 |
|
Kaak
|
|
Now that the novelty has kind of worn off, what do y'all think about the longetivity of civ3?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:16
|
|
The proof will be in the pudding, but with work, Civ3 has the potential to be superior to Civ2.
Venger
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BigNick
|
 |
Sydney
Nov 2001 time: 15:16
|
|
It's kind of hard to say without knowing what's going to be included in the (unannounced, but inevitable) expansion pack. SMAC was, in itself, an excellent game, but SMACX added an extra dimension to it. Civ2 was a great game, and didn't need much added to it (luckily, because the expansions added multiplayer and scenario tools, but left the game fundamentally unchanged).
One problem is that Civ3 is really high on the 'niggle factor'. There are lots of little things that get under your skin - information being difficult to locate; a less-transparent mechanism for things like unhappiness, trading and pollution; bombardments not being able to destroy units; the opacity of war-weariness; the inflexibility of production in regard to wonders; the lack of a decent scenario builder/editor; that I can't get my cities to tell me when they've finished a military unit; the way the endgame bogs down...
None of these is enough to sink a game by itself, and the other games had niggles of their own, but taken together these mean that I'm far less likely to bung Civ3 into my CD drive to while away a couple of hours than I would otherwise. In short, the challenge of the game is in exploiting (or minimising the costs inherent in) the detail rather than in the broader game. That was the problem of both the games in the CtP series, and IMHO the reason that franchise never took off.
I don't know where I'll stand on Civ3 for a few weeks yet, but as it stands at the moment I think I'll probably be back to SMACX until the expansion pack is out, and unless that offers something special I probably won't pick it up.
I guess that this is a natural progression - the more complex the model, the harder it is to balance everything. Thank the gods that they never went with the Command Point structure I remember hearing about in the developmental days. Maybe it's just that there's a "best" level of complexity for these sorts of games. If so, I fear for MoO3.
But then, never having tried to make a game like this, and lacking the much-promised Designers' Notes, I can't say why they made the decisions they did. It's just my A$0.03835 worth.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000 time: 00:16
|
|
I hate these bullshit ppl who say 'with the proper work it COULD be better than civ2..."
I HATE YOU ALL!!! GRRR
how can u think that its not already 10x better than civ2!?!? it plainly is and youre just looking for things to complain about!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by dainbramaged13
I hate these bullshit ppl who say 'with the proper work it COULD be better than civ2..." |
And I hate fawning çocksucking lobotomites who would have been happy if the released game was a rebadged version of Windows Minesweeper.
quote: I HATE YOU ALL!!! GRRR
how can u think that its not already 10x better than civ2!?!? |
Because it isn't? You know, I really liked "I Come In Peace", but I don't go apeshit when people say they don't like it...
quote: it plainly is and youre just looking for things to complain about! |
Not much for using your frontal lobes are you...
Venger
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Yoleus
|
|
It is still too early to judge - the game is STILL new (you know, getting reviews, catfights in Poly, maybe patches and/or expansions) so let's wait.
With the proper patches, expansions, scenarios and tools it could be a good game! As it is now, it is neither meat nor fish.
One thing keeps popping in my mind: will we like to play it MP or is it just a bigger version of minesweeper? ("play it by yourself to kill the time" thing). I mean, would you like to wage war, make diplomacy and develop technologically and culturally with other umans as you do against the AI, or will you look for some "shortcut" strategies to win, actually dumping much of the "flesh" of the game? I mean, civIII is more like an "hystory opera" than a 4X game (as MoO3 promise to be a "space opera" game. And I am loving the work they are doing at Quicksilver up to now).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Yoleus
It is still too early to judge - the game is STILL new (you know, getting reviews, catfights in Poly, maybe patches and/or expansions) so let's wait. |
100% agree. If nothing changes, I'll maybe play it 4 or 5 times. If they make the needed improvements, it'll waste as much of my life as Civ2 did...
Venger
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Shaka II
|
|
I think Civ III has the potential to surpass Civ II, it certainly has more sophisticated AI and has improved so much from Civ II. The cultural influence, resources/trade and military tactics are impressive. Remember moving all those workers and caravans all around? These workers for the most part know what to do!
I think a big distinction between Civ III (Civ II) and CTP or SMAC is that they have concentrated on fewer advances and city improvements, which can get tedious in those futuristic games. This and more concentration on ancient and middle ages periods will again (I hope) make Civ III a winner in the end.
A significant patch will certainly help.
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|