 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
skrobism
|
|
quote:
Please, come with better reasons to not like what you've seen in the cIV previews. |
So, only reasons that you agree with would be valid.
Those are my reasons. I can't change them. I love Civ2. SMAC showed the promise of things to come in Civ3. Civ3 gave me most of what I wished was in Civ2. The things I don't like in Civ3 are very minor. Civ3 is a great game.
Things I wanted from Civ4:
Religion. Wasn't real high on my want list. Don't know what I would have done. But this isn't it.
More levels of zoom 2D or 3D. We got that, but it just doesn't look right.
A true 3D Globe. We got a cylinder.
Someone mentioned that they squandered an opportunity. Exactly! I know this was never part of the Civ series. I know this is basically a 2D board game. But, after all these years, with all the CPU power out there, I think they could have found a way. I think this would have been an innovative feature. Instead we got a rolled up map view.
You can argue that it doesn't make sense until the space race. Maybe it doesn't make sense until you discover Navigation or some other tech. So turn that feature off until this discovery. Many Civs before Columbus thought the earth was round. (Settle down Ninot - they were of course wrong and still are.)
For those that love a flat world map - allow that in the editor.
I'm just not excited and see no reason to stop playing Civ3 until the price of Civ4 comes down to $10.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yolky
|
|
Ontario Canada
Oct 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
The reason why cIIIv didn't meet the expectations and why it got that many bugs was because cIIIv was build on old engines.
cIV is being made from nothing.
It's not valid to say that you have low expections for cIV because you didn't like cIIIv since Firaxis has listened to the feedback on cIIIv and decided to not continue on the cIIIv engine.
|
Old engine? That is no excuse, but I thought Civ III was on a new engine but that is besides the point, there are so many games that are built on a old engine and they are good games.
The reason I am not excited was because of all the bugs,(old engine no excuse,) they released the game too early and had to patch it up,after patch after patch.
Civ III was being made from nothing as well and looked what happend. Remeber I never said Civ III sucked all I said was I was disapointed with it, after eageraly awaiting it, and it was a BIG disapointment with it, after the patches, and ex pacs the game is good, maybe great but it wasn't great when Civ III vanila came out.
HELL even Call to Power 2 is a great game but after all the patches and people made the mods for it.
So by your argument I should wait 2 years after Civ IV is out and all the patches and ex pacs are out and then it will be a great game. I want a great game as soon it comes out of the box, not after patches and ex pacs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Old engine? That is no excuse, but I thought Civ III was on a new engine but that is besides the point, there are so many games that are built on a old engine and they are good games. |
cIIIv was buid on a REALLY old engine that even still had parts of the cIv engine (1991!)
quote:
The reason I am not excited was because of all the bugs,(old engine no excuse,) they released the game too early and had to patch it up,after patch after patch. |
For which infogrames was to blame. Now there's a new publisher that apparantly has a total different approach to building games then infogrames / Atari.
Not to mention that during the cIIIv development half the team left Firaxis so they basicly had to start all over. A problem that didn't happen this time.
That's already three MAJOR reasons why people can't compare the cIIIv development process to the cIV process.
quote:
Civ III was being made from nothing as well and looked what happend. |
it was not.
quote:
So by your argument I should wait 2 years after Civ IV is out and all the patches and ex pacs are out and then it will be a great game. I want a great game as soon it comes out of the box, not after patches and ex pacs. |
No, the information we have right now tells us that there's a very good change that the vanilla release of cIV will be very good.
- mp games are already been played for 1,5 years
- development is already busy for over 2 years
- beta testers from the civ-community are busy with the game for months already
The entire atmosphere right now is sooo different from the atmosphere before the cIIIv release.
At that time we were still wondering if the game would have multiplayer or not.
Just to point out how different things are right now.
We had huge discussions in those days, but people had reasons for that. I don't see why we should be worried right now.
Of course people may be displeased by some parts of the game. Unhappy with the way religion will function, prefer a 2D map, more civilizations, etc. etc. but one should know that it's impossible to please everyone.
