 |
| |
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
Civilization 2 introduced me to strategy gaming, and it was a great game. But after playing it tousands of times, i feel it need something fresh, and i guess many agrees with me.
Two other games i have played (europa universalis and imperialism) have added many fresh things, but they tend to loose much of what made civ2 so interesting.
So my biggest wish is that one day we get a combination of the games. Introducing the economic system of imperialism into civilization is my dream.
I say the best thing firaxis can do with civ3 is to give us something new, and i would then suggest them to play imperialism I & II and Europa Universalis II.
I know it is probably to late for them to implementing it, but its worth giving them the idea. (=
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
Yeah i guess they have tried it, and since DYP says me nothing, i guess i am not that Isak )=
Would have been great work to "research", eh?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
XOR
|
 |
Venezuela
Aug 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KaiserIsak
Civilization 2 introduced me to strategy gaming, and it was a great game. But after playing it tousands of times, i feel it need something fresh, and i guess many agrees with me.
Two other games i have played (europa universalis and imperialism) have added many fresh things, but they tend to loose much of what made civ2 so interesting.
So my biggest wish is that one day we get a combination of the games. Introducing the economic system of imperialism into civilization is my dream.
I say the best thing firaxis can do with civ3 is to give us something new, and i would then suggest them to play imperialism I & II and Europa Universalis II.
I know it is probably to late for them to implementing it, but its worth giving them the idea. (= |
Hmm... Civ3 will be "expanded", not "remade". This means new features, new fixes, new bugs, new Civs and some tweaks to existing things. Not a full remake of something as such vital part of the game.
Maybe some day far away (the closer the better) with Civ4 when they start by figuring out a much better combat system other than the old A/D/M. Like something that acount's each unit's Agility Vs Targeting speed, HP Vs Damage, etc. Something more similar to what Planetarion's combat engine was (I dont know if it's still is, I only played the 3rd round.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
Hrm I'm not sure I want something COMPLETELY new. I was addicted to Civs I and II, so why would I want them to reinvent the wheel? I like (nay, love) how they've "evolved" Civ III, with the exceptions of the limited UN functionality and the limited types of diplomatic treaties one can ratify.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blue Moose
|
|
Columbus, Ohio USA
May 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
Well, they could at least have a more strategic combat system....stacked combat and the like, and resolutions that made more sense (they'd need more units, clearly...cavalry should easily be able to take out knights for instance, so you need some units inbetween). They could have taken some ideas from the Call to Power series (public works is much nicer than the worker system).
And as it has been said before, they should have taken some of the ideas from SMAC and put them in Civ III. Diplomatic options for one, but others as well. The Government system there kicked ass, and makes even more sense in a historic system, where you can have various economic systems and political ones. To say nothing of social issues that can have a role. In a remake of the modern world, you'd not be able to characterize the difference between Western Europe's socialist democracy, and America's...whereas you'd be more able to in SMAC (free market vs. green). Sure, some of the government ideas from SMAC would have to change since this would be set on earth, but the basic idea is sound. Hmm...almost makes one want to mod SMAC for a different version of 'Civ III'....you'd lose what culture...but anything else? Hmm, armies, leaders, maybe one or two other things, but you'd gain a lot.
Even the unit system of SMAC could be adjusted. What's a swordsman but a warrior with iron weapons and some decent armor? What's an archer but a warrior with a bow? Later on you'd get small arms and the like for the aforementioned updated warrior, but infrantry is infrantry. Then you'd get some nice little historical simulations for scenerios. Like the difference between panzers (even the various Tiger tanks and the like) and america's sherman tank (that latter was extremely inferior to the Tiger, but it was much more easily produced). It would kick ass, no?
I, for one, was very disappointed to find that Civ III incorporated none of the innovation of Alpha Centauri.....almost like different companies made them. Hell, they even could have improved on the innovations. Instead they took a step back in a number of areas. Civ III's a good game and all...it just could have been a lot better.
