|
Author
|
|
Topic: My greatest fear for CIV3 |  |
|
Nemesis of the North
Settler
Norway
Mar 2001
|
 |
posted March 25, 2001 02:22
  | 
 |
 |  |
What I fear about CIV3 is not a buggy version, even though that would be bad, my greatest fear is the possible [DIFFICULTY LEVEL - COMPLEXITY LEVEL]-connection. I fear that if I am to have a game with a complex system, I will first have to train for five years to survive to the iron age.
You must probably wonder by now - am I a rookie? Yes, definatly. I never got up to prince level in CIV2, but I really loved the complex systems of running my pacified, wealthy empire (never learned how to use all that gold anyway).
But my fear is, as staded above, that I cannot survive if I am to have my complex game. I want a game I can live with, not on that beats me down my pants each time I run it. So pleeease, don't do that connection. It will at least have the potential to cut me away from the potential list of customers.
[This message has been edited by Nemesis of the North (edited March 25, 2001).] |
Ilkuul
Chieftain
Thame, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Mar 2000
|
 |
posted March 25, 2001 16:16
  |
|
| |
I agree, Nemesis. It took me a LONG time to reach Prince level, too. The beauty of Civ2 is that you can play it at so many different difficulty & complexity levels. So I also hope Civ3 will allow for a simple level of play -- and also for truly peaceful ways of winning!
------------------
Ilkuul Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first". |
Vitmore The Great
Chieftain
Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted March 25, 2001 16:43
 |
|
| |
Sid in his interview with GameSpot UK kinda adressed your fears Nemesis, at least when concerneing diplomacy. He says that you will be able to use the same type of conversational diplomacy modes presently being used in Civ II, or a new more complex model with which you can combine treties and make them specific (ie. I give English 3 Howitzers, 2 cities, and 600 gold for peace, and they give me food caravans to support my ruined cities).I look forward to using the more complex model. It what I've always wanted.
Vitmore
------------------
"We should not go out and conquer the people, but give them no other choice in their minds but to be conquered." - Me |
Troll
Chieftain
The Forum Fur Flyer USA
Jul 2000
|
 |
posted March 25, 2001 18:51
|
|
| |
I personally am looking forward to a more indepth "True - to - life" debate and counter-bartering system..as It make sense to bring more to the table and demand more complex issues..such as offering aid in form of tech or gold in exchange for attacking a pesky neighbor..or even leader..to slow him down!
Yours in civin
Troll ------------------
Hebrews 11:1 Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for and things unseen |
Adm.Naismith
Prince
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
|
 |
posted March 26, 2001 05:27
|
|
| |
Nemesis, I'm not sure I fully understand your point (my fault, english is not my language, you know).You would play a game at its high level and be sure to win, unrelating to your ability?
Or you would be sure that game rules are the same, any level you play? I don't fully agree, because as Chess are a great example of game that keep same rules, unregarding how good players are, lot of great boardgames succesfully keep simple rules for easy level and add more complexity for higher level (for dedicated, hard players). I don't like anymore game with lots of rules options anyone can mix in every fashion: they seems add freedom, but they mostly:
. left difficult to share game tactics from players with different settings;
. make game AI a bit more difficult to develop and test (too much different options to consider);
. are usually confusing for novice players. Some games really change their AI (e.g. more deep drill into decision tree) if you raise game difficulty, but usually Civ games didn't: they simply give more help and cheats to AI or put you in worse situation, as bad starting point or enemy ready to gang attacking you, or "randomize" more frequently bad events (as barbarians raids). I hope Firaxis will go to use easy level for novice or more "instant player": quick start, simple rules, go for action - less statistic and histoy lovers.
Intermediate and Difficult levels must require the player to learn new rules and tricks, enforcing more accurate management, greater attention to diplomacy and trade, more accurate history feeling. If that will happen, the AI must be kept modular enough to manage presence/absence of some "pack of rules" (not as sparse as every singular option left independent).
The player can afford a smooth learning curve, where every difficulty level add as many facets to the game as a player can "chew".  The game "difficulty levels option" would become an embedded Training Guide, enhancing the game playability and lasting. Oh well, I'm surely too late about game design decisions: I hope that Sid, explaining of differentiate Diplomacy rules, means something in the line of mine hope ------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant |
Nemesis of the North
Settler
Norway
Mar 2001
|
|
posted March 29, 2001 10:40
|
|
| |
AdmiralI am sorry if I didn't express myself clearly (english isn't my 1st language either ) What I say is that I want to be able to set complexity level and difficulty level individually, and not be forced to play a game with simple rules, only because I play at chieftain level. Nemesis of the North |
shuttleswo
Settler
Mar 2001
|
|
posted March 29, 2001 10:53
|
|
| |
My personal biggest fear, and one I don't see discussed much here, is that the AI will be poor like in SMAC or rampantly cheat like in CIV2 instead of just being a good opponent. I have no doubt that when it's all said and done that the gameplay elements will be solid (Sid has never given me reason to expect anything else) - And although firaxis is working on a good multiplayer component, the length of a good civ game for me just never made it that appealing as a multiplayer game.
Therefore the AI is one of the most important parts of having a good CIV type game to me. Sid, in my opinion doesn't have a great track record with AI; which make me a little nervous (that's not to say I wouldn't buy it though)  |
joseph1944
Chieftain
Napa, Ca. USA
Jul 2000
|
|
posted March 29, 2001 13:56
|
|
| |
Nemesis:
Not to worry, Sid had always said that he want the games to be fun and to played by the broadest numbers of player and on the broadest number of computer systems. Yes we do see lots of post that keep-asking Firaxis to make the game so hard that nobody can win. I have never counted those people but I would say it is not the majority of people who post here. I myself tried Emperor level once in Civ 1 did OK for a while and then Mr. Stalin came my way and the game was soon over (3 civ’s). I do not like to loose anytime to anyone. I will not play MP because if someone beat me, I will be very upset. At Civ 2 I have never played above the middle level.
Even in WesW mod for CTP 2 he up the anti a little but not to much so Guys and ladies like myself can still play the game and have fun playing it. Now I do play CTP 2 at the middle level and doing OK. Have not lost yet.
------------------
|
Lawrence of Arabia
Settler
Apr 2001
|
|
posted April 02, 2001 20:35
|
|
| |
If they don't have Paratroopers I'm gonna be disapointed. Boats? Who need boats? I just build advance airbases, fly in the paratroopers and then jump them across the water. If the other civ is out of reach, then maybe its not worth attacking them------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
