I hope there's NOT a Civ3 Expansion pack

connorkimbro · July 26, 2001, 00:52

Maybe I'm alone in this. . but i sure hope that there isn't one. For the following reason. .

Some games, it's GOOD to have an expansion pack. Something like the Sims. . where it's a simulation, you're just increasing the variety of things you can work with. Mission based games. . extra missions are essential to replay value. Or. . if the game just isn't good enough the first time around . .

Hopefully, firaxis gets everything right the first time around, and an expansion pack isn't needed. It seems to me the rational of saying. . "well, we'll just save those ideas for an expansion pack" allows you to be a bit lazier on making the game. i hope that does NOT happen.

Ok, so why did Civ2 get expansion packs? they came with increased scenario editing tools, and scenarios. Hopefully the scenario editing tools that are released with the game are adequate, and if they're not, SURELY i hope you don't have to pay extra to get decent ones. And scenarios, i've always, thought, should be one of those types of things that you can download for free off the internet. . you shouldn't have to buy them . .

If an idea is good enough for civ3, put it in the original game. . don't wait to put it in an expansion pack. Nobody likes buying a game in installments.

Ok, well SMAC had an expansion pack. . big deal. SMAC wasn't as good of a game for a few reasons, that i don't need to get into here really. But it needed the expansion packs. It wasn't as good as civ2, and hopefully civ3 will blow it out of the water. anyway. . that's enough for now. .

anyone else on the same page as me, or am i alone in this?. .

yin26 · July 26, 2001, 01:07

Well, we KNOW it will have an x-pack. The question is, will it be one of those "Now you can buy the game as it SHOULD have been shipped" kind of things or will it truly add to the Civ 3 game in a significant way? The Net and X-packs. Our best friends. Our worst enemies.

I didn't buy the SMAC x-pack, for example. You say it needed it. I guess so. That's why I stopped playing. Any game that NEEDS an x-pack won't see my money for it.

So I agree with you. Our money for an x-pack should be earned from a great Civ3 experience. Nothing less. Where I am a bit more flexible is with the idea that Civ3 would not benefit from an x-pack. No matter how great Civ 3 ends up being, you can always do more cool stuff that would be worth paying some more money for. A mass of new scenarios, maps, civs, music, art, AI routines, etc. could be worth the cash if the underlying game it's built on is worth it to begin with.

Warm Beer · July 26, 2001, 01:11

I see what you mean... but culturally specific units and animated leaders leaves the door wide open for an expansion. After all, look at all of the controversy over what civs should be in the game... If only 16 are in, then my crystal ball says, "look for a expansion pack to plug in all the other desired civs" (a-la Alien-Crossfire?).

Of course this is entirely based on conjecture...

connorkimbro · July 26, 2001, 01:22

yin. . good points you brought up. . i generally agree with you i guess. . my only fear is that they'll get lazy with the actual game with the idea that "we'll just add that later" that should definately NOT happen. .

Quote:

I see what you mean... but culturally specific units and animated leaders leaves the door wide open for an expansion. After all, look at all of the controversy over what civs should be in the game... If only 16 are in, then my crystal ball says, "look for a expansion pack to plug in all the other desired civs" (a-la Alien-Crossfire?).

Well it depends on how it's done i guess. One of the reasons i didn't like SMAC as much was the whole story, along with very characterized factions. You always knew how factions would react, and if you randomized, it didn't fit with the story. This severly limited replay value, IMO.
There obviously isn't going to be a story, but depending on how different they make each civ. . (to tell you the truth, even unique units makes me a bit nervous) . . then either they'll need to plug in extra civs, because they killed the replay value, or they won't, because they didn't kill the replay value.

Replay value is a huge thing for me, especially for civ. I enjoyed smac the first game i played, but if i shell out 50$ for a game, i want to enjoy it for years, IE civ2. I STILL play civ2.
I still want to be playing civ3 years from now. If the GAME is done right, then an expansion pack won't be necessary, IMO.

connorkimbro · July 26, 2001, 01:30

I guess basically what i'm trying to say is. .

If an expansion would increase gameplay, then why wasn't the original game good enough?

