 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
We need your help! Civ III is currently losing to both WarCraft III (to be expected) and Doom 3 (talk about overkill).
Cast your vote now!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
I'll vote after I see the official civ3.com site. At this point, MOO3 has my interest. |
Well, thats a free choice, of course. Personally, I have two big problems with SciFi-style edbc-games (edbc= explore, discover, build & conquer), like the MOO-series and SMAC.
1: I cant help feeling distant and unattached when dealing with made-up base/planet-improvements, and rather one-dimensional sci-fi tech-advances. They are often hard to relate to and they feel dry & technical. All the improvements, wonders and techs in a Civ-game (that ends 2020), on the other hand makes sense to both my brain-halves.
Also, Firaxis move to steer-away further from war/production/hard tech-upgrades only, by incorporating concepts like culture (with "soft" techs; like "music theory" and "free artistry", and so on), and adding alternative here-on-earth/ easy-to-relate diplomatic and cultural victory-conditions, feels more inviting to me, then any abstract SciFi-fantasies SMAC and upcoming MOO-III has to offer.
2: Also, I cant help feeling a lack of time-flow in SciFi edbc-games. In a Civ-game old ideas (like the need for despotism & monarchy) gets replaced by more modern rule-platforms (but with risky government-overtrows - you must plan & counteract in advance). Also, comprehensible break-through techs (like monotheism, printing press & railroads) give the player a general feel of development and time-flow. Suddenly, the city-graphics changes with the discovery of "industrialism", and so on. I like that. In Civ-3 I believe, one must discover most ancient techs, before one is allowed to entering the medieval era - and all ancient techs and most medieval techs before one is allowed to enter the third era (and hopefully something happens to mark the occasion each time).
By comparison, SciFi-style edbc-games often feels remarkably "frozen-in-time". Like playing a space-empire scenario-game. Changing SMAC SE-values, in small steps one at the time, was easy and harmless (and therefore unchallenging). Also, one dont get any mental images then building & discovering bloodless & abstract Sci-Fi improvements and techs.
For example: in what way feels "temporal mechanics" (build 14) more advanced, and more of an accomplishment then "industrial economics" (build 2)? Im not ranting particulary at SMAC here - its an general problem with all Sci-Fi stategy building-games, including the upcoming MOO III game.
Last edited by Ralf on 05-08-2001 at 19:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sabre2th
|
|
My reason for saying the above: Action games tend to have the same theme (of course). The main difference between each successive game is new levels and monsters or whatever.
Strategy games can encompass much more and have many more options.
Just another 2% of my $1.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
here are the current results
however this is an unscientific gamespot poll so it really means nothing
Civilization III 2407 (16%)
Doom III 3514 (23%)
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind 1182 (8%)
Master of Orion III 1338 (9%)
Myth III 516 (3%)
Thief III 1288 (8%)
Warcraft III 5271 (34%)
what that means is if you add both of the TBS games together, Civ3 and MoO3 then they still don't compete with WC3...and it's not like they are some unheard of titles...many people in the games industry consistantly list civ, civ2, and moo2 high on their best games list
however what it comes down to is that blizzard has built such a solid reputation that millions of gamers trust blizzard to produce the finely polished, perfectly balanced, fiendishly addictive games...blizzards past six games have all sold a million copies or more, and diablo 2: lord of destruction hit the million mark faster than any computer game expansion ever
if you add up all of the sales by SMAC (about 250k), SMACx (not sure), CtP (again about 250k), and CtP2 (about 40k) you don't hit the million copies sold mark...most likely you could add in Civ:ToT and still not have sold one million copies
quote:
Doom is winning because even though the best-seller charts are completely stacked with strategy games, young kids who play FPS are a very vocal minority of internet gamers even though $-talks a lot louder then internet communities. |
when you say young kids what age group are you talking about? i would actually think the pc FPS are probaly most dominant in the 15-24 y.o age bracket...any younger than that and they will be playing a console
i think that there has to be a reason for the recent downturn in civ types games and in my opinion it can only be one of three things
*The RTS has finally surpassed the TBS in nearly every category and the TBS game is a dinosaur on the verge of extinction.
