Could/Should Civ2.5 be cancelled?

Jeje2 · July 5, 2001, 04:10

For some time now, we have had the opportunity to read critical writings, by some apolytoners (And we are the real fans), about what have been told about Civ3.

So what if after all this time, almost 3 years, FIRAXIS would discover that they couldn't make Civ3 but only Civ2.5? Would we like to have it or not?

(Sid Meier already stopped his work on dinosaurs, after he couldn't make a game he wanted so the possibility of no release isn't that unthinkable.)

So if it will be only Civ2.5 should FIRAXIS rather cancel than release it?
Or do we want it so badly that we would settle for Civ2.5?

JellyDonut · July 5, 2001, 04:18

Wise men don't waste their time with "what if?" questions.

Civ3 will come out just fine.

(I am well aware of the irony that the Civ series is based on "what if?", but that's just for fun)

Robert Plomp · July 5, 2001, 04:35

Quote:

So if it will be only Civ2.5 should FIRAXIS rather cancel than release it?

Who first started with the 2.5 thingy ?
Do you have any idea what a 2.5 release is ?
ToT is a 2.5 release.

To even think about naming civ3 a 2.5 release is so sumb.
Do you think civ II is in fact 1.5 ? There's even less difference between civ and civ II then between II and III.

Please stop the 2.5 weaning !

LaRusso · July 5, 2001, 04:36

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy

Who first started with the 2.5 thingy ?
Do you have any idea what a 2.5 release is ?
ToT is a 2.5 release.

To even think about naming civ3 a 2.5 release is so sumb.
Do you think civ II is in fact 1.5 ? There's even less difference between civ and civ II then between II and III.

Please stop the 2.5 weaning !

yeah, please stop, or firaxis will get mad and stop posting updates on their 'official' website

Rasputin · July 5, 2001, 05:07

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

yeah, please stop, or firaxis will get mad and stop posting updates on their 'official' website

too late i think they already did that

Robert Plomp · July 5, 2001, 05:23

the lack of website updates really confuses me.....
One day they stoped providing info on the dino game as well....

I mean, if the game is scheduled for a fall release they should start the marketing about right now.....
And pherhaps they don't want to post more essential information, but in that case they could easily post less essential info like screenshots, a list of units, explain how the map generator works. etc. etc.

CyberShy

Rasputin · July 5, 2001, 05:48

fall this yeear or next year ??

yin26 · July 5, 2001, 05:59

Quote:

Who first started with the 2.5 thingy?

As far as I know, my article a while back titled "Civ 2.5?" started it. You might quibble (for the record, Civ2 was Civ 2. Civ 3? Might well be a Civ 2.5), but the term "Civ 2.5" is immeidately understandable and captures the situation perfectly. ToT has nothing to do with this discussion.

However, to answer the question about cancelling the project, we know it's a rhetorical question. As I have said elsewhere, I'd accept a HIGHLY polished Civ 2.5 with an AI that can work me over. I'd also accept a ground-breaking Civ 3 that gets patched quickly to also a HIGHLY polished Civ 3.

What I won't accept under any circumstance is a Civ 2.5 that needs patching to become polished.

Jeje2 · July 5, 2001, 06:39

ROTFLMAO
Sorry, but I had thought of myself as a Civ3 protector until I read your replys LOL...
(I have so many times cursed to myself about people mocking Civ3 and now I'm in the line of fire

)

Then to the issue.
Yin comes very close to what I was thinking of by saying:

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
However, to answer the question about cancelling the project, we know it's a rhetorical question. As I have said elsewhere, I'd accept a HIGHLY polished Civ 2.5 with an AI that can work me over. I'd also accept a ground-breaking Civ 3 that gets patched quickly to also a HIGHLY polished Civ 3.

What I won't accept under any circumstance is a Civ 2.5 that needs patching to become polished.

I am just one step further. What if we get something like CTP2 in the Civ3 box?
(And now I'll have to aplogize to CTP2-likers of my example

)
Would you still want it or would it be better if it was never released?

Yes this is a rhetorical question, but luyckily everything doesn't have to save the earth.

Rasputin · July 5, 2001, 07:18

i think (unfortuantly) that civ 2 wil lbe released, but will require a patch within 3 months, and then they will release an addon within 6-12 months

Robert Plomp · July 5, 2001, 07:29

Quote:

fall this yeear or next year ??

this year

Quote:

ToT has nothing to do with this discussion

It does have everything to do with this discussion.
ToT is a typical .5 release.
You can't compare civ III (like we know it right now) with ToT, thus is there no reason to name Civ III an upgrade to civ2.