If it wouldn't increase gameplay, why buy the expansion?

yin26 · July 26, 2001, 01:38

Quote:

If an expansion would increase gameplay, then why wasn't the original game good enough?

ANSWER (pick one or mix and match)

Lack of: Time, money, ability...
Use of: Business sense...(assuming the base game is solid to begin with, otherwise please stick with the 'Lack of...' section)

Quote:

If it wouldn't increase gameplay, why buy the expansion?

I consider this more of a rhetorical question.

Alex 14 · July 26, 2001, 02:46

Quote:

Originally posted by connorkimbro
I guess basically what i'm trying to say is. .

If an expansion would increase gameplay, then why wasn't the original game good enough?

If it wouldn't increase gameplay, why buy the expansion?

I would like an expansion like aoe 2: aok, it should just have new civs, advisers, units, scenarios ect.

H Tower · July 26, 2001, 04:53

maybe an expansion pack could fix things we brought up in the forums too late for firaxis to put in the first shippment of the game. and if they can't think up new stuff to put into the game with only a reasonable amount of reprogramming, they shouldn't even be making the game. Civ2's greatest strong points are replayability and ability to be modified.

Juggler · July 26, 2001, 05:19

You're wright on that issue, the expansion pack will probably make the game even better, so I'm for the expansion as long as it brings new ideas (not like HL: Blue Sh(f)it) and comes with a reasonable price.

Urban Ranger · July 26, 2001, 05:53

Well, I could think of features are nice to have, but may not appeal to a wide range of players. In other words, optional features. Now, the good thing of having an expansion pack is it saves time and money, both for the players and the publishers.

For example, in Civ 3 Firaxis can concentrate on making the core features work instead of spreading themselves thin. This means they can sell the game cheaper, at $40 or even $35 instead of $50, and still turn a profit. The players benefits from the ability to get a nice game at a reasonable price, a game with features that work instead of one with lots of bugs.

I think Firaxis will have to put in a very usable editor to ensure the logevity of Civ 3, but they could always package other stuff like different sets of graphics for various civs, scenarios, modpacks, etc.

Regarding scenarios and modpacks, think of it like Linux.

You can download it for free, or you can buy a distro.

campmajor! · July 26, 2001, 07:21

Quote:

Originally posted by connorkimbro
I guess basically what i'm trying to say is. .

If an expansion would increase gameplay, then why wasn't the original game good enough?

If it wouldn't increase gameplay, why buy the expansion?

Well, things aren't just Black and White.

There is also grey.

Meaning: civ3 can be a good and solid game, but it still can be nice to make lots of different advisors/civs/etc for people who want something extra. This can be put in an expansion pack.

Seeker · July 26, 2001, 09:15

I want an expansion pack or two...I like (good) scenarios and with the improved graphics, new leader animations ect are only going to be available through expansions.

Maybe the expansion will be a 'dedicated' scenario editor?

Grumbold · July 26, 2001, 09:37

I'd be up for an X-pack that expanded functionality. New civs, maps and scenarios should be freely downloadable from the official website instead. One new civ per month and one new scenario per quarter shouldn't strain their resources if the continued sales of Civ III warrant the outlay. If they don't, there's no demand for an X-pack either.

Colon™ · July 26, 2001, 10:11

An expansion pack isn’t necessarily bad as long they pull off such a scam as Microprose’s. ToT would have been a worthy expansion pack (it was a full game) but MGE and the scenario packs weren’t.
A civ3 expansion pack including new civs would be acceptable provided that the civs are truly distinct from each other (graphics, units, tech trees etc) and require some work to put together (à la SMAC) or if you include completely new environments, game concepts and graphics. (a là ToT)

An expansion pack solely offering new scenarios and maps is nonsense. Unless they make it difficult to create them yourself they better leave that to the gamers because it’s obvious they’re way more adept at it.

Sabre2th · July 26, 2001, 10:25

Quote:

Unless they make it difficult to create them yourself

Don't give them any ideas.

