Civ3 Conquests, should this have been the orginal Civ3?

Yolky · November 9, 2003, 17:42

Just wundering before I buy this game. I will buy this game but would like to know what you guys think.

I keep hearing how great this game is now and wundering should this have been Civ3 the first time around?

Davor

Inverse Icarus · November 9, 2003, 17:53

thats a stupid question, and it's quite insulting to firaxis. the work that went into the leaderheads alone would have taken a lot more time, and we would have ben civless for 2 more years.

but yes, the tweaks and new options in conquests are awesome.

Yolky · November 9, 2003, 18:31

stupid question? I don't think so. If it was a stupid question how come there were all the complaint when Civ 3 first came out?
I stopped playing Civ3 since I didn't find it that much fun, wasn't that great it was all hyped to be. I found PtW much better but since I don't play multi I sold it to my friend.

I am looking forward to getting it and since I bought the Special edtion of Civ3 and all the feature that were said to be there wern't there, I and we have a right to ask this question.

I don't want to list all the things that were missing or were wrong with Civ3 since it was said numerous times.

So I believe my question is valid. Is this what Civ3 should have been the first time around?

Davor

ps. if someone can set up a pole please do so. I don't know how to do it.

Kuciwalker · November 9, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

stupid question? I don't think so. If it was a stupid question how come there were all the complaint when Civ 3 first came out?

There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of whiny *******s.

Myrddin · November 9, 2003, 18:39

Quote:

I don't want to list all the things that were missing or were wrong with Civ3

There wern't that many real bugs; most of the patches were playing around with things like the happiness penalty for pop-rushing and blocking exploits

Whether Civ3 was what you wanted it to be is another question

vmxa1 · November 9, 2003, 18:50

CivIII could not have been what C3C is, even if they had the extra two years. Much of what is part of C3C required people that have CivIII and PTW to determine what was wrong, what was right and what could be done.
So I won't say it was a stupid question, but it is unfair.

Lewsir · November 9, 2003, 19:41

Here's a somewhat different question - it seems like Firaxis is really getting CIV-III working well now - why not continue to issue add-ons for a couple years, sort the way The Sims does? Do people think an incremental approach, continuously tweaking and adding features to this game would be preferable to starting over again with a CIV-IV, with the possibility of a lot of time and heartache before they get that one "right" ?

PS I have no idea what Firaxis plans are for next steps with CIV, is there a CIV IV in the works?

Sarxis · November 9, 2003, 19:53

I don't mind the incremental changes, so long as they are hefty, hefty, hefty- not wimpy, wimpy, wimpy.

Lewsir · November 9, 2003, 20:00

Right, I guess the trick is for them to keep coming up with innovative incremental changes that genuinely improve gameplay. For me the number one thing they could do is keep improving the AI. Number two is improve the diplomacy (also basically AI, plus the complexity of the possible interactions). I would also love to see espionage take on a bigger role.

These are all things they can probably do better by continuing to build on C3C rather than starting over with a new game and havnig to worry about getting all the basic stuff figured out again - like spending a couple of person-years on graphics.

WarpStorm · November 9, 2003, 20:01

I personally like the incremental approach, but there comes a point in any software project where the original design gets in the way of new ideas. It can get to the point where it is easier to start over than to try to jam something in.

DrSpike · November 9, 2003, 20:05

Thing is, you can beta test and remove some bugs/exploits, but you never get them all. If Conquests is good, it builds on the experience of fans who helped to fix some of the bigger problems with the earlier patches.

Kuciwalker · November 9, 2003, 20:07

I think Firaxis is pretty lucky to have Apolyton and CFC. Not many games have a community this involved and connected to the developers.

vmxa1 · November 9, 2003, 21:40

I have idea where they are on the next phase either. I should think they writing down ideas and seeing what develops.
If they have a good run with this one (C3C) and they are not in a position to start a new Civ, they may do another addon. I doubt they will walk away from any money, if it is available.

