c165# CIV3: WORST FEARS COME TRUE! - Page 2

Roman · May 7, 2001, 15:43

Hey, lord of the mark, I don't think you need to worry about unnique civs at all. Firaxis said the civilizations will be editable, so you can just erase all the differences.

That will also keep everyone happy - those that do and those that do not want unique civs.

Roman · May 7, 2001, 15:50

I also agree that the game looks like it will be truly excellent and that Firaxis are definitely looking on these forums for suggestions and inspiration. That is also the reason why I was (am?) so worried about 7 civ limit (if the game looked rubbish I wouldn't have cared) and I also started the massive topic on 7 civilizations precisely because I think Firaxis looks here and is open to critique.

Lets hope these assumptions are correct.

lord of the mark · May 7, 2001, 16:15

quote:

Originally posted by Roman on 05-07-2001 03:43 PM
Hey, lord of the mark, I don't think you need to worry about unnique civs at all. Firaxis said the civilizations will be editable, so you can just erase all the differences.

That will also keep everyone happy - those that do and those that do not want unique civs.

Good but this leaves 2 concerns -
1. the AI. IF the unique civs are important, and AI expects them, and i turn them off, this will make AI even easier to beat, no?

2. The civ community

I dont want strategy boards to be dominated by how to play different "races"

3. Im a bit of a grognard (if you havent noticed) Stupid things gall me. I dont care if its just a game, i treat games like movies, books etc. I dont want junk around(yeah i know thats too strong), especially not from the likes of Sid Meiers.

LOTM

tniem · May 7, 2001, 16:54

Other than the number of civs, the column this week was hard to read for what seems like a ton of assumptions and misguesses.

But the biggest problem I had with it is that he first says that he does not want Civ 2.5 but a new game. But then says that the best way to make the game is to fix what is wrong in the previous games. I am sorry but that isn't what I want. That is how Microprose made Civ II, a few changes from the original and I quickly became bored. I am happy with what Firaxis appears to be doing with Civ III. It appears to me that I will have to learn entirely new strategies, that the old ones will not work and that I will have to become a new type of Civ player. I can only hope.

Of course until Civ III comes out I will leave some of the his comments as just hopefully pessismistic views. Hey I can hope!

MazaNaza · May 7, 2001, 17:49

While I don't share the attitude that the "sky is falling" that most people here seem to, I do agree with one thing: Civs with predetermined strengths and weaknesses (a la SMAC) don't sit well with me. When this happens, multiplayer games will turn into arguments over who gets to have their favorite civilization.

I think that a better implementation for the special unit idea would be to create "paths." If a particular civilization follows a certain path through the game (i.e. focuses on war, economics, peace, happiness, exploration, etc.) then it could be awarded special opportunites along the way (like units). This would allow the player to chose his or her own destiny rather than have it dictated by the choice of civ. It wouldn't be something you'd be stuck on once you started, either; you'd be able to shift between them gradually throughout the game. This would help to create advantages and disadvantages for following a particular strategy rather than simply starting as a particular civ.

Let me know what you guys think - maybe Firaxis should hear about this?

Admiral PJ · May 7, 2001, 17:55

That article was far too negative, Firaxis will try their best at this game so don't give them such a hard time..
Us programmers etc can be sensitive so positive comments rather than negative ones would probably help firaxis more.
Perhaps Civ4 will have even more features.. but for all we know Civ3 will have everything we hoped for.

Gameplay is the main thing in a game, games are games so I hope it'll concentrate on that :>
but art is important nowadays too of course.

Admiral Pete

meriadoc · May 7, 2001, 18:48

Do you know who I agree with the most? The guys who are pointing out that Civ III is still only about half complete and therefore it's still far too early to judge the game.

Sure, some criticism here and there is one thing. But all out saying that Civ III is going to be horrible - that's too much.

------------------
The Electronic Hobbit

Fiera · May 7, 2001, 19:56

Hi. First of all, thank you all for your comments!

I must say that I'm not surprised that most of them are negative ones... I knew that the points I wanted to raise weren't precisely popular among the Civ3 forum visitors. That's why I made my mind to write an article for The Column, instead of opening a new thread here- I just wanted to catch the opinion of those Civ fans that don't monitor this forum every day.

I'm very sorry that Imran finds this column to be a waste. Maybe it's a waste for him and for everybody that seems to have blind faith in Firaxis and Civ3, but I think that a share of criticism is never a waste. Especially when the mainstream here seems to be "Sid and Firaxis are real genius, they can't do anything wrong".

