 |
| |
|
|
benjy
|
|
London, UK
Nov 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
I’m writing this for my own purposes, please don’t read it if you think the title is heretical! It occurred to me that whilst I spent many hours on Civs 1&2 Civ 3 doesn’t have the same hold on me. So I started to write down why and thought I may as well post it. Sorry if its all been said before.
If you can be bothered to get to the end, please feel free to shoot me down!
Conceptual Problems with Civ 3:
The Addition of Unique Units and Civ Traits
In my opinion, though these changes to the way the game is played work well in game terms (at least civ traits do, more of unique units later) they don’t work conceptually. Of course, may players may well not care less as long as the game play is improved, but for me it takes away some of the beauty of the civilisation series, which is the feeling that you are creating, guiding and manipulating your very own home-grown civ. The Civ you end up with at the end of the game is all yours – it bears your fingerprints from the hours and hours you’ve spent creating it.
The whole point of Civ is that you take a bunch of settlers in the year dot, and guide them through history. They develop according your tastes, according to your style, and ofcourse depending on start locations. The idea that a civ has pre-rendered characteristics is detrimental to this.
For me, the whole idea that a civ can start in year x with characteristics that are entirely non-dependant on game-play, which instead are derive from the real world, does not sit well with a game in which the whole point is that the player is the captain of his own destiny. Why should the Americans be pre-determined to be say scientific, if in fact the player wants to play in a completely different manner? (yes I know you can switch it off, but that’s not how the designers intended the game to be played).
The fundamental problem I have with this is that it is illogical since no nation is born with a set of pre-determined characteristics. Rather, what made the French say industrious is the way the country developed (including geographical, economic, political and historical influences). The problem is more pronounced with unique units – the English aren’t born as great sailors, nor are they genetically more readily able to build great men-o-wars. The reason they got good at this? – they live on an Island! The stupidity of this is highlighted in game-play terms when the English start land-locked. Or when the way your game developed doesn’t make use of airforces yet your American Civ is for some reason destined to be good at building F15s! Yet, you used tanks for 150 years but are still only average at building them.
Resources
I actually like the idea behind the recourse system. But what about its implementation? To introduce it, they had to break the combat system (i.e. to make it possible for players who lose the resource battle to still win the war).
Its just a matter of personal taste as to whether you think this was worth it, but since most players play a combat orientated game my view is that its more important to get the combat system right.
Perhaps there’s a better way of balancing this system, making a lack of resources have a greater economic impact but not crippling your ability to manufacture certain arms. I dont know, any thoughts?
Air Units etc.
In terms of game balancing I can see that Firaxis wanted to lessen the destructive power of artillery and air units by placing on them an artificial limit. Modern warfare is however dominated by air and artillery units. As far as air units are concerned, I would have preferred to have seen modern ground and naval units be given an air defence stats (which perhaps could be increased by various techs or improvements) – this way, the designers wouldn’t have had to artificially lower the hitting power of airforces since it would be balanced by a units' ability to defend itself from air attack (provided the player chose to develop this).
Culture Flipping
The idea that a Civ should benefit from its culture is sound, but what historical precedent is there for civs devouring other nation’s cities, for entire populations to convert? In game-play terms, it also forces me to use strategies that I don’t enjoy.
The bottom line is that the Civ system is not sophisticated enough to handle this concept – a game like Europa Universalis II does so very well by using concepts such as religious conversion, vasselisation, annexation etc. Whilst I’d love to see these implemented in Civ3 its true to say they add a level of complexity that’s not really intended to be part of Civ. Civ is a very broad conceptual game, and it should be happy with that and not try and take on concepts that it cant really handle.
The Dumbing down of Civ 3
The greatest disappointment for me has been the lack of production values in the game. Am I alone in wanting more features, not less? The diplomatic system is better than Civ3, but what happened to all those SMAC type diplomacy options. The options are disappointingly thread bear. The whole spy system is virtually useless, which is a great shame because it has the potential to be great fun. What about being able to name areas or units (PTW?)?
