c165# CIV3: WORST FEARS COME TRUE!

May 6, 2001, 19:25

165# CIV3: WORST FEARS COME TRUE!

Fiera is rather unhappy with recent civ3 news

Atahualpa · May 6, 2001, 19:48

never laughed that much before

You are right that 7 civs are way too little, but thats the only point I can agree with.

The rest is nonsense, assumptions and made-up scary stories. You in no way know whats going on at Firaxis! You have never known and you will never know. Nobody here knows, so dont try to scare everyone here with your horror stories.

ATa

Atahualpa · May 6, 2001, 19:50

Besides I think it is way too early to do any judging. The screens are filled with placeholders and the info is outdated the time it is posted.

Ata

BeBro · May 6, 2001, 19:54

quote:

You have never known and you will never know

He (Fiera) and we will know when CivIII is out.

And I think this arcticle is not nonsens, it only expresses fears about CivIII, and the author is not the only one who has these fears, when I look into threads hear about "7 civs", "unique units" etc.

But, Fiera, I still hope that you are wrong and that CivIII will be a great civ game, a true successor for civ2...

[This message has been edited by BeBro (edited May 06, 2001).]

Roman · May 6, 2001, 19:59

Good column, Fiera, Firaxis and Sid have had more than their fair share of hero-worship, but perhaps it is a little too harsh.

The 7 civilization limit is truly worying (especially for scenario makers), but it is not yet certain as new previews seem to suggest, so I have some hope on this issue.

Graphics could also turn out to be annoying in Civ 3. I actively dislike stupid animations

and turn them off wherever I can and I really don't need to see some overrendered units. From the screenshots so far it seems that the graphics aren't overdone, so I am satisfied - unless the animations cannot be turned off that is.

I don't know how unique civilizations will turn out to be, but they will definitely be editable - Firaxis stated that on their website already, so I am not worried. If they turn out to be good, so be it. Should they detract from the game, I will simply edit them to make them all the same. No problems there.

In fact, the potential of being able (and not compelled) to assign different attributes to civs could be very useful for scenario-makers.

For the most part, I think, Firaxis has listened more than I had hoped they would, so overall I am satisfied with what I see. Still, I applaud you for giving Firaxis some criticism - without both positive pull and negative pressure from fans they will not know what fans think is going in the right direction and what is way off track.

Antonios · May 6, 2001, 20:04

Yeah,MarkG you're right.I'm sorry to have spent so much time and dreams to this forum.Firaxis doesn't really listen to us.Or they listen what they want.Unfortunately.

BeBro · May 6, 2001, 20:05

quote:

Good column, Fiera, Firaxis and Sid have had more than their fair share of hero-worship, but perhaps it is a little too harsh.

Yes, the column is pretty provoking, but in this case, I think it is better than a "Fireaxis-and-SidMeier-are-Gods-nobody-can-criticise-them" style...

------------------
Civ2000 hosted by CivII Universum

BeBro · May 6, 2001, 20:08

quote:

Yeah,MarkG you're right.

Since I recently discovered the secret of "careful reading" in the OT forum I have to say the column is not by MarkG.

------------------
Civ2000 hosted by CivII Universum

Imran Siddiqui · May 6, 2001, 20:08

Chicken Little, 'The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling'.

Jeez, I agree with Ata... I don't normally roll my eyes in real life, but I found myself doing it over and over again.

A waste of a column, I think. This is like those Y2K people who said that the world was going to end.

Hell, I might just write an column critizing all these 'The World is Ending' wackos.

Roman · May 6, 2001, 20:16

quote:

Originally posted by Atahualpa on 05-06-2001 07:50 PM
Besides I think it is way too early to do any judging. The screens are filled with placeholders and the info is outdated the time it is posted.

Ata

Well, that's certainly true, but he can make provisional judgements based on the information that is currently available.

Kyle · May 6, 2001, 20:35

Have the minor Civs been removed from the game plan?

yin26 · May 6, 2001, 20:37

When the game is released, the people at Apolyton will be shocked at the number of ways our List affected Civ3's development. In the end, however, we'll have a bunch of little screamers crying: "But what about MY idea and MY view of the Civ series?! I've been robbed!!!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The WORST thing that could happen is a Civ 2.5 -- I want a Civ3. If that means playing the game a bit (hopefully a LOT) differently and learning all kinds of new things...GREAT! God forbid if my 10-year-old strategies won't actually work anymore...

As for the 7 civ-limit, not enough is known about that.

As for "eye candy," I'm sick of people who say graphics aren't important in Civ. THEY ARE IMPORTANT! You zero-sum people should go play ANSI games again.

Religion? Would be great but could they really make it work? Europa Universalis has done some interesting things...perhaps Civ3 will rip some of those ideas of Paradox.

And all the other stuff: Who knows yet? Nobody. I bet even Firaxis is still toying around with things.

