 |
| |
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:37
|
|
For me, the shift from Civ 1 to Civ 2 was rather jarring. Perhaps it's because I was a younger gamer then. Perhaps it was the huge leap in graphics. Whatever you want to call it, Brian Reynolds pulled off something amazing: He made a significantly better gaming experience out of Civ 1. Perhaps there will be those who disagree, but the moment I loaded Civ 2 and started playing, the thought never occured to me ever again to go back and play Civ 1. That era was dead.
Now are you telling me Civ 3 did something even close to that? The rabid fan based for Civ to this day still rests on the ferocious loyalty of what was built around Civ 2. This simply can't be denied. And let's face it: Civ 3 tanked. Brian Reynolds left the building, rank amateurs took over, and Sid sat at a distance working on a golf game.
The result? Civ 2.5 (and that's being generous!).
And what do I see so far with Civ 4? I've read all the happy threads, looked at all the screenshots, read all the reviews, and I think, at best, this latest version of Civ is brighter, shiner (yet cartoony and rather silly looking) version of Civ 2.5 with some of the glaring problems still in play, like the horrendously dull combat system. IT'S NOT A BOARD GAME ANYMORE...THE COMPUTER CAN ACTUALLY DO SOME MATH SO LET'S HAVE REAL ARMIES! Anyway...
Verdict based on publicly released information?: Civ 2.8. Maybe Civ 3 by the expansion pack.
However, and I hope the fanboys listen to this: At a certain point, as long a series is determined not to stray too far from a proven formula, it's the law of diminishing returns. If we jumped +1 from Civ 1 to Civ 2 and +.5 from Civ 2 to Civ 3, we'll likely see +.3 from Civ 4 and maybe +.1 from Civ 5, should there ever be one. I say this as long as Firaxis continues to hold the reins. Perhaps if a great group (not Activision!) take things over and really shakes it up, we might have a true revolution.
Also please take note: If you love the core Civ formula, then these incremental improvements are all you need and want. You have every reason to be excited. Your good old Civ will still be good -- and old.
Last edited by yin26 on 23-09-2005 at 00:29
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dale
|
 |
Sir! Why do you keep clicking on me?
Dec 2000
time: 15:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Now are you telling me Civ 3 did something even close to that? The rabid fan based for Civ to this day still rests on the ferocious loyalty of what was built around Civ 2. This simply can't be denied. And let's face it: Civ 3 tanked. Brian Reynolds left the building, rank amateurs took over, and Sid sat at a distance working on a golf game. |
I agree and disagree with you to a point. The design of Civ3 was just a big jump in the right direction with culture, resources, armies, AI and other components, as Civ2 was. However the execution of these components sucked! The AI was woefull not knowing how to use a lot of these new elements correctly, and relied on a lot of cheats to cover it up. Also, some of the biggest problems of Civ2 weren't addressed like ICS.
But that does not mean the game ranks as Civ2.5. It's a badly executed Civ3.
quote:
And what do I see so far with Civ 4? I've read all the happy threads, looked at all the screenshots, read all the reviews, and I think, at best, this latest version of Civ is brighter, shiner (yet cartoony and rather silly looking) version of Civ 2.5 with some of the glaring problems still in play, like the horrendously dull combat system. IT'S NOT A BOARD GAME ANYMORE...THE COMPUTER CAN ACTUALLY DO SOME MATH SO LET'S HAVE REAL ARMIES! Anyway... |
We can't comment on Civ4 till we've played it. How the hell do we know what the execution actually is? You may not agree with some design points individually, but what if the complete package actually works? From what we've seen I think the design is solid, but as for the execution how the hell do I know?
quote:
However, and I hope the fanboys listen to this: At a certain point, as long a series is determined not to stray too far from a proven formula, it's the law of diminishing returns. If we jumped +1 from Civ 1 to Civ 2 and +.5 from Civ 2 to Civ 3, we'll likely see +.3 from Civ 4 and maybe +.1 from Civ 5, should there ever be one. I say this as long as Firaxis continues to hold the reins. Perhaps if a great group (not Activision!) take things over and really shakes it up, we might have a true revolution. |
Look around, it's been tried. Some fail, some work:
- Destiny: Interactive Magic. FAILED!
- Rise & Rule: (can't remember who). FAILED!
- Call to Power: Activision. PASS
- Rise of Nations: BHG. SUCCESS!
And others. If you think it's so easy, why don't YOU design a full Civ-style game?
quote:
Also please take note: If you love the core Civ formula, then these incremental improvements are all you need and want. You have every reason to be excited. Your good old Civ will still be good -- and old. |
And that's the crux, isn't it? IF the design was totally revolutionary and new, then it wouldn't be Civilization, it'd be something else.
Yin, I do not believe you'll be happy with ANY design that Firaxis brings out. You say Civ1 lacked, and Civ2 fixed it. You say Civ3 is woefull. You say Civ4 is going to be worse. You bag Simgolf.