But it’s the little things I really miss – the sound of marching feet after the fall of a city, the free tech advances and the great message you receive after discovering philosophy, the advantage of being the first to sale the world and so on. To put it bluntly, the game lacks flare. And worse of all, they’re all things that have been cut from the series. They really added a sense of immersion. And it would it have hurt to put in a proper wall chart? I also think the game has a slightly sloppy feel – some of the civ traits don’t sit well, or the choice of unique units. And players having to research city names because the developers didn’t include enough. No more needs to be said about wonder movies!
Some of the omissions have been unforgivable – I accept that the development of the editor is always destined to continue after release, but the failure until 1.29 to allow civs to start in their historical positions? Come on guys, that’s basic stuff.
Anyway, I s’pose I better stop. I realise a lot of this is now in fact changeable in the editor, but for me the damage is done. And having said all that, its still on my hard drive and I still play every now and again….
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by benjy
If you can be bothered to get to the end, please feel free to shoot me down! |
Wow, someone to shoot down! 
I guess I am well known for merrily taking part in such threads. 
quote:
Originally posted by benjy
The Addition of Unique Units and Civ Traits |
You have a point there, correct. The traits are kind of a predestination. As you correctly pointed out, developing civ traits throughout the game might feel more "real". However, consider that most people prefer certain set patterns playing Civ3 (builders/warmongers etc.). It is pretty likely that your civ would very often, if not always, end up developing the same trait(s). Result: less varied gameplay for you.
Also, if you dislike a feature like this (especially if it is a feature you can turn off with a single mouseclick), it would be fair to suggest how to change/improve it. At least an idea how to meaningfully implement it... If you dislike it to such an extent you would rather not have it, just switch it off (actually, the developers intended this feature to be optional, that's why they included the setting in the first place).
Now, how would you determine what kind of traits a civ would be granted? And at what time? Just saying: the way it is, it's not fine, helps nothing. Coming with ideas, alternative solutions does. Try it! See what your brains can do... What Firaxis came with may not have been 100% realistic, but it is absolutely brilliant from the gameplay point of view. Adds so much subtle variety, so many options to choose from!
As for unique units... I guess you are not very fond of this feature for much the same reasons as with traits. They influence the story of your civ in such a way that it is likely to flourish and have relative advantage over the rivals at approximately the same period of time as it did in the real history... but as with traits, you are free to switch this feature off. The argument that "Civ3 was not intended to be played without traits/UUs" is just void. The choice is yours - what more you can ask for?
quote:
Originally posted by benjy
Resources |
Resources and Combat System... well, especially the combat system has been discussed ad nauseam thousand times (see for examples the thread named "this combat system has to GO", still active), so I will not go into this again and just state that lots of people do not consider it broken in any way (I, for one, consider it just fine... actually perfect, since using the editor, you can very easily change it to pretty much what Civ2 used). And as far as the resource issue goes, the combat system has been changed not because of the resources, but in an attempt to solve the inherent problem of Civ2 - once a civ got few techs ahead of others, it simply steamrolled over the rest of the world. More modern units had such an overwhelming advantage that it was too easy to win. Resources have very little to do with the combat system itself... I guess, you could even implement the concept of resources into Civ2 without changing the combat system at all.
quote:
Originally posted by benjy
Air Units etc. |
Hm, how do tanks defend against modern assault aircraft? How does modern infantry...? I can see very little what the landbased units can do against airborn attacks. With naval units, it's different, that's correct. The usually have some kind of AA missiles or guns. You would have my full support for granting aircraft lethal bombardment against ships. And partially iterating on your idea, I would balance it by giving vessels some anti-air defense capabilities (that would account for the AA stuff they are armed with).
As for the artillery units... you can wreak havoc with your arty/airforce in the real world, but you are never able to completely annihilate an enemy unit just with your arty or bombers (with the exception of ships - see above). You will always need some infantry to do the mop-up. Which is exactly what Civ3 reflects. Quite realistic, IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by benjy
Culture Flipping |
It is my understanding that one of the key reasons of introducing the concept of culture was the need for territorial borders. Remember how in Civ2 those pesky enemy settlers happily planted cities right in the middle of your empire? Now THAT pissed me off. As for culture flipping, there is a general consent, I believe, that the current implementation is a bit (or a bit more) crappy. Even though one can imagine many different scenarios where troops going poof could be more or less "realistic", I do admit that it could have been done better. Fortunately enough, you will be able to switch the flips off in PtW.
