Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I think the lack of story is what is turning me off of a lot of TBS games. Civ3 lacked any sense of momentum or flow from the beginning of the game to the end. There aren't any cut scenes, events, or anything other than just plodding along the course. One of the things I like most about studying history is that there is indeed a real story to man, and one can get a sense of a general flow of history, a movement towards...well, something. Alpha Centauri is the last TBS I played that really accomplished this, and I was sad Civ3 didn't take its lesson from it. You'd think it would be easier with Civ, since so much of the story is already known instead of made up!
I think the lack of story is what is turning me off of a lot of TBS games. Civ3 lacked any sense of momentum or flow from the beginning of the game to the end. There aren't any cut scenes, events, or anything other than just plodding along the course. One of the things I like most about studying history is that there is indeed a real story to man, and one can get a sense of a general flow of history, a movement towards...well, something. Alpha Centauri is the last TBS I played that really accomplished this, and I was sad Civ3 didn't take its lesson from it. You'd think it would be easier with Civ, since so much of the story is already known instead of made up!
How would you compare Civ 3 to Civ2 in tht respect?? (IE story) The unmodded Civ2 did not have events, etc but there is a very strong movement toward something - a constant dialectical movement, (eg industrialization creates pollution, which requires a movement toward higher tech to deal with, and more importantly a movement towards higher political forms - for more detail see my column "Civ2's Hegelian tech tree") My sense from what i have read is that Civ3, while adding certain elements for the sake of hisotrical accuracy, has lost the overall view of history that charecterized Civ2.
Comment