 |
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Imran, you haven't really seen ALL of it. It's far too grand then you might think. I have no doubt MOO3 is going to be FAR better then this, un-inspiring and dull sequel to the CIV series.
Last edited by Harel on 01-07-2001 at 18:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Correction... CIV was special. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want a slightly enhanced and modified version of CIV 2. I had far higher expections, then hopefully this time they will REALLY bring this series to the heights it deserves.
But it seems the old game-god Sid knows just one forumla of "fun", and he won't expand on it as it should. So many things in CIV needs to be improved, and no steps are taken. How about developing some real society, with growing cultures and religions? What about a more complex and dynamic social model (a bit like SMAC SE page). I'm the ruler of my kingdom: I can't even decide the education system? Come on!
I can go on and on... about the too-short tech list, about the un-realistic and unipsiring governmental model... the fact that no one is the CIV series and clones seem to want to break the mold... just look how similar all those games are! No one tries to be truely inspiring.
I don't think I will even buy CIV3. Onward with MOO3, the truely original game!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asesino_Virtual
|
 |
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Jun 2001
time: 02:14
|
|
Ive played MOOII and CIV II, and they are different stuff. One is in the space, other is in a single one planet. Other thing, CIV III is much more complex than MOOIII, example: do u think that implementing borders is an easy task?, in MOO series u just have a system under, no under control, or in shared control, but the fact that invading and attacking is much more complicated than in CIV series, in CIV, the risk of a potential confrontation was certainly and mortal. In a few turns a civ could invade and attack your capitol and make a revolt on all over your empire. In MOO, haha, they never could conquer my capitol PLANET. And if they do, nothing is gonna happen.
Other stuff, control areas, in MOO theres nothing like that, there was NO tactics avaiable. Only, go with and army and crush the other planet. In the tactical screen there was little to do but using in a different order your guns.
The only great stuff in MOO, is its great diplomatic system (I wonder if CIV will have the capability of requesting other leader a stop war against other civ, this is a thing Im gonna post in other thread) in which you could exchange cities (something really great!) or sign differents pacts. But all this stuff and MORE we are gonna have it in CIVIII. And think how good is to see your empire border agains other civ border and think than, everything inside that line, is YOURS!, this in MOO is just an abstract concept, in CIVIII, is a fact.
A_V
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mahdimael
|
 |
Sandy Eigo, CA, USA
May 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
I don't post very often on the boards, but I am a gamer from way back. I played both the original MOO and Civ games, and they were both excellent. They offered gameplay that was streamlined and intuitive and fun.
Later, I played MOO2 and Civ2. Where Civ2 stayed close to it's roots, MOO2 deviated slightly. MOO2 became Master of Magic...in Space. Gone were many of my favorite features, but they did add an improved tactical combat system and a few other goodies, so I played it nonetheless, despite the fact that by the endgame I was attacking people with fleets the equivalent of 40 Death Stars.
Now we are on the cusp of MOO3 and Civ3. Once again, the Civ series appears to be expanding on what made the other games great. MOO3, however, seems to be deviating even more from the original than the second game. While I agree that the idea of being the leader of a galactic empire with individual subcommanders running things is intruiging, it doesn't sound like the MOO I remember. After reviewing the site, I'm still not sure what still remains the same between this game and the original.
I'm not trying to judge the game before it's released, but it's hard not to form an impression in one's mind given the information that has been released. I would love for MOO3 to both recapture the feel of the original and be a great game in it's own right. But given the complexity of the game and the deviation from the other games in the series, I don't believe it will happen, be that due to bad design or bugs or any other ailment that affects computer games. Will it be a great MOO game, or will it be a great space strategy game or will it be neither? We'll see. Hopefully it's good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
First off, I don't think deciding the KEY factors in your kingdom is anything like "minuate" data. Did you not set your economic policies in SMAC? Deciding the goals and economy of your own kingdom needs to be in CIV, but alas...
