movement or combat effectiveness; losing such an important unit could dictate unrest, revolution, or even combat ineffectiveness elsewhere in the Kingdom. As for attack or movement options, coastal cities should be able to fire on passing vessels from harbor defenses, as was the case with Forts and Fortresses in Sid Meier’s first classic, Colonization. Contact not only with barbarians, but also possibly with Native tribes not open to human play would have been interesting as well. Privateers could also have added to the mayhem: vessels of unknown origin preying on shipping would have changed the dynamics of the game at sea and on the diplomatic field especially. Certainly for the price paid, Firaxis could have added at least some of these improvements. As for resources, Sid Meier’s third creation also failed miserably. As one critic pointed out: “Who ever heard of one source of oil providing sustenance for generations or even centuries?” After a decade or so, resource squares should be rendered fallow or depleted of their special properties. The game also neglected silver, cotton, copper, bronze, lumber, coca, bananas, rice, precious stones, and tobacco – all major resources which at times defined and dictated entire eras – no, centuries – of history and conflict. Most might have increased happiness or wealth once within an empire’s territory. Bronze, lumber, and copper could at least have allowed construction of many early – and all later – units besides. Camels, elephants, and exotic beasts might have functioned after a similar fashion.
Weather was also ominously left out of the game. Excessive rainfall might have been the cause of innumerable floods, while a lack of water would precipitate crippling drought. Meteorological and seasonal patterns could greatly improve the dynamics and challenge of the game, offering special defensive or offensive bonuses, production increases, and possibly natural terraforming. Disasters such as fire, tsunamis, or tornadoes should also have been featured. Certainly, “ice age” or “starvation”-style games would have been a fun alternative to regular “bread and butter” scenarios.
Ah, scenarios, the next major downfall of Civilization III – in that they didn’t exist. Its second predecessor offered Roman and World War games besides the standard fare, each of which provided additional hours of gameplay. Civilization III was expected to provide so much more besides.
We could go on, but why? Civilization III is an obvious failure that will never be solved with the mere release of new patches, modifications, or even costly expansions. Even the most impressive of architecture must stand on a firm base – Sid Meier has produced none in this case. Sad that discovery ran us upwards of $50 in the marketplace.
Despite all appearances, I am not intentionally throwing down the gauntlet to anybody here at Apolyton. These opinions expressed herein are my own, and I wanted to share them specifically for the purpose of seeing the response of a community such as this.
In all honestly, I will likely purchase 'Play the World' shortly after it is released, what I write below notwithstanding.
As we are all no doubt aware, Civilization is a legacy unto itself throughout the computer gaming world. Nearly all of today’s strategic, real-time, and management-oriented simulations such as Empire Earth or Roller Coaster Tycoon draw from Sid Meier’s original template of nation building. Yet after a pair of runaway successes in Civilization I and II, was the third installment worth the wait, and more importantly, worth the name itself? Unfortunately not.
It wasn’t just the lack of a multiplayer mode or even second-rate scenario editor that have spawn the widespread malcontent evidenced by fans the world over which robbed Firaxis’ latest creation of greatness. Even these omissions (however obvious as marketing ploys for the upcoming Play the World) were forgivable in the long run. After all, every game comes with its own set of faults, no matter how great. What nobody expected, however, was that Civilization III would be replete with the same to the point of overflowing.
Not only was the finished product prohibitively expensive (a problem when compared with its over-abundance of flaws), but it also clearly lacked in options, flavor, and diversity. All had been so expected of a game too long in coming; the letdown was significant. In essence, Civilization III was an over-priced shadow of what it might have been. In practice, it was a pretty face (that might have been far more pleasing still) over a body of limited worth, value, or attraction. Sid Meier somehow missed his mark, and as with Alpha Centauri, stopped remarkably short of a true masterpiece such as had been earlier found with the first pair of Civilization titles.
From the first time one loads Civilization III, irritation and speculation are constant companions. Why is the Artificial Intelligence so trying? How is it that most other civilizations seem to have clear access to resources not even available to the player after centuries of diplomacy and development? Where is the justification for agonizingly slow “processing” times between turn on computers that digital image fanatics would kill for? These troubles, however, represent only the tip of a far larger iceberg.
