 |
|
Crouchback
|
|
It was the otherway round, hence CTP2 had to drop "Civilization" from the title and Activision couldn't use any of the Civ2 wonders in their products. The original licence was owned by Microprose when Sid was over there, who were bought by Hasbro who brought in Sid's latest company Firaxis, before they succumbed to Infogrames. It made CTP rather strange, full of unknown wonders and odd units.
David
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dida
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Crouchback
It made CTP rather strange, full of unknown wonders and odd units.
David |
I think that's a plus. A new game should have some new elements in it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simpleton
|
 |
Edmonton, Canada
Nov 2000
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mars
It makes me think that they did a good job for the limitations imposed on them. |
I can't agree here. The people who made CTP 1 & 2 didn't fail because of limitation they failed because they did bit off more than they could chew. The designers seemed to think that just by adding sea/space colonies, more techs, more wonders, more units that the game would just fall into place and be great. They obviously didn't realize how hard it is to blend all the elements of a game to make it great. In the end, the CTP series represented a lot of good ideas thrown together haphazardly to make a mess.
quote:
(fans calling it crap cuz sid didn't make it, complexity, limitations on names and coming up with new units)
|
I don't remember anyone saying it was crap because Sid never made it. I do remember people saying IF Sid had made CTP1 or 2 the game wouldn't have been crap or perhaps more rightly, not as crappy.
As far as CTP 1 and 2 being more complex it was the designers were the ones who made the CTP series this wasy. It's their fault if they couldn't pull it off. As far as coming up with new units Sid did it in Civ1. Brian Reynolds did it in Civ2 and SMAC. They didn't have any trouble. Why did the designers of CTP1/2 find this such a tough task???????
quote:
you try making a good game with all that against you |
If they were so many "perceived" barriers to making a GOOD game why did they do it? Why start unless your going to make a GOOD game? I think they started out with a lot of grand ideas but realized too late that the game would not work as hoped but decided to push it out the door anyway (shame on them) with the PR blazing. They didn't have anything against them the design team/game company just lacked the vision and commitment to make it work.
I think the CTP 1 and 2 games and crew deserved every criticism aimed at them. They pumped up these games as being spectacular when they knew they couldn't deliver. Besides, with the game prices as high as they are today and PR flying like it does the game buyer has every right to trash a company/design team that doesn't deliver!
PS: don't know what happened with the "quotes" but hopefully this makes sense.
Last edited by Simpleton on 24-10-2001 at 07:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zanzin
|
 |
Sydney, Australia
Mar 2001
time: 15:15
|
|
CTP1, and it's sequel, CTP1.25, were abysmal pieces of shite. Admiteddly, CTP 1 wasn't all bad - but it gets it reputation ruined by CTP "2" - which, in effect, was exactly the same game as CTP1 - except we had to pay for it again, the AI was actually worse, the graphics were more or less the same, and they cut out the alien end game. In many respects, CTP2 was worse than CTP1 - infact, going on what usually happens in the games industry, CTP2 should have come out first - because it was the poorer of the two titles, and technologically inferior.
Sorry, still angry with Activision. I want my money back.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:15
|
|
The main thing I disliked about CtP series was stacking. I prefered Civ 2/SMAC combat model way over that. Civ 3 army concept seems nice with me, though.
I also think that CtP just lacked Sid. Civ 1,2 and SMAC just have that feeling probably given by presence of Sid, while both CtPs lack that.
Also, it has to be said, that CtP 2 is a terrible game out of the box - AI is even worse than one of Civ 2, though with Medieval Pack it's a very cool game.
Oh, and almost forgot - there will not be CtP 3, it's official, and confirmed by Activision good time ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
It's not so much a question of new features so much as its a question of the perceptions of those new feaures and having the name 'Sid' behind them. Most players are looking forward to the new additions in civ3 - if Firaxis had merely changed the graphics, then there would of been a HUGE howl of protest over the lack of innovation. (And there are currently some howls that they should of gone farther in pushing the envelope).
Innovation is a good thing, and to criticize the CTP series because it had taken a different approach to many of the basic concepts is unfair. After all, people's perceptions are often based on trying to retain the feeling that they had when they first played civ1 or civ2 - and that feeling often takes a conservative approach that does not want to deviate at all from the formula.
For instance, if civ3 had been released before CTP, and Sid/Brian had decided to incorporate unconventional units, then I bet that most fans would of accepted that concept as revolutionary and very cool. It's the same with many of these new features being promoted in civ3. If you look closely, there are a lot of concepts from the CTP series that have made their way into civ3, yet few here are willing to admit that the CTP influence is a positive thing - and you can safely bet that Firaxis did take a look at many of the concepts from CTP as a basis for their decisions - their execution of these concepts may be different, but not necessary superior.
Thing such as:
- Stacked combat
- Unit support costs payed on a global scale
- Captured Workers/Settlers converted into your own new workers (CTP slavery)
- Minor Wonders similar in concept to CTP2 Feats of Wonders (emphasis on the word concept though)
- Leaders - (implimented in CTP2 Activision Scenarios and fan-created Mods)
- More civs - (easily implimented in CTP1 via a text file edit, but not at all possible in civ until civ3 - and in fact CTP can support up to 32 civs at one time)
The slaving concept in CTP has actually deeper, because not only could you capture slaves, but your food costs for slavery were less - (a reflection of history) and owning slaves carried a built-in risk (loss of a slave city due to revolt if not properly garrisonned and the dangers of not getting Emancipation Proclaimation).
Likewise, I thing that stacked combat is actually better thought out in the CTP series, from a playabilty standpoint (for instance, the ability to stack all units and move them as a single entity for ALL units is not present in civ3). In fact civ3 may very well boil down to a race to be able to build an army first (the race to tanks concept), but this is speculation at this point in time, so I cannot say with any certainty which setup will be superior.
There are features of civ3 which are very promising (unit resources, culture), but I think these features are as more of an evolutionary process that comes about because civ3 is now the most current release of a civ-style TBS game.
CTP had its flaws, but its as much due to the skill of current players and their ability to master these types of games at a much quicker rate due to past gaming experience as it is due to design flaws within the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Madine
|
|
I agree that CTP gets an undeserved bad rap.
Stacked combat allowed numerical superiority to be better reflected. It also emphasized having a balanced attack force more.
The ai is weak, but is it worse than SMAC?
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-10-2001 00:33
)
|