To Imran: Ah... no, the amount of tech in the game was published. 82 techs, just like most other civs. I was never enough to truely capture all the details of an entire human civilization, and it still doesn't. About the govenment list: it's exactly the same! They just removed fundementalism. Also stated quite clearly.
To Asesinto: No, I'm NOT going to see that in CIV3. There are no allowences for growing religions. Show me where you draw this upon.
To Urban ranger: hey, I DO know what goes on behind MOO3 scene. I can tell you it's far better, more complex, unique and intresting then CIV3. Is it a better game? I don't know, we shall have to wait and see... but at least it TRIES to innovate.
Finally, to Quote Imran: sequels not only NEED to stray from the path, they HAVE to stray from the path. If you are going to just add a few new features, then I don't really get a new game, do I? I get the old game with a really big patch. CIV3 has added just two new concepts: cultures and special goods. Everything else is just modifications to existing items (like borders that were already there, in a fashion, in SMAC).
A good game tries to break the mold, people. Not do the same thing. I had extreamly high expections from CIV3 at the beginnig, and I know most people here wanted a far more original game too. I, for one, don't desire to compromise. CIV3 needed a LOT more work then it's getting. This is just CIV 2.5.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
Harel,
"I can tell you it's far better, more complex, unique and intresting then CIV3."
A very important question is, "Does being more complex make a game better, unique, or interesting?"
The answer is no. The more complex a game is, the less playable it is. So if MoO 3 is as complex as you assert, it's almost not playable, and thus rather uninteresting as a game. [It could be interesting to serve as a case study of "How you shouldn't design games."]
Also, MoO 3 isn't original. MoO maybe, as a game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
If you start messing with it in a drastic way, you get CtP! And look what happened to that  I think Firaxis have taken note of that little charade. |
I don't want to jump on this thread, because I never played MOO series. I voted for the "let's see when they are out" option.
I'm only surprised with this opinion that you can't have a better Civilization like game if not making a pure sequel.
Mentioning CTP II failure in comparison is, well, a nonsense!
AFAIK CTPII has been a failure mostly because the AI failed to be a challenger AND the developer refused to patch the game to properly balance it. No Civ like game can have success for MP alone, because it's too long to play it to have enough on-line support.
CTP II contained interesting features, and get a warm initial welcome here at Apolyton too, if I'm not wrong on remembering this.
The developers did a couple of main mistakes, and the game was not a success as it should.
If Civ III will miss an AI great enough it will survive only on the memory of ancestors Civ and Civ2, but it won't gain enough awards. Look at how cold it has been judged by previewers at E3! 
These are business facts, not my opinion.
Do you really note so much excitement with Civ III all around?
Can you see plenty of magazine covers for the next big game after sliced bread (or something like  )?
IMHO a sad "NO!" is the very big hint here. Don't care of what I think, but please look around outside the pink painted Apolyton Civ nest
Is Firaxis aware of this? Sure. They aren't mentioning of a game in middle development. They aren't work for a early 2002 quality release. They aren't mentioning anymore of public beta.
They are ready to speak about a FALL release!
Are they rushing out a game before someone realize you can't have a better one, without rewriting a main part of it?
Is an early release the surest way to milk any best part of players saving before someone start speaking of a game not on par with current standard?
Surely I'm a pessimist today, so don't take my post for real. But using the best part of your brain can't be bad, so decide for yourself. Or let Firaxis refuse my doubt and "insult" me releasing a great game  . No problem, then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The answer is no. The more complex a game is, the less playable it is. So if MoO 3 is as complex as you assert, it's almost not playable, and thus rather uninteresting as a game. [It could be interesting to serve as a case study of "How you shouldn't design games."]
|
MOO3 works because it layers depth. It has a very nifty way to allow for hidden information, layers of data and interaction, and automated management of many levels. So you got corruptions and plots, religions and cultures, a relasitic trade and tourism system, relocation of population points, and so much more... all of this while still allowing you an easier gameplay then CIV3. Why? It removes all the micro-management. It simplies and streamlines gameplay. It make it easier and more intuative to play, yet offers far more depth.
