Tweet
A more interesting question for Firaxis and for everyone here, I think, would be: Why do this?
Clearly the public wants Civ III, but do we really want a game that could "do our taxes too"?
Civilization is one of the best selling and most highly regarded computer games in history. It created an entire genre of games, the Wolfenstein 3D of "god" games, if you will. Master of Magic, CTP, Ascendency, Master of Orion, SMAC and Deadlock, just to name a few, probably owe their existence to Civ's success. How many of those games, however, have had even close to the success of the game they sought to emulate and "improve" upon?
Most of the ideas being posted in the threads have been tried to in some way, in some game. Ignoring the novelty factor of a new game, how many long enjoyable sessions of Lords of Magic has anyone played? Civ II isn't broken. If it was released again, today as a new game it would still experience the same kind of phenomenal success.
The changes made between Civ and Civ II were minor at best. I'm all for improving graphics, changing the effects of the Wonders and even adding a few more types of government, units, etc. But the sort of wholesale rewriting being suggested here leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
I have a guilty admission to make. I own all the games I mentioned earlier and quite a few other Civ clones. To some extent, I have enjoyed them all; but I have never gone back to them the way I do to Civ.
I urge all of the posters, and Firaxis especially to use moderation in altering Sid's masterpiece. Ask yourself, how many times would I play this "new" game? Seven years later would this still be on my hard drive? I'm not against change, I just hope that the changes that are made are universally accepted as improving the game.
Clearly the public wants Civ III, but do we really want a game that could "do our taxes too"?
Civilization is one of the best selling and most highly regarded computer games in history. It created an entire genre of games, the Wolfenstein 3D of "god" games, if you will. Master of Magic, CTP, Ascendency, Master of Orion, SMAC and Deadlock, just to name a few, probably owe their existence to Civ's success. How many of those games, however, have had even close to the success of the game they sought to emulate and "improve" upon?
Most of the ideas being posted in the threads have been tried to in some way, in some game. Ignoring the novelty factor of a new game, how many long enjoyable sessions of Lords of Magic has anyone played? Civ II isn't broken. If it was released again, today as a new game it would still experience the same kind of phenomenal success.
The changes made between Civ and Civ II were minor at best. I'm all for improving graphics, changing the effects of the Wonders and even adding a few more types of government, units, etc. But the sort of wholesale rewriting being suggested here leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
I have a guilty admission to make. I own all the games I mentioned earlier and quite a few other Civ clones. To some extent, I have enjoyed them all; but I have never gone back to them the way I do to Civ.
I urge all of the posters, and Firaxis especially to use moderation in altering Sid's masterpiece. Ask yourself, how many times would I play this "new" game? Seven years later would this still be on my hard drive? I'm not against change, I just hope that the changes that are made are universally accepted as improving the game.
Comment