If Firaxis brings out SMAC2 or Col2 are your thoughts going to be exactly the same? Personally I just think you do not like anything that comes from Firaxis. Or maybe even you're Sid's lost son who he won't acknowledge and thus you have this grudge. Whatever the reason, I don't think this game, forum and site are going to be for you.
Dale
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wise Ass
|
|
Your Mom's House... Why?
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
I don't like the idea of waiting to see what people think of civIV. Other people aren't me. If I went just off of reviews then I would have never bought CTP2, which I regard as the revolution that Civ needed. I think to some extent that Firaxis needs to swallow it's pride and realize that the stacked combat, empire manager and public works system was a step in the right direction. Not to say that CTP2 was perfect but better than Civ3 which I also believe was decent and I don't remember if it was civ3 or PTW that I reviewed and most people say I gave it one of the most fair reviews it recieved because I looked at the good and the bad and gave it like a 70%. Again if I went off reviews then I would have had to love CivII which I actually never got into; I could never grasp the idea of a game where you control a nation that your soldiers are supported locally.
As for Civ4 I am cautiously optomistic. I think it will right most of the wrongs of Civ3 and probably create a few wrongs of it's own. I like the idea of religion, I think that the diplomacy system could lead to an epic roleplaying style; I have always hated declaring war on a civ just because I wanted their land or they had a resource I wanted. Now I get to declare war on Civs that don't have my ideals or that are trying to force their ideals (civics) on other civs. If done right I think that this could bring that nationalistic feeling that CTP2 gave.
But just because some of you hail the game as great doesn't mean that I'll feel the same. How many times have you seen a movie that everyone hated or loved and you thought it wasn't that bad/great?
I'll buy Civ4 when it comes out to see if I like it. If I don't then I'm out $50 if I do then I have countless hours of what is possibly the cheapest form of thought engaging entertainment in the world- Computer games including Civ4 and AoE3.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:37
|
|
GeoModder: Thanks! 
GAZ082: Sorry. I don't steal games. Take that or leave it.
Dale: Of course, I chose FrantzX' quote because it's about something important: ME! Seriously, though, I think his quote sums up my experience here at Poly. People really struggle to understand me. Hey, though, that's the fun.
As for your opinion of me, I just think it's funny. Honestly, I wish you could see my reactions to your posts. I actually laugh aloud at times. If you are trying to stroke my ego, you're succeeding! Frankly, however, the person throwing stones and beating on a chest seems to be you, and I think I've said before (in a PM) that your personal attacks on me must be really boring to the other posters, and I imagine it might be more interesting to talk about the things we agree about and to be civil when we don't agree.
But you want attention yourself (obviously), I suspect that seeing yourself in me must make you sick ... and perversely attracted to me, I must say. Get help!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
I would actually have to differ here... I respect Yin's opinion, just like I respect everyone's opinion, but Yin is one of the people to whom I pay more attention simply because he is a veteran that knows Civ and what he's talking about.
I don't think that Yin and me have ever agreed on much, we surely have very different viewpoints on Civ4 now, but I really enjoyed discussing the game in one of Yin's pessimistic threads. In my humble opinion, it's more fun to discuss something with someone whose opinion differs at least somewhat from yours - and whatever some of you may say about Yin, he's no fool - he's certainly able to not merely state his opinions but also show the arguments for them properly. And while I don't agree with most of these arguments, I at least acknowledge them.
Hey, Yin, at least you admitted in that thread that I can also argue intelligently  . I'm looking forward to discussing the game with you when it comes out and when we will have had some actual playing experience with it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:37
|
|
Dale:
I'm officially bored of you now. Keep baiting if you must. Perhaps I'll bite again at some point.
Solver:
You know, I appreciate your willingness to at least engage in discussion. Even if I am taking tidbits of news about Civ and pushing them too hard in a negative direction, so, too, are even more people taking those same tidbits and pushing them too hard in a positive direction. But at the end of the day, it's a forum, right? Ain't this the point? And what else are we going to do until Civ 4 is in our hands. Stare at each other blinking quietly?
Maquiladora:
I agree completely that time served on Apolyton is next to meaningless. I also completely agree that some of the absolute best players never waste their time in places like this. Fact is, I'm trapped at work for long hours at a time, and I'm often too tired when I get home to actually enjoy playing games. But posting some things here is easy and helps me relax.
Also, I have posted reviews of Civ post-release in the past, and I'd put my reviews up against any reviewer out there. And while this banter before release is just fun speculation, those who have read and liked my reviews in the past, are well justified in thinking that my view ... along with many others, certainly ... is going to be at least worth considering.
By the way, there are also those whom I watch carefully for their views: Hex, Vel and Korn come to mind immediately. This is not a slight to others I haven't named, but those guys jump out to me as particularly worth listening to.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-09-2005 23:40
|