My criticism (though put in a somewhat provoking style) was intended to be useful and constructive for Firaxis. If you're right, and the game is still half complete, maybe they are still on time to learn some things about what the Civ fans community thinks and feels like. I'm not only talking about my article, but about a respectable number of threads opened recently in this very forum.

Imran said he would submit an article regarding this. I strongly encourage him to do so, for I'd realy like to see some good points on why should be optimistic about Civ3 (basing on what we've seen so far, not just on vague Sid's promises, of course).

I'm also surprised about some people that seems to feel that I'm furious because MY ideas don't seem to be implemented in Civ3 (Snapcase, I'm looking at you). I just brought The Essential Civ3 List as an example of ideas that were broadly accepted among the Apolyton community. And I hardly took part in the elaboration of these ideas (just a pair of shy posts, I think), I just voted for my favourites as many people here did.

Also, I don't think that this column sums up how I feel Civ3 should be. So I hate to tell it, but people criticizing me for proposing difficult or boring ideas for Civ3 just don't get what this column is about.

My point is that Firaxis has greater interests than just pleasing the die hard Civ fans -like earning cash, for example... It's a pity, but that's the way it is.

As I stated in the article, I'd sooner devote my free time to the developing of any of the "Alternative Civs" than to Firaxis's Civ3. Some of you may think I am crazy, but the Alternative Civs are games developed by the Civ fans, for the Civ fans.

Oh, and I never said that Civ3 was going to be horrible. I think it'll be a great game. But I also feel that it will disappoint most of the people here.

Why? Because of all the great hopes we all had for it. I think you'll understand me.

Roman · May 7, 2001, 20:23

quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-07-2001 04:15 PM
1. the AI. IF the unique civs are important, and AI expects them, and i turn them off, this will make AI even easier to beat, no?

Well, the first point is certainly still of concern, but I sincerely doubt that Firaxis are going to write a separate AI for each civ anyway - they will most likely use the same AI for all of them. If they didn't do that than there would be no point of the civs being customizable in the first place, would there?

As to the strategy forums, I am sure they will have plenty of generic strategies either way.

Father Beast · May 7, 2001, 20:33

quote:

Originally posted by yin26 on 05-06-2001 08:37 PM

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.

The HECK you say!!

I enjoy playing Zork now and again. I also enjoy a lot of the frustrating Nethack, since LighteNing turned me onto it. both of these are very graphics impaired.

My latest obsession is XCOM, and it has got me bad, even though the pixelated graphics are pathetic by today's standards, or even 5 years ago. it's still a great game!

it might be better to say that graphics are important TO YOU, Yin.

ancient · May 7, 2001, 20:33

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Chao Firaxis on 05-07-2001 09:42 AM
Hey, get off my monkey.... uh, I mean uh.... that's not nice.

hehe thats great..

ancient · May 7, 2001, 20:36

ooh xcom and nethack are great games..

Roman · May 7, 2001, 20:42

I would go even further, Father Beast. Excessive graphics ANNOY

me in a strategy game. Especially animations, where some unit is represented by a figurine which moves its legs while "walking" on the main map. To me that just looks stupid.

Luckily, I believe that just like in Civ 2,

it will be possible to turn off animations in Civ 3. Furthermore, I hope the graphics on the screenshots are final, or close to final - I don't want an excessively graphical strategy game (though I admit, I do have a preference for light rather than dark graphics, which luckily seem to be the norm, judging from the screenshots) and the graphics from the screenshots aren't very excessive just yet and hopefully will not be in the actual game.

yin26 · May 7, 2001, 21:14

Father Beast:

I'm currently in a game of Trade Wars 2002 which, as you might know, is text and a few ANSI graphics. It's fun. Simple but fun. So don't confuse what I'm saying: Good graphics are NOT necessary for a great game, but surely having a great game with great graphics is...well...great!

I will say this, though: If Civ3 has crappy graphics (I thought SMAC's graphics were rather terrible), I'll be looking for other excuses to stop playing the game. And it's not so much that the graphics themselves ruin the experience but that I'll know there was a deliberate decision made not to live up to the "No more bad graphics from Firaxis" promise.

Let me leave you with a question: If Civ3's graphics are similar or even worse than Civ2's, this wouldn't bother you? Sorry, but in the end, human beings are primarily visual creatures. I agree the imagination is better than any graphics and gameplay is more important than visuals, but THIS IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME!

I'll repeat that: THIS IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME!

Father Beast · May 7, 2001, 21:21

Since the column seems to center on the stuff in the EC3, I'll go ahead and go down them, point by point and see if it's as bad as fiera makes out...

