CIV comparrisons

[ZergPrime]

From what I've noticed about new editions of games, it is just the same old game, more/different graphics. Take the War Craft series. As each new thing came out, the game was basically the same. The only thing that changed were the graphics/animations. Same thing with StarCraft (although they are mostly the same line). It is just original War Craft with new space graphics. Looks like this Call to Power thing is just gonna be a CivII with more/different graphics. When CivII came out, it was quite a bit more than good old Civ, but just because it was 3D. If CivII would have been 2D, people probably would have hated it, even though it is just Civ with more/different graphics/animations. So, I think that Call to Power is gonna be stupid, because it will just be a touched-up CivII. Nothing more. Same old game, which did rather suck. I hated that 3D crap. Too damn hard to figure out where you were or were moving too. 2D Civ rocked. I personally am all for Alpha Centauri, because I dig that Sci-Fi thing, but I imagine Alpha Centauri to be like StarCarft is to WarCraft: same game, just different setting and some new pictures. I don't think Call to Power is going to be anything great.

[KingSheba]

HAVE YOU BEEN READING THE PREVIEWS!?!!?!
HAVE YOU BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FORUM?!?!
DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT?!?!!

I can stand people arguing contraversial features, wonders, units or aspects of gameplay, but your argument has no bassis in reality.

Call to Power is not civ III, its made be different people and will be chock full of new ideas, featurs, wonders, units, interface enhancements, gameplay changes, technologys, graphics, sea and space colonization, diplomacy, economics, etc... (I can't say if all this will be good or not, but it will not be a civ II clone.)

I don't think you know what you are talking about at all.

KingSheba

[Blade Runner]

We are here because we think CTP will be better than Civ2. IMHO all the information what I can collect here CTP will be the best civ2 sequel!

Blade Runner

[ZergPrime]

King Sheba wrote:
chock full of new ideas, featurs, wonders, units, interface enhancements, gameplay changes, technologys, graphics, sea and space colonization, diplomacy, economics, etc...

Yep, just as StarCraft was chock full of new ides, features, wonders, etc., etc. But it was just War Craft in a new place with a face lift. Same thing here. Civ II with a facelift. Although, after doing some reading, etc., Call to Power seems to be a crossbreed of Civ II and whatever war game/strategy game you think is closest. Actually, it's just old news. You might even say a copy of what's already out there.

[FastEddy]

I must say, Zerg, if all you were after was a reaction, you got it. However, all I can say is that you have to be fairly biased about a game to say that there is nothing new about it without having played it, a demo of it, or even seen it played. This is an open forum, you can say what you like, but a little patience will stop you from looking quite so foolish next time.

- FE
- When a wise man and a fool argue, how do you tell the difference?

[monolith94]

I agree with King Sheba and Blade Runner, CTP will be significantly different.

Starcraft was also significantly different from Warcraft 2. I would call it the Call to Power of the Warcraft series! I hated warcraft 1, loved 2 and starcraft. ZergPrime your argument is like a doughnut, has hole.

[mr cairo]

Zerg:

Of course there will be similarities between a sequel and its predecessor(s). Otherwise, it would get a whole new name. We know CTP isn't going to invent a genre. Civ did that. But we got bored with playing the same game for hours (and hours... and hours...) on end. There was a demand for something new, yet with the same idea. It's hard to explain but by analogy... is there a movie you've ever watched that made you think, "Gosh, I wish I could see that again for the first time"? Well, you can't--unless your memory is very poor. Next best thing is to watch something similar (same director, etc.) but with the same idea.

There's a balance that must be struck. If the sequel is too similar to the original then it's just a copy subject to the criticisms you've expressed in your posts. But if it's too dissimilar, then the demands of the masses for another (in this case civ-type game) haven't been met.

As for CIV II, I agree with you (though others won't, I suspect): it didn't do enough for someone who had already played CIV. (But it would have been great for someone who had never played CIV.) Prettier pictures ain't enough.

But CTP looks to be properly tweaked. I really think that the new concepts will differentiate it from earlier CIVs, while the basic design will allow it to retain the Civilization atmosphere. But then, I haven't played it yet. Oh... neither have you. Hmmm...

One more thought:
If you're so sure that CTP will be a dud, why are you posting here? Just wondering.

