|
Duckman
|
|
Mesquite, Tx, USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
Great column. Why? Because unlike some past columns and most of the threads, it turns us around to just why we play the game. This, in turn, renews the interest in the historical adventure.
It isn't just that we want to be Kings/Queens or Presidents. It is also that, like many theorists do for fun, we like to see what happens if we make the history of a country unfold differently. And that is what interests me about some of what I hear regarding the new CIV 3.
In all the games to this point, all of the CIVs had basically an equal opportunity to develope the same technologies at the same rate, with minor variations due to resources. Obviously, the history of countries on this planet had a great deal to do with location and resources and social, not just political, values.
As I understand in the new game CIVs will be more unique to what historically has been associated with the country. This tantalizes me further. Now it may be possible to win a war without a nuke. To make it to space before anyone else. To be ahead of the rest in medicines. To have weapons the other CIVs don't have and have to figure out an adequate defense. A knight should have a great deal of difficulty destroying a Canon. A trebuchet should have a greater range than just the next square.
I'm not sure if all this is as I imagine it. But if Firaxis is at least trying to make a more "historistic" game (made-up word. just go with it), then I will be there when it is sold. (easy to do as that I work for MicroCenter and can buy it there when it hits the shelf.)
|
21-10-2001 15:48
|