Sid, Civ

Yoleus · October 17, 2001, 12:51

I am just wondering...
As far as I know Sid programmed Civ I, contributed ti Civ II, test played CivIII. The game did not change much from the 1st to the 2nd implementation, and it seems to me that the changes from 2 to 3 are again not a big deal. This has sometimes been justified with the "balance" or "keep the good bits" answers.
Maybe he -and Firaxis- now just use the Civ franchise to make money: think about the insane number of releases of Civ II:
Civ II
Civ II debugged
Civ II multiplayer
Civ II gold
Civ II TOT
and they just want the game be sold, not better: so they stick on the original as close as possible, diluiting the innovation over time as much as possible. MP will be in the next package.
Again, this is just my opinion, and I will buy the game because I like it, but still I feel very much as a market target.
Sid is more interested in dinosaurs and playing golf right now, it seems to me. And Apolyton has been giving Dinosaurs a section,
even if it is not so close to a civilization game. I fear a Golf section.
Maybe I just woke up badly today, maybe I am just being pessimist and tomorrow I will be happy again. Anyway, I wanted your feedback.

Yoleus · October 17, 2001, 12:58

Maybe SMAC told Firaxis not to innovate too much, because you lose gameplay and balance?
A conservative position... I do not like it too much, but I understand it.

Faboba · October 17, 2001, 13:12

You've been talking with Yin too much haven't you. If you can't see the merit in the scenario editor and multiplayer additions to Civ 2 then look again, they were fantastic. I agree with you though that progress was too slow and the ammount of change didn't really justify the cost - they could have just done it in a cuple of patches like everyone else.......

By the way, you're quote is incorrect. I know it's just translation but if you are going to use it as a sig.......... ( In the English version it's "You do not talk about Fight Club. Unless you got that out the book in which case forgive me, for I know not what I do )

sekong · October 17, 2001, 13:59

I guess it's Microprose's fault to set CIV2 a bad example. And I guess that's the reason Sid and Brian left it.
Just compare civ2 and SMAC. At least SMAC is a COMPLETE product. The Civ2 as it comes out, it's like a debug version, espacially the cheat menu made me feel that way. Microprose was once a great company. But obviously something changed arround 94-95. No great product coming out since then.

Jason Beaudoin · October 17, 2001, 14:51

Quote:

Originially posted by Yoleus
...it seems to me that the changes from 2 to 3 are again not a big deal...

I completely disagree with you. I think CIV III is quite a huge departure from CIV II. There are so many new features, that I don't think that one could play the game the same way as you could in CIV I and CIV II.

If CIV III is the way Firaxis and reviewers describe it, I think it will be a great and new experience for all fans of the series.

The Templar · October 17, 2001, 15:00

It makes you wonder if Sid is like They Might Be Giants in a way. I saw them a few weekends ago, and the thing to remember is that TMBG has years of material to draw from. When did they get the most applause? When they played stuff off of "Flood". An album that came out over ten years ago! (I was in high school at the time.) Worse yet - the song everyone screamed for was "Istanbul" which oddly enough is a cover.

Maybe Sid feels the same way. Over ten years ago he computerized a board game. Sure he has new ideas, but what do the fans clamour for? A retooled Civ - a cover of a cover! (Of course, doing a golf game is the computer equivalent of being "big in Japan" in the music biz.)

Then again, while I liked Mink Car (the new TMBG album), I've never been too fond of Sid's other games. So I guess from my point of view its deserved.

sekong · October 17, 2001, 15:12

Obviously the tech base for CIV genre are old. But the problem it I never see a strategy game have the depth as CIV has. So pityful, but that's true.