Is it Over?

Wiglaf · January 21, 2001, 19:23

I think we all remember back when the original civ came out. Instant success and perfect gameplay threw Sid in the spotlight. Soon after he followed with the awesome playing, sales giant Civ2.

Then he leaves Microprose and starts Firaxis. He and BR make Alpha Centauri. It's a great game and sold well, but compared to the civ's it was a few pennies in the huge pockets of a game company. CTP and CTP2 did little to help.

With the apparent slowdown and complete lack of interest in civ3 (Apolyton is excited along with a few fan sites, but is that enough?), would you predict it's just plain over for Sid, Civilization, and TBS as we know it?

Oh, and I'm not trying to be like the SMAC hater Bkeela - just a bit curious.

The diplomat · January 21, 2001, 19:47

Why would it be over? Sid is still making great games. Besides, have you taken a look at the civ3 site? Civ3 looks extremelly promising. So, I would not say it is all over, not by a long shot!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

Wiglaf · January 21, 2001, 19:54

quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat on 01-21-2001 06:47 PM
Why would it be over? Sid is still making great games. Besides, have you taken a look at the civ3 site? Civ3 looks extremelly promising. So, I would not say it is all over, not by a long shot!

Yes, the game does look promising. It will be good. But Alpha Centauri was too - look where that got it.

The sad truth is, most gamers who loved civ aren't interested anymore. Call it a "new generation" of gamers if you want, but people have moved on and the majority is now interested in Quake or Unreal.

What great games is Sid making that will come close to civ? It's a shame if Sid is the only person on the earth who cares about turn based strat games (oh, Activision cares about making a quick buck, not tbs).
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited January 21, 2001).]

Sikander · January 21, 2001, 20:19

Well, I don't think Turn Based Strategy games are done yet, if for no other reason than there are still quite a few geezers like me who started playing turn based paper wargames years ago, and still have yet to see the computer live up to it's promise completely. I notice that many 'real-time' games advertise that they can be played in psuedo turn based fashion, and I assume that is because there are more than a few of us out here who got burned out on the 'click-fest' years ago playing Asteroids (or whatever).

Let's face facts, there is no game which actually has anything to do with strategy which needs to be portrayed in a psuedo real time format. Tactics happen in real time, while strategy has time to load it's pipe and ponder things for a moment or two. What's happening with games today (ie the move to real time games and psuedo real time games) has more to do with economics than with which format better represents a given condition. Younger players reared on TV video game boxes want action, while older players who came up through cardboard and paper wargames want depth. Game companies therefore are trying to entice both groups by including both aspects in new games, with mixed results.

Let's also not confuse the Civ engine with turn based games in their entirety. I have more faith that turn based games will continue to plug along than I do that the Civ engine will do the same. To some extent, the Civ engine is a victim of it's own success. If I add up all of the time I spent playing Civ I, Civ II, Colonization, MOO II, Master of Magic and Smac I wonder if the publishers of these games really got their money's worth from me. Had these games been less engrossing and offered less replay potential perhaps I would have spent more money buying more games. As it was, I was able to pick these games up from the bargain bin for 10-20$ apeice, and felt very satisfied with the entire process.

Conversely I have been very disappointed by other games (like Shogun, Gangsters etc.) which bored me to tears not long after I was finally able to get them running. So the Civ engine has provided me with an enormous amount of gameplay, for very little money, yet I always find myself hoping that a new format will do the same thing, and I always find myself disappointed. Thus my purchases of new games has dropped, as there is only so much hassle I can put up with learning a new system, and figuring out that it sucks in comparison with this game that I'm bored with. I'm ready for something new, but as yet have not seen it. SMAC is just the end of the line for the Civ engine for me. I can't imagine a better game which still retains Civ's problems and limitations. Civ III will probably be great in comparison to it's predecessors, but it will in all likelihood be too Civ for my taste. Will I buy it? Probably, if for no other reason than to pay Fireaxis back for the numerous hours of pleasure they've given me through Smac.

Wiglaf · January 21, 2001, 20:46

quote:

SMAC is just the end of the line for the Civ engine for me. I can't imagine a better game which still retains Civ's problems and limitations. Civ III will probably be great in comparison to it's predecessors, but it will in all likelihood be too Civ for my taste. Will I buy it? Probably, if for no other reason than to pay Fireaxis back for the numerous hours of pleasure they've given me through Smac.

What do you mean, "too civ for my tastes"? You are right about the generation theory (new/action, old/depth), but soon that will destroy not only civ but tbs altogether. (aren't they the same thing anyway?)