Conclusion: there's a huge difference between the cIIIv pre-release situation and the current cIV release situation. That's a fact. I repeat: no half team left Firaxis, no old engine, better publisher, beta team from the community, multiplayer games already been played for 1,5 years. That does make a difference. And it can't be ignored.
quote:
So, only reasons that you agree with would be valid. |
No, that's not what I said.
That's a very simplistic reaction to my arguments.
You can disagree with arguments and opinions. But arguments and opinions can be wrong as well.
I have oftenly disagreed with arguments people gave who are on my side of the fence.
If someone says: "Civilization IV will be great because it's been made by Sid Meier himself how made cIV as well" I will disagree and say that that argument is BS. Because Sid is hardly involved in the development of cIV, and because sid worked on cIIIv as well while much people dislike cIIIv.
See how an argument can be wrong, no matter if you agree or not with the speaker!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
skrobism
|
|
Sorry to be simplistic in my response.
I am still not excited for Civ4. Maybe I'm just to happy with Civ3. I gave my opinions based on the facts that I have seen so far.
At its most basic my opinion is this. Civ4 will not be better than Civ3. No reason to be excited.
I listed some of the facts as I see them.
On another point. Opinions themselves cannot be right or wrong. Facts and data used to support an opinion can be.
Often opinions have no basis in fact. Example, dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate. Try to prove that true or false.
You could try to show me the error of my ways since my opinion is based on some facts.
Opinion: Civ4 will not be better than Civ3 because it is
Fact: not moving to a 3D globe.
If you can show me that Civ4 has a 3D globe I might change my opinion, or just move my support to another fact.
peace
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
Zooming in the fashion that you are in favor of doesn't really help. You only need two levels of zoom - a detailed view, and an overall view. More usefull are different map overlays. |
Maybe other people prefer having many levels of zoom, or maybe they need to be closer in for detailed.
quote:
It does have bombers, fighters, helicopters, paratroopers, and all other manors of air units, however, and there's no reason to think that Civ4 shouldn't expand it's horizons. (even though there's plenty of reasons to think that it won't) |
There's not much reason to model nuclear missiles separately from nuclear bombers. It just wouldn't have that much gameplay effect.
quote:
Note that I said non-earth-like.  The extent that they're frozen would be variable. |
So you want a spherical globe because a) it allows you to implement a specific strategy in an unlikely circumstance that only occurs at the very end of the game and b) so that you can play a particular type of custom map as accurately as possible.
Sounds to me more like a rationalization of prejudice against anything that would dare call itself a successor to Civ...
quote:
Indeed. I don't think I mentioned anything about hexes, though... But since you have, they are atleast somewhat more flexible than the square grid system which was antiquated even before Civ1. |
Unless you're talking about removing some sort of distinct tile system entirely (in which case we can ignore you), you have to replace square tiles with some other shaped tiles that can form a sphere. And AFAIK hexes were used before squares.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
As I said before, you don't have to pass directly over the pole to notice the difference of a globe. |
Actually, you do. The curvature as low as the Earth's doesn't have any real noticable effect until your either dealing with airplanes or satellites or units wrapping around the map.
quote:
Exactly! And how long ago was Civ1 made? Even despite a decade of amazing strategy games being made in the mean time, the Civ series has remained in complete stagnation, ignoring every advancment made in strategy gaming. No signifigant progression has been made in the series, at all. It's been nothing but Ai/rule tweaks since the original. |
Except for changes such as actual resources, culture, religion, nationality, civ traits, a completely different air unit system...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
skrobism
|
|
quote:
You posted an opinion about a game that you know very little about. You can't expect us to take you seriously. |
I see that my opinion is again being dismissed because it is not agreed with. The facts that I present have yet to be disputed.
You obviously know so much more about this unreleased game than anyone. How can I add anything further?
I am done. Enjoy your game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, you do. The curvature as low as the Earth's doesn't have any real noticable effect until your either dealing with airplanes or satellites or units wrapping around the map. |
 arguing that the earth isn't round, now?