I do get the feeling, though, that Civ3 might just happen to have enough new material (some of it directly from us) that the Civ 2.5 crowd will be crying and raising a fuss. Thankfully, they can always keep playing Civ 2 if they miss being able to predict the entire game.

ancient · May 6, 2001, 21:21

ever heard of judging to soon? its hardly even half done and it is not possible for them to read every little comment. everything is still being balanced. while as far as we no they are only planning on 7 enemy civs (which is a shame) maybe they'll hear our desperate pleas and be compassionate. personally i think different amounts of civs depending on the map size would be nice.. but i still have greaty hopes for the game and still put my trusts in sid and the rest of the firaxis team (except for steve chao.. dont know whats up with him.. just look at him.. ). i mean comon anyone name one sid game that sucked.. go ahead i dare you..
[This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 06, 2001).]

War4ever · May 7, 2001, 00:04

Actually i think Fiera is probably right on target here.......

Its too early to stamp a civ 2.5 label on this product however from what we have been shown so far...... i fear the worst.

It seems pretty obvious the game is going to be a revamped SMAC engine with an interface similar to the CTP series and for all of you RTS players i suppose a AOE set of plus and minuses for each civ (although SMAC factions had this as well)

Personally i didn't like the CTP interface but IF you want a new game i would assume a new game would come with a new interface.

As for not touching all of the ideas..... gee there is a surprise

How many pages did we send them? 501 i believe! Crap if 10 of those ideas are in i say that Apolyton as a community should take pride in their efforts.

Personally i don't want CTP or SMAC..... CTP tried to go way beyound civ2..... and failed miserably for the most part.....

Many games have pros and cons. Civ 2 has them. Before we go radiacally changing things and making a game which doens't work, i think we should fix the things that didn't and revise the ones that do.

May 7, 2001, 02:09

Yin26 is absolutely correct. I'm not intereted civ2.5 either. I remember alot of people complaining that CTP2 was merely a patch for CTP (hmm, a patch that screws up the AI - I though only microsoft did that . . .). That it was CTP1.5. So what's Firaxis's choice? Well, they could take the heat for putting out a mere patch to civ2 and charging full game price (and admit it - half of you would complain if civ3 felt like a mere patch - a mere TOT), or do something different a take the heat for daring to tamper with a classic. The only bad news I've heard so far is the 7 civ limit (and then only if its hardcoded - which it probably is) and the lack of public works (and many people are happy about that, its a matter of perspective). I suggest that anyone who is concerned about civ specific stuff read the thread I started regarding my solution. And as for Firaxis not listening enough, well its their game so don't sweat it.

Warm Beer · May 7, 2001, 02:10

I agree that is it far too early to pass finaly judgment on the game (not that anyone is actually doing that). However, as stated earlier, it is possible and inevitable to form opinions based on the information we have been given. I, for one, am still in the "get all the info I can" phase and like what I am hearing so far. However, I can see the points that are made in the article, especially the "upgraded combat" (i.e. stacks) that seems to be more of a Civ 2.5 than Civ 3 (if I may use Yin's terminology).

One major problem can develop if the unique civs are too different from one antother, as a few civ's disadvantages make them less desirable than others. But that is topic best saved for another thread.

------------------
"When you have to shoot - shoot, don't talk." -Tuco Benedicto Juan Ramirez

Atahualpa · May 7, 2001, 04:26

quote:

Originally posted by War4ever on 05-07-2001 12:04 AM
It seems pretty obvious the game is going to be a revamped SMAC engine with an interface similar to the CTP series and for all of you RTS players i suppose a AOE set of plus and minuses for each civ (although SMAC factions had this as well)

This is too funny. What if AOE would have never had this? Then it would be good. HAHAHAHA. Most stupid argument I have ever seen.
The unique ability idea is much longer there than AOE. And if you would have noticed in SMAC the factions also had some kind of unique abilities. Not really, but they had their ups and downs. But in SMAC it was okay.

quote:

Many games have pros and cons. Civ 2 has them. Before we go radiacally changing things and making a game which doens't work, i think we should fix the things that didn't and revise the ones that do.

That would mean creating Civ2.5

I also do expect something new. It should still be Civ, but I expect a completely different look and feel.

Ata

Buck Birdseed · May 7, 2001, 05:59

All I can say is, thank goodness you're not a game designer. The cumulative total of all the additions you want in would render the game unplayable.

Zealot · May 7, 2001, 08:23

It's sad to see that there is a possibility to only have 7 civs.

I thought that after the poll here at Apolyton, the idea was something like 32 civs. That would be the number, IMO, that could please, or satisfy, both fans and developers. Seems not...

BUT I WANT PORTUGAL IN A REAL CIVILIZATION GAME!!!!