I kind of prefer one more addon and then it would be about right for a round up approach.

dexters · November 9, 2003, 23:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Lewsir
Here's a somewhat different question - it seems like Firaxis is really getting CIV-III working well now - why not continue to issue add-ons for a couple years, sort the way The Sims does? Do people think an incremental approach, continuously tweaking and adding features to this game would be preferable to starting over again with a CIV-IV, with the possibility of a lot of time and heartache before they get that one "right" ?

PS I have no idea what Firaxis plans are for next steps with CIV, is there a CIV IV in the works?

I have suggested that for games like Civ 3, where there is depth and the AI needs to be tweaked for years until exploits are closed and AIs are taught a few human tricks to help it compete better, patches can essentially be issues for 2+ years.

Atari/Firaxis have basically done this, although they have tried to monkey while they are at it by releasing a couple of patches for each release followed by a new XP. If C3C is the end of the line, I really hope we see a first patch in January and another before the summer (June). I think there is still room to improve the AI, and close a few exploits as well as fix a few bugs. As far as the AI is concerned, it's essentially been patched in the patches and with PTW and C3C core release.

I wouldn't mind a 3rd expansion for next fall. And I have a feeling it might just happen if C3C sells well. Since the Civs are maxed out, the next expansion, if it happens, might be adding new units, tweaking the AI some more and perhaps, just perhaps, grant my wish of seeing added diplomacy options and a working UN. Then ATARI can release it as a budget title since I assume whatever they add now will require substantially less work, at least in terms of art.

Kuciwalker · November 10, 2003, 00:12

Quote:

Since the Civs are maxed out

Something that can be changed (and I hope it does).

dexters · November 10, 2003, 00:58

I don't thing you need more civs in Civ III. What you need is more depth, and I don't mean just adding more units either. I think they have air and naval power pretty much fleshed out with C3C now with leath bombard for air and better naval units.

TechWins · November 10, 2003, 01:45

If they were to add on another expansion pack what sort of changes can realistically be made? I doubt the amount of changes, additions, and fixes they would be able to make would make it worthwhile for Firaxis/Atari or even the Civ fan community. I may be underestimating the amount of flexibility available in the Civ3 game engine, but I personally think it would be best to leave Civ3 as it is. Remember that a large portion of the Civ3 engine was taken from SMAC. So the engine in all reality is fairly old. It's probably most beneficial in the long run for the new engine to be made, possibly a lot from scratch. I wouldn't anticipate Firaxis wanting to get started on such a large project for at least a couple more years. If I am underestimating the current engine's flexibility and there are enough vialbe changes, additions, and fixes to be made to Civ3, then I would be all for them creating another XP for Civ3. However, that might only set back the startup of Civ4 even further; if there is to be a Civ4.

Quote:

I don't thing you need more civs in Civ III. What you need is more depth, and I don't mean just adding more units either. I think they have air and naval power pretty much fleshed out with C3C now with leath bombard for air and better naval units

I completely agree, and I don't think the engine can add much more depth to the game. That's why I think it would be best to stop here on the XPs.

dexters · November 10, 2003, 02:22

For additions, I'm really hoping for a Civ3 Diplomacy expansion with expanded diplomatic features.

But you bring up a good point about engine limitations. Perhaps the reason Firaxis has bene avoiding diplomacy upgrades like the plague (pun intended) was because there was no way to add more to the diplomacy without doing some major work.

But still, I'd think being able to play a more active geopolitical game, including playing the peacemaker, and having a working UN vote on inconsequential, but interesting legislation would be possible under the current engine.

dagta · November 10, 2003, 02:43

I was disappointed at the release of Civ3. After playing Alpha Centuari and then loving the expansion Alien Crossfire, I felt that Civ3 was a step backwards.

Many of the features in Alien Crossfire were not in Civ3. Civ3 felt rushed to me. However, each patch and the expansions have added more. I don't like that nearly all game developers are now selling unfinished games and finishing/fixing them with patches. I understand that patches will be necessary to fix bugs but they shouldn't be an acceptable excuse to releasing an unfinished game. Many other companies have been much worse about this than Firaxis, though.