 And units wraping around the map? On a cylinder, a unit could be considered to be doing that with every movement it takes along the X-Axis.
quote:
Except for changes such as actual resources, culture, religion, nationality, civ traits, a completely different air unit system... |
none of which are particularily ground breaking, or even alter the way the game is played. Resources and the new air combat are the only thing among those that was a note-worthy advancements, and niether was even done very well. Fundementally, Civ is still the same game that it was when the original was released.
quote:
Maybe other people prefer having many levels of zoom, or maybe they need to be closer in for detailed. |
That isn't a personal preferance, it's matter of design. If you have a display that gives you all possible information in an understandable fashion, then you have a detailed view. Zooming in isn't going to give you more detail, because it would not make any new information visable.
I'm sure some people do enjoy zooming in and out and watching everythign get big and small, though. But the same effect can be achieved with a magnifying glass.
quote:
There's not much reason to model nuclear missiles separately from nuclear bombers. It just wouldn't have that much gameplay effect. |
Yes... no gameplay effect at all, you'd only be skiping an entire period of modern warfare and technology and completely negating the logistics of limited range nuclear weapons from the game.
quote:
So you want a spherical globe because a) it allows you to implement a specific strategy in an unlikely circumstance that only occurs at the very end of the game and b) so that you can play a particular type of custom map as accurately as possible. |
No, I want a globe because
A) It would give a purpose to the 3D graphics
B) It would better represent reality and be an actual globe, with all the things that entails.
quote:
Sounds to me more like a rationalization of prejudice against anything that would dare call itself a successor to Civ... |
That isn't much of a dare, it's pretty easy to call something a successor to Civ. There aren't exactly alot of standards, here.
quote:
Unless you're talking about removing some sort of distinct tile system entirely |
I certainly am. Tiles are absolutely absurd for a strategic game - they only work on the tactical level. It's well past time for civ to get with the times and adopt a province based system, or try something new, but that's not likely to ever happen in this franchise. Fortunetly there are people out there making good strategy games while civ chugs along as though it was still 1991.
quote:
And AFAIK hexes were used before squares. |
It's not really a matter of what was used first, but even chess uses a square grid. How many games older than that used hexagon tiles?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ISTANBUL
|
 |
silicon valley
Jul 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Of course the units are large.
They were in cIv, cIIv and cIIIv as well.
You don't want to stare at the map looking for your units, do you?
Not being able to pass the poles? C'mon, that's not a reason to not like the game. you've never been able to pass the poles in any civ game to date.
Hate the game because it has a globe? 
Please, come with better reasons to not like what you've seen in the cIV previews. |
Regarding the unit size:
1. Civ4 has bigger units than civ3, civ2 and CTP2, if the zoomed screen-shots are not misleading. I don't know civ1.
2. I never had to stare at the map to see the units, they were clearly visible in Civ2, CTP2 and Civ3. Making them too big may make you stare at the map to see the buildings in the city square. 
Regarding the poles and the global view:
1. Which army ever passed through the poles?  It wasn't possible until 20th century. I don't want settlers, spearmen, cavaliers, etc. walking through the poles. It's OK for modern era aircrafts and ships, though.
2. The global view is not the only nor the main reason, as well stated in my original post. I just think it does not serve any function at all. In addition it is not appealing to the eye either, at least in the screen-shots I saw. As it doesn't add anything to gameplay or to visuals, I'm against it. I didn't think anybody would say "Wov, there is a global view, it's awesome!". But no problem, if it's an option I'll deselect it, otherwise I won't zoom out. The point is they're wasting time and effort with such unnecessary details, rather than concentrating on more significant aspects of the game. 
Last edited by ISTANBUL on 18-06-2005 at 13:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ISTANBUL
|
|
silicon valley
Jul 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Who in his right mind would judge about a turn based strategy game based solely on graphics? Graphics is fluff, not more.
Whaaaaaa whaaaaa I don't like chess because I can't stand the look of the rook. It looks like a buttplug!  . And the bishop, which isn't even close to how a real bishop looks. And alternately colored squares are teh suck!!1!  |
You are definitely underestimating the visual component of the gaming experience. It is true that turn based strategy games are not supposed to be all about the looks. However, they are not chess either. Then, why do you think the guys in Firaxis are releasing the screen-shots, advertising about 3-D graphics improving leader portraits in the diplomacy screen, etc. , rather than putting a .txt file about the novelties of the gameplay on their website to keep the fans informed? What I love about Civ is the epic feeling of leading a nation through history, besides other stuff like micromanaging resources, following the tech tree, etc. I don't have that kind of feeling in chess. Chess is all about thought, it's very blunt and plain to me, hence uncomparable to a computer game. My personal experience was that when I tried to go back to CTP2 after playing Civ3, the map in general was bad-looking. It didn't feel right and I didn't feel like playing CTP2 again.
