|
I agree Fiera,
I am also a Sid Meiers Gettysburg fan, and when all the Getty community hoped the sequel to the game to expand it at a campaing level or even to cover the entire American Civil War, Firaxis let us down with Antietam, a wash-up of the old game with aditional graphics and less more. I´ve never seen such a deception that that of the Gettysburg players community when Antietam were shipped, we were wishing for a game that would make us play as civil war commanders for years, and in fact many veterans simply stopped to play Getty on Mplayer. It was clear: the publishers wanted EASY MONEY. Don´t know if this was a cause of Brian Reynold´s resign.
Hope this won´t happen with CIV 3, I can´t not judge without having played the game, but I agree fiera about the bad "premonition" of 7 civs (nothing told about the idea of a neutral race, with every city operating with independence and assimilable by culture and trade influence).
Its clear that WE DONT NEED ANIMATIONS, we need a deeper CIV 2. Maybe Hasbro thinks they needed, as their (legitimal) goal could be sell millions of games. But they should consider that Civ 1 and Civ 2 sold that being innovative and very complicated to play at that moment, when most computer games were something like "shot the alien", and Micropose asumed a risk (as they did in other hits likes XCOM) that probably no other company would have asumed and that makes them earn lots of money. Now, an "aged of empires" wash-up of Civilization would probably sell millions, but civ fans won´t buy a Civ 4 from the same developer and publisher, as it happens with Antietam (the first game with the name of Sid Meier in the title that doesn´t deserve that name). It could be said that Antietam was the end of Gettysburg and what could has been a whole serial of good and serious civil war games.
Hope Civ 3 won´t be the "Antietam" of "Gettysburg", but I´m a little afraid about that.
|