Of course civII and civIII have very much common. That's because they're the same franchise.

Quote:

Sorry, but I had thought of myself as a Civ3 protector until I read your replys LOL...

In these days it's hard to get people satisfied. Whatever has been released, much people start to morn about it. I really can't stand it that people are already mocking down civ while it hasn't even been released !

People are crying that the AI will be bad because of the new game features (culture, trade)
How can you publish those negative feelings if we don't have any word on the AI ? Why we have never played the game.

The Apolyton community sounds to me like a bunch of kids that want an icecream.

Quote:

What if we get something like CTP2 in the Civ3 box?

I actually liked CTP2 ways more then CTP, but I didn't like the features they came up with, and the changes they made.
That's why I'm looking much forward to civIII, because they won't have stuff like public work, and that absurd ammount of tile improvements.

Quote:

Would you still want it or would it be better if it was never released?

you can't compare civIII with CtP or CtPII.
Activision had to build a new franchise on the concept of civ, but it shouldn't be the same game. For that reason they had to give it a different feeling.

CivIII will be build on CivII, it might have the same feeling,
thus they don't have to change just to change something.
Btw, CtP2 is ways better then CtP.

CivIII wil be a combination of lessons learnt from ToT, SMAC, CtP, CtPII, Civ and CivII.

So far nothing to complain about.

CyberShy

yin26 · July 5, 2001, 07:56

Quote:

thus is there no reason to name Civ III an upgrade to civ2.

Except, of course, for the *ahem* frequent updates.

Adm.Naismith · July 5, 2001, 08:30

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
People are crying that the AI will be bad because of the new game features (culture, trade)
How can you publish those negative feelings if we don't have any word on the AI ? Why we have never played the game.

To be fair, some are afraid that added feature can put Civ II kind AI on its knees: because Firaxis doesn't describe how much enhancement it put into AI for Civ III, someone started to raise warning flags

Quote:

The Apolyton community sounds to me like a bunch of kids that want an icecream.

We want the same: a great game worth our money. With some chocolate, please

Quote:

CivIII wil be a combination of lessons learnt from ToT, SMAC, CtP, CtPII, Civ and CivII.

Really is it? Not sure someone learned the lesson, if not a wrong lesson: don't change rules

Geez, break some rules, please: IMHO that's part of the difference between borning "fresh" and growing "classic", and borning "classic" and growing "forgetten".

Quote:

So far nothing to complain about.

... same said from that guy falling from a skyscraper, while passing the tenth floor of eighty

LaRusso · July 5, 2001, 08:59

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26

Except, of course, for the *ahem* frequent updates.

e.g. pathetic units section
i mean, people on apolyton and civfanatics had to edit screenshots and extract units. that is REALLY ridiculous. they should have either kept their lips completely sealed or give some regular updates.

there's about 4 months left till tentative release date. they should really have a clue what are they going to pack in those boxes.

Rasputin · July 5, 2001, 09:51

maybe the yrealise they got us sold already so dont need to post updates ..... al la big surprise when it come out

SerapisIV · July 5, 2001, 10:22

I think that Firaxis actually learned something from Black&White and Westwood with the Red Alert2 and Dune games. Black&White was announced way too early and the hype was so much that the game couldn't possibly live up to the extended and impossibly high expectations. Westwood after getting burned on C&C Tiberian Sun didn't announce RedAlert2 or Dune: Emperor till about 6 months or so before release. That way people didn't have enough time to get their expectations sky high before they were released. Asides from the actual licensing announcements, Civ3 wasn't formally previewed until January, expecting late Fall release, now Firaxis (according to FGN) probably underestimated how much work was left and is stuck with an ealry 2002 release at the earliest. So they're attempting to tone down the press so that they don't burn out people with hype.

Here's another random thought, Blizzard and Firaxis (+ pre-Firaxis Sid Meier) both update they're game websites pretty minimally yet both are known for high quality games. I wouldn't put much weight into the lack of updates (although I'm wondering why Firaxis has a webmaster if the webpages are only updated once or twice a month, come on Dan that's an open challenge to update the webpage.)

