What I Think About Civilization 3

[Alex 14]

Jeff Morris Said:
We're on our third alpha version at the time of this writing. Civ III should hit beta within 2-3 weeks. There is an internal deadline, but when the game will hit shelves hasn't been specifically pinned.

It appears that the core concept, graphics and game engine of Civilization 3 are all more or less finished. This means that the screenshots we have seen are proberly what the game will be like, unchanged. By every piece of information & media Firaxis’ have provided us, I personally feel that Civilization 3 does not deserve the title. As Yin mentioned the graphics are very unrealistic and I believe they could have been improved. However Firaxis have not released enough confirmed information and multimedia about the game for anyone to draw to conclusions, Civ 3 might simply not be what it appears to be.


If you don’t want to read my complete review, please comment on the section above.



I’d like to start by saying I have owned Civilization for 6 years, and Civilization 2 for 3 years and am very impressed by both games, as I mentioned before, if you took a look at a Civ 1 screenshot, you proberly wouldn’t be impressed, but look at how good it is. This goes the same for Civ 3, we currently hardly know anything about the game. Since I bought CTP2, last year, the game company that designs a game must be one I trust, I think that Firaxis are making the same impression as Activision, but I could be wrong. Currently the only game company I trust is Rareware, because they have never built a ‘bad’ game, the history of Firaxis is much better than Activision, if Sid Meier was leading the project I suppose I would put quite a bit of trust into Civ 3.


Yin Said:
For those of you who were looking for something radically different from Civ 2, look elsewhere. While the additions of Culture and Resources sounded good on paper, in fact they seem to have added more tedious micromanagement at the expense of any strategic decisions. First, the concept of Culture is a tricky one at best, and Firaxis deserves credit for taking it head on. Unfortunately, the best they could come up with is the equivalent of "Making more and more of certain types of buildings will spread your influence over the map." What does this mean in game play terms? Obvious, isn't it? You'll be tempted to literally stuff your cities with building after building just to see how far your cultural influence can spread.

Still unsure of what the game might turn out to be I’m sadly believing Yin is right. It is very hard to create a game such as civilization, to manage trade, military, science, culture, economy, game play and graphics. If Firaxis for one second think there is something not right about the game, they should immediately delay it and fix it. I don’t care when the game is released, as long as it’s the game that should be ‘Civilization 3’. Nevertheless Culture is what Civ & Civ 2 lacked greatly, you could choose any civilization, and there would be no difference, they are all basically the same. It seems to me that a possible case might possibly be: where Civ 2 fell, Civ 3 rose, but where Civ 2 rose Civ 3 fell. Firaxis should consider improving one thing at the cost of another very carefully.




This image looks like previous Civ games, well slightly better. But the modern era and other parts of the game look much worse, not to mention that they could work on the screen above. Graphics don’t bother me to the extent that game play does. If they had a game play calculator that told Firaxis how much ‘fun’ Civ 3 opposes to Civ 2 was, I would be expecting no less. Will we be disappointed be Civ 3? Well it’s nearly impossible to tell, Yin and other people seem to get their hopes to too high, the truth is I’ve seen movies, screenshots and reviews of thousands of games and not one was the same as the clips and screens showed. So I suggest we all wait until the game is released, Firaxis are obviously going to ignore pessimism. It all gets down to them making money, and will they release patches, mods, scenarios, for free, who knows?


It is hard for me to accept that whenever someone makes a statement to Firaxis like ‘I hate Civ specific units’; they always give an answer like ‘you can easily turn them off’. They have an answer for everything; surely they have some flaws in the game, unless they have truly fixed everything. I’d like a question to the art director at Firaxis, ‘do you feel that the game is the best game it can possibly be?' If he can say yes to that then I will be satisfied, but if he sais no, then I think there should be a delay. Some people may want to realise that Firaxis’ games don’t have very good graphics, so perhaps this is the best they can do. What I would like to see though is customisability. The ability to change the graphics, and other aspects of the game. How does the game ‘play’ is another thing that is important to me, if the game runs smoothly but has bad graphics then that’s not a problem. Civilization is not a game that needs superb graphics, only a realistically presented interface.