*The TBS market has experianced a downturn and it will return to its former glory with the release of Civ3.
*The TBS markey has been flooded with subpar games that either deal with subject matter the majority of gamers are not interested in, or they are bug ridded and highly unbalanced, or they have lacked any significant innovation and gamers are waiting until a truly innovative game come out.
can anyone else explain how the current generation of civ like games when all of their sales were added together didn't hit the million copies sold mark? it has to be one of those three explanations (or a combination of the three)
so every year RTS games get better, they improve on their interface, they improve upon telling a story (thereby adding to the feel that you are in the game), they get better graphics, better sound, they constantly revise their gameplay, and each game further develops multiplayer...then for some reason TBS games fall out of favor...then instead there are two major problem in the TBS game world, there are few competitors and many also think that gameplay alone sells
first class RTS games have gameplay and they also have extras, lots of well done cinematics, good graphics, good support...i actually wish that CtP and CtP2 had of did better than what they did...instead with CtP2 almost complete market failure firaxis could write off doing a radical sequal completely and feel very safe in doing a conservative sequal...i will have to give it to firaxis on one thing, they have a fanatical fanbase and they have some of the best gaming minds in the entire industry over there...while they haven't changed civ that much many of the changes sound like excellent evolutions in the civ formula...however if civ4 comes out four or five years from now with very few changes to its formula then the whole subgenre will be in serious trouble...the RTS market has three major players in it right now, Blizzard (the biggest and best), Ensemble (bruce shelly helped work on civ2 you know), and Westwood (they have some cinematics crammed into their games then just about any other company)...then there are a number of players that although they don't ever sell millions of games they introduce an idea that one of the majors picks up on and therefore the entire RTS genre gets stronger
the same thing has happened in the FPS genre too...there is so much competition that the consumer really does benefit from alot of innovation that is quickly adopted by everyone...competition has been really good for those two genres...i almost think that the success of civ has hurt it in a way...for one there aren't many competitors, and those competitors generally pose little threat to overtaking the civ forumla...so there isn't as much innovation as what there would be in a very competitive genre...
quote:
The money will be there even if they release Civ2 with new graphics |
SerapisIV you are completely wrong about this...civ:tot improved civ2's graphics and added in a couple new features and a scenario tool...it didn't do that well at all, as far as i know...i don't think it hit #1 on the sales charts nor do i think it even came close to breaking the million copies sold mark...so basically diehard civers would buy it, but the mainstream won't
TBS games must keep up to date...a TBS game should put just as much emphasis on graphics as what RTS games do...they should continually look for ways to streamline the interface (this alone can kill a game) and make it easier for players to concentrate on strategy rather than micromanaging every little nonimportant aspect of the game...they need to keep on adding innovations and listening to what players want, and finally they need to have the best gameplay out of any game...The Sims has been the best selling game of the past year because it draws people in, TBS games need to draw people in like that
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
Very well said Korn469!
Once again, I read some PC magazine and I underline (sadly) that none really care of Civ III release.
Why? Because they looked at E3 preview and write about "mostly same game, age old gaphics and no appeal". 
The best they do is to mention Sid as a "rich designer not interested in squeezing enough good gameplay into a money sequel.
Disclaimer: they aren't the exact words, and I'm afraid I can't give you a link to this: they usually are on paper and I red them but don't bought all that magazines. So I can understand you if you don't believe into my quotes, just I must assure you I'm not a liar.
I was in great hope that SMAC would be my loved game after CivII, but it miss it somewhat. I had great hopes that CTPII succed as a parallel game on Civ concept, but it failed (still I'm considering buying it on a low cost sale, then use the MOD around here to see if it's patched enough).
Civ III was announced as the game that will save the TBS genre. I still hope it, but my hopes are thin, at the moment 
Darwin explained very well: evolve or starve and die (or merely survive in a bio niche). Are we at Apolyton into the largest TBS Reserve and Museum ever? Let's hope not, let's hope...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2001 11:27
|