c172# CIVIII: BETWEEN EUPHORIA AND DISAPPOINTMENT

[MarkG]

The Column is here once more, with probably the most popular subject of the last months: civ3.

Alexnm's CIVIII: BETWEEN EUPHORIA AND DISAPPOINTMENT is the 172nd article in the Column.

As we have announced, for a period of three weeks we are be posting 2 articles per week. If you would like to help us keep the Column at this pace, submit an article.

[Grumbold]

I share Alex's attitude that we need to rein in our expectations to prevent unreasonable disappointment if the game falls short of an unattainable pinnacle of excellence. Firaxis may even have recognised this phenomena and taken steps to gently deflate the bubble by declaring early that the game will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

I do not, however, believe that the cause of the disappointment will be "been there, done that". It is a more fundamental issue about getting the game right. A good strategy game needs good but not cutting edge sound, good but not cutting edge graphics, an intuitive and easy to master interface and excellent strategy/AI/gameplay. Any game that fails to deliver the latter will be collecting dust within days of purchase. Innovative new ideas can then lift a game from being respectable to being truly a classic, but is not necessary if the other elements are excellent. Nobody has tried to improve chess for centuries - except for some spurious 3d ideas - simply because it is near perfect in its present form.

CtP II failed to hold my attention (actively infuriated me, in fact) not because it was more of the same, but because it was badly implemented. Key information or events were not presented for your attention, but tucked away in menus. Every turn you ignored going to National Manager, Trade Manager, checking your PW and the message log you risked missing something truly important (like a city in revolt, for instance!) or an opportunity to optimise your progress which would be important in multiplay if not single player mode. On top of this the AI was weak and unable to cope with military strategy and certain key concepts like pollution. People will persevere with a clumsy interface if the game is brilliant or play an average game if the gameplay is smooth and enjoyable. Very few will bother playing an average game for long if the control system is frustrating. I have recently been trying out WesW & co's Med Mod II and while it has gone a long way to improving the game, ultimately it has not done enough to overcome my dislike of the interface.

Conversely I played a lot of SMAC because, while the whole psionic planet/fungus plot annoyed me, the interface was smooth and easy. Playing "just one more turn" was a pleasure even when the AI was up to its usual moronic tricks.

One thing I am confident we can be sure of is that a Meier game will not be allowed to fall into the interface trap. Now we just have to balance our expectations on how many new concepts or expanded themes they can squeeze into a game that is supposed to be evolutionary - and above all while ensuring the AI can actually understand and utilise them. Having a smaller tech tree, wonder list and unit list as currently announced is not too much of a problem - those are precisely the areas that should be easiest to expand if fans want to reintroduce greater complexity.

We will all have favourite ideas that are left out of the mix, be it rise and fall of civilisations, internal management of the nation, better combat or logistics or any one of a thousand others. For any of those to become reality we just have to hope Civ III will be so solid a commercial success it encourages future attempts to continue the genre.

[Provost Harrison]

I think one problem is that different people expect different things. As I have mentioned in my thread, gigantic overhaul is not the best move as in CtP/2. A pleasant game, but just couldn't get into it like the civ genre; some things just weren't as intuitive. The central game mechanics need to remain simple, although it is perfectly acceptable to add things on that don't detract from that, ie, update combat system, new improvements, etc.

I am quite impressed thus far. I remember Civ2 and the changes made to that. So far they have been similar kinds of improvements, not overhauls, things which add to the experience of the game, the perfect example of which is the trade system. I think it is a great concept and it exactly the kind of innovation that is needed in the civ genre. Not total rewriting.

Don't rewrite, expand and enhance! I am looking forward to this one personally.

[Ubik]

This is a serious issue. What we expected when Civ2 came out? Merely, a refining of the original, with some neat additions to make it even more playable and enjoyable.

So, Civ2 was - in every aspect - a fine tuned Civ. Nothing more. It wasn't a new game, not really. Just a refined Civ. And we enjoyed it and even now still play it.

But this is 2001. And if Sid wants to make another big hit (and not just another refined Civ) some really major steps to the right direction have to be taken.

I hope the people at Firaxis are making those steps. I will most certainly buy the game and I am going to enjoy it - even if it is mostly a refined Civ game and nothing more. But the game won't reach it's full potential (sales-wise) if it doesn't bring any really new elements and concepts.

So, people, surprise us! Don't just deliver "another civ game"; produce the Ultimate Civ experience!

After all, we have waited for so many years for this...

[Eddin]

I'm sorry to disturb you, but what's the column?
Guess I'm too new for that

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Originally posted by Eddin
I'm sorry to disturb you, but what's the column?
Guess I'm too new for that

The column@apolotyn is a newsletter, that you recieve in E-Mail if you subscribe, and you can also write the newsletter and submit it, they email them once a week to all that are subscribed for it (currently they have moved to twice a week, do to all the newsletters being submitted).

[Father Beast]

I go both ways on this issue...
On the one hand, one could argue that we don't need another civ2 modpack, which AC seemed to be most like. And that something radical needs to be done to energize an old tired game.

on the other hand...
I like playing civ2. old or not, it still is very engrossing and I love the turn by turn pondering and deciding what direction to take.

let me think a minute...

in the meantime, Grumbold, I like your comments on CTP and AC. I never played either CTP game, but I do have AC, and I was once going to write a column "Beyond Alpha Centauri: what should and should not be put into civ3 from AC"
I said that SE, unit workshop, and fungus could go bye bye and good riddance from me.
What to keep? lots of cool interface improvements. I mean, I hadn't played for a hundred years before I started to really love a lot of things. Like:
listing of important events instead of zillions of popups (how many times has my wife demanded the computer, and I was in endgame with about 5 minutes of popups before I could save and exit), which allows me to scroll back and find the ones I need to know.
the ability to make partial payments for rushbuilding, and the fixing of that minor cheat
the AI, while still fairly stupid, actually had personality.
the never to be praised enough build queue
On the other hand with AC, the menu was infuriating. I read the manual, and still had trouble figuring out where in the menu was something I wanted to do. drove me nuts. I was used to the dropdowns from civ1/2 a lot more. was that just familiarity?

