quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-07-2001 04:15 PM 1. the AI. IF the unique civs are important, and AI expects them, and i turn them off, this will make AI even easier to beat, no?

Well, the first point is certainly still of concern, but I sincerely doubt that Firaxis are going to write a separate AI for each civ anyway - they will most likely use the same AI for all of them. If they didn't do that than there would be no point of the civs being customizable in the first place, would there?

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 05-06-2001 08:37 PM As for "eye candy," I'm sick of people who say graphics aren't important in Civ. THEY ARE IMPORTANT! You zero-sum people should go play ANSI games again.

The HECK you say!!

I enjoy playing Zork now and again. I also enjoy a lot of the frustrating Nethack, since LighteNing turned me onto it. both of these are very graphics impaired.

My latest obsession is XCOM, and it has got me bad, even though the pixelated graphics are pathetic by today's standards, or even 5 years ago. it's still a great game!

I'm currently in a game of Trade Wars 2002 which, as you might know, is text and a few ANSI graphics. It's fun. Simple but fun. So don't confuse what I'm saying: Good graphics are NOT necessary for a great game, but surely having a great game with great graphics is...well...great!

I will say this, though: If Civ3 has crappy graphics (I thought SMAC's graphics were rather terrible), I'll be looking for other excuses to stop playing the game. And it's not so much that the graphics themselves ruin the experience but that I'll know there was a deliberate decision made not to live up to the "No more bad graphics from Firaxis" promise.

Let me leave you with a question: If Civ3's graphics are similar or even worse than Civ2's, this wouldn't bother you? Sorry, but in the end, human beings are primarily visual creatures. I agree the imagination is better than any graphics and gameplay is more important than visuals, but THIS IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME!

EC3 Fixes:

1. Trade
in.

2. Diplomacy
in.

3. Make It Harder for civs to last
not addressed as yet, may yet be included. firaxis is sometimes tight lipped with us until official announcements.

4. Comprehensive Scenario Editor
in, but how comprehensive it is remains to be seen.

5. Improved Road and Rail Rules
not mentioned as yet. I sure hope it's in.

EC3 New Ideas

1. Rise And Fall Of Empires
essentially the same as fix #3, since this aspect made both lists, it should be a flag for them to listen. haven't heard yet...

2. Domestic Politics
not sure yet, but unlikely

3. New Modes Of Victory
in, was already in AC, but a lot of the list people were not AC vets.

4. Energy
apparently out

5 (tie). Stacking
in

5 (tie). Religion
apparently out, but a lot of the effects of religion may be addressed in culture, so I can't say that went entirely unheard.

A couple of things which didn't make the list itself, but got some votes, and we know are pretty much in, are:

No More Instant City Conversions
Better Graphics
Replay (if that wink from dan in that one thread means what I think it does)
And lets not forget that there appears to be a good fix for ICS, one of the ones we most talked about on THE LIST, and endlessly in this forum.

So, from the 11 EC3 items, we have 5 that are in, 2 apparently out, and 4 not sure. I have trouble marking that as "they don't listen to us"

I also hate animations like that and really hope Firaxis doesn't waste time with them. What I personally mean by good graphics in Civ3 is primarily a very lush and colorful land (I don't need running waterfalls), very detailed (but not animated) units that make distinguishing what's what much easier, and an interface that is very crisp and clear.

Now if you look at all that, what I'm talking about are graphics that make gameplay easier. This is a VERY important point. I'm not interested in eye-candy just so I can test my video card. I want graphics that 1) help make gameplay easier and 2) help make things simply look better (I have no shame in simply wanting things to look good).