RedFred · January 21, 2001, 21:14

The thing with the Civ engine is that it is getting dated. For example, I am getting tired playing on a cylinder. I understand Civ 3 will be a torus, but get serious, we should have been playing on a globe a long time ago. An entire base can only build one thing at one time? Autogoverners and autoformers that are laughable?

Call me a pessimist but I think that Sid's best days are behind him. Even by the time Civ2 was being developed, it seems that BR was doing most of the work. And Dinos? Not a game I will be rushing out to buy. BR's BHG games will apparently be real time, so no help there.

I think that our best hope is that a new person with a lot of imagination will look at the Civ style games and develop a whole new engine for them. My other hope is that more attention will be paid to detail. There are still 100's of uncorrected bugs in SMAC. You will never have a perfect game and SMAC is very complex compared to most games, but still, they should be able to do a better job.

January 21, 2001, 21:28

with activision geting out of civ game, our hopes go to two things:
a) a succesfull civ3 attracting more companies
b) the various "alternative civs": freeciv, clash, ggs, etc

Wiglaf · January 21, 2001, 22:20

quote:

An entire base can only build one thing at one time? Autogoverners and autoformers that are laughable?

Yeah, hard to believe that survived SMAC.

quote:

Call me a pessimist but I think that Sid's best days are behind him. Even by the time Civ2 was being developed, it seems that BR was doing most of the work. And Dinos? Not a game I will be rushing out to buy. BR's BHG games will apparently be real time, so no help there.

If civ3 fails, then both their careers are over.

quote:

I think that our best hope is that a new person with a lot of imagination will look at the Civ style games and develop a whole new engine for them.

No, I doubt that. A company would have to stray very far from the original formula to avoid a copyright lawsuit. Odds are slim.

quote:

with activision geting out of civ game, our hopes go to two things:
a) a succesfull civ3 attracting more companies

I don't want to sound like a complete jerk, but civ3 has had over 4 years of time and all we get are three unit graphics. Please. I don't think the hype engine has gotten close to enough steam.

January 21, 2001, 22:28

quote:

Originally posted by SMACed on 01-21-2001 09:20 PM
I don't want to sound like a complete jerk, but civ3 has had over 4 years of time and all we get are three unit graphics. Please. I don't think the hype engine has gotten close to enough steam.

4 years? development for civ3 started around may-june 1999...

Wiglaf · January 21, 2001, 22:43

Not development, time. Years and years after civ2 all we have are huge pictures. Think about it.

Will the average, casual civ2 player care? Most have, over such a long period of time, grown up, left gaming, etc. I doubt this game will be out for another year or two (if this site is any indication), which does nothing to boost any casual gamer's enthusiasm.

If civ3 doesn't do well, it's the beginning of the end for TBS. Either that or it will just end the genre on the spot.

Blake · January 21, 2001, 23:54

Okay, sorry about going OT but I think this needs to be said.

Anyone (else) here played the old Win 3.1 game Stars! ?
It was (no, is) a great TBS space strategy game, simialler to MOO2 but with less eye candy and much more depth, including things like user designed ships (dozens of hulls and probably nearly a hundred components), build queues allowing you to easily build multiple things per year, and you could save/load queues easily and have default queues for new colonies.

Fleets could have any number of ships of different types and also had easy to use multi-turn order queues. (you give all of your ships/colonies orders and when the new turn was generated all orders were carried out, same as MOO(2))

It had a reasonably steep learning curve but was easy enough to play once you got over the eek! interactive spreadsheet intial reaction.

Altough designed with multiplayer (primarly PBEM, up to 16 players) in mind it had decent AI, which in large didn't cheat. A very nifty feature was the ability to design your own races from dozens of traits and other variables, and in a race wizard which ensured all races were more or less balanced. Encryption insures game files and race files are virtually unhackable. Finally despite being years old an official patch was released mid last year.

It's only problems was excessive MM, especially in the larger universes (up to 1000(!) stars), minimal eye candy (altough it's debatable that's a problem) and sadly very poor marketing, which is why despite being possibly the best TBS game ever it is not very well known.