What I'd really like to see is a game that combines Civ3 and Alpha Centauri (with Alien Crossfire) ideas. Make a game that starts at 4000 B.C. and the player has the option to end the game at 2020AD (or about there) or continue into future technology like was done with Alpha Centauri, but on Earth.

Other ideas:
- Expand the timeline internally. No need to add more years to the end and beginning but make the steps smaller. Use up less time per turn and add many more technologies, buildings, events, etc in between. Human history has many many more discoveries, events, and technologies than are currently in Civ3.

- Expand on wars. Make them more detailed with greater repercussions. I really liked the locked alliance/enemy idea in Conquests.

- More natural disasters

- More ways to change the landscape. Alpha Centuari included terraforming. Obviously, this is more of a future technology but landscape can be changed in other ways. In the last decade, we've actually built islands and connected smaller islands into one large island. We are in the age of beginning terraforming. In the past, people might build tree lines or redirect a river.. minor terraforming.

- Unit design. I LOVED this feature about Alpha Centuari. It would have more limited scope in a game like Civ3 (about history) but still there is room for variety and design.

-DAGTA

mimi · November 10, 2003, 09:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Yolky
Just wundering before I buy this game. I will buy this game but would like to know what you guys think.

I keep hearing how great this game is now and wundering should this have been Civ3 the first time around?

Davor

Well...my answer would be "I'm glad I didn't have to wait 2 years to play this game... whatever the problems with the original civ3, it's better than playing Zelda on GameCube...."
(Though, Dark Cloud is pretty cool...)

WarpStorm · November 10, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins
Remember that a large portion of the Civ3 engine was taken from SMAC. So the engine in all reality is fairly old.

This is a myth. I have it on pretty good authority that except for a few utility libraries (pcx loaders etc.) it was made from scratch.

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 20:04

Look at the number of civilizations at each step of Civ's development:

Civ1: ??? (I don't know; I entered the CivSaga with Civ2)
Civ2: 21
Civ3: 16 (High Quality = Lower Quantity, albeit temporarily)
PTW: 28
C3C: 31 (32 with Austria)

I'd say that's some definite progress, don't you think? The Civ Series is evolving; it's so much better than before, even though the series was always a shoe-in classic.

DrSpike · November 10, 2003, 20:22

I don't actually think the number of Civs is that important. I mean, it's a nice addition, but not crucial.

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 20:29

I just view it as one symbol of progress among many.

(After all, CtP had lots of Civs, and ... well, we won't go there...he he...)

MrWhereItsAt · November 10, 2003, 22:20

What's the point in having more civs than 32 in a given game? More options to fill those 32, sure, but once you get much beyond that then it's no longer civ, but a more political game (it has to be so smaller civs can have a chance).

Civ3 disappointed some, but all the improvements to date have been fantastic. And you can't compare SMAC and Civ3 like that - they are extremely different games. There are so many exploits in SMAC that do not exist in Civ3. To me SMAC is fantastic ideas put into practice to make an awe-inspiring concept game, whereas Civ3 is a very well thought-out designed game that has benefitted from being refined and corrected a lot over the last few years.

Although there are plenty of things in SMAC I too would love to see in Civ or another game, I feel that SMAC was more prototype than a full and balanced implementation of all the ideas. With Faction traits carrying over to Civ attributes in Civ3 the ideas are clearly being put into practice, and eventually they all will be put into practice RIGHT. That is more important IMO than copying SMAC's astounding features as they are - raw and often very unbalancing (just look at crawler use for example).

Civ3 started out perhaps a little less than it could have been, but when you get to really know what it can do and see how well it can do it, especially with the patches and add-ons I am very happy with the whole thing.

Dis · November 10, 2003, 22:28

yes

I really hate to buy this thing.

We really need to take a stand against these companies.

But I will probably end up buying it

But as long as we do, gaming comapnies will continue to do this in the future. We can expect more of this in the future.

I'm tyring to take a stand. I waited one week, but I don't think I can hold out much longer.

WarpStorm · November 10, 2003, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
But as long as we do, gaming comapnies will continue to do this in the future. We can expect more of this in the future.

I sure hope so. This is the best game I've played in about 2 years.