NO Change fo the sake of Change!

July 25, 2000, 23:17

Hi

Haven't been here for looooong time, but you will find my credits in the first civ III list

I was pondering civ II today and it has a lot of great features, some of the wonders for example. My concern is the designers of Civ III might change stuff just to make Civ III "look different" to Civ II. THEY SHOULD NOT DO THIS! What they should do is fix bugs, enhance the features that are already there and add new ones.

In other words, they shouldn't try to re-invent the wheel. This applies to big and small things. For example, in the change from civ I to civ II the default city names for civs was changed. This kind of thing is stupid and a waste of the programmer's time and money. Same with wonders, why change their effects around like they did changing from civ I to civ II? Pointless and annoying. We are not impressed by such "innovations".

Also, except for combat stacking, they should avoid Call To Power LIKE THE PLAGUE. CTP's main purpose as a game is to serve as a warning to others

I say No change for change's sake! Have a nice horsie day

Par4 · July 26, 2000, 00:17

I disagree Civ2 and Civ have been around for a long long time and if they don't change it the game will just suck and bomb IMHO. Obviously making it a 3d sphere world would suck IMHO but I don't see what's wrong with things like more advanced war more trade maybe hexes or regions.

If it's just like Civ2 except with a little upgrade along the lines of what Civ1 was the Civ2 I ain't gonna buy it. I have Civ2 I don't need a new fancy version of it, I'll go buy Freelancer instead.

------------------
King Par4!!

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited July 26, 2000).]

Empress · July 26, 2000, 01:47

I partly agree with you AH. While I would like a little change, I do not want to have to relearn commands and basically how to play the game again. While I want a new challenge, I do not want to learn a totally different system. ....And who says women are hard to please

N_A · July 26, 2000, 01:58

No way, in this Civ 3, there must be a re-invention of the game so as to advance the game in substance rather than in graphics.

I strongly feel that the game must attain goals of implementing realistic politics, war gaming, and cultural aspects. All together in a user friendly, yet highly thoughtful grand strategy game.

Gord McLeod · July 26, 2000, 03:08

I think Civ3 should be a reinvention of Civ2 with plenty of change, for one simple reason - if they don't, there could be potential legal problems for them. Microprose still owns Civ and Civ2 if I'm not mistaken.

Par4 · July 26, 2000, 03:26

Hasbro owns Microprose Hasbro is publishing Civ3. No problems.

------------------
King Par4!!

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

Deathwalker · July 26, 2000, 06:37

I dis agree we need to re invent Civ to stay the best but also keep the elements that made it great, sequals should be both a reinventiona dn fix of the original.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

Deathwalker · July 26, 2000, 06:38

I dis agree we need to re invent Civ to stay the best but also keep the elements that made it great, sequals should be both a reinventiona dn fix of the original. Some games were ruined because they changed to mucxh or just did the same thing with only fixed. To be great again you need a mix.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

The Joker · July 26, 2000, 10:02

I agree with Par4 and most of the other people here. Civ2 accomplishes everything it tryes to accomplish in a pretty much perfect way. If Civ3 is only to be a Civ2 with a bugfix and a few new features, then it will end up being just a small patch. There is simply so little wrong with Civ2. Therefor Firaxis needs to be innovative, include new features and more cool stuff.

But when this is said I must agree with AH that some changes are simply stupid. Like one of the most awsome concepts in SMAC: calling Fortify Hold. What could possibly be the point of that??!!??!

Shadowstrike · July 26, 2000, 13:01

Most likely, copyright infringement. They probably had to change the names around so Microprose couldn't sue Firaxis.

Par4 · July 26, 2000, 17:46

No No No NO NO NO NO No NO No No No

Firaxis is a developer for EA

EA has agreed to let Firaxis work on Civ3 with Hasbro but EA will publish Sid Meier's Dinosaurs

Microprose owns the name Civilization but Microprose was bought by Hasbro

Therefore it is Microprose/Hasbro who is Publishing Civilization III

------------------
King Par4!!

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

Father Beast · July 26, 2000, 18:05

I have to disagree with his horseness. the changes from civ to civ2 in, say, wonders were made to make the game balance better. the change in pyramids, for example, was explained in the manual. and did anyone ever actually build shakespeare in civ1 when it would expire with electronics?
and who cares about default city names? just rename them if you don't like them.

Christantine The Great · July 26, 2000, 19:26

I think that Civ III should be different from Civ II simply because Civ I and II were published close to each other. Civ II's purpose was to fix the flaws in Civ I. Civ II's title of "Sequel" is just a marketing ploy since it employs few differences essentially. The name Civilization II sounds much better that Civilization 1.5. All of the smaller addons like Fantastic Worlds and Conflicts in Civ added up to making a Civilization 1.75, never quite adding up to another version because it just improved Civ 2. If they were all roled into one plus a better and more advanced interface would have created a Civ III but there was no better and more advanced interface to create. Civ II was the pinnicle of turn-based strategy game of its day. How do you improve the best? Now that Civ II is remembered as being the greatest computer strategy game of all time, it is time to create a new game, limited to only the protocol set by the first Civs.

Now you have to recycle the empty bottle but when it is done it must function as the first.

Now that all of Civ II is obsolete except for the idea you must recycle all of the technical stuff and come out with a truly "new" game.

P.S. I hope you enjoyed my bit of armchair philosophy.

P.P.S. Here is another bit: "You cannot build New York on the foundations of Rome."

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

Imran Siddiqui · July 26, 2000, 19:44

I agree with the Horse. Keep what is good, and build on that. Don't just change stuff because you feel the need for it to be changed. Keep the commands mostly the same, and keep the same game premise.

July 26, 2000, 23:06

Thanks for the support Imran

(fellow Apo "royal"?)

I'm not saying they shouldn't be innovative. I'm just saying they shouldn't just have changes to make Civ III look and feel different. I think the hard core civers would like to see a balance between innovation and simple enhancement.

Tiberius · July 27, 2000, 00:09

quote:

I think the hard core civers would like to see a balance between innovation and simple enhancement.

I guess I'm a hard core civer then

But seriously, Horse has right (Btw, how is Alexander ?

) I'm for Civ3 not Civ2.5 but I don't see any reason to change things in civ just for the sake of change, even if they are working properly. Don't change everything only to get a brand new game. Change only what needs to be improved and add new features only to increase the fun and gameplay.

Adm.Naismith · July 27, 2000, 10:05

I remember in some of the Firaxis Dino Diaries that they explain how Firaxis team builds and use prototypes to try and test ideas.

I suppose they can test quickly if a change is for real or just for nothing.

Knowing as in sw industries changing things is always a cost, if there isn't a good reason (e.g. copyright limit, strong marketing needs) companies are usually more static than not

(with some exception, of course).

So my fear is always on the side of not enough change to keep my interest alive.

I mean I haven't time to buy and play much games, Civ/Smac series apart, so I prefer to have some different taste from the coming new CIV III

Well, maybe I'm not addicted enough, sorry for this!

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

ElmoTheElk · July 27, 2000, 10:29

Speaking in names: I'm in for a Civiliztion 3 and not for a Tribe 1 or something like that. I think you all understand what I mean. Don't make it too different from Civ1&2, but re-innovate things and expand them.

For example, I don't thing miniturization is a good thing for Civ3, while the game may get too complicated.

------------------
-----
homepage: www.pekok.demon.nl
icq: 7634343
e-mail: eric@pekok.demon.nl