[Solver]

OK, I''m absolutely sure this will be the best game ever. There will be no Civ 2.5, Civ 2 was more of Civ 1.5, with better graphics and more units, but the same boring trade system, little diplomacy, and such.
Civ 3 has new things, and I don't care about these graphics. I'll still get it the first day, and it will be the best strategy game ever, till the release of Civ 4.

[Wiglaf]

OK, I''m absolutely sure this will be the best game ever. There will be no Civ 2.5, Civ 2 was more of Civ 1.5, with better graphics and more units, but the same boring trade system, little diplomacy, and such. Civ 3 has new things, and I don't care about these graphics. I'll still get it the first day, and it will be the best strategy game ever, till the release of Civ 4.

Arghh. To get excited about civ3 is great, we all are. But to shoot down civ2 as a boring rehash so quickly isn't right. I mean, civ2 is years and years old. And you attack it as inferior to civ3...man, for the sake of Firaxis, I hope it is. Further, you claim civ3, unreleased, will be 'the best game ever'. That's blind, unreal optimism.

I mean, please, civ2's a great game. Don't go back on that simply because newer things come out. After all, if everyone at Apolyton did that, there'd be no AC section. There'd be no civ2 section. There would be a quake III section, though it would only last a month or two before a newer thing came out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, Civ2 is a great game, but I think what he is saying is that Civ2 wasn't a radical departure from Civ1. Civ3 is taking more chances than Civ2 did (by far).

And I quite like the graphics. I'm quite sure Civ3 will be an absolute delight. Game of the Year!

[kolpo]

civ2 was a bigger improvement over civ1 then civ3 over civ2:

-The ability to make scenarios
-a combat system where a battler ship will no longer lose from a catapult, with fire power and hitpoints.
-the best looking graphics ever in TBS except CTP(but that wasn't good in other areas)who are even better then SMAC and civ3 screenshots(better color scalming for example).
-extremely big improved diplomacity, no longer just war or peace But alliances, cease fire model, peace treaty, share maps, repuation, regard and all well implemented with AI.
-an AI who can expand over sea, never saw that in civ1
-an AI who is much better in naval combat.
-an AI who expands faster.
-a new supply demand trade system.
-many new units, builings
-many new spy/diplomacy options: you can target steal tech, destroy builing. You can poison water. Do nuclear terorism.
-The fundamentalistic government who was the big missing government in civ1 and introduce a complet new startegy and way of playing.
-tons of new technologies.
...

I will stop here I become just angry of all those people who say that civ2 is not much better then civ1. Have they ever played civ1 or civ2?

Of course will they find words from the legal department to attack why civ1 and civ2 where not so much different. But if they even have to attack the genius game of civ2 to defent civ3 then does that clairly show that they know nothing better to defent civ3.

[Imran Siddiqui]

*yawn*

Basically a VERY conservative change, and nothing even close to the change from Civ3 to Civ2.

Civ2, frankly, seemed like a better looking, (little) improved AI Civ1.

[Inverse Icarus]

the most important thing that civ2 did to civ1 was diplomacy.

in civ 1, you had to send a unit over to another civ to talk to them.

[Ming]

Yes... there were BIG changes from Civ I to Civ II.
And until we see Civ III, we will really have no clue how much has been changed. So until then, I'm just looking forward to the game. I'm sure it will surprise me... just like Civ II did

Keep on Civin'

[korn469]

Ming you have the best attitude concerning Civ3 of the entire forum...we won't be able to judge it till we play it and we might as well look forward to it...i like that way of thinking

but i really do think the graphics are an improvement over civ2

civ3 will be better than civ2 i have no doubt i am just wondering how much better it will be...also play balance is very important, SMAC had a poor play balance where once in the mid game the player always ran away with the whole thing...hopefully civ3 will have the best balance of the entire series

[Alex 14]

Civ 2 is Civ with better graphics and more features. Civilization 3 has introduced new systems in the game, and is a large step away from Civ 2 and Civ.




