 |
|
Yog-Sothoth
|
|
Trondheim, Norway
Sep 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
Don't like it. As Serapis says, it don't feel right. I like the historical feeling of civ, never really got into SMAC. I find it hard to relate to all this weird scifi stuff.
I'd like to see a conservative main game, but with great tools for customization. This way everyone can add to a basic foundation whatever they like to have in the game. And if you're unable/unwilling to make you own customizations or scenarios I'm sure there are plenty of others who will.
Last edited by Yog-Sothoth on 24-05-2001 at 19:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
I have no problem with Civ III extending into the future, but I would prefer to have the game end around the modern age. I think it will be easier to get into and for the creators to make the game better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:14
|
|
No way... end it at the modern age, and leave the future to scenarios.
EDIT: I found an older quote of mine on this topic... for reading by pro-future posters... IMHO, a definitive answer to "why not future techs?" for me and several others.
quote:
May I remind the pro-future tech people that even the near future (next 50/100 years) is extremely uncertain. I have seen magazines from 1950 that predict such things as flying cars, people living on other planets, time machines, and tons of other things we have not even come close to doing in 2001. Any guess into the near future, whether it be about moon colonization or neurotechnology or molecular fusion, is likely to be just as far off and just as whimsical as those predictions made earlier in the 20th century. In addition, since we have no concept of how such "future techs" will function, how could we begin to model them? Cryogenics might create more income... or then again, the process could turn out to be prohibitvely expensive and therefore have no measurable effect on the economy. Fusion tanks might exist, and have big "fusion cannons" and such stuff, but it is equally likely that a fusion reactor once invented will not fit in a tank.
Another reason future techs do not work is because most future units are modular. Putting a fusion reactor in a Sherman tank (if even possible) would not in any way upgrade the armor or weapon. So something as ambiguous as a "Fusion Tank" is completely absurd, and is impossible to visualize or understand. Riflemen (conscription) need both new weapons (gunpowder) and new organization (democracy or other tech) to be true riflemen. Nukes need Nuclear Fission and rocketry to be true nukes. So... what does a "cyber ninja" need to be a true cyber ninja? What techs create all the tiny different devices in a wormhole sensor, not to meantion all the technology needed to build the actual station? Saying that just knowing "wormholes" lets you build a huge orbital wormhole detection station is like saying that knowing how to design a tank lets you build tanks without knowing what steel is.
So what does compose a future unit, or a future improvement? Beats me, and most likely everybody on earth is as baffled as I am on this issue. So why have it? The jury's still out on that one, too. |
Last edited by cyclotron7 on 24-05-2001 at 22:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
I disagree. There should be more than one age after modern.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
Optional is always good.
I'd like to see a really ambitious game that covers a very long time span including a lot of space travel and colonization, though.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
imgod2u
|
|
Well, the thing about the old Civ games, as well as many strategy games, is that when you play it long enough, it becomes boring and predictable. I don't know about you, but people shouldn't be able to plan out an entire tech tree while in the Stone Age, when people had no idea about nuclear tech or physics.
However, there is a partial solution to this. It entails much more to be done on the developer's part, but it would certainly improve the game a lot. Instead of just having countless "Future technologies" that really don't have any use. Why not have Firaxis continue developing newer and newer advances and release them as patches every once in a while? Not only will that make single-player games more fun, it would also give multiplayer games continuity. Instead of having a stand-off when every player has reached the peak of the tech tree, games can go on almost infinitely and still have new surprises introduced. Newer and newer tech, maybe things such as nano-technology and stuff, can be introduced I suppose, but with Firaxis constantly developing it, you never know. I think it's a great way to keep the game alive, since this is suppose to be the "ultimate" Civilization game and will probably be the last Sid Meiers will make.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pilfur
|
|
I think you ask for too much. Such would take a LOT of work and it would detract greatly from where that work is most needed - the ancient age. Perhaps allow players to create their own units and technologies and leave the "future techs" up to mods and scenarios.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
It would be nice (as perhaps a scenario making ability) to plug in a new era to the regular timeline of the civ 3 gameplay.
The idea is you would use the scenario/game editing abilities in Civ to make the new era, but you could then place that era into your regular game.
In Civ 2, there were four eras, such as the Industrial Era and the Modern Era.
For example, it would be interesting to create an "alien era", or "apocolypse era", or "future era" and just plop that into the game (with a few more turns) after the modern era.
You could then play the game with 5 eras.
Most of the scenario features such as events could be applied to these special "eras" so you can, say, create the unique events for an alien era or apocolypse era.
....
Just imagine the possibilities - lenghtening and adding to the medievel era for those who want to get more out of that era or adding in a future era for those people who want someting more to happen after modern tech.
Or even make some special end game challenge such as a hard to defeat alien era (would require the use of special scenario making abilities).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
manofthehour
|
|
That would be nice if it was a turn on option. Although that might be to much technology for the 6000 years. One thing about CTP2 was I was was in the modern age by 1100.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
There are millions of Ancient-Era only games...
Civ III could be interesting in that you could play an entire game from the beginning of civilization to, say, 2500...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-05-2001 09:21
. ANyway, I think that there should be one more age after modern. THis "future" age should include nano-tech and genetic engineering and advanced space travel. I never really understood why people would limit there options and cling onto an old feature. I mean if people really hate it that much, Firaxis could always just have an option. I envision the future age having almost as much technology as the other ages. I don't think stuff like fusion power or nanotechnology is unrealistic. The military units should be like the ones in Empire Earth, mechs with huge cannons slung over their back or Japanese anime style robots or little Kbot style mechs from Total Annihilation.
) but it should be optional or something else (like a MOD perhaps?).
|