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 05-07-2001 09:14 PM Father Beast: I'm currently in a game of Trade Wars 2002 which, as you might know, is text and a few ANSI graphics. It's fun. Simple but fun. So don't confuse what I'm saying: Good graphics are NOT necessary for a great game, but surely having a great game with great graphics is...well...great! I will say this, though: If Civ3 has crappy graphics (I thought SMAC's graphics were rather terrible), I'll be looking for other excuses to stop playing the game. And it's not so much that the graphics themselves ruin the experience but that I'll know there was a deliberate decision made not to live up to the "No more bad graphics from Firaxis" promise. Let me leave you with a question: If Civ3's graphics are similar or even worse than Civ2's, this wouldn't bother you? Sorry, but in the end, human beings are primarily visual creatures. I agree the imagination is better than any graphics and gameplay is more important than visuals, but THIS IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME! I'll repeat that: THIS IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME!

If civ3 has graphics at the same level as civ2, I won't care. I eventually quit playing civ1 for dos and started playing the windows version most of the time because the interface is easier to handle. I actually preferred the civ1 dos graphics to the civ for windows graphics (which are almost identical to civnet graphics), but I deal with it because of the ease of interface.

I'm not aware of the "No More Bad Graphics From Firaxis" promise. must have been before my time.

I am not put off by AC graphics at all. it is different, but not bad.

if Humans are primarily visual creatures, then perhaps some are more visually oriented than others. I know that some people can't live without the right music in their games, but it doesn't matter much to me (except when I found myself playing civ to the sounds of kiddy songs, that took about 5 minutes to obtrude itself above my civ awareness). It took me a while to get used to the isometric view in civ2, but I find the upright squares of civ1 just as appealing.
I guess my take on visuals is related to how much info they can give me. If they can tell me the staus of a unit at a glance, so much the better. that's one more thing I don't have to dig for in the reports.

quote: I'm very sorry that Imran finds this column to be a waste. Maybe it's a waste for him and for everybody that seems to have blind faith in Firaxis and Civ3, but I think that a share of criticism is never a waste. Especially when the mainstream here seems to be "Sid and Firaxis are real genius, they can't do anything wrong".

No, it is waste for everyone that realizes that these are previews based on a game that is 50% done (that means half is left for those challenged in math). What are most of these assumptioned based on? Heresay. Criticism is a critique of something that you know, not proclaiming everything sucks based on half-truths, assumptions and pure leaps of faith.

quote: Imran said he would submit an article regarding this. I strongly encourage him to do so, for I'd realy like to see some good points on why should be optimistic about Civ3 (basing on what we've seen so far, not just on vague Sid's promises, of course).

Gladly... of course, you realize you are being hypocritical seeing as you've put some points on why we shouldn't be optimistic about Civ3 based on vague previews and assumptions.

quote: My point is that Firaxis has greater interests than just pleasing the die hard Civ fans -like earning cash, for example... It's a pity, but that's the way it is.

Uh huh, doesn't mean that they are throwing die hard Civ fans to the road to make a quick buck, which is exactly what your column implies. Look at SMAC for evidence of that.

quote: As I stated in the article, I'd sooner devote my free time to the developing of any of the "Alternative Civs" than to Firaxis's Civ3. Some of you may think I am crazy, but the Alternative Civs are games developed by the Civ fans, for the Civ fans.

So go ahead. We ain't stopping you.

quote: Why? Because of all the great hopes we all had for it. I think you'll understand me.

Admiral Pete

My main worries come from the Firaxis official Civ3 website. I think you'll find that none of the info released there may be adressed as half truth, and that all of the features already shown by Firaxis will actually make it into the game. They're being extremely careful with what they're showing and letting us know, so I don't expect them to show and explain us a feature if they're going to let it out in the final game, because it "didn't playtest well".

So if most of my fears come from what we've seen on the Firaxis site so far, surely they aren't based on "vague previews and assumptions". Fine.

I was really disappointed when, after a looong wait, Firaxis opened the official Civ3 site just to show us some artwork samples. Now think about it. If you were Firaxis, would you just show a 3d render of a phalanx if you had the hope of appealing to the Civ fans community? Come on!

The official website is the place where Firaxis introduces Civ3 to the world. They show what they want the people to see, and if the first thing they decide to show it's nothing but eye-candy, then you know at which target they're aiming to.