Rasputin · July 5, 2001, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV
I think that Firaxis actually learned something from Black&White

what is this game B/W .. i keep hearing about it

Mahdimael · July 5, 2001, 12:55

Black and White is less of a game and more of a social training ground. You play the role of a God who has a tribe of people to look over. The tribespeople give you magical power in return for you doing things for/to them, like watering their crops or fireballing them. You can be good or evil in your methods.

The real interesting thing in the game is the creatures. You have one creature who becomes your Avatar on the planet. This creature learns how to act by experimenting and by your guidance. The creature can learn to become good or evil as well.

It's an interesting game, but it can be frustrating and repetitive at times. If you have some extra cash lying around and a good system, you might as well give it a go.

Lord_Davinator · July 5, 2001, 12:56

supposed to be a real cool game. haven't played it yet so can't say. I've heard a lot about it every where I go(online that is)

Lord_Davinator · July 5, 2001, 12:58

supposed to be a real cool game. If I remeber correctly is an RTS with a TBS basis or something like that. its like AOE from what I saw of the graphics, but not AOE in terms of units mind you.

Waiting to play it.

July 5, 2001, 15:19

All they are trying to do is make Civ3 a perfect Civ game, so that you can sit down and play it for another 5 years, except this time you won't get upset when your tank loses to a phalanx, etc.

They're just going to fix everything up and add a lot more fun.

If you were expecting a REVOLUTION in gaming, forget it. Sid wants to perfect Civ, not make another screwed up one, that looks good. Just like Diablo II was to Diablo.

For those of you who complain about things none of us know about. Why are you complaining!? Give Firaxis a break ah?
You sound as if everything you know nothing about is wrong. Now you see why I get annoyed with that attitude.

Sabre2th · July 5, 2001, 15:23

Umm... What contradiction said....

DarkCloud · July 5, 2001, 15:38

Well... Since Test of Time was Civ 2.5 (according to CyberShy)
... Civ 3 Might end up becoming Civ 2.75 and it's (sure to be) 10 addons will patch it up to Civ 3

TechWins · July 5, 2001, 19:32

Civ3 will be Civ3 on it's date of release, believe it or not.

TechWins · July 5, 2001, 19:34

I think one reason why people think they're only going to get a Civ2.5 is because of the fact they're looking for a Civ4 and they're only going to get a Civ3.

Juggernaut · July 5, 2001, 19:40

i don´t care if i don´t get a totally new game. civ2 with improved grahix is just fine to me. i mean, there are worse games to build on...

Rasputin · July 5, 2001, 19:50

well its too late now, if wee dont like it dont buy it

July 5, 2001, 20:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeje2
apolytoners (And we are the real fans), about what have been told about Civ3.

I strongly disagree with the above statements..
The Real Fans are the 3 to 4 million fans that will buy the game. Are we part of that group, yes we are.
Just because we do not have 60, 000 people posting each day, dose not mean that they are not real fans. I myself visited this site from time to time (4 to 6 Months) prior to becoming a member in Feb, of 2000. I know my profile said July of 2000, that because I change from CS. 4 to CS 6 and has to get a new Log on. And don't worried I do not have two log on.

yin26 · July 5, 2001, 20:54

Well, I'd say we are the 'hardcore fans,' whom can be safely ignored, of course, if all you want is money. Also, it's not always good policy to try to please the hardcore fans in every way since they'll just keep coming up with new stuff. However, NOT pleasing your hardcore base can have negative ripple effects far out of proportion to the number of actual hardcore fans.

TechWins · July 6, 2001, 00:36

Quote:

The Real Fans are the 3 to 4 million fans that will buy the game. Are we part of that group, yes we are.

Quote:

Well, I'd say we are the 'hardcore fans

I'd agree with both of you. Everybody who plays Civ is a fan but the people who are here are the hardcore fans. As you two pointed out.

Quote:

whom can be safely ignored, of course, if all you want is money. Also, it's not always good policy to try to please the hardcore fans in every way since they'll just keep coming up with new stuff. However, NOT pleasing your hardcore base can have negative ripple effects far out of proportion to the number of actual hardcore fans.

This reminds me of my favorite band, Metallica. At first, they were about playing there music for their fans. Then they got more and popular. The times of music were changing. So finally, they decided to go commercial by signing a new producer, Bob Rock, who produced records that were abou making the majority of music listeners like the albums not the true fans (the fans that were there from the beginning). Now all they're about is getting more and more money. My point is that Metallica (ala Firaxis) was a company trying to get their foot in the door at first now they're just about sucking out as much money as they can from their customers. I guess that's buisness.