You should really read the gameplan of MOO3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:14
|
|
quote:
First off, I don't think deciding the KEY factors in your kingdom is anything like "minuate" data. |
Education policy is minuate, and I don't want to be bothered with it, really, in a Civ game.
quote:
CIV3 has added just two new concepts: cultures and special goods. Everything else is just modifications to existing items (like borders that were already there, in a fashion, in SMAC). |
Ah, so can you show me where resources (along with new resources popping up after a discovery) and colonies were in the SMAC? 
And what about making each Civ unique?
You are seriously shortchanging the importance of the new additions to Civ.
quote:
CIV3 needed a LOT more work then it's getting. This is just CIV 2.5. |
 Does that mean Civ2 was actually Civ1.5? Because there are much more changes to the underlying game between Civ3 and Civ2 than there were from Civ2 to Civ1.
This is a very adequate sequal. One only needs to look at other sequals of games out there (AoK, HOMM, etc) to see this.
quote:
Look at how cold it has been judged by previewers at E3! |
Civ2 wasn't judged to well before it came out. However, with little hype (compared to today) it garnered all sorts of awards, even though it sold much less than Quake or Duke Nukem 3d or Tomb Raider.
quote:
They are being ambitious enough to try and create something new and exciting that carries on the general concept of the previous games. |
BECAUSE IT CAN! Moo2 sucked, so they won't go back to keeping the best elements of the previous game. Basically there is a new group that took the bare essentials from Moo (the races, the space element) and made a new game with it. This really isn't a sequal persay. It like what Dune II was to Dune 1, a total change in the game because the first one sold poorly. Of course, for the Moo genre, the 1st one is a classic and the 2nd was the dud.
They are just taking the basics of the name and design and forging a totally new game, which is a luxury that Civ doesn't have. Look at all the skepticism that came out when CtP arrived. Most scoffed at a Civ game not being done by Sid and not being done like Civ. Many remarked that it didn't FEEL like Civ! That is what Civ3 is up against. It has to feel like Civ and doesn't have the luxury of deviating as much as Moo3 has from Moo2.
quote:
It removes all the micro-management. |
ALL? Well, it better not! I like the micro-management of games like Civ and Europa Universalis. Like I said, people want a Civ game for Civ3, and that means the ability to micro-manage to your heart's content.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Now Imran, you are just adding your own opinions! MOO2 didn't suck. In fact, it's considered the best game of this genre. Also, if you look closely at any game magazine list of the top 100th games of the 20th centuary, MOO2 got higher results on average then CIV2. If anything, MOO2 is considered a far better game in most critics eye.
It even sold well, for this genre.
And yes, I don't see CIV2 as a true sequel as well. It simply fleshed out the graphics. It was very disappointing.
I agree with you that most sequels today have a tendency to stay very closely to the paradigm defined by the prequel. I find it awful. The game industry today just doesn't renovate. It becomes statis and reharshed.
CIV3 has added far too few additions. Goods, borders, cultures and a better diplomacy system. That's it, after so many years! The game industry has matured and evolved, not just graphics wise. I have far higher expections of game published today.
In my eyes CIV3 took the most basic advancements and improvement and stuck them on. It made no fundemental change, not even one. That would be good if the old paradigm was perfect, but it wasn't! CIV has many flaws in it's innate design, and CIV3 takes no action to try to avoid this.
Did it streamline the game? Did it take any actions to minimze micro-manage and ease the game? Did it re-write any fundemental model? Production, population, technology... what happened to innovation? What happened to change for the sake of change? What happened to the evolution of the game?
Really, all the changes in CIV3 are cosemtic. There is not even a single fundemental change to the concept of the game, and I find it deracting and pointless.
People have quoted CTP2.... even CTP2 is still the same thing! What is the real difference between them? Same terrain, cities, units, technologies and statistics.
I call for a drastic change! Change the entire concept of cities, for example. Scrap it and build something new. Maybe it won't be good, but at least you will TRY to create something new!
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2001 01:44
|