 |
|
Chronus
|
|
Additional civs would be nice but, quite frankly, I don't see why everyone is giving birth to a cow over this.
I agree with Cyclotron7's theory: more civs only mean more bite sized empires. I think this will, consequently, make them too easy to conquer.
By the way, MarkG, I don't mean to sound like a broken record but . . .
. . . your poll is skewed! It automatically assumes additional civs are wanted. I want to vote for "7 civs is enough" (just out of spite). The "No opinion" option DOES NOT reflect what I want. ;-)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 10:23 PM
I am sorry folks but I still don't get it: why is more civs better?
|
From the scenario perspective, this is a major problem. Many scenarios are forced to distort the historical situation they represent because there are only seven slots for civs. To show history in a more accurate light, as well as increase the enjoyment of the palyers, more civs are needed. This is a major problem.
quote:
if the game is fun, challenging, addictive, complex, realistic with 7 civs, isn't that good enough?
|
From a gaming standpoint, I would agree with you, but there are larger issues at work here. More civs could mean higher sales (more people interested in MP, scenarios, ect.), a better gaming experience, and as this is the twentyfirst century, an improved game engine, not a rehash of a previous system.
quote:
I also think we need to think about the fact that the game will have unique civs. So, Firaxis needs to play balance each civ and make sure that they are well balanced against each other in the game. The more civs in the game at once, the harder it will be to play balance them all. Already, people complained that the 7 factions in SMAX were unbalanced. I am sure that Firaxis is sticking with the safe number of 7 civs so that they can make sure that all the factions are well balanced in terms of gameplay. They don't want a civ that is overpowered or underpowered.
|
I disagree, for the reasons stated in my previous post, that is a cost cutting move, not an effort to improve play balence. If you follow this logic, then only two civs are needed with identical attributes on an identical map, then play balence would be assured. 
quote:
If the game is fun and challenging with 7, why have more?
|
Civ-1 and Civ-2 were fun and challenging, but why do we want Civ-3? We want more and better. If this whole thing is true, Firaxis has ignored a very large and active group of potential customers, and killed possible expansion games, because of the ill-will generated by such a decision.
------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.
[This message has been edited by cpoulos (edited April 29, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sabre2th
|
|
I think people are complaining about this a bit too much. While it would be nice to play with more occasionally, it isn't necessary and the game will not be RUINED without it. Stop crying and move on.
------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kautilya
|
|
St Louis, MO
Feb 2000
time: 23:12
|
|
. "your poll is skewed! It automatically assumes additional civs are wanted. I want to vote for "7
civs is enough"
Yeah and in addition to that there is the basic point that there is an opportunity cost in that providing this feature will mean less work in some other area. There might be lots of people who want more civs when looking at the issue in isolation but might be less keen if that came at the cost of AI or graphics.
A better poll would ask people to rank various features in descending order of importance.
In any case self-selected Internet polls are close to meaningless since the sample is usually biased.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jdlessl on 04-28-2001 10:52 PM
To deny extra playability [by adding more civs] for all time is just nasty.
|
 Oh, come on Jdlessl!  Do you really think above is the very reason why Firaxis decided to have the official max 7 civs-limit? For some sadistic and grudging reason? Or perhaps from some economical shortcut rush-developing reason? I sure as heck dont believe so - not for one second. This title has been voted "best game of all times" (not just the best strategy-game, mind you). I think it safe to presume that the team does virtually everything reasonably possible, givin their not-limitless resources, to ensure yet another smash hit evergreen game-success. After all; its their developing-money and the team + Sid very reputation thats at stake here, not ours. They even canceled the Dinosaurs-project, in order to relocate resources to Civ-3. I say, give them a rest, and lets move on to more relevant and important stuff!
Read below quote from MidKnight Lament one more time - It makes sence doesnt it?
quote:
If they thought they could increase the number of civs to make it a better game, they would. They know it inside out, and know perfectly well what it would do the the AI, minimum specs etc... They've no doubt play-tested with more and decided it wasn't worth the hit.
I would be highly surprised if there isn't an option in the text files to tweak it yourself. I can't believe there's so many people on here who think they know more about what Civ 3 can do than the developers themselves. (No disrespect to those who ran their copy of Civ 2 to the ground.)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdlessl
|
 |
Jacksonville, USA
Mar 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarthVeda on 04-29-2001 01:37 AM
Another point that these million-civ advocators fail to note is that the Firaxis programmers would have to create personalities, animations, and pics for more civs (stuffing a CD fuller than it already is).
|
Fine. So make the max 16. There are, after all, 16 civs to choose from, so using that as a max involves no extra work.
Technology has limits? Ok, so maybe I can't play Civ3 with 100 civs on my system right now. As I pointed out earlier, people still play Civ2 on machines many times more powerful than were available back then. It's just stupid to set an arbitrary limit like that. Especially when there are systems out there today that could easily run more than 8 civs.
Ralf: Didn't mean it was malicious, but it's not very intelligent. I have yet to hear a good reason why Civ2 had the limit.
--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited April 29, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kull
|
|
El Paso, TX USA
Mar 1999
time: 22:12
|
|
Let's try and put this in perspective. If Civ3 has support for no more than 7 simultaneous civs, will I buy it? Yes. Will just about everyone else here at Apolyton get it too? Yes. Will this single factor cause the game to "suck" beyond all redeeming? Almost certainly not.