EC3 Fixes:

1. Trade
in.

2. Diplomacy
in.

3. Make It Harder for civs to last
not addressed as yet, may yet be included. firaxis is sometimes tight lipped with us until official announcements.

4. Comprehensive Scenario Editor
in, but how comprehensive it is remains to be seen.

5. Improved Road and Rail Rules
not mentioned as yet. I sure hope it's in.

EC3 New Ideas

1. Rise And Fall Of Empires
essentially the same as fix #3, since this aspect made both lists, it should be a flag for them to listen. haven't heard yet...

2. Domestic Politics
not sure yet, but unlikely

3. New Modes Of Victory
in, was already in AC, but a lot of the list people were not AC vets.

4. Energy
apparently out

5 (tie). Stacking
in

5 (tie). Religion
apparently out, but a lot of the effects of religion may be addressed in culture, so I can't say that went entirely unheard.

A couple of things which didn't make the list itself, but got some votes, and we know are pretty much in, are:

No More Instant City Conversions
Better Graphics
Replay (if that wink from dan in that one thread means what I think it does)
And lets not forget that there appears to be a good fix for ICS, one of the ones we most talked about on THE LIST, and endlessly in this forum.

So, from the 11 EC3 items, we have 5 that are in, 2 apparently out, and 4 not sure. I have trouble marking that as "they don't listen to us"

I was also amused by your off the wall suggestion that we just call it "age Of Civilizations", since the developers of that game were largely civ worshippers that played some Warcraft on the side. they come from us, not us from them. I had to chuckle...

yin26 · May 7, 2001, 21:22

Roman:

I also hate animations like that and really hope Firaxis doesn't waste time with them. What I personally mean by good graphics in Civ3 is primarily a very lush and colorful land (I don't need running waterfalls), very detailed (but not animated) units that make distinguishing what's what much easier, and an interface that is very crisp and clear.

Now if you look at all that, what I'm talking about are graphics that make gameplay easier. This is a VERY important point. I'm not interested in eye-candy just so I can test my video card. I want graphics that 1) help make gameplay easier and 2) help make things simply look better (I have no shame in simply wanting things to look good).

Animations and 3d this and 3d that...if it doesn't add to gameplay in an important way, get rid of it. Take all that wasted time and work harder on the interface.

Father Beast · May 7, 2001, 21:38

quote:

Originally posted by yin26 on 05-07-2001 09:14 PM
Father Beast:

I'm currently in a game of Trade Wars 2002 which, as you might know, is text and a few ANSI graphics. It's fun. Simple but fun. So don't confuse what I'm saying: Good graphics are NOT necessary for a great game, but surely having a great game with great graphics is...well...great!

I will say this, though: If Civ3 has crappy graphics (I thought SMAC's graphics were rather terrible), I'll be looking for other excuses to stop playing the game. And it's not so much that the graphics themselves ruin the experience but that I'll know there was a deliberate decision made not to live up to the "No more bad graphics from Firaxis" promise.

Let me leave you with a question: If Civ3's graphics are similar or even worse than Civ2's, this wouldn't bother you? Sorry, but in the end, human beings are primarily visual creatures. I agree the imagination is better than any graphics and gameplay is more important than visuals, but THIS IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME!

I'll repeat that: THIS IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME!

If civ3 has graphics at the same level as civ2, I won't care. I eventually quit playing civ1 for dos and started playing the windows version most of the time because the interface is easier to handle. I actually preferred the civ1 dos graphics to the civ for windows graphics (which are almost identical to civnet graphics), but I deal with it because of the ease of interface.

I'm not aware of the "No More Bad Graphics From Firaxis" promise. must have been before my time.

I am not put off by AC graphics at all. it is different, but not bad.

if Humans are primarily visual creatures, then perhaps some are more visually oriented than others. I know that some people can't live without the right music in their games, but it doesn't matter much to me (except when I found myself playing civ to the sounds of kiddy songs, that took about 5 minutes to obtrude itself above my civ awareness). It took me a while to get used to the isometric view in civ2, but I find the upright squares of civ1 just as appealing.
I guess my take on visuals is related to how much info they can give me. If they can tell me the staus of a unit at a glance, so much the better. that's one more thing I don't have to dig for in the reports.

I am probably in the minority on this, but I really don't care. The visuals from the screenshots will do, if they can tell me what all that means, and why having 2 parallell city improvement lists will help.

Father Beast · May 7, 2001, 21:42

OK, Yin, you posted while I was writing the last one. I agree with your explanation to Roman. Info on gameplay is good.