As for historical precedents, I have several times seen quite impressive lists of actual historical events that quite closely resembled (cultural) flips. I may try to look it up for you...
So, remember, culture is there not just because of itself, but also as a mean of defining territorial borders.
quote:
Originally posted by benjy
The Dumbing down of Civ 3 |
Ummm... flare... I guess someone else will have to address this. For me, there is flare just enough. I am much more keen on gameplay than flare... I will agree with you on that the whole spying system might have been more interesting (even though it's not completely useless) and diplomacy even better (but, hell, there was almost no diplomacy in Civ2! At least compared to Civ3...). AFAIK, you will be able to name units in PtW, but not map features.
quote:
Originally posted by benjy
Anyway, I s’pose I better stop. I realise a lot of this is now in fact changeable in the editor, but for me the damage is done. And having said all that, its still on my hard drive and I still play every now and again…. |
Seems you are quite adept in sustaining the damage!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by benjy
secondly, vondrac i accept that i have little creative to offer. mind you, im not a software designer or a programmer. im a consumer. |
Do not get your consumership prevent you from thinking up ideas! I did not mean you should suggest what kind of mathematical formulas to use and such (I should have used a different word, not implement, but "see" or something like that...) I meant that you could try to say something like: I would like to start the game with no trait and would like to have my traits granted only after devoting my nation to a certain way of development. If I build lots of settlers or scouts, I eventually become an expansionist, if I build lotsa workers, I become industrious, if I build many temples, I get religious etc... I know this example is totally lame, but try describing what you would like to happen in your game. People would probably point out problems, which you could then address and eventually, a meaningful idea could surface...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cidifer
|
|
quote:
1. Learn to spell and capitalize.
|
Hey, these are forum posts not essays, I personally speak here as I would in conversation (atleast most of the time). Also I type at such a high rate of speed that I do sometimes make typos just like anyone else and just because someone mispells something or has a typo doesn't mean they don't have a point.
quote:
2. You don't like an option so you don't want anybody to be able to use it? |
by option do you mean customization? if so then where did he say he didn't want there to be customization? I think you can't expect everyone to customize the game the way they want to, that's like someone at a car dealer ship saying "buy this car, it doesn't come with brakes but you can put those in yourself." I personally don't think the game has too many flaws that I'd go to the extent of changing in the editor bt there are a few too many in my opinion and I think they relied on the editor too much and used it to excuse working out some issues.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SanPellegrino
|
|
Mainly because of the great AI and because civ2 was way too easy after playing it for years. And now I like the corruption level (makes you plan your empire) the ressources (puts a good strategic thought to your game) and I love the traits and UUs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SanPellegrino
|
|
But what I REALLY miss is the advisor screen
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cidifer
Hey, these are forum posts not essays, I personally speak here as I would in conversation (atleast most of the time). Also I type at such a high rate of speed that I do sometimes make typos just like anyone else and just because someone mispells something or has a typo doesn't mean they don't have a point. |
Of course he has a point.  I never said he didn't. It was just difficult to read his post... and he's a native English speaker so he should make it easier for those for whom English is a 2nd language.
quote:
that's like someone at a car dealer ship saying "buy this car, it doesn't come with brakes but you can put those in yourself." |
It is checking one box on the startup screen.  Not installing a car part. A mouse click. It is easier, in terms of mouse clicks, than picking the world size.
Tassadar, I'm ok.  I just felt the need to argue against his criticism of the presence of an optional feature. Perhaps I should have used the smiley instead of the  one.
