The Future of Civ

Wiglaf · July 27, 2001, 22:52

Who would've thought, after all these years, civ2 would still be talked about? Few games have a prayer at holding on for this long. So called classics are forgotten just months after their release.

So the million dollar question at this point is - how long can this continue? Some thought alpha centauri would end civ2, but it didn't. Being set in a different environment, and bearing many of the classic's traits, the sci fi tbs created its own following, but didn't do well to tap into the existing one.

Within the next year civ3 will be released. If it's a flop, civ2 would probably continue another two, three, maybe even four years longer. If it's a mild success, look for the classic to reach its end by 2003. But what if civ3's a phenomenon? Then civ2's "death" is knocking on the door.

How many more years does civ have in it? Is technology its only limiting factor, or is civ3? It'd be sad, if in a few short months, a game once praised and still on our hard drives began to collect dust in the closet.

Colon™ · July 28, 2001, 01:14

Even if civ3 is a smashing success I don’t believe that that necessarily means the end of civ2. I still played civ1 occasionally long after I had bought civ2, because it has a certain charm civ2 doesn’t have.
It also reminds you that no matter how bad civ2’s AI is, it’s still a vast improvement compared to the original.

ostrander-bellepoint · July 28, 2001, 01:32

I predict that there will still be many people who prefer Civ 2 over Civ 3 after the latter comes out. In designing Civilization III, Firaxis will probably have botched the simple yet satisfying formula of its predecessor that appeals to so many. I expect large numbers of people to continue playing Civ 2 until some very similar alternate civ has been perfected. Civilization III will probably seem to have most of the right features and still fail to be so addictive and fun as Civilization II.

Ming · July 28, 2001, 02:48

Yeah... CivMPG is the back up if CivIII sucks. It's still a very playable game... but I really hope that CivIII replaces it

H Tower · July 28, 2001, 04:03

I have the feeling that there's going to be too much micromanagement Civ3 and turns will take FOREVER. Long Live Civ2!!

Meeko · July 28, 2001, 07:46

That means I'll have to clear up more space on my hdd...

Even when Civ3 comes out, I would probably not be the first in the shops to buy it for several reasons.

One of which is affordability: I'll be likely short a few coins/notes...

Then there's the issue of content, with Civ2, I've got most of the extras made for it (including patches, FW, CiC, etc.), and I hope Civ3 comes with a multiplayer feature, several scenarios/modpacks, etc, otherwise I would stick with Civ2 until Civ3 at least has some of the features which I really want...

And then there's the case in how much it improves. We may be surprised...in both senses of the word.

Father Beast · July 28, 2001, 10:48

Quote:

Originally posted by ostrander-bellepoint
I predict that there will still be many people who prefer Civ 2 over Civ 3 after the latter comes out. In designing Civilization III, Firaxis will probably have botched the simple yet satisfying formula of its predecessor that appeals to so many. I expect large numbers of people to continue playing Civ 2 until some very similar alternate civ has been perfected. Civilization III will probably seem to have most of the right features and still fail to be so addictive and fun as Civilization II.

A reasonable prediction. After all, many people still prefer civ1 to civ2. there are a couple of reviews at mobygames.com which say that it's not as good as the original. this was even more prevalent when it first came out, but it's died down id the years since...

Wiglaf · July 28, 2001, 12:36

I'd hate to say it, but if Firaxis can't beat civ2, they need some more talent. The microprose team that made civ2 (although some of them moved over to sid's new company) had the right vision and innovation to great classics. But here's Firaxis, somewhat unable to defeat a game made by their former group.

Years are still passing, and sid still hasn't released a definite civ2 killer. SMAC was an attempt to do this, but the lack of name recognition (so so sales) and slower gameplay than the originals stopped it from its goal. The engine was also starting to show its age. But there's nothing wrong with that, because alpha centauri was a great game - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's late 2001, the engine is now breaking. And judging by the screens and features, we're looking at a an improved game of SMAC when we boot up civ3. In order to stand the test of time, a game has to innovate.

Sid isn't an idiot, though. Another rehash and the public will release the big, bold name SID MEIER on boxes means nothing. So, by that logic, civ3 will be a drastic improvement and I'm just being a rambling idiot. But that depends on Firaxis, and their care for customer satisfaction.

Warm Beer · July 28, 2001, 13:04

I get the feeling that, no matter what the sales of Civ3 are, the guys who make games may not want to touch a Civ4. The CTP series did poorly for many reasons, prominent among them (IMO) what that the core fans thought it wasn't Civ2-plus... we are very protective of 'our' game.

I agree that it is high time another Civ title is developed. Civ2 is a wonderful game, but its age is showing. As stated before, the trick for Civ3 will lie in keeping the title 'civ-ish' while still taking old or ingnored concepts to new levels.

But, this is one of the only series that I have followed. Tell me, do other game sequals have to deal with the critical eye of the fans to the extent that we are seeing with Civ3... I mean they cranked out, what, 10 'Might and Magics' already?

War4ever · July 28, 2001, 13:12

my worst fear for civ3 will be that it falls into the ctp series mistake..... nice ideas , poorly executed.

whats better... a game which fixes problems, or a game which is full of them....

i guess you could make patches and mods...but the frustration can be huge and affect the co. reputation.....

i keep my fingers crossed hoping for the best but preparing to load civ2 yet again!

DarkCloud · July 28, 2001, 15:11

I have a bad feeling about Civ III. other than the graphics.

Some new people to the franchise only know

Call to power I
Call to power II

What will they think when a Civ III comes out that looks a lot like Call to power? They might not buy it at all considering how the other 2 games flopped...

Frankly, I think Civ II discussion will hold out until late 2002... Then the franchise will have to rely upon CTP and Civ III.