I have nothing against that awesome F-15 unit graphic. I just would be happier with some info about how are they actually going to deal with aerial combat, which was one of the biggest flaws of Civ2. And if they still want to show how good their graphics are, then, fine, but why not giving real info about the game?

Well, the next update brought some info about the combat system, along with some "suspiciously-looking" unit animations. We all know that most people like to turn-off animations. And what does a warrior celebrating his victory add to the Civ experience?

The gifted leaders look promising, and the ranged weapons and new ZOC rules seem right to me, but, is that what the fans were desperately hoping to be featured? I don't think so, so why talk about it before than anything else?

Just because they aren't really aiming at pleasing the bulk of Civ fans, but to a new crowd of, very probably, RTS players. Hence the focus on combat system and eye-candy.

I think thay've made that choice because they want to sell as many copies as they can, of course. Everyone knows Firaxis need a huge hit. But also because they're pretty sure that most Civ fans will buy it anyway, no matter how good the game actually is.

So now you know it, Simpleton, even if Civ3 features a 7 civs limit I might as well buy it. But I'll try to test it by myself before buying it, for I now have serious fears that I won't like it.

quote: Originally posted by Father Beast on 05-07-2001 09:21 PM I was also amused by your off the wall suggestion that we just call it "age Of Civilizations", since the developers of that game were largely civ worshippers that played some Warcraft on the side. they come from us, not us from them.

So what? Just because Age of Empires developers based upon Civilization, now it's OK if the Civ series take ideas from them? Especially some of the ideas that made AoE a different game from Civilization?

quote: The official website is the place where Firaxis introduces Civ3 to the world. They show what they want the people to see, and if the first thing they decide to show it's nothing but eye-candy, then you know at which target they're aiming to.

Fiera,

I understand your point, but let me just add in something here: I have watched Firaxis closely since Alpha Centauri. Over that time, I've had moments varying from vague friendship to not-so-vauge antagonism with more than one of their staff. I've overseen successful "bus lists / feature requests" and now the (successful?) List. Through all of that, I've learned one very important about Firaxis as a company:

THEY ARE HORRIBLE WITH PUBLIC RELATIONS!

Underline that, print it and keep it by your computer. I'm not saying that to belittle you, but keeping those few words of wisdom in my mind has been all that kept me from going ballistic on more than one occasion.

What you are seeing on the website is essentially some casual decisions to generate SOME interest and SOME material for public consumption. Now, if they really thought about it carefully, they'd realize what possible negative perceptions that particular and narrow view could create. So why don't they do something about it? Please see above.

What about the full-time webmaster and PR person? Well, they can only post what they are given, and I doubt it would help their own jobs much to push their bosses for information. So what we have is a very "typical" Firaxis ... yes, SID ... way of dealing with game development:

Lock yourself away from the world so as to avoid distractions, release little tidbits here and there of information, emerge with a game, play up the fans for a while to increase sales and nail down any major flaws for the upcoming round of patches, and go away again. The sooner you realize that's how this is going to happen, the sooner you can relax.

The good side to all of this?

Believe it or not, Firaxis DOES listen to us. I speak from experience. For SMAC, of the top 10 "bugs" we wanted fixed, I think 7 were fixed and the other 3 were determined to be feature requests. THINK ABOUT THAT! As for the List, I promise you now that you will simply be astounded at how much the listened and read and toiled over what we had to say...even though we presented 500 pages of often crazy and vague stuff.

Firaxis WILL give us good patch support as long as we stay organized and clear about what we want.

So I've come to look at it this way: A company that delivers a great game AND great PR is certainly the best. But if I had to drop one of those, certainly the PR is no big deal. Firaxis will still make a great game and respond to us where it really counts: The coding.

