PTW intro movie a Gamespot.

statusperfect · October 17, 2002, 17:52

double post. poly is laggy

sorry

statusperfect · October 17, 2002, 17:52

cant get threads to work

sorry

the PTW intro movie is at gamespot for free

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters...561213,00.html

jim_steer · October 18, 2002, 05:22

Cheers for the link.
The intro is pretty cool, didn't they win an award for it or something. Pity the gameplay shots are a bit insanely small on the streaming version though, couldn't see bugger all.

MarkG · October 18, 2002, 07:42

for easier view, here is the windows media stream

http://apolyton.net/civ3/media/asf/c...1502_intro.asf

monkspider · October 19, 2002, 00:29

Cool, great movie. Makes me all the more anticipating that November release date.

ixnay · October 19, 2002, 01:36

I like it much better than the original intro movie.

orange · October 22, 2002, 09:06

meh

Curmudgeon · October 22, 2002, 17:51

Knowing the futility after months of reading, I nevertheless finally registered on this forum so that I could express a bit of my disappointment with the PTW's new intro movie.

To put it succinctly, if I'd seen this intro prior to purchasing Civ3 I would not have chosen it.

We got Civ3 for my wife last Christmas and bought a 2nd copy later so that we could play on both laptops at the same time. If her first game had started out with this inanely violent and uncivilized intro, our loss of interest may not have been overcome by the quality and complexity of this strategy game. It's yet another sad commentary on our times that savvy marketers choose to take this approach, let alone get awarded for it.

Until today, we'd been looking forward to the arrival of PTW.

WarpStorm · October 22, 2002, 18:25

Curmudgeon,

Multiplayer Civ3 (the main point of PTW) will be much more violent than playing against the AI. I think this movie is quite representative of the reality of internet multiplayer games. All it takes is one warmonger (and on the internet there will be one) to make the game inanely violent.

Besides, you don't have to watch the opening movie to play (I don't really care if I watch it again).

FrustratedPoet · October 22, 2002, 18:44

Has the world gone mad?

It's only an intro movie. The quality of the intro movie has nothing to do with the quality of the game.

People had similar complaints about the trailer thingy that was released a few days ago: "I hate this trailer therefore I won't buy PtW".

It makes no sense.

Violence? What violence?

I saw a few people swinging swords, nothing brutal or graphic at all, I've seen worse violence on children's TV. Then there were some people shooting guns from behind sand-bags, that's all, just people shooting, nobody actually getting shot. Then there was an explosion that acted as a fade to a scene in a factory.

What is uncivilised about that?

Boring, perhaps. Uninspiring, probably.

Curmudgeon · October 22, 2002, 20:40

WarpStorm,

Of course, though we liked the old intro, we only watched it a couple of times. It's just saddening to see this game's marketing devolve. Indeed, due to the predominant slant of Civ3 toward being a war game, PTW's multiplayer aspect has never been of any interest to us. The new civs and added features of PTW are.

FrustratedPoet,

Yes, but not the way you appear to mean... Nor is this news.

If you're looking for the "sense," read what I wrote presuming it might contain a grain rather than dismissing it based on preconceptions. IF we'd seen this intro BEFORE we'd played Civ3 for a few hundred hours, THEN we would not have purchased it in the first place. We would have ignored it like we do the vast majority of other products marketed so repugnantly. The marketing for Civ3 that we saw made it appear more civilization rather than conquest oriented. Firaxis seemed like they actually wanted to reach a broader market which included us. There are just enough constructive aspects of the actual game to make it enjoyable. As in reality, it can (just barely) be played with war as a necessary evil.

Sanitizing and abstracting violence and indoctrinating children with it on TV does not make it any less violent. For my two cents it's far worse, but that's getting back to your first question. Broaching that is beyond futile, especially for the next few years of American hysterical insanity. To put my comments in perspective so that it's even easier to discount them completely, suffice it to say that we raised our children (now young adults studying law and theoretical physics) without TV and they're glad we did.

That the answer to your second question isn't obvious goes a long way toward an understanding of our world today.

orange · October 22, 2002, 21:15

Quote:

Indeed, due to the predominant slant of Civ3 toward being a war game, PTW's multiplayer aspect has never been of any interest to us. The new civs and added features of PTW are.

sorry cur, but on that note you're in the minority

nevertheless - i agree with your stance on the intro...the game isn't just about war, yet that's basically all it shows

FrustratedPoet · October 23, 2002, 03:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Curmudgeon

FrustratedPoet,

Yes, but not the way you appear to mean... Nor is this news.

If you're looking for the "sense," read what I wrote presuming it might contain a grain rather than dismissing it based on preconceptions. IF we'd seen this intro BEFORE we'd played Civ3 for a few hundred hours, THEN we would not have purchased it in the first place. We would have ignored it like we do the vast majority of other products marketed so repugnantly. The marketing for Civ3 that we saw made it appear more civilization rather than conquest oriented. Firaxis seemed like they actually wanted to reach a broader market which included us. There are just enough constructive aspects of the actual game to make it enjoyable. As in reality, it can (just barely) be played with war as a necessary evil.

Sanitizing and abstracting violence and indoctrinating children with it on TV does not make it any less violent. For my two cents it's far worse, but that's getting back to your first question. Broaching that is beyond futile, especially for the next few years of American hysterical insanity. To put my comments in perspective so that it's even easier to discount them completely, suffice it to say that we raised our children (now young adults studying law and theoretical physics) without TV and they're glad we did.

That the answer to your second question isn't obvious goes a long way toward an understanding of our world today.

I'm sorry, my tone in my previous post was rather unnecessary, wasn't it? I apologise for that, it had been a bad day...

Anyway, while we appear to fundamentally disagree on a few things (namely the nature of civilisation and the pros/cons of the medium of TV) to argue about them here whould be inapppropriate and wouldn't get us anywhere.

I'm sorry to hear that your expectations of PtW have been disappointed, but I hope you find that the finished game (when released) will reignite your interest.

Happy civving!

Stuart (aka FrustratedPoet).

statusperfect · October 23, 2002, 05:48

Curmudgeon> War IS FUN! Ever played chess?

Robert Plomp · October 24, 2002, 04:31

One of my favorite quotes is something like: "You can't say civilizations aren't improving, in every war they kill you in a bright new way"

That's exactly what this movie is representing.
I'm sorry, but the history of civilization is more about war than about peace. Pherhaps only since the 20th century (and only the 2nd part of this century) it's common that countries use that much diplomacy.

The intro movie is very respresenting.
You see all kinds of civilizations, advanced and early civilizations, and all they do is fighting, but indeed, everytime in a brand new way.