 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999 time: 14:15
|
|
tniem: Thanks.
Steve: Thanks. ( )
I honestly think that it was the discussion here that has brought about the peaceful GA. While my first thought when GA's were first revealed was, "Hey, that's silly just to have GA for something like that," and while I'm quite happy to see that we have apparently been listened to:
Civ3 with live and die by how well it is balanced. So far, some concerns:
** Things potentially as influential as GAs are still being radically fiddled with a few weeks before the game goes gold.
** Civ attributes are being fiddled with weeks before the game goes gold.
** There will be no demo. (!!!???)
** MP may well come out many months from now and we might have to pay for it. (!!!???)
Now, I realize that all games get tweaked even the minute before the master is sent to duplication (and thus some horrid bugs 'strangely' get left in as well), those things above indicate to me an overall pattern:
Firaxis is pressed for time and has yet to feel really satisified with this entire unique civ concept so is still trying out stuff as we speak. And not releasing a demo only further argues 1) lack of time and 2) lack of confidence in the game balance.
Yes, the customizing could rectify many, many problems. But out of the box, I predict BIG problems. Thus, IF I decide to buy Civ3, it will only be once its price has dropped significantly in March or May and once MP, modding and the first significant patches are in place.
I have been an unpaid beta tester too many times, thank you.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999 time: 22:15
|
|
I don't see customizing rectifying many, many problems; I see it as making the game what you want it to be (however you define it). What you might consider a problem, I might consider it a great thing so instead of having Civ3 going down a narrow (or revolutionary) path, it appears it will go down a very wide path. You would take the left side and I would add a new path down the right. For example, some may like the Pimple Mountains, I won't, so I'll look to replace them as soon as possible. Another example, while many will look to having historically-accurate, balanced civs, I don't; I look for civs to be challenging to play against (i.e., more aggressive). Does that mean that the current attributes are right or wrong? Not at all, it's just one of hundreds of possible permutations and one that I will look at changing to match my style of play. Yes, I expect the game to be playable out of the box, but I expect to be so customizable that I can create and play very different games and scenarios for years.
Steve
The Proverbial Thorn in Yin's Side
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jsw363
|
|
First, there's NO WAY that the Art of War and Hoover Dam are Great Wonders. The Fireaxis interview mentions them as wonders, that's it. If there are only 12 wonders in the game I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that Fireaxis would choose these two to fall into that catergory. So.... small wonders can also trigger golden ages.
I don't know that this has been clarified, but it seems to me that a civ can have multiple GAs. (one after a wonder, another after their UU wins, etc.) I don't think that it's a one time only thing. Why provide so many ways to have a GA, but then only allow one? It doesn't make sense since they know people would hold off on their one GA until they were in an advantageous position.
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|