Do consider that the average Civ3 buyer may not be as hardcore as you seem to be. Furthermore it's personal choice and taste, where one thinks the right balance between the gameplay and the visuals is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ISTANBUL
|
|
silicon valley
Jul 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
quote:
I'm playing 4000BC to 1950, why would there be a global view anyway? It's ridiculous before the space age. |
This argument sums it all up 
I want to add some more arguments to hate cIV already, in the spirit of this argument:
- it's plain stupid to have a view on your civ from a great height before planes are available anyway. Untill then there should be a from the ground view
- How can any civ leader live for 6000 years? That's ridiculous
- Why do the cities grow in big leaps 
I mean, first there are 10000 civilians, and then out of the sudden there are 30000
- Why does my spearman need 150 year to cross europe in the early ages? That's so dumb!
- How can I provide all my armies with horsemen if there's only 1 horse found on that certain tile!
- And the #1 reason to hate cIV: HOW THE HELL is it possible in cIV to play a muslim civiliation and have judaism as a state religion! That's SO SILLY! ABANDON THE GAME NOW |
My objections were not about the time/turn at all.  Thus your arguments are counter-intuitive. The units on the map are representative of whatever many troops, and each turn counts as whatever many years. I don't have a problem with that either. The nation-religion issue is, I believe, properly refered in Civ4. Conversions, propaganda etc. Nations do change religions, from Pagan to non-Pagan, though not frequently. Being realistic and accommodating the facts in a representative manner is essential to Civ.
The reason why I wouldn't have a global view in 4000BCE is based on the same logic that you do not see iron resources nor do you have universities and tanks in 4000BCE.
The discovery of radar clears the fog of war in previous Civ's. I'd prefer to see a similar timing implementation with the global view.
Last edited by ISTANBUL on 18-06-2005 at 13:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yolky
|
|
Ontario Canada
Oct 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You posted an opinion about a game that you know very little about. You can't expect us to take you seriously. |
so WHAT is my opnion that I gave? I asked if you were excited, I am not, how is that an opnion of a game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yolky
|
|
Ontario Canada
Oct 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
So what half left Firaxis? Maybe the good half left and the bad half stayed? So should I be excited now? That is no excuse.
The fact is, no matter who is to blame, Infrogames\Atari (wich I believe is really to blame) could be at fault, but Firaxis as a company released the game out early,(wich most likely they were forced to do) but the fact is, they have to accept responsibility no matter what.
Just like you going to a job interview and were held up because of a traffic light, get to the interview late, and found out they gave the job to someone else, YOU are to blame. You can't blame the traffic lights, because all the company will say is sorry job taken.
Blaming others is just an excuse, Firaxis has to take the responsibility for a shabby game release. Maybe they shouldn't have said they could release the game at a certian time, baybe this baybe that, but they still released a shabby game at release. no excuse since I played only 3 days of vanilla Civ.
Mind you I gave Civ III a chang and bought both expacs and enjoyed them.
Remeber all I am saying is I want a good game at RELEASE and not patches later or expacs later so that is why I am not excited.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yolky
|
|
Ontario Canada
Oct 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
In short: who's to blame for cIIIv does not matter since all involved parties are gone. Don't base your expectations on cIIIv. |
Well I am not basing all my expectations on Civ III, but in all games in general. It started before Civ III with other games, but that was expected but once Civ III came out we never expected that from Cid Miers(oh did I spell it wrong?) game.
Then for me it was made worse from
Masters of Orion III and other games as well.
I am sick and tired of games being released before they are ready and I am FED UP WITH IT!
That is why I am not excited about Civ IV anymore. I hope it is an awsome game and proven wrong but we will wait and see.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-06-2005 13:24
j/k
|