c165# CIV3: WORST FEARS COME TRUE!

[Warm Beer]

I agree that is it far too early to pass finaly judgment on the game (not that anyone is actually doing that). However, as stated earlier, it is possible and inevitable to form opinions based on the information we have been given. I, for one, am still in the "get all the info I can" phase and like what I am hearing so far. However, I can see the points that are made in the article, especially the "upgraded combat" (i.e. stacks) that seems to be more of a Civ 2.5 than Civ 3 (if I may use Yin's terminology).

One major problem can develop if the unique civs are too different from one antother, as a few civ's disadvantages make them less desirable than others. But that is topic best saved for another thread.

------------------
"When you have to shoot - shoot, don't talk." -Tuco Benedicto Juan Ramirez

[Atahualpa]

quote: Originally posted by War4ever on 05-07-2001 12:04 AM It seems pretty obvious the game is going to be a revamped SMAC engine with an interface similar to the CTP series and for all of you RTS players i suppose a AOE set of plus and minuses for each civ (although SMAC factions had this as well)

This is too funny. What if AOE would have never had this? Then it would be good. HAHAHAHA. Most stupid argument I have ever seen.
The unique ability idea is much longer there than AOE. And if you would have noticed in SMAC the factions also had some kind of unique abilities. Not really, but they had their ups and downs. But in SMAC it was okay.

quote: Many games have pros and cons. Civ 2 has them. Before we go radiacally changing things and making a game which doens't work, i think we should fix the things that didn't and revise the ones that do.

That would mean creating Civ2.5

I also do expect something new. It should still be Civ, but I expect a completely different look and feel.

Ata

[Buck Birdseed]

All I can say is, thank goodness you're not a game designer. The cumulative total of all the additions you want in would render the game unplayable.

[Zealot]

It's sad to see that there is a possibility to only have 7 civs. I thought that after the poll here at Apolyton, the idea was something like 32 civs. That would be the number, IMO, that could please, or satisfy, both fans and developers. Seems not...

BUT I WANT PORTUGAL IN A REAL CIVILIZATION GAME!!!!

Portugal wasn't on Colonization (wich I consider a big flaw, not having heard about a country called Brazil), not in Civ2, just in CTP...

I'm feeling a little abandoned, as an Apolytoner...

[Russian King]

Hmmmm
Well Done Fiera!

I think you are right about Firaxis not listening. I noticed that at least 3/4 is missing from the list SO FAR.
I could agree that there are just too many things people want, but why not include the MAJOR ones??? Why not include 32civs???
Do they think that a 3 digit binary # will cut the lag from the game if replaced instead of a 5 digit #?
Cant they make 8-civs supported and the rest NOT?
I wouldnt give one boogie if they didnt provide support for the whole game if it was good enough.
But the point is: It just aint!
I did never expect to see a civ(infinite) or even civ(very large number) or even the Last Civ There. But I wanna see AT LEAST civ 5!
from Everything what i've heard: it sounds like civ 4.3
Adding civ1+civ2+ctp1+ctp2 and plus this improvement.
Of corse it will get better when its released, but I dont expect it to be what Firaxis claim it to be! NOT civ3(5), but civ 4.5

All those afraid of the truth: Im sorry but Fiera is about 80% right!

[Steve Chao Firaxis]

quote: Originally posted by ancient on 05-06-2001 09:21 PM but i still have greaty hopes for the game and still put my trusts in sid and the rest of the firaxis team (except for steve chao.. dont know whats up with him.. just look at him.. ). [This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 06, 2001).]

Hey, get off my monkey.... uh, I mean uh.... that's not nice.

[MarkG]

hey Steve, welcome to our forums(even this way)!

you dont happen to be the same "pixelmonkey" that is in the current trade wars game, do you?

[Steve Chao Firaxis]

Yes, and stop eyeing my escape pod......

[Buck Birdseed]

That response time should be ample proof of the fact that someone at Firaxis does read these forums, and often, too. Which would render your whole point mute. They're litsening to your ideas, they just think they're crap and thus are not including them for gameplay reasons.

[Zealot]

quote: Originally posted by Snapcase on 05-07-2001 11:44 AM That response time should be ample proof of the fact that someone at Firaxis does read these forums, and often, too. Which would render your whole point mute. They're litsening to your ideas, they just think they're crap and thus are not including them for gameplay reasons.

LOL
You might have a point, though...

[Buck Birdseed]

Exactly. One of my ideas actually made the list (Comprehensive Scenario Editor), but the rest, I dunno.

[joseph1944]

Let's see, if they Firaxis would have picked 8, 16, 32, 64 civs there was no way for them to win. Each group (players) wanted their no. of civs no matter what.
Unique units or standard units again no way to win. Each group (players) wanted the units their way only.
Engineers vs. P.W. again each group wanted their way. No way for Firaxis to win.
I could go on and on but it is very clear there is no way to win because each group of players want the game as they feed it should be.
Remember this game is an upgrade of Civ 2, as Civ 2 was an upgrade of Civ 1.
Look at AOK it was an upgrade of AOE. If Civ 3 change to much it will no longer be a Civ game. If it is not change enough it will Civ 2.1. Firaxis had a tough time ahead of it, making this game work for most of us players.

------------------

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 on 05-07-2001 02:01 PM Let's see, if they Firaxis would have picked 8, 16, 32, 64 civs there was no way for them to win. Each group (players) wanted their no. of civs no matter what.

actually, if you think about it, if they had done 64 civs, everybody would be happy....

[lord of the mark]

I assume that lots of aspects of the game are still up for grabs, and that Firaxis IS listening. That is why i've been pounding so hard on the unique civs issue. In case they havent thought everything through, being so busy making a (holds breath) terrific game.

My impression is that theyve found a really good balance between making this civ3 rather than civ2.5 on the one hand, and losing the essence of "civ-ness" on the other. Many of the changes like limiting ICS, and adding a more elaborate culture model will make Civ3 MORE "civish" than civ2 was, IMHO. I am on the whole pleased. Which is why i find the whole unique civs thing so annoying. If they were really screwing up the game it wouldnt matter so much, but they're not. I doubt its possible to eliminate the idea at this point, since they have mentioned it in public, and i dont think its just units you get as result of what you do, cause i think they could have explained that already. My hopes are raised by the fact that they dont seem to have mentioned it much lately, so I'm hoping it wont dominate gameplay a la AOE.

LOTM

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Bell on 05-07-2001 12:50 PM Does that necessarily make them any better?

surely you agree that an idea discussed and by lots of experienced civers is more probable to be a good one than by an idea of a single person....