Portugal wasn't on Colonization (wich I consider a big flaw, not having heard about a country called Brazil), not in Civ2, just in CTP...

I'm feeling a little abandoned, as an Apolytoner...

Russian King · May 7, 2001, 09:16

Hmmmm

Well Done Fiera!

I think you are right about Firaxis not listening. I noticed that at least 3/4 is missing from the list SO FAR.
I could agree that there are just too many things people want, but why not include the MAJOR ones??? Why not include 32civs???
Do they think that a 3 digit binary # will cut the lag from the game if replaced instead of a 5 digit #?
Cant they make 8-civs supported and the rest NOT?
I wouldnt give one boogie if they didnt provide support for the whole game if it was good enough.
But the point is: It just aint!
I did never expect to see a civ(infinite) or even civ(very large number) or even the Last Civ There. But I wanna see AT LEAST civ 5!
from Everything what i've heard: it sounds like civ 4.3
Adding civ1+civ2+ctp1+ctp2 and plus this improvement.
Of corse it will get better when its released, but I dont expect it to be what Firaxis claim it to be! NOT civ3(5), but civ 4.5

All those afraid of the truth: Im sorry but Fiera is about 80% right!

Steve Chao Firaxis · May 7, 2001, 09:42

quote:

Originally posted by ancient on 05-06-2001 09:21 PM
but i still have greaty hopes for the game and still put my trusts in sid and the rest of the firaxis team (except for steve chao.. dont know whats up with him.. just look at him.. ). [This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 06, 2001).]

Hey, get off my monkey.... uh, I mean uh.... that's not nice.

May 7, 2001, 11:05

hey Steve, welcome to our forums(even this way)!

you dont happen to be the same "pixelmonkey" that is in the current trade wars game, do you?

Steve Chao Firaxis · May 7, 2001, 11:28

Yes, and stop eyeing my escape pod......

Buck Birdseed · May 7, 2001, 11:44

That response time should be ample proof of the fact that someone at Firaxis does read these forums, and often, too. Which would render your whole point mute. They're litsening to your ideas, they just think they're crap and thus are not including them for gameplay reasons.

Zealot · May 7, 2001, 11:57

quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase on 05-07-2001 11:44 AM
That response time should be ample proof of the fact that someone at Firaxis does read these forums, and often, too. Which would render your whole point mute. They're litsening to your ideas, they just think they're crap and thus are not including them for gameplay reasons.

LOL
You might have a point, though...

Buck Birdseed · May 7, 2001, 13:06

Exactly. One of my ideas actually made the list (Comprehensive Scenario Editor), but the rest, I dunno.

May 7, 2001, 14:01

Let's see, if they Firaxis would have picked 8, 16, 32, 64 civs there was no way for them to win. Each group (players) wanted their no. of civs no matter what.
Unique units or standard units again no way to win. Each group (players) wanted the units their way only.
Engineers vs. P.W. again each group wanted their way. No way for Firaxis to win.
I could go on and on but it is very clear there is no way to win because each group of players want the game as they feed it should be.
Remember this game is an upgrade of Civ 2, as Civ 2 was an upgrade of Civ 1.
Look at AOK it was an upgrade of AOE. If Civ 3 change to much it will no longer be a Civ game. If it is not change enough it will Civ 2.1. Firaxis had a tough time ahead of it, making this game work for most of us players.

------------------

May 7, 2001, 15:24

quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944 on 05-07-2001 02:01 PM
Let's see, if they Firaxis would have picked 8, 16, 32, 64 civs there was no way for them to win. Each group (players) wanted their no. of civs no matter what.

actually, if you think about it, if they had done 64 civs, everybody would be happy....

lord of the mark · May 7, 2001, 15:25

I assume that lots of aspects of the game are still up for grabs, and that Firaxis IS listening. That is why i've been pounding so hard on the unique civs issue. In case they havent thought everything through, being so busy making a (holds breath) terrific game.

My impression is that theyve found a really good balance between making this civ3 rather than civ2.5 on the one hand, and losing the essence of "civ-ness" on the other. Many of the changes like limiting ICS, and adding a more elaborate culture model will make Civ3 MORE "civish" than civ2 was, IMHO. I am on the whole pleased. Which is why i find the whole unique civs thing so annoying. If they were really screwing up the game it wouldnt matter so much, but they're not. I doubt its possible to eliminate the idea at this point, since they have mentioned it in public, and i dont think its just units you get as result of what you do, cause i think they could have explained that already. My hopes are raised by the fact that they dont seem to have mentioned it much lately, so I'm hoping it wont dominate gameplay a la AOE.

LOTM

May 7, 2001, 15:29

quote:

Originally posted by Bell on 05-07-2001 12:50 PM
Does that necessarily make them any better?

surely you agree that an idea discussed and by lots of experienced civers is more probable to be a good one than by an idea of a single person....