Imran Siddiqui · May 7, 2001, 21:59

quote:

I'm very sorry that Imran finds this column to be a waste. Maybe it's a waste for him and for everybody that seems to have blind faith in Firaxis and Civ3, but I think that a share of criticism is never a waste. Especially when the mainstream here seems to be "Sid and Firaxis are real genius, they can't do anything wrong".

No, it is waste for everyone that realizes that these are previews based on a game that is 50% done (that means half is left for those challenged in math). What are most of these assumptioned based on? Heresay. Criticism is a critique of something that you know, not proclaiming everything sucks based on half-truths, assumptions and pure leaps of faith.

quote:

Imran said he would submit an article regarding this. I strongly encourage him to do so, for I'd realy like to see some good points on why should be optimistic about Civ3 (basing on what we've seen so far, not just on vague Sid's promises, of course).

Gladly... of course, you realize you are being hypocritical seeing as you've put some points on why we shouldn't be optimistic about Civ3 based on vague previews and assumptions.

quote:

My point is that Firaxis has greater interests than just pleasing the die hard Civ fans -like earning cash, for example... It's a pity, but that's the way it is.

Uh huh, doesn't mean that they are throwing die hard Civ fans to the road to make a quick buck, which is exactly what your column implies. Look at SMAC for evidence of that.

quote:

As I stated in the article, I'd sooner devote my free time to the developing of any of the "Alternative Civs" than to Firaxis's Civ3. Some of you may think I am crazy, but the Alternative Civs are games developed by the Civ fans, for the Civ fans.

So go ahead. We ain't stopping you.

quote:

Why? Because of all the great hopes we all had for it. I think you'll understand me.

Just like I understood all those people saying the world was going to end because of Y2K. Perhaps I've found a title for my column "Y2K, Chicken Little, and Civ3"

Father Beast · May 7, 2001, 22:07

quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-07-2001 09:59 PM
Just like I understood all those people saying the world was going to end because of Y2K. Perhaps I've found a title for my column "Y2K, Chicken Little, and Civ3"

Looking forward to it, Imran. I'm an avid column reader.

May 8, 2001, 00:39

Snapcase, Fiera is talking about the ideas in the "Essential Civ3 List". a list of ten items which came out after a lot of discussion and participation of lots of people....

Koyaanisqatsi · May 8, 2001, 00:50

quote:

Originally posted by MarkG on 05-07-2001 12:39 PM
Snapcase, Fiera is talking about the ideas in the "Essential Civ3 List". a list of ten items which came out after a lot of discussion and participation of lots of people....

Does that necessarily make them any better?

Just a thought.

Deathwalker · May 8, 2001, 05:06

Though I aggree that it is way to earley to make judments about Civ 3, I dor aggree with some of the fears expressed. My first one is the number of Civ's I nelieve and always believed that for a game like Civilization you need more than 7 in order for the game to reflect it's overall aims and ambitions. I also aggree that the civs should not be unique, I believe this is a hindure and in the end a pander to all the real time games out their and hope to sell more games and make more money. But afterall that is the reson Fracis makes games, to make money. As for the other worries I believe that it is to early to say. I hope that in the end the game lives up to our hopes and is not another TOT or CTP1/2 or SMAC which in the end were never real successors to Civilization 2.

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

Father Beast · May 8, 2001, 05:44

Just a quick question, I thought there would be 8 major civs, and 8 minor. sounds like 16 civs in a game?
Am I missing something?

Roman · May 8, 2001, 06:47

quote:

Originally posted by Father Beast on 05-08-2001 05:44 AM
Just a quick question, I thought there would be 8 major civs, and 8 minor. sounds like 16 civs in a game?
Am I missing something?

Some previews said it is 7, but then one came up with a different number, so I decided to quiten down about it. I hope Firaxis clarifies the issue.

Roman · May 8, 2001, 06:54

quote:

Originally posted by yin26 on 05-07-2001 09:22 PM
I also hate animations like that and really hope Firaxis doesn't waste time with them. What I personally mean by good graphics in Civ3 is primarily a very lush and colorful land (I don't need running waterfalls), very detailed (but not animated) units that make distinguishing what's what much easier, and an interface that is very crisp and clear.

Now if you look at all that, what I'm talking about are graphics that make gameplay easier. This is a VERY important point. I'm not interested in eye-candy just so I can test my video card. I want graphics that 1) help make gameplay easier and 2) help make things simply look better (I have no shame in simply wanting things to look good).

