 |
|
ComputerEnginee
|
|
since when was an editor part of the main game?
Obviosly, having scenario mods are great but the game in itself is well worth the 50 bucks.
Heck, I'd pay 100 bucks for it without an editor.
And the editor that comes with the game is kicka$$ in terms of editing the game!
Just watch for a patch for them to make an editor for scenario creation. Afterall, the primary goal is to make Civ 3 an addictive game and they've already done that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
Double post.
Last edited by techumseh on 11-11-2001 at 18:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
|
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
Sorry Hoek, I've already bought it. What I find interesting though, is that a number of new posters have suddenly appeared on the boards, singing the praises of Civ3. Now I know there's nothing unusual about that, but take ComputerEnginee for example. (S)he's new today, and has 27 posts so far, posted between 19:07 and 20:50. All are Civ3 BJ's. Someone's working pretty hard to counter the negative reaction of many experinced Civers.
And there are others, too. Maybe they're legit, but maybe they're Anonymous.
Last edited by techumseh on 11-11-2001 at 18:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
blowjobs of course
Dan...seriously though...what about scenarios? I do understand and respect the decision to concentrate on making the game itself fun and addictive, given your (seemingly) unreasonable time constraints by Infogrames....but on the other hand scenarios and mods really kept Civ2 alive for many people...I dunno if you ever played any scenarios but stuff like Harlan's Middle Earth, or WW2, or maybe John Petroski's Sicily/Italy WW2 scenario, etc, etc, were great...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
|
 |
The Metropolis known as Hunt Valley
Mar 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Dan...seriously though...what about scenarios? I do understand and respect the decision to concentrate on making the game itself fun and addictive, given your (seemingly) unreasonable time constraints by Infogrames....but on the other hand scenarios and mods really kept Civ2 alive for many people...I dunno if you ever played any scenarios but stuff like Harlan's Middle Earth, or WW2, or maybe John Petroski's Sicily/Italy WW2 scenario, etc, etc, were great... |
David,
While I have no "official" news to report, I can tell you that we do take the needs of scenario and mod builders seriously -- work continues to be done on the editor, and the first patch will bear this out. I can't give you any dates because to my knowledge nothing has been set in stone yet. I know you're all ready to get started, just bear with us.
Dan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
Firaxis is not the game publisher. Why don't you people take your gang rape and focus it on Infogrames. They're the ones who decided on a release date, not Firaxis.
To refresh your memories, the guys at Firaxis are the ones who are LIKE US. They love gaming. They worked all through the night, night after night, testing and coding their hearts out. People who bash these guys are contemptible trash, in my opinion. I'll give them no quarter.
And the crazy suggestion that Firaxis planted sycophants here is proof positive, as far as I'm concerned, of a profound and disturbing psychosis on the part of the suggesters.
Damn. Just plain damn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yoleus
|
|
As I said in other posts, I LIKE the game but think it is:
1) rushed: some bugs (artillery, air superiority), some flaws (combat), some missing features (social engineering)
2) balanced in an unpleasant way: corruption&pollution anyone? Nice to play "Sid Meier's Housewife III" 
3) marketed to death! No MP and no scenarios. I think they are saving lots of shots for future releases (CivIII MP, Gold, Scenarios, ToT, think of CivII)
4) too conservative: I agree Culture is a lovely inovation (so far), but it is the ONLY one upon CivII (unless you speak graphics...), and sincerely I think we came down from SMAC. It is probably meant this way to be sure to sell: I think CivIII is in SId's -Firaxis'- opinion not a product but a way to gain some money for some more ambitious projects: golf and dinosaurs  
4.5) oblivious of suggestion from Poly (this is partially connected to 4, as you guess) that appeared in the FORGOTTEN List. They just did it their way (who cares about the TBS fans? They will play in any case!! So let's work for the main market) 
So I will buy the game, but I will wait for Final Gold Patched Mp Scenario Edition, if any. I am not in a hurry to pay or play civIII, I am a fan but I have some "alternatives" (other strategy games, a life, etc.). IMHO Firaxis (and Sid as a playtester) did a nice job, but not an awesome one (so far).