Anyway...
Ubik, you said this game won't reach its sales potential without a lot of new stuff? excuse me? it seems to me that when new stuff is introduced, it takes some doing for people to get the hang of it, and sales suffer. sometimes.
but maybe you're right, and new concepts like the trade issue can breathe new life into this game.


Back to the issue at hand.....
I think that although I don't want just a civ2 mod ( which AC seemed to be a lot like), I also don't want the basic gameplay to be screwed with. There's a lot of stuff that can be improved about this game, but they don't want to break it.
When I load up civ3, I expect to see my settler there, waiting to found a city. I expect to have techs to research, and have those techs bring possibility of beneifits to my people. I expect to invest huge amounts of production into my first wonder, and then discover how cool it is.
there's more, but you get the picture.

OK, I'm ready now. I've psyched myself up. is the game out yet??

[Provost Harrison]

This is my point, the central core of the game does not meant to be messed up. It should stick to the middle. After all, it is a sequel, not a totally new design of game, and the best TBS. But as far as what I describe as peripheral things to the game, eg, trade, models of combat, etc, that is fine. But not to overcomplicate...they must still have an eloquant and easily grasped simplicity.

And I think Social Engineering was a very good idea, albeit a little hard to apply to Civ3.

[Kc7mxo]

I like civ2. I still play it. Not often, but i played it today. I think that some of the more daring chagnes could do a lot to hurt civ.

Take the whole idea of grouped combat. I think that this could be horribly unbalancing. Personally I was always happy with maneruvering numerous divisions. I think the main complaint people had was that there just ended up being too many units. Don't worry about that, from the looks of those screenshots we're going to be playing civ3 in game maps smaller than those in civ1.

[Provost Harrison]

I would expect, like in SMAC, the map sizes are totally customisable, which would allow you to have a large number of civs (eg, 16). That is the way to go...

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Take the whole idea of grouped combat. I think that this could be horribly unbalancing. Personally I was always happy with maneruvering numerous divisions. I think the main complaint people had was that there just ended up being too many units.

I think CtP and CtP2 demonstrated that grouped combat, while an additional complexity that the AI needs to cope with, did work and was sensible. Instead of units showered around the landscape like confetti there was a strong incentive to group units together into armies and include a good mix of different types. It also disposes of cheesy tactics like the howitzer rush because they need to be adequately protected.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, I am strongly in favour of the stacked combat. It (1) makes combat more interesting and allows for more strategic depth and (2) from the realism point of view. If there are 10 units stood there and one unit charges and kills one of the units, do the other units think 'He's died, so we are going to die' and let themselves get slaughtered. No. If 1000 troops come up against 10000 similarly armed men, it is damn unlikely they are going to win...and it may allow an opportunity for technologically backwards civilisations to hold their own against much more advanced units, albeit at greater loss, for example, the Zulus against the English, who just charged with huge numbers of warriors against a lesser number of English, and were successful.

Yeah, I think stacked combat could bring in some interesting concepts.

[Grandpa Troll]

I would caution folks to temper HOW THEY RECEIVE CIV III not hold CIV III high upon a mantle then to find out it is "merely" a superb gamestyle and gameplay. What I would see as a more common ground solution is to, as previously posted by Ubik, understand that this is the year 2001 and certain aspects such as customability and graphics should be well advanced past CIV I. We should also understand that this is still a CIV series game and what has proven to be an awesome TBS game should stick to the core values of what brought it to this level of expertise!

I am a manager and I have what I feel are some great ideas and great motivational ways to accomplish certain goals that as a business I need to obtain, to meet and exceed the customers demands. That being said, my company still is in business to make money....bottom line. I do occasionally get overruled, despite my objections and what I feel is better judgment. Sid Meier may have an incredible list of conceptual ideas to apply but may get overruled by Firaxis on a few we may feel would take to game "over-the-top", not saying it will, just it might. We should try and understand the "BIG PICTURE" when it comes to corporate decisions.

I personally am looking forward to CIVIII and feel that it will be a super game. I personally have high standards set for the game. I get dissapointed in life at things, but this is after all, just a game. I hope it is where you can tweak files as you are able to do in the CTP duo if necessary. I also hope you are able to "Exclude" units or wonders or tile improvments if indeed the mood overcomes you in your Empire quest!

Bottom line folks, I say expect improvments and be satisfied. If you expect another "Earthquake" of a game then you may be indeed left holding a bag full of unfulfilled dreams and expectations followed by the heartburn of dissapointment which results in a serious case of the sting of resentment.

[I]

[Bereta_Eder]

I read the article. I agree that unrealistic expectations can leed to dissapointment.
But if someone is able to make a break through in the turn based strategy games, it's got to be Sid

[LaRusso]

well, history is literred with horrible third installments. remember return of the jedi?

[Ubik]

As I can see, we all have the same basic needs/expectations: We don't need another Civ rerun, but we do need a Civ game, not something else.

As far as I can understand, I believe the game shall be what we expect them to deliver. Another good thing is that they most likewise are going to send it out around Xmas, so they can polish and tweek it till then (the reports from E3 shows that it is quite playable already).

I can hardly wait for it.

[Sarxis]

Look, as long as Firaxis takes the best parts of CivII and the best parts of Alpha Centauri and adds a few new 'best parts', mixes them all together in CivIII, I will be happy.