The Andy-Man · July 28, 2001, 15:12

looking at what has been proposed for civ3 so far it looks good. but so did ctp. ctp was to complicated

and i see that with civ3 (like the cuture idea, good idea, but the border ting is a bit stupid, i mean, when had anyones empire increaed through having a few temples?) but i like the idea the game will force the player to think about not waging a war (like you would loose your trade with that empire)

i also like the idea of having to have the resources to use them, but building roads to them will take forever.

They could have put more govt. s in it, and more or less put the fasism patch into the game (that patch turned civ 2 into a completely different game with the unit changes etc) and the idea of having an amry of units is good, only if they limit the ammount of them you have, i mean the stacked moving unit idea used in ctp was crap, i hated it. perhap if they had an option to turn most of these of so you could still play civ2, just with a few changes. there should have been more then 7 civs (come on!) and more ways to win, ie, just having the 'perfect civ' (like an empire of happy people with little need for an army etc), bloodlust, space race, and maybe an idea of 'goals', like trying to be the first civ to learn corporation, or being the first to have 20million citizens....

but the more i think about the proposed ideas, the more i like the sound of it except this culture crap, the lack of civs in a game and the fact there isn't gonna be many more advances and govt.s

i think its time they released the civ2 source code so some people could really make a great civ2 witgh hindsight (eg, a wondrrt witch put SDI in each city, more civs etc)

sorry for going on like your wife or sumthin...

Case · July 28, 2001, 21:48

I think that the greatest strenght of Civ2 is its adaptability - these days I mainly stick to scenarios.
Had Microprose 'hard coded' everything in Civ 2 I think that it wouldn't be half as popular as it is today. However, Civ2 is really showing its age, and I'm hoping that Civ3 will be good enought to kill it off

Caesar the Great · July 28, 2001, 23:35

Nah, they're going to overcomplicate, I can think of half a dozen things that could make civ 2 better, but leaving the interface pretty much the same..... adding too many things will just be adding junk and complicating the game unnecessarily.... civ 2 MP is slow as it is if turns were to take any longer it would be impossible to even duel if it wasn't PBEM.....

The Andy-Man · July 29, 2001, 10:45

ctp was killed off by comlicated ideas being implemented in a comlicated way on a comlicated interface.

they need to keep civ3's interface the same, and make it easy to do the complex stuff. and i am worried about them getting carried away with micro management

Wiglaf · July 29, 2001, 16:29

Check out the civ3 forums and join yin's pessimism club, Andy. They're dedicated to telling Firaxis what to do and what not to do through the use of textbook slander. It seems to be working, too. So if civ3 is great we've got yin to thank...

Or if it's bad, we can all blame the optimists!

The Andy-Man · July 29, 2001, 17:57

personaly, i think the only way to make a game good is to have people who played the previous ones come in and play what has been done so far (on a much larger scale then beta testing). this way, poeple like us can tell the makers they are screwing up.

Laszlo · August 8, 2001, 23:45

The reason that CivII has lasted as long as it has is its extremely high replayability. It also takes a while to complete a game, so you don't run through the same situations a few thousand times as you would in a racing game or something similar.

I loved playing Final Fantasy VII, but to replay it for 40 hours would be tortuous because there would be no surprises. Not to mention that many games like shoot-em ups and the battles in FF don't actually get much harder as the game goes on because of the new weapons and power-ups.

CivII with multiplayer is virtually infinitely replayable, and
can not die until a nobler successor robs the old playing base.

lord of the mark · August 10, 2001, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Meeko
That means I'll have to clear up more space on my hdd...

Even when Civ3 comes out, I would probably not be the first in the shops to buy it for several reasons.

One of which is affordability: I'll be likely short a few coins/notes...

Then there's the issue of content, with Civ2, I've got most of the extras made for it (including patches, FW, CiC, etc.), and I hope Civ3 comes with a multiplayer feature, several scenarios/modpacks, etc, otherwise I would stick with Civ2 until Civ3 at least has some of the features which I really want...

And then there's the case in how much it improves. We may be surprised...in both senses of the word.

I agree - there are two issues here - how much replayability does CIV2 still have, and how good a value is Civ3?

For me the answer is determined by 2 aspects of Civ3 - its quality, and the minimum system specs. I will need to upgrade for it (and my PC works fine for everything else- obviously im not much of a "gamer"

) - and while I think Civ3 has some good things going for it, i dont like the civ-specific units and features (at least not for the basic game)

So I cant see spending $50 US for a game that requires a system
upgrade, and some of whose major feature I will be turning off.

On the other hand there are still plenty of Civ2 Scenarios I havent played, and several others I want to play again.

So I cant see buying Civ3 in October, when it comes out. In say another year, when ive played through more scenarios, when hopefully my PC sitution changes, when the Civ3 price drops, and when they finish working out all the bugs

, then I'll probably but Civ3.

I certainly hope the Civ2 community hangs together till then.

LOTM

Wiglaf · August 11, 2001, 15:06

Not that it needs to...so much has been covered here in the last few years you'll be hard pressed for find a new question to ask. I know I'll be here as long as they still have a civ2 forum on apolyton, and I'm sure many civ3 addicts in the future will still hang around.

Quote:

ctp was killed off by comlicated ideas being implemented in a comlicated way on a comlicated interface.

Civ3 seems to be doing the same thing. I mean, go to www.civ3.com and look at that features list. If the computer can actually handle all that, we're in for a parade of

smilies. I'm sure a few patches and betas will sort that out though.

Since I've got a mac, I still don't know if I'll be able to play civ3 on my machine, as the system reqs haven't been released yet. Hoping for the best..