c165# CIV3: WORST FEARS COME TRUE!

[Roman]

Hey, lord of the mark, I don't think you need to worry about unnique civs at all. Firaxis said the civilizations will be editable, so you can just erase all the differences. That will also keep everyone happy - those that do and those that do not want unique civs.

[Roman]

I also agree that the game looks like it will be truly excellent and that Firaxis are definitely looking on these forums for suggestions and inspiration. That is also the reason why I was (am?) so worried about 7 civ limit (if the game looked rubbish I wouldn't have cared) and I also started the massive topic on 7 civilizations precisely because I think Firaxis looks here and is open to critique. Lets hope these assumptions are correct.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 05-07-2001 03:43 PM Hey, lord of the mark, I don't think you need to worry about unnique civs at all. Firaxis said the civilizations will be editable, so you can just erase all the differences. That will also keep everyone happy - those that do and those that do not want unique civs.

Good but this leaves 2 concerns -
1. the AI. IF the unique civs are important, and AI expects them, and i turn them off, this will make AI even easier to beat, no?

2. The civ community

I dont want strategy boards to be dominated by how to play different "races"

3. Im a bit of a grognard (if you havent noticed) Stupid things gall me. I dont care if its just a game, i treat games like movies, books etc. I dont want junk around(yeah i know thats too strong), especially not from the likes of Sid Meiers.

LOTM

[tniem]

Other than the number of civs, the column this week was hard to read for what seems like a ton of assumptions and misguesses.

But the biggest problem I had with it is that he first says that he does not want Civ 2.5 but a new game. But then says that the best way to make the game is to fix what is wrong in the previous games. I am sorry but that isn't what I want. That is how Microprose made Civ II, a few changes from the original and I quickly became bored. I am happy with what Firaxis appears to be doing with Civ III. It appears to me that I will have to learn entirely new strategies, that the old ones will not work and that I will have to become a new type of Civ player. I can only hope.

Of course until Civ III comes out I will leave some of the his comments as just hopefully pessismistic views. Hey I can hope!

[MazaNaza]

While I don't share the attitude that the "sky is falling" that most people here seem to, I do agree with one thing: Civs with predetermined strengths and weaknesses (a la SMAC) don't sit well with me. When this happens, multiplayer games will turn into arguments over who gets to have their favorite civilization.

I think that a better implementation for the special unit idea would be to create "paths." If a particular civilization follows a certain path through the game (i.e. focuses on war, economics, peace, happiness, exploration, etc.) then it could be awarded special opportunites along the way (like units). This would allow the player to chose his or her own destiny rather than have it dictated by the choice of civ. It wouldn't be something you'd be stuck on once you started, either; you'd be able to shift between them gradually throughout the game. This would help to create advantages and disadvantages for following a particular strategy rather than simply starting as a particular civ.

Let me know what you guys think - maybe Firaxis should hear about this?

[Admiral PJ]

That article was far too negative, Firaxis will try their best at this game so don't give them such a hard time..
Us programmers etc can be sensitive so positive comments rather than negative ones would probably help firaxis more.
Perhaps Civ4 will have even more features.. but for all we know Civ3 will have everything we hoped for.

Gameplay is the main thing in a game, games are games so I hope it'll concentrate on that :>
but art is important nowadays too of course.

Admiral Pete

[meriadoc]

Do you know who I agree with the most? The guys who are pointing out that Civ III is still only about half complete and therefore it's still far too early to judge the game.

Sure, some criticism here and there is one thing. But all out saying that Civ III is going to be horrible - that's too much.

------------------
The Electronic Hobbit

[Fiera]

Hi. First of all, thank you all for your comments!

I must say that I'm not surprised that most of them are negative ones... I knew that the points I wanted to raise weren't precisely popular among the Civ3 forum visitors. That's why I made my mind to write an article for The Column, instead of opening a new thread here- I just wanted to catch the opinion of those Civ fans that don't monitor this forum every day.

I'm very sorry that Imran finds this column to be a waste. Maybe it's a waste for him and for everybody that seems to have blind faith in Firaxis and Civ3, but I think that a share of criticism is never a waste. Especially when the mainstream here seems to be "Sid and Firaxis are real genius, they can't do anything wrong".

My criticism (though put in a somewhat provoking style) was intended to be useful and constructive for Firaxis. If you're right, and the game is still half complete, maybe they are still on time to learn some things about what the Civ fans community thinks and feels like. I'm not only talking about my article, but about a respectable number of threads opened recently in this very forum.

Imran said he would submit an article regarding this. I strongly encourage him to do so, for I'd realy like to see some good points on why should be optimistic about Civ3 (basing on what we've seen so far, not just on vague Sid's promises, of course).

I'm also surprised about some people that seems to feel that I'm furious because MY ideas don't seem to be implemented in Civ3 (Snapcase, I'm looking at you). I just brought The Essential Civ3 List as an example of ideas that were broadly accepted among the Apolyton community. And I hardly took part in the elaboration of these ideas (just a pair of shy posts, I think), I just voted for my favourites as many people here did.

