Tweet
Don’t Worry, Be Happy!
Greetings Fellow Civ Fanatics,
I have been thinking a lot about all this debate about unique units, future techs, 7/8 civilizations, and not so great graphics. I dug up my May CGW magazine and found it really provided some nice assurance on the development of the game. For example, please notice this point in the article and as you read this think about how silly (and early) it is too be complaining about all this stuff.
Unique Units:
“Must...Play...Test
It’s Dogma at Firaxis - everyone plays as much as possible. People talk, revisions are made, and they play some more.
For this reason, many of the design elements are still in flux, which means that some of what you are reading about (Timeline: like Unique Units) will be tweaked, changed, or even absent. Civilizations may or may not have inherent advantages. Ditto for the special units in the game. The American F-16 or the Roman Legion may have special powers, but not if Firaxis feels it unbalances the game.”
I know what you are going to say (*cough* Roman
) “we complain so that it *will* get changed before it is too late”. Well, believe me, Firaxis can handle it. Look at it this way, they are just in the development stages. They are experimenting with different things hoping to hit something big, how do you progress unless you are willing to experiment some? They aren’t stupid and they know what will and won’t work; they don’t need us screaming and kicking just because they went to check something out. Maybe unique units *will* be in the game but will not be inherent to specific races. Maybe they will become available through special achievements or starting location or first tech discovered or maybe a unique unit will “evolve” as Thoehall suggested or . . . who knows? But you can be sure of one thing: it will not be in the game unless 1: it is balanced, and 2: it is fun (not frustrating).
Next thing one might say is “SMAC was terrible, it just shows that Sid can mess up and that race specific advantages are a bad thing”. Okay, first of all SMAC was not a part of the Civilization Series, and even though Meier helped create it, he was trying to accomplish something totally different in that game. In SMAC you were not trying to build a Civilization, you were trying to survive on a desolate and alien world. Different scenario, different environment, different game rules, and different design. Civilization really doesn’t have all that much to do with SMAC in it’s design, and I suspect Civ III will be quite different.
I agree 7 or 8 Civilizations on a random map game could be limiting, but maybe not. I believe Firaxis will allow more civs for scenarios. Read this clip from the CGW review, it may help you to see why Meier is hesitant to throw in more civs:
“The original Civilization had hovercrafts and maps that were twice as big,” Meier enthusiastically responds when pressed to explain his emphasis on play testing. “But the more we played it the more we realized that it’s better to overcompress the gameplay than to undercompress it. We learned to keep the midgame short so that the player is constantly juggling decisions. Civ is long, but it could be a lot longer.”
Gigantic maps, long games, 32 civs . . . you see, I think these are things that Sid is talking about. I may be wrong here, but I think he is basically saying that such things as keeping the random game at 7 (or 8) Civs is a good thing - he is “overcompressing” it, and that is one of the many secrets to a successful Civ game.
As far as the 7 civ limit being hard coded, well, it’s possible, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Future techs: good, bad? Read the next paragraph in CGW:
“Anyone familiar with” Craptavision’s . . . er no wait, it said “Activision’s” “take on Civilization knows exactly what this means (overcompressing). While an interesting representation of a Hall of Fame game, the middle and end portions of the two Call To Power titles got too bogged down in tedium when they should have been racing to the end.”
Very true IMO. Question: Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that the man who discovered this tactic (overcompressing) would know best how to implement it? Therefore, I would not worry about future techs being a major part of the game. And if they are, I think it will be in a good and realistic way.
Well, I guess my point is: It’s silly to go picking on parts of the game so early - that time will come when we have the Beta version. Suggestions are fine, and may be helpful to the team, but be careful of a complaining attitude, as it may prove counter-productive. Oh, one more thing, someone (I think Yin?) mentioned crappy graphics. I am fairly certain that almost all the pictures we see are from the Alpha version of Civ III - SMAC engine and placeholder graphics. I wouldn’t worry all that much about it, I am sure that the terrain/city/interface and maybe even unit graphics will be a ton better in the Beta version. As for the game being too graphic intensive, well I think we all here learned from CTP how bad that can be, but I don’t think Civ III will make that mistake. Even in SMAC you had the option to turn off unit animations.
I don’t have blind faith in Sid and the Firaxis team, and I hope to be able to do a lot of damage control/clean up work if I have the privilege of testing the Beta. But for now people, don’t worry, be happy I am fairly certain we’ll be getting a great game.