If anyone is interested in checking it out, or it's sequel Stars! Supernova (which should come out anytime this year) check out:

Stars!
Stars! Supernova

It's highly addictive, but you should be safe as long as you don't download the demo (~ 1.5 meg)

Sikander · January 22, 2001, 01:57

Firstly, let me agree with RedFred, I'm tired of all of the limitations that were necessary in a DOS game, but are really old now. Playing on a cylinder is one, fighting huge strategic battles with tactical units is another. C'mon, even Alexander the Great had a combined arms army, and that was 300 years bc. 'Cities' which are often as big as entire nations, yet have the same territory in 4000 bc as they do in 2400 ad. It is these 'features' which limit games of the Civ engine. Surprisingly both MOOII and Master of Magic (s)crapped the strategic board combat system for localized tactical battles, while Civ II and SMAC retained the silly combined arms / larger force penalty (though SMAc does a better job in general than Civ II).

This is what I mean by too Civ for me. The game needs to easily expand in scale as technology allows. A government of bureacrats whose transport and communications are limited to the speed of a man walking (and effected by weather at that) are going to rule areas which correspond to these limitations. A village of 10,000 is not going to be able to produce enough spearmen to influence the movement of a panzer corps produced by the megalopolis of 1,000,000 one whit. I like the concept of these type of games, but I need to be able to believe with at least the tiniest corner of my mind that what is occurring on the map could have occurred in real life (or an alternate future etc.).

As for the generational thing, I think that the various generations influence each other in positive ways. Thus while I abhorred real time interfaces, I have learned to live with some pseudo-real time interfaces. (And some thought that men my age are incapable of learning!) Conversely generations of young men and women are learning various deep game systems regardless of the interface. The enjoyment that comes from solving a complex problem (unfortunately one that all too often baffles the AI) will ensure the demand for more than just pretty cartoons on the screen by a sizable enough audience.

January 22, 2001, 09:24

quote:

Originally posted by Sikander on 01-22-2001 12:57 AM
C'mon, even Alexander the Great had a combined arms army, and that was 300 years bc.

ctp1/2 has combined arms

quote:

'Cities' which are often as big as entire nations, yet have the same territory in 4000 bc as they do in 2400 ad.

see this ctp2 mod http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum48/HTML/000057.html

January 22, 2001, 09:26

quote:

Originally posted by SMACed on 01-21-2001 09:43 PM
Not development, time. Years and years after civ2 all we have are huge pictures. Think about it.

actually, we also had smac....

DogberryMan · January 22, 2001, 11:32

You guys need to stop worrying. TBS is not dead nor will it ever die. About two years ago people said that RPG’s were dead. Then along comes Diablo, which was arguably not a real RGP, but it did pave the way for others, and now the market is flooded with them. I am not an RGP fan myself but I do keep up on gaming news in general and I have watched the market since it started. If you think that TBS is dead or that it will be if Civ 3 is not successful then you don’t understand the market. It is true that some games are more popular than others, but this changes. And you know what you said about the generational gap…well I am 18 years old and I love SMAC and I played civ 2 a lot. I also play other games like Quake and real time strategy games like Starcraft. Just because people like real time games does not mean that they don’s like TBG too, and you know what you said about all the gamers who played civ 2 growing up and not playing games any more, well all those gamers who like real time games will mature too, and eventually look for something more complex. You guys need to quit being so pessimistic. BTW what do you guys mean by SMAC not being successful? It was on the top ten game sales forever, and it moved back up to 7th. True it might never have been the number one selling game, but it has had good sales for a looong time.

------------------
"Are you good men and true?" Much Ado About Nothing, Act III, Scene III

DogberryMan · January 22, 2001, 11:36

Sorry about the RGP thing meant RPG

Wiglaf · January 22, 2001, 19:44

quote:

actually, we also had smac....

It bombed. Say I'm a casual gamer concerned about the future of civ. SMAC does poorly (although I love the game, it fails to innovate), civ3 seems to have no one's attention, and ctp and ctp2 are also knockoffs of the original. Things are not looking good.

quote:

You guys need to stop worrying. TBS is not dead nor will it ever die. About two years ago people said that RPG’s were dead.

RPG's were never really dead as a whole genre. The consoles had Zelda, FF, PSO, etc, etc. No way.

quote:

BTW what do you guys mean by SMAC not being successful? It was on the top ten game sales forever, and it moved back up to 7th. True it might never have been the number one selling game, but it has had good sales for a looong time.

Ehh... it was on the top ten voting charts, not the top ten sales charts, if that's what you mean. It never had extended sales. It did fairly well, but civ2 - civ2 - toppled it by quite a bit. A big bit

January 22, 2001, 21:21

smac did not innovate?
borders, advanced diplomacy, 3d maps, customizable units, se, etc etc etc...

