To Firaxis, learn from other games and give us something new

[Traelin]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Actually, Traelin, those are the two things I miss most from SMAC. If Civ3 had the diplomatic features of SMAC it would be awesome.

Agreed Warp. I would say that SMAC had, overall, the coolest, freshest approach to the UN (I forget what it was called in SMAC, the Planetary Council or something?) If we could combine the best diplomatic features from SMAC and Civ III we'd have a hell of a game. I still maintain that SMAC was an evolution of the Civ series, albeit with sci-fi roots. It's too bad they feel they need to stay away from taking it's good features.

[statusperfect]

I think you're all wrong... please... make the game more simplistic... like Civ 1. Screw new features!!! I wanna play Civ, not some boring history simulation.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by statusperfect
I think you're all wrong... please... make the game more simplistic... like Civ 1. Screw new features!!! I wanna play Civ, not some boring history simulation.

So then what do you think Civ 1 is lacking? Graphics? If you say that Civ1 lacks nothing, then please just play that....we don't need a clone of a previous Civ game made.

[WarpStorm]

Actually, I agree with statusperfect to a certain extent. No, I don't want Civ1 again. But I don't want the kitchen sink approach to game design. I want each feature to be a truly needed feature for the game system to work in a fun manner. Notice I said fun, not realistic. Fun wins over realistic every time in my book.

[JtheJackal]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Actually, I agree with statusperfect to a certain extent. No, I don't want Civ1 again. But I don't want the kitchen sink approach to game design. I want each feature to be a truly needed feature for the game system to work in a fun manner. Notice I said fun, not realistic. Fun wins over realistic every time in my book.

I think Civ 3 matches this perfectly

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Actually, I agree with statusperfect to a certain extent. No, I don't want Civ1 again. But I don't want the kitchen sink approach to game design. I want each feature to be a truly needed feature for the game system to work in a fun manner. Notice I said fun, not realistic. Fun wins over realistic every time in my book.

Well, fun is of course the primary concern...but I do like some complexity in some areas....hmmm, let me say instead that I like *options*....which is why I'd like more diplomatic options. I don't think anyone would say that is wrong. I also like the government model in SMAC, since it's simple to understand, but it allows for a lot of flexibility and options. The unit system was similar, and was done very, very well in my opinion. You didn't really lose anything if you never customed made a unit, because of how the system was handled with default ones, but you had the *option* to do so if you wanted.....if I recall correctly, you could put a colony pod a rocket....it didn't have much use, but it was kind of cool, hehe (I don't remember for sure though...it's been a long time since I played it, I know I thought about it at least).

Also, I hate pointless and time-wasting micromanagement...which is why I want workers out the door...and why I like the public works system.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
So then what do you think Civ 1 is lacking? Graphics? If you say that Civ1 lacks nothing, then please just play that....we don't need a clone of a previous Civ game made.

Civ 1 lacks graphics, streamlined interface, challenging AI, cool multiplayer modes. etc. etc. all the things we got/will get for Civ 3. Of course i believe Civ 3 is superior to Civ 1. Why? Because it's more fun!

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Also, I hate pointless and time-wasting micromanagement...which is why I want workers out the door...and why I like the public works system.

I never played the CTP series, I just couldn't bring myself to bring a non-Civ title. What's the deal with the public works, and would it greatly reduce the worker tedium?

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Traelin


I never played the CTP series, I just couldn't bring myself to bring a non-Civ title. What's the deal with the public works, and would it greatly reduce the worker tedium?

The public works system takes a percentage of your production, and puts it in the public works pool. It works like taxes that way. Then you can spend the 'funds' to build roads, irrigation, mines, and other tile improvements. So you don't need any workers at all (typically the tile improvements still take a number of turns to be completed).

[Martinus Magnificus]

Originally posted by Traelin
Agreed Warp. I would say that SMAC had, overall, the coolest, freshest approach to the UN (I forget what it was called in SMAC, the Planetary Council or something?) If we could combine the best diplomatic features from SMAC and Civ III we'd have a hell of a game. I still maintain that SMAC was an evolution of the Civ series, albeit with sci-fi roots. It's too bad they feel they need to
stay away from taking it's good features.

I still wonder why they didn't take all good features of Civ II and SMAC as a base for Civ III. I a way, I feel that Firaxis took a step back in many areas. For example:
- no selective pillaging (Civ II had this)
- no flat maps (idem)
- no events language (idem)
- a less advanced government system than in SMAC
- a less interesting UN with far less options than in SMAC

If this is supposed to be evolution, we might as well forget about Darwin!

[WarpStorm]

Ah, but it sold better than either Civ2 or SMAC, so it depends on your criteria for survival of the fittest.

[Martinus Magnificus]

Okay, if you insist, to put it in Darwinistic terms:
The fact that Civ III sold more copies is due to the fact that the 'environment' has become more tolerant to less 'fitted' games like Civ III.

First, the public is more receptive today than it was at the time when Civ II/SMAC came out. I think the main reason why Civ III sells more copies than these previous titles, is that it can take advantage of the legacy of those titles.
Second, Firaxis made the Civ series more accessable for a large public by nice graphics and reduced complexity. In order to do so, they had to do away with many nice features that were in Civ II and SMAC, because they were not appealing to the masses (they didn't have the time to implement these features anayway, because much time was lost in creating useless things like animated leaderheads) IOW: The dedicated fans had to pay for increased sales.
Besides, since when is the number of sold copies a criterium for the quality of a game? Britney Spears sells millions of records, but you can't seriously defend that that's high quality music!

My point: increased sales mean nothing to me. Rather that the Civ-series have evolved into a highly commercial bussiness with lower standards to satisfy a less demanding public.

M.M. dixit!

[Blue Moose]

Also, there are a heck of a lot more people using computers....maybe the % of the overall computer-using population is lower than with CivII even.

Edit: added "computer-using"

[Martinus Magnificus]

Thanx Blue Moose, I forgot about that one. It strengthens my argument even more.

[WarpStorm]

Not really, what is your criteria for success? Better gameplay? More profits? More units?

For Infogrames I'm sure it is more sales.