-Moose
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by WarpStorm
Actually, Traelin, those are the two things I miss most from SMAC. If Civ3 had the diplomatic features of SMAC it would be awesome. |
Agreed Warp. I would say that SMAC had, overall, the coolest, freshest approach to the UN (I forget what it was called in SMAC, the Planetary Council or something?) If we could combine the best diplomatic features from SMAC and Civ III we'd have a hell of a game. I still maintain that SMAC was an evolution of the Civ series, albeit with sci-fi roots. It's too bad they feel they need to stay away from taking it's good features.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blue Moose
|
|
Columbus, Ohio USA
May 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by statusperfect
I think you're all wrong... please... make the game more simplistic... like Civ 1. Screw new features!!! I wanna play Civ, not some boring history simulation. |
So then what do you think Civ 1 is lacking? Graphics? If you say that Civ1 lacks nothing, then please just play that....we don't need a clone of a previous Civ game made.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JtheJackal
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by WarpStorm
Actually, I agree with statusperfect to a certain extent. No, I don't want Civ1 again. But I don't want the kitchen sink approach to game design. I want each feature to be a truly needed feature for the game system to work in a fun manner. Notice I said fun, not realistic. Fun wins over realistic every time in my book. |
I think Civ 3 matches this perfectly
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blue Moose
|
|
Columbus, Ohio USA
May 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by WarpStorm
Actually, I agree with statusperfect to a certain extent. No, I don't want Civ1 again. But I don't want the kitchen sink approach to game design. I want each feature to be a truly needed feature for the game system to work in a fun manner. Notice I said fun, not realistic. Fun wins over realistic every time in my book. |
Well, fun is of course the primary concern...but I do like some complexity in some areas....hmmm, let me say instead that I like *options*....which is why I'd like more diplomatic options. I don't think anyone would say that is wrong. I also like the government model in SMAC, since it's simple to understand, but it allows for a lot of flexibility and options. The unit system was similar, and was done very, very well in my opinion. You didn't really lose anything if you never customed made a unit, because of how the system was handled with default ones, but you had the *option* to do so if you wanted.....if I recall correctly, you could put a colony pod a rocket....it didn't have much use, but it was kind of cool, hehe (I don't remember for sure though...it's been a long time since I played it, I know I thought about it at least).
Also, I hate pointless and time-wasting micromanagement...which is why I want workers out the door...and why I like the public works system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Moose
Also, I hate pointless and time-wasting micromanagement...which is why I want workers out the door...and why I like the public works system. |
I never played the CTP series, I just couldn't bring myself to bring a non-Civ title. What's the deal with the public works, and would it greatly reduce the worker tedium?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blue Moose
|
|
Columbus, Ohio USA
May 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
I never played the CTP series, I just couldn't bring myself to bring a non-Civ title. What's the deal with the public works, and would it greatly reduce the worker tedium? |
The public works system takes a percentage of your production, and puts it in the public works pool. It works like taxes that way. Then you can spend the 'funds' to build roads, irrigation, mines, and other tile improvements. So you don't need any workers at all (typically the tile improvements still take a number of turns to be completed).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martinus Magnificus
|
 |
Nijmegen, Netherlands
Feb 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
Okay, if you insist, to put it in Darwinistic terms:
The fact that Civ III sold more copies is due to the fact that the 'environment' has become more tolerant to less 'fitted' games like Civ III.
First, the public is more receptive today than it was at the time when Civ II/SMAC came out. I think the main reason why Civ III sells more copies than these previous titles, is that it can take advantage of the legacy of those titles.
Second, Firaxis made the Civ series more accessable for a large public by nice graphics and reduced complexity. In order to do so, they had to do away with many nice features that were in Civ II and SMAC, because they were not appealing to the masses (they didn't have the time to implement these features anayway, because much time was lost in creating useless things like animated leaderheads) IOW: The dedicated fans had to pay for increased sales.
Besides, since when is the number of sold copies a criterium for the quality of a game? Britney Spears sells millions of records, but you can't seriously defend that that's high quality music!
My point: increased sales mean nothing to me. Rather that the Civ-series have evolved into a highly commercial bussiness with lower standards to satisfy a less demanding public.
M.M. dixit!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blue Moose
|
|
Columbus, Ohio USA
May 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
Also, there are a heck of a lot more people using computers....maybe the % of the overall computer-using population is lower than with CivII even.
Edit: added "computer-using"
Last edited by Blue Moose on 17-09-2002 at 00:18
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2002 18:29
).
). 
). More detailed combat doesn't make a lot of sense at the grand strategic scale that Civ has. If I wanted detailed tactical combat I'd fire up Combat Mission (and do). (Combat Mission 2 is just around the corner, you can't really have WW2 without the Russians). There are many wargames at the operational level that are excellent. This doesn't mean I want all their features in Civ.
|
|