A great game that has faded away with the modern age of the gaming industry.




Basicly the same concept with enhanced game engine and a few new features.




With Civilization 3's brand new features, you can see the difference to the game they make on the map.

[Rhysie]

Originally posted by Alex 14
I’d like a question to the art director at Firaxis, ‘do you feel that the game is the best game it can possibly be?' If he can say yes to that then I will be satisfied, but if he sais no, then I think there should be a delay.

I think this is a very unrealistic view to take... There is no way that he could _ever_ answer yes, because you can _always_ improve a game over time, even if you have the gameplay and the interface _perfect_ then if you keep developing it over time you will improve the speed of the code and the quality of graphics... You have to draw the line somewhere, and say 'This is near enough to the best game it can possibly be for it to be released' because otherwise you would _never_ release it.

It is also unfair to expect games companies to keep things in production until they are perfect. Games cost a lot of money to make, and games companies are exactly that, companies... They need to make money in order to make more games, and they have to trade off between spending a few more months refining a game, for which they would have to pay their numerous costs without significantly increasing sales, or releasing it when it is good enough to get optimum sales.

I personally would prefer a company to release several games which are 'good enough' for me to want to buy the future games from that company, than for them to release one utterly perfect game, which makes me drool at the mouth for another game for them, which never comes because they went bust with all the costs involved in such a long production time.

I would also prefer to get my hands on Civ III a couple of months earlier and boost it with patches at a later date than have to wait longer for it.

[Father Beast]

Kolpo, you have apparently little concept of how much is changing in civ3. I state it again: civ3 is improving in EVERY CATEGORY as much or more over civ2 than civ2 was over civ1. I have played civ1 and civ2, so I will show you point for pint how civ3 is expanding.

Originally posted by kolpo
civ2 was a bigger improvement over civ1 then civ3 over civ2:

-The ability to make scenarios

We made scenarios for civ1, they were just very limited. mostly just hacking saved game files.

for civ3 we get to customize and make scenarios better than ever.

Originally posted by kolpo

-a combat system where a battler ship will no longer lose from a catapult, with fire power and hitpoints.

how about a combat system including stacking and bombardment?

Originally posted by kolpo

-the best looking graphics ever in TBS except CTP(but that wasn't good in other areas)who are even better then SMAC and civ3 screenshots(better color scalming for example).

improved graphics engine with unit animations. (yawn)

Originally posted by kolpo

-extremely big improved diplomacity, no longer just war or peace But alliances, cease fire model, peace treaty, share maps, repuation, regard and all well implemented with AI.

hardly well implemented with the AI.
we get a new deal wizard for diplomacy, with unknown as yet possibilities that make me drool.

Originally posted by kolpo

-an AI who can expand over sea, never saw that in civ1
-an AI who is much better in naval combat.
-an AI who expands faster.

we don't know what the AI improvements are, but you can assume that they are worse than ctp if you like. I expect there will be a modest improvement with the AI.

Originally posted by kolpo

-a new supply demand trade system.

a new resource trade system, far above that pathetic "improvement".

Originally posted by kolpo

-many new units, builings

ditto, no doubt.

Originally posted by kolpo

-many new spy/diplomacy options: you can target steal tech, destroy builing. You can poison water. Do nuclear terorism.

OK, you may have me there, I haven't heard more about spying. then again, considering how invincible my spies were in civ2, maybe that's a good thing.

Originally posted by kolpo

-The fundamentalistic government who was the big missing government in civ1 and introduce a complet new startegy and way of playing.

how about the nationalist government?

Originally posted by kolpo

-tons of new technologies.
...

Hardly tons.
they no doubt will redesign the tech tree again. be happy.

Originally posted by kolpo

I will stop here I become just angry of all those people who say that civ2 is not much better then civ1. Have they ever played civ1 or civ2?

