 |
|  |
 |
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000 time: 23:14
|
|
Who would've thought, after all these years, civ2 would still be talked about? Few games have a prayer at holding on for this long. So called classics are forgotten just months after their release.
So the million dollar question at this point is - how long can this continue? Some thought alpha centauri would end civ2, but it didn't. Being set in a different environment, and bearing many of the classic's traits, the sci fi tbs created its own following, but didn't do well to tap into the existing one.
Within the next year civ3 will be released. If it's a flop, civ2 would probably continue another two, three, maybe even four years longer. If it's a mild success, look for the classic to reach its end by 2003. But what if civ3's a phenomenon? Then civ2's "death" is knocking on the door.
How many more years does civ have in it? Is technology its only limiting factor, or is civ3? It'd be sad, if in a few short months, a game once praised and still on our hard drives began to collect dust in the closet.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
H Tower
|
|
I have the feeling that there's going to be too much micromanagement Civ3 and turns will take FOREVER. Long Live Civ2!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Meeko
|
|
That means I'll have to clear up more space on my hdd...
Even when Civ3 comes out, I would probably not be the first in the shops to buy it for several reasons.
One of which is affordability: I'll be likely short a few coins/notes...
Then there's the issue of content, with Civ2, I've got most of the extras made for it (including patches, FW, CiC, etc.), and I hope Civ3 comes with a multiplayer feature, several scenarios/modpacks, etc, otherwise I would stick with Civ2 until Civ3 at least has some of the features which I really want...
And then there's the case in how much it improves. We may be surprised...in both senses of the word.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000 time: 23:14
|
|
I'd hate to say it, but if Firaxis can't beat civ2, they need some more talent. The microprose team that made civ2 (although some of them moved over to sid's new company) had the right vision and innovation to great classics. But here's Firaxis, somewhat unable to defeat a game made by their former group.
Years are still passing, and sid still hasn't released a definite civ2 killer. SMAC was an attempt to do this, but the lack of name recognition (so so sales) and slower gameplay than the originals stopped it from its goal. The engine was also starting to show its age. But there's nothing wrong with that, because alpha centauri was a great game - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's late 2001, the engine is now breaking. And judging by the screens and features, we're looking at a an improved game of SMAC when we boot up civ3. In order to stand the test of time, a game has to innovate.
Sid isn't an idiot, though. Another rehash and the public will release the big, bold name SID MEIER on boxes means nothing. So, by that logic, civ3 will be a drastic improvement and I'm just being a rambling idiot. But that depends on Firaxis, and their care for customer satisfaction.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Andy-Man
|
 |
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
looking at what has been proposed for civ3 so far it looks good. but so did ctp. ctp was to complicated and i see that with civ3 (like the cuture idea, good idea, but the border ting is a bit stupid, i mean, when had anyones empire increaed through having a few temples?) but i like the idea the game will force the player to think about not waging a war (like you would loose your trade with that empire)
i also like the idea of having to have the resources to use them, but building roads to them will take forever.
They could have put more govt. s in it, and more or less put the fasism patch into the game (that patch turned civ 2 into a completely different game with the unit changes etc) and the idea of having an amry of units is good, only if they limit the ammount of them you have, i mean the stacked moving unit idea used in ctp was crap, i hated it. perhap if they had an option to turn most of these of so you could still play civ2, just with a few changes. there should have been more then 7 civs (come on!) and more ways to win, ie, just having the 'perfect civ' (like an empire of happy people with little need for an army etc), bloodlust, space race, and maybe an idea of 'goals', like trying to be the first civ to learn corporation, or being the first to have 20million citizens....
but the more i think about the proposed ideas, the more i like the sound of it except this culture crap, the lack of civs in a game and the fact there isn't gonna be many more advances and govt.s
i think its time they released the civ2 source code so some people could really make a great civ2 witgh hindsight (eg, a wondrrt witch put SDI in each city, more civs etc)
sorry for going on like your wife or sumthin...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:14
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Meeko
That means I'll have to clear up more space on my hdd...
Even when Civ3 comes out, I would probably not be the first in the shops to buy it for several reasons.
One of which is affordability: I'll be likely short a few coins/notes...
Then there's the issue of content, with Civ2, I've got most of the extras made for it (including patches, FW, CiC, etc.), and I hope Civ3 comes with a multiplayer feature, several scenarios/modpacks, etc, otherwise I would stick with Civ2 until Civ3 at least has some of the features which I really want...
And then there's the case in how much it improves. We may be surprised...in both senses of the word. |
I agree - there are two issues here - how much replayability does CIV2 still have, and how good a value is Civ3?
For me the answer is determined by 2 aspects of Civ3 - its quality, and the minimum system specs. I will need to upgrade for it (and my PC works fine for everything else- obviously im not much of a "gamer" ) - and while I think Civ3 has some good things going for it, i dont like the civ-specific units and features (at least not for the basic game)
So I cant see spending $50 US for a game that requires a system
upgrade, and some of whose major feature I will be turning off.
On the other hand there are still plenty of Civ2 Scenarios I havent played, and several others I want to play again.
So I cant see buying Civ3 in October, when it comes out. In say another year, when ive played through more scenarios, when hopefully my PC sitution changes, when the Civ3 price drops, and when they finish working out all the bugs , then I'll probably but Civ3.
I certainly hope the Civ2 community hangs together till then.
LOTM
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|