What do you hope Civ3 will be reviewed on?

yin26 · October 26, 2001, 19:59

What I truly hope the reviewers will focus on are:

AI: I want to really, really know what's ticking with the AI at different difficulty ratings.
Diplomacy: Part of AI, but if this isn't handled well in particular, then a major part of the 'upgrade' over Civ2 will be in trouble. One good note already Sid made in the Finnish interview: The AI won't start wars unless it has a good reason ... like you refuse to trade a valuable resource. If that holds up across the board, I think I'll be very happy.
Pacing: Well all know that in virtually every strategy game ever made that once you successfully reach mid-game, you're pretty much left with just mopping things up. And many times, the early game is just rather dull and too darn slow ... leaving a relatively short 'sweet spot' where the pacing is good and the challenge is definitely there. I hope Civ3 expands that sweet spot.
Fluid play: Kind of a pacing issue, but I'm talking about the CPU and the game mechanics on this one. I'm already hearing that the game seems to drag on some comps, perhaps because of the animations and so forth. Scrolling across the map needs to be flawless and fast. And little to no time should be lost with clunky 'goto' commands and so forth that make you waste time and distract you from thinking about strategy.
Multiplayer: (oops!)
Customizing: How much and in what ways can we customize Civ3? We all know that SP won't keep all of us happy forever. And with MP up in the air, we'll need lots of good tools for those Mod-Gods among us to save the day.
Implementation of features: Culture, borders, trade ... etc.
Graphics and sound: ONLY as far as these things add or detract from GAMEPLAY in an important way.

Stuie · October 26, 2001, 20:03

In order of priority:

1
3
7
2
4
6

Did I leave something out?? Oh well, guess it doesn't matter.

The Templar · October 26, 2001, 20:10

I don't give a damn about what shill reviewers have to say. I'll listen to people in this forum. Hope people in this forum focus on AI and diplomacy formost (as there is no multiplayer). At least that's what I'll have to talk about after I get the game. And customization is a big second.

Lawrence of Arabia · October 26, 2001, 20:56

I dont care what they review it on, i just want a review out today.

Rhysie · October 26, 2001, 20:59

I'll ignore reviews entirely, whoever it is doing the reviewing. I don't care what other people say, I'll judge for myself.

Mongoloid Cow · October 26, 2001, 21:36

Take into account what other people say, then I'll get it if it sounds good. If it sucks when I get it, I'll say it sucks.

Easy

Trifna · October 27, 2001, 01:34

Gameplay, gameplay and... gameplay.

Of course, this means many factors. But only evaluated in relation with its effects on gameplay. Too many reviews are kindda graphico-maniacs, which isn't always representative of the effect that graphics have on the game.

I still think that the first Zelda was a better game than many modern high-graphic games.

Lorizael · October 27, 2001, 01:54

Yin, did you just cut and paste from the List?

Anyway, I definetely think that the AI is the most important thing. Without a good AI the game will definetely lose value with (temporary) absence of MP.

old dog · October 27, 2001, 09:19

1) in depth commentary on the AI

2) details on how the resource system plays out

Grim Legacy · October 27, 2001, 10:45

Ah reviews... I'm not really holding my breath. I think it's too much to expect from a reviewer to judge something like 'AI' in just a few days of playing, or even weeks.

At this point, I'm relaxing and looking forward to playing myself. I'll be my own reviewer.

yin26 · October 27, 2001, 11:02

Quote:

Yin, did you just cut and paste from the List?

No...there are some differences, of course.