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 05-09-2001 08:19 PM Just because they aren't really aiming at pleasing the bulk of Civ fans, but to a new crowd of, very probably, RTS players. Hence the focus on combat system and eye-candy.

perhaps thats not too surprising when I think about it. a lot of people are thinking that turn based strategy is dead, and even a number of people on this site were clamoring for civ3 to be an RTS.

I do find it a shame, because those trigger happy RTS and FPSers will actually try civ3, then spread the word that it sucks, since its not an RTS. the RTS like CTP interface wasn't a big hit with either crowd, I understand.

You all (I hope) know my opinion, that TBS allows for deep thinking and strategy that isn't possible in an RTS (unless you're Kimball Kinnison). I don't think you would find the sort of intense strategy we have in the civ2 strat forum in, say, a Warcraft Forum.

But a lot of hardcore Gamers are Duke Nukem Wannabes, all attitude and minimal actual thought. I LOVE facing a perplexing situatin in my civ and staying awake to think about how to deal with it. to a lot of gamers, that's BOOORING. and that is the great appeal of civ, to me.

I find it outrageously unbelievable that Sid & Co. would actually make an RTS or similar direction with this great game. I find it much more likely that they would release stuff intended to entice the RTS player. Silly, but I can live with it.

I still have great hopes for this game, although they will be dashed some if they haven't fixed road and rail rules. all the "new ideas" in the EC3 list would be just frosting if they do the EC3 fixes.

Does fixing trade mean SMAC trade, which means that the only trade decisions you get to make are whether or not to be at peace or to ally, determining what trade you get from other civs?

------------------
The camel is not a part of civ.

THE CAMEL IS CIV !!!!

Did anyone notice how Sid hasnt said ONE THING about ctp???
Yes its not his game, but hey, its still a CIV! Sid, instead of looking at what went wrong in the civ2 improvement, completely IGNORES the game!

THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO SID!

I am angry at activision too. They made too many imbalances, but AT LEAST they are all fixable. I personally fixed them and now play ctp1 and 2 Happily.

quote: ROFLMAO, Imran, you are troubled by that, heh? I wonder what you would have done if you were here when people were screaming that the concept art of the musketeer has a pointed hat. The number of posts on that were hilarious - what is happening now is much more "Ok".

I thought they were all silly. Retarded discussion.

"Perhaps I'm going too far, but I don't even think Civ3 will be an appropriate sequel for a legendary saga like Sid Meier's Civilization."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you, but I am not very surprised - first of all because I think Alpha Centauri was a disappointment too. It had nothing of the exiting or heroic touch as the grand civilizations of the Civ I & II had. Secondly because all of the civ games and their cousins have had limitations to the number of players/civs (which isn't to say that it's right thing).

My opinion is that if you play a game about civilizations you want it grand and epic so you could feel as if you actually made history, especially if you already hav enjoyed the earlier (grand) civs - and here is my point: How to make a new game as grand as the old Civ? I guess it would be hard work for Firaxis to satisfy our expectations, perhaps more work than it's worth to them, so they just don't try. This means that I don't think Firaxis cares about the devoted fans as they hope that we will pay up for the new game anyway out of sheer loyalty or idealism. But here I say NO! I've played them all: Civ, CTP, SMAC & Civ-ToT - but no more. I decided this when the Test of Time proved to be almost identical with CivII, but your article made me certain. If we only get half measures then we will have to "vote with our wallets".

But I have longed for a Civ III for so long you may say!
Yes but there are alternatives as for example "Europa Universalis" that has (almost) anything that civ-fans hoped for in Civ III. An almost infinite number of nations, a complex economy, strong religion component and an excellent diplomacy system. I could really recommend it - I only see one drawback - that it consumes a lot of PC-power, but i gues that should be expected when you simulate the entire world and (potentially) every little province (like Sardinia) is a nation and has an army.

As far as I am concerned, CTP was the worst branch of the Civ Series. Give me a solid reason why CTP was better and I will bow to your feet. There were some good concepts, but none were implemented correctly. I think you are definitly in the minority on this one!