P.S: I did not notice the effect mentioned as "BJ", but anyway, I think this forum has been always over-enthusiastic on Civ-something games (artificially, by "policy", by "paladins" or not, I do not know or care). The real opinions come up only later.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
|
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG
i feel like  you hoek, after reading your assumption on firaxis' response and Dan's reply 
tell you what, get techumseh and the others to set a deadline for people signing the letter, and then mail the letter and the signatures to me, and i'll spam every firaxian e-mail i know with it(well, not really, i'll just mail it once to the proper people )
if we dont get an official answer from firaxis on it, you can start your boycott campaign.... |
Markos, the letter was posted here a week ago. That WAS the message, it was an open letter. Just to be sure, I emailed it a couple of days ago to the contact address on the official site. But I appreciate your response and your offer. Consider the letter closed, as of now. Please convey it officially to Firaxis. And thanks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
 |
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yoleus
As I said in other posts, I LIKE the game but think it is:
1) rushed: some bugs (artillery, air superiority), some flaws (combat), some missing features (social engineering)
2) balanced in an unpleasant way: corruption&pollution anyone? Nice to play "Sid Meier's Housewife III"
3) marketed to death! No MP and no scenarios. I think they are saving lots of shots for future releases (CivIII MP, Gold, Scenarios, ToT, think of CivII)
4) too conservative: I agree Culture is a lovely inovation (so far), but it is the ONLY one upon CivII (unless you speak graphics...), and sincerely I think we came down from SMAC. It is probably meant this way to be sure to sell: I think CivIII is in SId's -Firaxis'- opinion not a product but a way to gain some money for some more ambitious projects: golf and dinosaurs
|
I agree with some of this, but not all.
Best I can tell, artillery works fine. You should not be able to destroy ground units with artillery. You can't in real life, at least not on the scale of the Civ games. With the number of units in the game and the fact you have the whole world modelled, a unit is approximately a division. I don't think anybody in history ever destroyed an enemy division solely through artillery bombardment. You can seriously weaken it through artillery bombardment before you attack it, or decimate it as it tries to close if it comes out of cover to attack you, but your front line guys still have to finish the job.
I wish it did have some of the stuff from SMAC, but the way units work in SMAC mitigates strongly against modding, IMO, so I don't miss that.
Corruption & pollution are kind of out of hand. I think corruption can be somewhat address via the "Optinum number of cities(corruption) setting in the World Sizes tab of the rules editor. Unfortunately, I don't think you can do anything about polution, while you could turn it off in Civ2, so that's bad.
Don't care about MP, but the starting point for scenario creation capability should be where Civ2:TOT left off, and add features from there. I'm OK with that not making initial release, though. If we had to wait three more months, that would have two bad effects: #1 I couldn't plat Civ3 for 3 more months (although certain bugs right now are inclining me to wait for the first patch before playing again, but hopefully that's weeks not months), and #2 MOO3 won't release until 3 months after Civ3, so if Civ3 was delayed 3 months I wouldn't get MOO3 for 6 more months.
Not real worried about "too conservative", either. I'm an incrementalist at heart. If I like a game, I want the sequel to make it run on current OS's, update the graphics (where that won't hurt the modding capabilities of the last version, and Civ3 will have gone too far if you can't use bitmasp 2-D units in the final scenario editor), fix gameplay issues from the last version, add cool new features without losing any cool features from the last one, and take advantage of the advances in processors since the last version to make the game "bigger" (more units, more races, bigger maps, better AI, whatever). I don't want them to bring out a "sequel" that is related to the original only by its name and membership in the same genre. Such a game should have a new name, IMO.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-11-2001 06:42
I'm concerned about the "when and if" bit also. It would be so much better to get a dialogue going.
Markos!
|