Tweet
I’m writing this for my own purposes, please don’t read it if you think the title is heretical! It occurred to me that whilst I spent many hours on Civs 1&2 Civ 3 doesn’t have the same hold on me. So I started to write down why and thought I may as well post it. Sorry if its all been said before.
If you can be bothered to get to the end, please feel free to shoot me down!
Conceptual Problems with Civ 3:
The Addition of Unique Units and Civ Traits
In my opinion, though these changes to the way the game is played work well in game terms (at least civ traits do, more of unique units later) they don’t work conceptually. Of course, may players may well not care less as long as the game play is improved, but for me it takes away some of the beauty of the civilisation series, which is the feeling that you are creating, guiding and manipulating your very own home-grown civ. The Civ you end up with at the end of the game is all yours – it bears your fingerprints from the hours and hours you’ve spent creating it.
The whole point of Civ is that you take a bunch of settlers in the year dot, and guide them through history. They develop according your tastes, according to your style, and ofcourse depending on start locations. The idea that a civ has pre-rendered characteristics is detrimental to this.
For me, the whole idea that a civ can start in year x with characteristics that are entirely non-dependant on game-play, which instead are derive from the real world, does not sit well with a game in which the whole point is that the player is the captain of his own destiny. Why should the Americans be pre-determined to be say scientific, if in fact the player wants to play in a completely different manner? (yes I know you can switch it off, but that’s not how the designers intended the game to be played).
The fundamental problem I have with this is that it is illogical since no nation is born with a set of pre-determined characteristics. Rather, what made the French say industrious is the way the country developed (including geographical, economic, political and historical influences). The problem is more pronounced with unique units – the English aren’t born as great sailors, nor are they genetically more readily able to build great men-o-wars. The reason they got good at this? – they live on an Island! The stupidity of this is highlighted in game-play terms when the English start land-locked. Or when the way your game developed doesn’t make use of airforces yet your American Civ is for some reason destined to be good at building F15s! Yet, you used tanks for 150 years but are still only average at building them.
Resources
I actually like the idea behind the recourse system. But what about its implementation? To introduce it, they had to break the combat system (i.e. to make it possible for players who lose the resource battle to still win the war).
Its just a matter of personal taste as to whether you think this was worth it, but since most players play a combat orientated game my view is that its more important to get the combat system right.
Perhaps there’s a better way of balancing this system, making a lack of resources have a greater economic impact but not crippling your ability to manufacture certain arms. I dont know, any thoughts?
Air Units etc.
In terms of game balancing I can see that Firaxis wanted to lessen the destructive power of artillery and air units by placing on them an artificial limit. Modern warfare is however dominated by air and artillery units. As far as air units are concerned, I would have preferred to have seen modern ground and naval units be given an air defence stats (which perhaps could be increased by various techs or improvements) – this way, the designers wouldn’t have had to artificially lower the hitting power of airforces since it would be balanced by a units' ability to defend itself from air attack (provided the player chose to develop this).
Culture Flipping
The idea that a Civ should benefit from its culture is sound, but what historical precedent is there for civs devouring other nation’s cities, for entire populations to convert? In game-play terms, it also forces me to use strategies that I don’t enjoy.
The bottom line is that the Civ system is not sophisticated enough to handle this concept – a game like Europa Universalis II does so very well by using concepts such as religious conversion, vasselisation, annexation etc. Whilst I’d love to see these implemented in Civ3 its true to say they add a level of complexity that’s not really intended to be part of Civ. Civ is a very broad conceptual game, and it should be happy with that and not try and take on concepts that it cant really handle.
The Dumbing down of Civ 3
The greatest disappointment for me has been the lack of production values in the game. Am I alone in wanting more features, not less? The diplomatic system is better than Civ3, but what happened to all those SMAC type diplomacy options. The options are disappointingly thread bear. The whole spy system is virtually useless, which is a great shame because it has the potential to be great fun. What about being able to name areas or units (PTW?)?
But it’s the little things I really miss – the sound of marching feet after the fall of a city, the free tech advances and the great message you receive after discovering philosophy, the advantage of being the first to sale the world and so on. To put it bluntly, the game lacks flare. And worse of all, they’re all things that have been cut from the series. They really added a sense of immersion. And it would it have hurt to put in a proper wall chart? I also think the game has a slightly sloppy feel – some of the civ traits don’t sit well, or the choice of unique units. And players having to research city names because the developers didn’t include enough. No more needs to be said about wonder movies!
Some of the omissions have been unforgivable – I accept that the development of the editor is always destined to continue after release, but the failure until 1.29 to allow civs to start in their historical positions? Come on guys, that’s basic stuff.
Anyway, I s’pose I better stop. I realise a lot of this is now in fact changeable in the editor, but for me the damage is done. And having said all that, its still on my hard drive and I still play every now and again….
If you can be bothered to get to the end, please feel free to shoot me down!