Animations and 3d this and 3d that...if it doesn't add to gameplay in an important way, get rid of it. Take all that wasted time and work harder on the interface.

Well, Yin, it is difficult to argue against graphics that make the gameplay better.

We all agree than.

However, I do think that Civ 2 graphics and certainly the graphics, which appeared in the recent screenshots are more than sufficient for gameplay.

Grumbold · May 8, 2001, 06:58

I'd rather have 8 smart civs (well, mine may not be smart for the first game or three :P ) than 32 mentally deficient ones, if that is the choice we have to make. Hopefully there will be an easily accessible parameter users can bump the amount upward at their own risk if they have the latest PC to support it. Sid & co can make sure the core product is fully tested without having to explore 16+ civ scenarios but the 'maxxers' are happy. Hopefully that is two lessons that has been learned from CtP1/2: more of something is not necessarily better and editable code is fantastic for mod makers.

On the graphics front, I concur with Yin's last post. Crisp clear graphics of a modern standard are essential, not animations and frills. Civ2 got that right, ToT went and ruined it with their drab hard to see unit/land designs. No matter how good the game is, if my eyes have to strain to distinguish unit types or owners, pretty soon it will be gathering dust or returning to the store.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited May 08, 2001).]

Admiral PJ · May 8, 2001, 15:58

Don't believe everything magazine journalists say.. if they don't know they just make up some rubbish. (apolyton journalists are good though

and rarely wrong)
Its like if the weather man says its going to rain tommorrow, your not going to sue him if its actually sunny. (well i'm sure theres some vague similarity at least :P )

Admiral Pete

OH AND i'm making a great civ like game.. Mantra,
I should start a thread about it, It will have lots of the features that people have been asking for, and many many more, including space travel and star /moon/asteroid colonisation.

Simpleton · May 8, 2001, 21:40

Tell me one thing Fiera. 8 months from now, if Civ3 came out and got rave review after rave review, you wouldn't play the game just because you could only play 7 civs at a time? Come on!!??? You can't be serious.
As has been said before I would rather have 7 civs that play smart than 32 civs that play like in CTP2(aka: the years most expensive coaster).
Criticism aside, I may not agree with your article but good job!!

Fiera · May 9, 2001, 20:19

OK, everybody leave the magazine previews aside please. I'm not worried only because the info I've read on those. In fact, the only thing there that has really worried me is the mention to the 7 civs limit (and the lack of info about minor civs, of course).

My main worries come from the Firaxis official Civ3 website. I think you'll find that none of the info released there may be adressed as half truth, and that all of the features already shown by Firaxis will actually make it into the game. They're being extremely careful with what they're showing and letting us know, so I don't expect them to show and explain us a feature if they're going to let it out in the final game, because it "didn't playtest well".

So if most of my fears come from what we've seen on the Firaxis site so far, surely they aren't based on "vague previews and assumptions". Fine.

I was really disappointed when, after a looong wait, Firaxis opened the official Civ3 site just to show us some artwork samples. Now think about it. If you were Firaxis, would you just show a 3d render of a phalanx if you had the hope of appealing to the Civ fans community? Come on!

The official website is the place where Firaxis introduces Civ3 to the world. They show what they want the people to see, and if the first thing they decide to show it's nothing but eye-candy, then you know at which target they're aiming to.

I have nothing against that awesome F-15 unit graphic. I just would be happier with some info about how are they actually going to deal with aerial combat, which was one of the biggest flaws of Civ2. And if they still want to show how good their graphics are, then, fine, but why not giving real info about the game?

Well, the next update brought some info about the combat system, along with some "suspiciously-looking" unit animations. We all know that most people like to turn-off animations. And what does a warrior celebrating his victory add to the Civ experience?

The gifted leaders look promising, and the ranged weapons and new ZOC rules seem right to me, but, is that what the fans were desperately hoping to be featured? I don't think so, so why talk about it before than anything else?

Just because they aren't really aiming at pleasing the bulk of Civ fans, but to a new crowd of, very probably, RTS players. Hence the focus on combat system and eye-candy.

I think thay've made that choice because they want to sell as many copies as they can, of course. Everyone knows Firaxis need a huge hit. But also because they're pretty sure that most Civ fans will buy it anyway, no matter how good the game actually is.

So now you know it, Simpleton, even if Civ3 features a 7 civs limit I might as well buy it.

But I'll try to test it by myself before buying it, for I now have serious fears that I won't like it.

After all, that's the bad thing about being a fanatic. I'm sure you all had great expectations for Civ3. Do you sincerely think that Firaxis will be able to satisfy all of them?