Regards

[ZergPrime]

Mr. Cairo,
No, I don't believe the Call to Power will be a dud. Just take a look at all the fanatic Civ'ers here that are dying to play it. I personally don't think it will be very fun. I've played out Civ and CivII (for hours ... and hours ... and hours ... ) on end, and I'm tired of that type of Civ. I have been waiting for Alpha Centauri ever since I finished my first Civ game. I've sat, from time to time, after finishing a Civ game and imagined what I would do if the game continued after 2019. (2019 because your ship won't land it it's scheduled to arrive in 2020 and you'll lose to 400 points ). From the little that I've read and seen, Call to Power is just a mix of CivII and Red Alert. (The name Call to Power insinuates an emphasis on the wargamegoal in mind) I'm tired of that same old thing. Same old earth, same old resources, same old units. I personally think that original Civ is better than all these continuations put together. Simple yet, thrilling at the same time. I have never liked the (whatever)II's and (whatever)III's and so on. I would rather play DoomII over Quake of Hexen and day of the week. Maybe i'm just too stuborn and get set in my ways, but that's the way I thought of Quake. Just a really souped up version of Doom II. No, the graphics didn't impress me. No, the new weapons/abilities/monsters didn't impress me. They were just DoomII weapons/monsters/abilities that were souped up. I think the thing is, is that the new outcoming games are too clutered. Too clutered with glitter just to snag the common-joe-shmoe computer user. It was that way with Dungeons and Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I hated AD&D. Why? Because it was too cluttered to make it fun. Too many damn things to worry about and keep track of. Whenever I DM'ed, I rarely opened a manual except for roll stats. Hell, many times, I didn't even do rolls. And people loved that and so did I. So, I think that's the thing with Call to Power. It's too cluttered with glitter, but not greatness. It will still do very well. Why? Because the common-joe-shmoe is thrilled with more glitter that clouds the underlying. Same thing with Windows. It is just glitter. Glitter for the common-joe-shmoe. Real users use real systems like UNIX. Call to Power is just a lot of glitter; a hefty portion of icing and sprinkles on the cake of Civ. I will probably actually play Call to Power, but probably only the demo. Just to see if I predicted right. I doubt I will ever play the full version unless someone makes me a free copy.

[MarkG]

"what I would do if the game continued after 2019"
Do you know that CTP continues up to 3000AD?

Markos, Apolyton CS

[Pythagoras]

Quake had a totally revolutionary engine that utilized true 3D rather then the 2 dimensional Doom . . Quake was a HUGE improvement, no revolution. Despite all that, could you expand on your argument about CTP = mix of Civ 2 and C&C. I'm curious about that.

[St Leo]

Why don't we just wait and see?:-)

[ZergPrime]

MarkG:
Yes, I know it goes to 3000AD. I don't think those 2050AD+ improvements will be all that great. Just a stealth bomber with space capabilites. A marine with space capabilities. Not impressed.

Pythagorus:
I have looked over the preview screen shots and box cover, etc. What I have seen more than anything, are closeups of war scenarios. That's where I get the C&C (or whatever war/strategy game you prefer). Also, the name of the game: Call to _Power_. Power of forces. It looks like it's just gonna be a war/strategy game with complex cities all built on top of the CivII backdrop. Oh, with more detailed graphics. Once again, not impressed.

[mr cairo]

Well, Zerg, you make a strong argument. I agree in principle with what you're saying. (And the specifics for the most part seem right on too, as far as I can tell--haven't played Dooms and Quakes, but D&D vs. AD&D I can relate to.)

The only thing I can add is
1. Many of us *want* a game that is not too different from earlier CIVs. Sure, if they could invent a new TBS game that was as good as CIV then we'd be interested.
2. Read what St Leo said. We can't speak with authority until we've had a closer look at the game. (Although talking about it now doesn't hurt; it's not like the forum can't handle the volume right now.)

To everyone who opposes ZergPrime:

What do you feel about the resources being put into graphics/sounds (ie. bells and whistles)? You know that for every dollar they spend on glitzing up a game, its one less dollar spent trying come up with a good idea for a game. They seem to stress these window dressings in their advertisements, so maybe its really what people want.

Regards

[Colonâ„¢]

Altough CTP has a lot of new additions, graphics, units etc it basicly is just an another but expanded Civilization.

Nothing has been changed to the engine of the game and many basic ideas survive from the old civ.

I don't care about graphics only about the game itself and what do I see ?
Wonders of the world, who are completely illogical and have started a life on their own.
The fact that industry is still represented by a "something" liek shields, while in real life there's a lumber industry, steel industry, electronica industry,...
The fact that military has so much importance, in the civs the base idea in a way is "the country is there to build an army" while it should be "the army is there for the country". (Zerg is right when he says that this tends to look like an advanced C&C clone)

I believe that in a game like Imperialism or Colonisation, the importance of economy and military are much better balanced.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the entire game engine should be demolished and rebuild from scratch to remove the errors in realism. (afterall, this game is in the first place a simulation of empire building and controlling.)

[LordStone1]

BUT the game engine was actually demolished and rebuilt! This is not a Microprose game - this is an Activision game. Activision didn't get anything from Microprose. They had to build everything themselves from stratch, and that is a huge feat!