Also, I don't think that this column sums up how I feel Civ3 should be. So I hate to tell it, but people criticizing me for proposing difficult or boring ideas for Civ3 just don't get what this column is about.

My point is that Firaxis has greater interests than just pleasing the die hard Civ fans -like earning cash, for example... It's a pity, but that's the way it is.

As I stated in the article, I'd sooner devote my free time to the developing of any of the "Alternative Civs" than to Firaxis's Civ3. Some of you may think I am crazy, but the Alternative Civs are games developed by the Civ fans, for the Civ fans.

Oh, and I never said that Civ3 was going to be horrible. I think it'll be a great game. But I also feel that it will disappoint most of the people here.

Why? Because of all the great hopes we all had for it. I think you'll understand me.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-07-2001 04:15 PM 1. the AI. IF the unique civs are important, and AI expects them, and i turn them off, this will make AI even easier to beat, no?

Well, the first point is certainly still of concern, but I sincerely doubt that Firaxis are going to write a separate AI for each civ anyway - they will most likely use the same AI for all of them. If they didn't do that than there would be no point of the civs being customizable in the first place, would there?

As to the strategy forums, I am sure they will have plenty of generic strategies either way.

[Father Beast]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 05-06-2001 08:37 PM As for "eye candy," I'm sick of people who say graphics aren't important in Civ. THEY ARE IMPORTANT! You zero-sum people should go play ANSI games again.

The HECK you say!!

I enjoy playing Zork now and again. I also enjoy a lot of the frustrating Nethack, since LighteNing turned me onto it. both of these are very graphics impaired.

My latest obsession is XCOM, and it has got me bad, even though the pixelated graphics are pathetic by today's standards, or even 5 years ago. it's still a great game!

it might be better to say that graphics are important TO YOU, Yin.

[ancient]

quote: Originally posted by Steve Chao Firaxis on 05-07-2001 09:42 AM Hey, get off my monkey.... uh, I mean uh.... that's not nice.

hehe thats great..

[ancient]

ooh xcom and nethack are great games..

[Roman]

I would go even further, Father Beast. Excessive graphics ANNOY me in a strategy game. Especially animations, where some unit is represented by a figurine which moves its legs while "walking" on the main map. To me that just looks stupid.

Luckily, I believe that just like in Civ 2, it will be possible to turn off animations in Civ 3. Furthermore, I hope the graphics on the screenshots are final, or close to final - I don't want an excessively graphical strategy game (though I admit, I do have a preference for light rather than dark graphics, which luckily seem to be the norm, judging from the screenshots) and the graphics from the screenshots aren't very excessive just yet and hopefully will not be in the actual game.

[yin26]

Father Beast:

I'm currently in a game of Trade Wars 2002 which, as you might know, is text and a few ANSI graphics. It's fun. Simple but fun. So don't confuse what I'm saying: Good graphics are NOT necessary for a great game, but surely having a great game with great graphics is...well...great!

I will say this, though: If Civ3 has crappy graphics (I thought SMAC's graphics were rather terrible), I'll be looking for other excuses to stop playing the game. And it's not so much that the graphics themselves ruin the experience but that I'll know there was a deliberate decision made not to live up to the "No more bad graphics from Firaxis" promise.

Let me leave you with a question: If Civ3's graphics are similar or even worse than Civ2's, this wouldn't bother you? Sorry, but in the end, human beings are primarily visual creatures. I agree the imagination is better than any graphics and gameplay is more important than visuals, but THIS IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME!

I'll repeat that: THIS IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME!

[Father Beast]

Since the column seems to center on the stuff in the EC3, I'll go ahead and go down them, point by point and see if it's as bad as fiera makes out...


EC3 Fixes:

1. Trade
in.

2. Diplomacy
in.

3. Make It Harder for civs to last
not addressed as yet, may yet be included. firaxis is sometimes tight lipped with us until official announcements.

4. Comprehensive Scenario Editor
in, but how comprehensive it is remains to be seen.

5. Improved Road and Rail Rules
not mentioned as yet. I sure hope it's in.


EC3 New Ideas

1. Rise And Fall Of Empires
essentially the same as fix #3, since this aspect made both lists, it should be a flag for them to listen. haven't heard yet...

2. Domestic Politics
not sure yet, but unlikely

3. New Modes Of Victory
in, was already in AC, but a lot of the list people were not AC vets.

4. Energy
apparently out

5 (tie). Stacking
in

5 (tie). Religion
apparently out, but a lot of the effects of religion may be addressed in culture, so I can't say that went entirely unheard.


A couple of things which didn't make the list itself, but got some votes, and we know are pretty much in, are:

No More Instant City Conversions
Better Graphics
Replay (if that wink from dan in that one thread means what I think it does)
And lets not forget that there appears to be a good fix for ICS, one of the ones we most talked about on THE LIST, and endlessly in this forum.

So, from the 11 EC3 items, we have 5 that are in, 2 apparently out, and 4 not sure. I have trouble marking that as "they don't listen to us"

I was also amused by your off the wall suggestion that we just call it "age Of Civilizations", since the developers of that game were largely civ worshippers that played some Warcraft on the side. they come from us, not us from them. I had to chuckle...