Colon™ · July 26, 2001, 10:40

Well, I don't think it would have to happen on purpose, the game will be more complex than civ2 and the graphics more advanced which makes it harder to create your own graphics and therefore scens and mods. You already had it in SMAC, I didn't saw any new units (since they were semi-3D) or terrains and I believe it was hard to make scens in CTP as well.

Now I think of it, maybe it's a good thing that civ3 doesn't have very advanced graphics (3D stuff and all) because that would make it impossible for the abundant majority gamers to make their own graphics.

Grumbold · July 26, 2001, 10:53

A Firaxian confirmed that there would be support for unanimated custom units to make life easier for the modders.

MarkG · July 27, 2001, 04:39

civ2 expansions kept the civ genre alive for years....

Recurve · July 27, 2001, 10:48

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
civ2 expansions kept the civ genre alive for years....

I disagree, Civ2 itself has kept the civ genre alive for years, the expansions haven't really added much to the game (TOT is great, but it's just Civ2 with juiced-up graphics and the multiplayer features that were lacking).

All I can say is, bring on Civ3!

Recurve · July 27, 2001, 10:50

Firaxis aren't actually developing Civ3, they're just having a laugh at our expense!

Colon™ · July 27, 2001, 11:58

Markos, there only two things that the packs really added to civ2, which were the scen editor and the MP feature and the latter arguably should have been in the original version in the first place. (maybe they weren't technically ready, I don't know)
They didn't need to release 2 scen packs, MGE (Was that released in a pack? Can't remember) and a full charge ToT for that, did they?

I suppose it isn't a problem when you have enough cash to spend but my budget is somewhat tighter than that.

MarkG · July 27, 2001, 12:02

their value in keeping civ2 alive was not so much in their additions, but in introducing the game to new people and "reminding" the market of the existance of civ2.....

Colon™ · July 27, 2001, 12:13

You mean that Microprose was able to make more bucks out of it?

No, seriously, I think they could have accomplished that well enough by re-releasing with some slick promotion. That stuff even works with people who already have the game in question, I’ve always been tempted to repurchase SC2000 every time I saw it in the store.

Besides, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have released anything at all, they could have released the scen packs with the MP pack in one expansion pack, or just held all up until ToT.

BTW, can I puh-lease get a "President of the Official Apolyton Non-Aligned Civers Club" title?

Imran Siddiqui · July 27, 2001, 13:46

I think an expansion pack would be good, if it added MORE unique Civs.

I am thinking, right now, of a Civ3 expansion pack including the Arabs, the Japanese, the Incas, etc... That would be really nice.

Sabre2th · July 27, 2001, 13:50

A pack that simply finishes an unfinished game would be very, very bad, but if they made a pack with extra civs, music, advisor movies, or whatever, I would definately buy it.

Sabre2th · July 27, 2001, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Colon
BTW, can I puh-lease get a "President of the Official Apolyton Non-Aligned Civers Club" title?

If you do this, aren't you just aligned with a new group?

down th' pub · July 27, 2001, 14:04

Good point, isn't that what Non-aligned would mean...

DarkCloud · July 27, 2001, 16:13

If Civ III does not include a scenario editor and a map editor- I will probably buy the expansion pack if the game is good enough without it... I love civ, but I will then hold a grudge against Sid Meier for beign a ripoff and will no longer follow him blindly.

SMAC's expansion pack was necesasry to have fun with the game if you didn't know how to edit the text files... and even then the Faction Editor frequently crashed.

One More Turn! · July 27, 2001, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think an expansion pack would be good, if it added MORE unique Civs.

I am thinking, right now, of a Civ3 expansion pack including the Arabs, the Japanese, the Incas, etc... That would be really nice.

I agree, this would be a worthwhile expansion pack - assuming that the Civs are truly unique. Otherwise some enterprising Apolytoner could just create a mod with appropriate civ names, units, etc to add just about any civ into the mix.

I also believe that an expansion pack should not be a bug fix, but should add something new to the gameplay. Although hopefully not something that should have been there from the beginning.

Sabre2th · July 27, 2001, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
If Civ III does not include a scenario editor and a map editor

It's been said quite often that it will. Firaxis has confirmed this.