Conceptual Problems with Civ 3:
The Addition of Unique Units and Civ Traits
In my opinion, though these changes to the way the game is played work well in game terms (at least civ traits do, more of unique units later) they don’t work conceptually. Of course, may players may well not care less as long as the game play is improved, but for me it takes away some of the beauty of the civilisation series, which is the feeling that you are creating, guiding and manipulating your very own home-grown civ. The Civ you end up with at the end of the game is all yours – it bears your fingerprints from the hours and hours you’ve spent creating it.
The whole point of Civ is that you take a bunch of settlers in the year dot, and guide them through history. They develop according your tastes, according to your style, and ofcourse depending on start locations. The idea that a civ has pre-rendered characteristics is detrimental to this.
For me, the whole idea that a civ can start in year x with characteristics that are entirely non-dependant on game-play, which instead are derive from the real world, does not sit well with a game in which the whole point is that the player is the captain of his own destiny. Why should the Americans be pre-determined to be say scientific, if in fact the player wants to play in a completely different manner? (yes I know you can switch it off, but that’s not how the designers intended the game to be played).
The fundamental problem I have with this is that it is illogical since no nation is born with a set of pre-determined characteristics. Rather, what made the French say industrious is the way the country developed (including geographical, economic, political and historical influences). The problem is more pronounced with unique units – the English aren’t born as great sailors, nor are they genetically more readily able to build great men-o-wars. The reason they got good at this? – they live on an Island! The stupidity of this is highlighted in game-play terms when the English start land-locked. Or when the way your game developed doesn’t make use of airforces yet your American Civ is for some reason destined to be good at building F15s! Yet, you used tanks for 150 years but are still only average at building them.
Resources
I actually like the idea behind the recourse system. But what about its implementation? To introduce it, they had to break the combat system (i.e. to make it possible for players who lose the resource battle to still win the war).
Its just a matter of personal taste as to whether you think this was worth it, but since most players play a combat orientated game my view is that its more important to get the combat system right.
Perhaps there’s a better way of balancing this system, making a lack of resources have a greater economic impact but not crippling your ability to manufacture certain arms. I dont know, any thoughts?
Air Units etc.
In terms of game balancing I can see that Firaxis wanted to lessen the destructive power of artillery and air units by placing on them an artificial limit. Modern warfare is however dominated by air and artillery units. As far as air units are concerned, I would have preferred to have seen modern ground and naval units be given an air defence stats (which perhaps could be increased by various techs or improvements) – this way, the designers wouldn’t have had to artificially lower the hitting power of airforces since it would be balanced by a units' ability to defend itself from air attack (provided the player chose to develop this).
Culture Flipping
The idea that a Civ should benefit from its culture is sound, but what historical precedent is there for civs devouring other nation’s cities, for entire populations to convert? In game-play terms, it also forces me to use strategies that I don’t enjoy.
The bottom line is that the Civ system is not sophisticated enough to handle this concept – a game like Europa Universalis II does so very well by using concepts such as religious conversion, vasselisation, annexation etc. Whilst I’d love to see these implemented in Civ3 its true to say they add a level of complexity that’s not really intended to be part of Civ. Civ is a very broad conceptual game, and it should be happy with that and not try and take on concepts that it cant really handle.
The Dumbing down of Civ 3
The greatest disappointment for me has been the lack of production values in the game. Am I alone in wanting more features, not less? The diplomatic system is better than Civ3, but what happened to all those SMAC type diplomacy options. The options are disappointingly thread bear. The whole spy system is virtually useless, which is a great shame because it has the potential to be great fun. What about being able to name areas or units (PTW?)?
But it’s the little things I really miss – the sound of marching feet after the fall of a city, the free tech advances and the great message you receive after discovering philosophy, the advantage of being the first to sale the world and so on. To put it bluntly, the game lacks flare. And worse of all, they’re all things that have been cut from the series. They really added a sense of immersion. And it would it have hurt to put in a proper wall chart? I also think the game has a slightly sloppy feel – some of the civ traits don’t sit well, or the choice of unique units. And players having to research city names because the developers didn’t include enough. No more needs to be said about wonder movies!
Some of the omissions have been unforgivable – I accept that the development of the editor is always destined to continue after release, but the failure until 1.29 to allow civs to start in their historical positions? Come on guys, that’s basic stuff.
Anyway, I s’pose I better stop. I realise a lot of this is now in fact changeable in the editor, but for me the damage is done. And having said all that, its still on my hard drive and I still play every now and again….
sounds like drowning because you refuse to swim. They have made this game supremely adaptable and customizable to your play preferences. All you have to do is exercise your to ability to edit... which you obviously don't feel like doing. I don't blame you there-- I much prefer to experience it as they originally intended it to be played (and therefore, I don't edit the games I play) and some aspects lack "historical precedent" as you put it, but I don't start thread-novels that decry the game and then refute everything I just stated by admitting that I am not doing what I could easily be doing to make it MY experience.
I never said he didn't. It was just difficult to read his post... and he's a native English speaker so he should make it easier for those for whom English is a 2nd language.
Not installing a car part. A mouse click. It is easier, in terms of mouse clicks, than picking the world size.
Comment