The game lacks first and foremost the range offered by even Civilization I, where the customization of one’s own empire was permissible. Although a hastily prepared, low-budget package might get away with the claim that initial creation of each individual civilization was in itself a massive undertaking, Civilization III, with its terrific budget and lengthy developmental period can take no such defense. Certainly, allowances should have been made for additional civilizations (the Inca, Carthage, the Netherlands, or Mongols for instance) even if customization was not an option. Somebody should have had the foresight to include a “pool” of images, special units, and technologies for the creation of a player’s own unique civilization, however – again because the game was so anticipated.
A dirth of units, attack options, and resources then becomes the next issue. Peltasts, phalanx, slingers, and horse archers are woefully absent. While it is true that combat in Civilization is essentially a beautified imitation of ‘Risk’ – there is no true use for anything more than basic counters -, eye candy is expected. The existence of a literally massive network dedicated to special unit creation should have tipped off Firaxis of the need for many nation-, area-, or era-specific units at the least. The designers might also have attempted to deliver more than one unique unit per civilization – perhaps, again, by era. America is known not only for the F-15E strike fighter, but also for its infamous colonial riflemen, vaunted cavalry, and elite commando units. Each would have offered a satisfying compliment to the single air unit offered. As certain others have noticed in the past, some unique units are simply out of place entirely. England, for instance, should receive the longbowman or dreadnought in lieu of men ‘o war, which should instead by revived as ships-of-the-line available to all nations. The game would also do well with special units as seen in the Conflicts in Civilization expansion; Napoleon, Wellington, Patton, Sun Tzu, Pancho Villa, Attila the Hun, and Yamamoto would make welcome additions to the unit pool. Designers might have considered “auras of improvement” or “special conditions” for these units, largely to represent their impact on history as was historically experienced. Units stacked nearby could gain minor advantages in movement or combat effectiveness; losing such an important unit could dictate unrest, revolution, or even combat ineffectiveness elsewhere in the Kingdom. As for attack or movement options, coastal cities should be able to fire on passing vessels from harbor defenses, as was the case with Forts and Fortresses in Sid Meier’s first classic, Colonization. Contact not only with barbarians, but also possibly with Native tribes not open to human play would have been interesting as well. Privateers could also have added to the mayhem: vessels of unknown origin preying on shipping would have changed the dynamics of the game at sea and on the diplomatic field especially. Certainly for the price paid, Firaxis could have added at least some of these improvements. As for resources, Sid Meier’s third creation also failed miserably. As one critic pointed out: “Who ever heard of one source of oil providing sustenance for generations or even centuries?” After a decade or so, resource squares should be rendered fallow or depleted of their special properties. The game also neglected silver, cotton, copper, bronze, lumber, coca, bananas, rice, precious stones, and tobacco – all major resources which at times defined and dictated entire eras – no, centuries – of history and conflict. Most might have increased happiness or wealth once within an empire’s territory. Bronze, lumber, and copper could at least have allowed construction of many early – and all later – units besides. Camels, elephants, and exotic beasts might have functioned after a similar fashion.
Weather was also ominously left out of the game. Excessive rainfall might have been the cause of innumerable floods, while a lack of water would precipitate crippling drought. Meteorological and seasonal patterns could greatly improve the dynamics and challenge of the game, offering special defensive or offensive bonuses, production increases, and possibly natural terraforming. Disasters such as fire, tsunamis, or tornadoes should also have been featured. Certainly, “ice age” or “starvation”-style games would have been a fun alternative to regular “bread and butter” scenarios.
Ah, scenarios, the next major downfall of Civilization III – in that they didn’t exist. Its second predecessor offered Roman and World War games besides the standard fare, each of which provided additional hours of gameplay. Civilization III was expected to provide so much more besides.
We could go on, but why? Civilization III is an obvious failure that will never be solved with the mere release of new patches, modifications, or even costly expansions. Even the most impressive of architecture must stand on a firm base – Sid Meier has produced none in this case. Sad that discovery ran us upwards of $50 in the marketplace.
Comment