I like the Russian, Kyrgyztani, Israeli, and Canadian anthems better too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
benjy
|
|
London, UK
Nov 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
Jag, easy tiger, whats your problem?
i dont know where this idea that i dont like options came from. sure throw as many in as you want, but being able to turn something off is not a substitute for solid, well implemented ideas. how is this contraversial?
von, i do edit my games to a certain extent before i play, but i do think thats missing the point. sure, some of the the stuff that i had a problem with can be played around with with in the editor, but i cant resolve the fundemental flaws of the game (and yes i know this is highly subjective, but i never said otherwise). having a good editor is great but it doesnt get the developers off the hook.
anyway, this has probably run its course. it was good to hear your thoughts!
ps. jag, youre critique of my spelling is really lame; its not good english to litter your posts with smiley faces and i dont really think that a bunch of people who spend all day in a PC gaming forum are in a good position to challenge each other's intellectual credentials. if this was a English Writing forum maybe....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cidifer
|
|
I was talkin about editing things in the editor not turning off an option in the options screen, not everything can be controlled through the options menu (that's why I said editor in my post).
Also those people with english as a 2nd language aren't any of my concern, there are plenty of german and other countries sites out their for them to go to. Most speak english well enough to understand what most people say anyway, and most of the ones who don't, don't speak english well enough for us to understand them anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cidifer
|
|
Civ 3 is still fun and still probably the best game currently on the market that's come out in the last few years. Most people here have played Civ 2 and SMAC to death and need something new, right now I don't know anything in the genre better then Civ3.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
|
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by benjy
i dont know where this idea that i dont like options came from. sure throw as many in as you want, but being able to turn something off is not a substitute for solid, well implemented ideas. how is this contraversial? |
I completely agree with you in the case of say, culture flipping. The Culture flips could be better done. However, in the case of civ-specific traits and units, which you didn't like, you said
quote:
ruby - yes youre right i could turn off the features i dont like. but personally i expect a higher standard than "oh dont worry you can switch off the bits that make your of civ3 exeperience mediocre"! |
And I questioned it because, well, what would you suggest? You can either play with inherent civ abilities from the beginning, or without them. I don't see what else you're asking for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Its not a sequel. SMAC was the sequel to Civ in that it takes the story of mankind from earth to space colonialization.
Civ3 is a remake of Civ2. The AI is better and there were lots of minor improvements but overall and IMHO, its is not in the same class as Civ2 or SMAC.
Civ3 is definitely dumbed down, though there are some subtleties in Civ3 they are more accidental than designed.
SMAC still sets the standard for me, though I have not played CTP2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Raion
|
|
Go play another game. Do not change anything, because you can not with the other game.
In Civ III, one can modify the game to one's content!
The game is just too good for you. Play a bummer game, because you simply love bummer games.
Those traits can be unchecked in the editor, takes a few minutes, and no Civ has any traits with it.
Go play a bummer game, and leave the real computer games, which there is only a few, to the real gamers out there. Civ is too good for you.
After 12-13 years this game has been out, with people doing all sorts of things to it, even changing the text files and anything else, exactly where do you buy a game where anyone can change the entire game around?
Nowhere, not even MOO III is as customizable as Civ III.
The game is too good for you.
I think you want the modern age through the entire game. Life was slower, and the game reflects that.
If you are bored then, maybe you should check your pulse.
I just downed the yellow in the graphics by taking off some of the yellow with red and green gamma for the terrain.
The only problem some may have is making units with the movement files, like the fli files, since one I looked at was 120 frames long. It was a Leader file.
I think it used AutoDesk, so that is an expensive program. That may be the only problem some will have with the game.
When you can edit the text files, edit the Civilopedia entries, add Government types, take off all the traits, change just about anything around one wants too,
What I do find, is that people have gotten lazier with the game. May be a lack of time, perhaps, like me, but stick around, I am sure someone out there, will make scenarios, and shorter games, perhaps, with the same type of editor that Civ II came out with only 2 years later, instead of just in one year.
I think perhaps, you have the lazy complaint, perhaps, due to something else happening in your life.
I have never encountered a game that offers so much, complete customization for the player.
Some people explore its possiblities, not the other way around.
One is even lucky that the game came out again.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-10-2002 21:12
sounds like drowning because you refuse to swim. They have made this game supremely adaptable and customizable to your play preferences. All you have to do is exercise your to ability to edit... which you obviously don't feel like doing. I don't blame you there-- I much prefer to experience it as they originally intended it to be played (and therefore, I don't edit the games I play) and some aspects lack "historical precedent" as you put it, but I don't start thread-novels that decry the game and then refute everything I just stated by admitting that I am not doing what I could easily be doing to make it MY experience.
|