Of course will they find words from the legal department to attack why civ1 and civ2 where not so much different. But if they even have to attack the genius game of civ2 to defent civ3 then does that clairly show that they know nothing better to defent civ3.

fascinating argument. have you played civ1 and civ2? while some things were refined, there was little in new stuff, and nothing radical at all.

civ3, on the other hand, promises us, on top of all those things in an improvement like civ2 was, also radically changes the game with the resource model, and introduces culture as a new headache for us to deal with.

expected stuff:
graphics, sound, AI, diplomacy, units, buildings, wonders, gameplay tweaks.
I am especially impressed with their making a few of the wonders to be one per civ, like manhattan.
I like the deal wizard, very nice looking, and promises to ease the way.
I am ever astonished at the elegance of making the 2 pop settler the answer to the basics of ICS. Wunnerful, wunnerful.

but that's all to be expected in a sequel, even a conservative sequel like civ2 was.

the new resource model may change the game entirely. likewise the influence of culture. these put civ3 into a higher category than just a sequel.

alex, thanks for the pics. put it all in perspective

[korn469]

i agree with everything you are saying except

how about the nationalist government

it is just a slightly better balanced fundamentalism from the sounds of it...civ3's government system is a step back when compared to SMAC's SE system...they should have made major improvements on the SE system making it a high point of civ3 instead of going back to an inferior system

but besides that and keeping the 8 civ limit i think civ3 far exceeds civ2 in the amount of improvement they are introducing

[Solver]

Game of the century. Finally there's another optimist.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, Civ2 is a great game, but I think what he is saying is that Civ2 wasn't a radical departure from Civ1. Civ3 is taking more chances than Civ2 did (by far).

And I quite like the graphics. I'm quite sure Civ3 will be an absolute delight. Game of the Year!

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Solver
Game of the century. Finally there's another optimist.

yes, although markos shouldn't have had dissolved the clubs (after creating them) he spared me the embarassment of leaving realists and joining optimists....
dan's post today was really encouraging...

[Solver]

Don't just blame Markos now .
Actually, Civ II had little absolutely new ideas in it. The new units were nice, and interface was smoother, but actually it was the same thing, really with better graphics though.
Diplomacy - in Civ 2 it didn't improve much over Civ 1.
Trade - the same thing, build a caravan and send to another city to generate a trade route. Good for economy, but pretty boring.
AI - It still missed lots of chariots getting those Phalanxes I fortified in mountain fortifications.
There were two things I liked about Civ 2, these being Helicopters and Cruise Missiles. But Civ 3 has much better diplomacy, cooler advisors, interesting good & culture system. Wish the final version would be here now . But make the AI good, guys.

[dexter4dxm]

okay, but what about that one online game that came out recently, that was so buggy the developers put a big list of bugs on their web site, and asked reviewers not to review the game until they worked out the bugs, but the reviewers were like, 'yeah right! as long as you are taking money from people who are expecting a working game we will review your game'. alright, it's true this is an online game so it's a little different, but it's scary, how far will a company be willing to go? i'm not saying civ3 isnt ready, who knows? firaxis never tells us anything. what do u think?

[tniem]

To throw my two cents in:

I bought Civ II and was not impressed. It was the same game as Civ I that I had been playing non-stop for five years.

So they made it so that my battleship would not lose to a militia, a good improvement, but something that could have been fixed in a patch.

So they improved graphics, the graphics were not even that good for the day they were released.

So they improved diplomacy, I still had people changing from allies to war in a turn without any reason.

The list could go on of the things that were improved that I was not impressed by. Civ II was a rehash - a great game yes but only because it was a rehash of a greater game for its day.

Now, though, I am encouraged by Civ III because it is making some radical changes but unlike CTP each of them make sense. Each change is a slight adjustment to the game that will have a profound effect. I look forward to Civ III.

[Sabre2th]

So they made it so that my battleship would not lose to a militia, a good improvement, but something that could have been fixed in a patch.

Well of course not, there was no militia unit in civ2.