Timeline
I have been thinking a lot about all this debate about unique units, future techs, 7/8 civilizations, and not so great graphics. I dug up my May CGW magazine and found it really provided some nice assurance on the development of the game. For example, please notice this point in the article and as you read this think about how silly (and early) it is too be complaining about all this stuff.
Unique Units:
“Must...Play...Test
It’s Dogma at Firaxis - everyone plays as much as possible. People talk, revisions are made, and they play some more.
For this reason, many of the design elements are still in flux, which means that some of what you are reading about (Timeline: like Unique Units) will be tweaked, changed, or even absent. Civilizations may or may not have inherent advantages. Ditto for the special units in the game. The American F-16 or the Roman Legion may have special powers, but not if Firaxis feels it unbalances the game.”
I know what you are going to say (*cough* Roman
) “we complain so that it *will* get changed before it is too late”. Well, believe me, Firaxis can handle it. Look at it this way, they are just in the development stages. They are experimenting with different things hoping to hit something big, how do you progress unless you are willing to experiment some? They aren’t stupid and they know what will and won’t work; they don’t need us screaming and kicking just because they went to check something out. Maybe unique units *will* be in the game but will not be inherent to specific races. Maybe they will become available through special achievements or starting location or first tech discovered or maybe a unique unit will “evolve” as Thoehall suggested or . . . who knows? But you can be sure of one thing: it will not be in the game unless 1: it is balanced, and 2: it is fun (not frustrating). Next thing one might say is “SMAC was terrible, it just shows that Sid can mess up and that race specific advantages are a bad thing”. Okay, first of all SMAC was not a part of the Civilization Series, and even though Meier helped create it, he was trying to accomplish something totally different in that game. In SMAC you were not trying to build a Civilization, you were trying to survive on a desolate and alien world. Different scenario, different environment, different game rules, and different design. Civilization really doesn’t have all that much to do with SMAC in it’s design, and I suspect Civ III will be quite different.
I agree 7 or 8 Civilizations on a random map game could be limiting, but maybe not. I believe Firaxis will allow more civs for scenarios. Read this clip from the CGW review, it may help you to see why Meier is hesitant to throw in more civs:
“The original Civilization had hovercrafts and maps that were twice as big,” Meier enthusiastically responds when pressed to explain his emphasis on play testing. “But the more we played it the more we realized that it’s better to overcompress the gameplay than to undercompress it. We learned to keep the midgame short so that the player is constantly juggling decisions. Civ is long, but it could be a lot longer.”
Gigantic maps, long games, 32 civs . . . you see, I think these are things that Sid is talking about. I may be wrong here, but I think he is basically saying that such things as keeping the random game at 7 (or 8) Civs is a good thing - he is “overcompressing” it, and that is one of the many secrets to a successful Civ game.
As far as the 7 civ limit being hard coded, well, it’s possible, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Future techs: good, bad? Read the next paragraph in CGW:
“Anyone familiar with” Craptavision’s . . . er no wait, it said “Activision’s”
“take on Civilization knows exactly what this means (overcompressing). While an interesting representation of a Hall of Fame game, the middle and end portions of the two Call To Power titles got too bogged down in tedium when they should have been racing to the end.”Very true IMO. Question: Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that the man who discovered this tactic (overcompressing) would know best how to implement it? Therefore, I would not worry about future techs being a major part of the game. And if they are, I think it will be in a good and realistic way.
Well, I guess my point is: It’s silly to go picking on parts of the game so early - that time will come when we have the Beta version. Suggestions are fine, and may be helpful to the team, but be careful of a complaining attitude, as it may prove counter-productive. Oh, one more thing, someone (I think Yin?) mentioned crappy graphics. I am fairly certain that almost all the pictures we see are from the Alpha version of Civ III - SMAC engine and placeholder graphics. I wouldn’t worry all that much about it, I am sure that the terrain/city/interface and maybe even unit graphics will be a ton better in the Beta version. As for the game being too graphic intensive, well I think we all here learned from CTP how bad that can be, but I don’t think Civ III will make that mistake. Even in SMAC you had the option to turn off unit animations.
I don’t have blind faith in Sid and the Firaxis team, and I hope to be able to do a lot of damage control/clean up work if I have the privilege of testing the Beta. But for now people, don’t worry, be happy I am fairly certain we’ll be getting a great game.
Timeline
Comment