But just for one minute, think about all your hopes for Civ3. All the things you dearly wanted included in this game. Improved AI, better diplomacy, gee-whiz graphics.....just take a look at the Civ3 wish list! It's full of far out concepts and ingenious new ideas. If some of these aren't implemented, at least you can console yourself with the thought, "Well it must have been too difficult to program" or "maybe it failed in gameplay". But extra civs? Come on! This is an improvement so obvious, so basic, so RUDIMENTARY, that I still can't believe it hasn't been implemented!
As a scenario designer, I'm left with the faint hope that the alleged minor civs will somehow resolve the problem. Yes, Darth, we've found plenty of ways to "finagle" the issue. When all else fails, the tried and true "minor powers" can always be used. But wouldn't it be nice to play a WWII scenario in which an attack on Thailand doesn't automatically put me at war with Switzerland and most of South America? Is that REALLY too much to ask for?
[This message has been edited by Kull (edited April 29, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Roman
|
 |
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kull on 04-29-2001 05:52 AM
But just for one minute, think about all your hopes for Civ3. All the things you dearly wanted included in this game. Improved AI, better diplomacy, gee-whiz graphics.....just take a look at the Civ3 wish list! It's full of far out concepts and ingenious new ideas. If some of these aren't implemented, at least you can console yourself with the thought, "Well it must have been too difficult to program" or "maybe it failed in gameplay". But extra civs? Come on! This is an improvement so obvious, so basic, so RUDIMENTARY, that I still can't believe it hasn't been implemented!
[This message has been edited by Kull (edited April 29, 2001).]
|
Exactly! Actually this for me (along with making resources useful) was the most important thing to change (the most important thing I didn't want added was future techs). I desperately wanted a higher civilization limit as I play almost exclusively scenarios.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cyberbugs
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
I just can't believe this it true!!
Is the single most important thing for some people here the amount of civs that can be played simultaneously?! I am very excited about this game, and yes I think more than seven simoultaneous civs would be good, but not THAT good; not good enough to sacrifice work put down on other vital parts of the game!
I am sure the broad majority of game buyers doesn't regard the issue about the amount of civs their top priority.
Don't get me wrong though. I have respect for your people that really want alot of civs to play with at the same time, but please: arn't there more important features in Civilization 3?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fintilgin
|
|
Well, Firaxis has already said they'll be leaving the option open to add more Civilization artwork, much like SMAC. So if I wanted to play with 32 Civ's, yes I'd have to add the art for 16 or so.
But with all the talented fans we have in this community, does anyone belive that we won't have flood of interesting and well done fan civilizations once the game is made?
They might not have unanimated diplomacy faces, but that's not a big deal.
Anyway, I'm curious why they wouldn't at least allow the option to tweek it in the text files. (And for all we know they will). Seeing as it's an unsupported modification (which only us fanatics will use) they don't have to worry too much about balance and turn length. A limit between 64-128 would be ideal I think. Would I play with that many in a normal game? Probably not, unless we had astoundingly huge maps, and was willing to wait for long turns to go by. But it would open up some interesting possibilities for scenario designers.
My point is that by leaving the option open, they allow the game that much more life, flexibility, and future expandability at a relative minimum of effort. But by locking it off they gain nothing. Seems odd to me.
I'm probably being too optimistic in hoping they've been planing on leaving it as an option in the .txt files all along... But they might...
Joe
[This message has been edited by Fintilgin (edited April 29, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jdlessl on 04-28-2001 10:52 PM
Ok, Diplomat, you don't see the extra fun inherent in having more civs. Fine. You are a member of the 8% that wants to keep it the same. But there's the other 92% who wants more, and to keep you happy at the expense of everyone else just plain sucks. Especially when having >8 civs allowable allows us to play how we want and you to play how you want.
--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited April 29, 2001).]
|
I am sorry if I offended anybody. That was not my intention. I am not against more civs as an option for those who want it. I just don't think a 7 civ limit is the end of the world.
And, I am not a member of the 8% that want to keep the game the same. What are you suggesting, that anyone who wants to keep the limit to 7 wants to hold the game back? Are you suggesting that more civs is more important than the diplomacy or trade models in the game?
I don't want the same old game. I want a radically better diplomacy, better economic model, better ressource and trade model. I hardly want the same old same old.
Who are we to tell Firaxis that we know better than them about their own game? They probably tried to implement more civs PRECISELY TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU, and found out it does not work for whatever reasons.
If they are staying with 7 civs, they probably have very good reasons.
I say, calm down. It is not the end of world. I understand that it is dissapointing to many, but it is not the end of the word by any means.
The important thing is that the game itself is as good as possible with great diplomacy, trade, armies, etc...
------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ajbera
|
 |
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
While we are customers, we (the insane, drooling fanatics) represent a minority of purchasers. The vast majority of those who will buy this game are those who do not peruse these forums, do not get bent out of shape over 7-civ maximum and civ-specific units, and do not threaten to not buy the game if feature X ain't implemented.
I also am saddened by the 7-civ limit (one reason why the modified CtP will remain on my hard drive), but from a business standpoint (and let us remember that the primary reason Firaxis is making this game is to MAKE MONEY; being a labor of love comes second) reusing the SMAC engine makes good sense.
The perfect Civ game? 1) It will have to be a labor of love, without any economic considerations, 2) Each creator will have to dictate what is perfect and what isn't, so each person should make their own game and include the features they consider indispensible, or it should be so customizable and with so many optional features that everyone can fine-tune it to their specifications.
In other words, if you want a Civ game to be exactly what you want it to be, you will have to make it yourself.
Sad, but true.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-04-2001 09:12
I couldn't care for the normal SP game, I almost exclusively play scenarios and there this is the most major issue.
|