There was also some quote about whether we would be upset if Civ 3 had graphics similar to, or worse then Civ 2.

I happen to think that the Graphics in Civ 2 were better then SMAC; I view graphics not as technicalities, but I look for the heart and soul that goes into the creation of them. For me, SMAC had no soul, or if it did, I didn't get a very good feeling of it. It was like a bunch of white guys trying to do gospel for the first time. . .

There were even some graphics in Civ 1 that were better then Civ 2 in that regard! Who could forget those dirty scummy rebels marching from the side into your city? And then 2000 year later, the same scummy guys, in hippy clothing, doing the exact same thing??? And come ON, you gotta give props to Stalin's facial expressions, and the royal palace??? COME ON!!!

In a sense, I actually hope that Firaxis doesn't listen to every suggestion. In particular, I hope they turn a deaf ear to all those Camelicidal maniacs out there who have no problem moving vast armies around the board, but consider trade, one of the most fundamental aspects of history and civilization, an annoying detail unworthy of it's own unit; an annoying detail that should be handled automatically.

------------------
The camel is not a part of civ.

THE CAMEL IS CIV !!!!

LOL!

As for multiplayer games, while it would be nice to see a 10 player game, the turns would take slightly longer than PBEM, and the chances of a continue, much less a finish, are astronomical.

The choices at the moment are:
CtP I and II
(extremely buggy)
SMAC
(sci-fi, not civ)
and MGE-ToT
(nice, but outdated)

Firaxis is offering us another choice, and I, for one, won't hang them out to dry because a preliminary report scares someone.

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 05-09-2001 08:19 PMI have nothing against that awesome F-15 unit graphic. I just would be happier with some info about how are they actually going to deal with aerial combat, which was one of the biggest flaws of Civ2.

Good point, and one that has bothered me as of late. They really haven't given us any real information on how aerial, naval, and land combat will work. I REALLY hope not to have any of those "hanging bombers" anymore, but would like to see them be able to disable or destroy railroads & city structures/ certain tile improvements. Also how will stacks work, will there be an overhauled combat system (i.e., LASS, CLAS-D, or CITV), unhappiness due to unit deaths, unit commands (what, how many, how do they work), will there be structure damage (as opposed to always destroyed), unit deaths reduce population- or perhaps loss of "bushels" that reflect growth, etc.

However, the recent update has IMHO been the 1st real information given to us, and it looks promising. I especially like how certain specials "appear" on the map after you get the technology that makes them valuable. Beyond the obvious, this means that your "great" starting position may not be so great later in the game, and vice-versa. So you may never be secure in your lofty position as world leader, nor stuck to the bottom of the ladder if the early years don't bode well. Tip o' the hat to Firaxis for including this! The interaction between diplomacy, trade, and warfare looks as though it's taking shape. If they get espionage right that alone should be enough reason to get the game.

And from what I played of CTP1, there's very little you could say about it that was nice when you consider how good Civ2 was. Admittedly I didn't play it for more than three days, and also there weren't any patches available when I did, so I'll admit my opinion is just an opinion and not fact.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is a great game. In terms of gameplay, it takes Civ2 elements and makes them much more systematic and much more logical. It has a detailed and mature government interface (Social Engineering). It has an unsurpassed unit customization interface (Workshop). The morale ratings are important and (in the case of alien lifeforms) uniquely special.

In terms of plot and realism, it is far more mature than the projected future I encountered in CTP (Nanite Defuser?!). SMAC's future is based on feasible and mooted scientific projections; just the other day I came across an article in the New Scientist explaining the theory behind the Space Elevator, and my reaction was "wow - that was in SMAC... so it really DOES make sense".

I haven't played CTP2 so I'm not qualified to make any sort of comparison, but I still say you are gravely mistaken if you feel SMAC was a game without depth. Even a quick go on multiplayer, or a quick skim through Vel's Strat Guide, will show you how many different ways you could play the game, all of them rewarding.