Wiglaf · January 22, 2001, 21:43

quote:

Originally posted by MarkG on 01-22-2001 08:21 PM
smac did not innovate?
borders, advanced diplomacy, 3d maps, customizable units, se, etc etc etc...

Oh it did innovate a good bit, but the general idea in the minds of most consumers and reviewers was "civ2 in space." Something more should have been done.

(Once again, I am not Bkeela!)
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited January 22, 2001).]

- Groucho - · January 22, 2001, 22:44

Luckily for me I disagree with you completely. So what if Civ3 has no buzz? They aren't even breathing on their first beta yet, let alone getting close to gold, so overwhelming buzz now would arguably be counter-productive (need an example? Warcraft 3, nuff said.) The teasers they are giving on their new website are a good start - typical marketing strategy - get the hard cores talking first and slowly ratchet up the hype till release date.

As for turn based strategy games being dead because of the lack of new titles ...

There is this game called go. You might have heard of it. It's a TBS game but the AIs suck on all the software implementations I've played so it never has gotten off the table top in a big way. It was invented something like three or four thousand years ago. The next really big TBS game after it was probably chess - which is maybe, what, 500(?) years old. Now, no really big TBS games (by big I mean millions of players) came along in the intervening period between go and chess but was TBS dead in the mean time? Of course not. It was just that no one came up with a really good game.

I'm not saying CivII is as good a game as chess or go, but I am saying that declaring a genre dead because of a few years without a big title is a bit silly. Things move a lot slower than you think. Just because CNN tries to convince us all to have the attention span of a gnat, doesn't mean we have to buy into it. Sit back, fire up CivII and play it again. It's still a good game. Maybe it doesn't have all the latest bells and whistles, but go is just a bunch of rocks.

Lord Maxwell · January 23, 2001, 15:41

SMAC didn't innovate very much, it was a facelift on an old game. (Terraform code more or less unchanged for a long time, AI is terrbily, horribly bad.)

I doubt Civ III will be very much better. There is for an example no real reason to play on a torus instead of a globe, just lazy programming. Sid is an old man, he should retire to being a CEO and leave it to a younger crowd to take the game forward.

I will buy Civ III, and I will play it alot, but I am pretty much convinced it won't be great. (Compared to other present day games it will not be close to the earthshake caused by the original Civ. Especially if the AI remains as weak as it was there.)

And early hype is good hype. The best selling title ever was wildly hyped even before it went into beta, and the beta was delayed, and the game delayed, and so on. And it pre ordered at 2M copies. More than most games ever sell, years in the bargain bin included. Say what you want about Blizzards games, but they can build hype.

Wiglaf · January 23, 2001, 18:31

quote:

Luckily for me I disagree with you completely. So what if Civ3 has no buzz? They aren't even breathing on their first beta yet, let alone getting close to gold, so overwhelming buzz now would arguably be counter-productive (need an example? Warcraft 3, nuff said.) The teasers they are giving on their new website are a good start - typical marketing strategy - get the hard cores talking first and slowly ratchet up the hype till release date.

WC3 will be more of a hit than civ3. Why? It's action oriented and an RTS. Those sell like hotcakes. I doubt your marketing theory is correct, please name some games that pulled it off.

quote:

There is this game called go. You might have heard of it. It's a TBS game but the AIs suck on all the software implementations I've played so it never has gotten off the table top in a big way. It was invented something like three or four thousand years ago. The next really big TBS game after it was probably chess - which is maybe, what, 500(?) years old. Now, no really big TBS games (by big I mean millions of players) came along in the intervening period between go and chess but was TBS dead in the mean time? Of course not. It was just that no one came up with a really good game.

Chess is thousands and thousands of years old, not five hundred. And TBS was dead on the computer until civ came and went.

quote:

I'm not saying CivII is as good a game as chess or go, but I am saying that declaring a genre dead because of a few years without a big title is a bit silly. Things move a lot slower than you think. Just because CNN tries to convince us all to have the attention span of a gnat, doesn't mean we have to buy into it. Sit back, fire up CivII and play it again. It's still a good game. Maybe it doesn't have all the latest bells and whistles, but go is just a bunch of rocks.

Maybe you're right, but I'm not just talking about now. I'm concerned about the fact that we only have one tbs game coming out soon (civ3) and the last two were gameplay stinkers and the other was a sales failure.

quote:

SMAC didn't innovate very much, it was a facelift on an old game. (Terraform code more or less unchanged for a long time, AI is terrbily, horribly bad.)

Oh, it innovated, it was just very very similar to civ2.

quote:

I doubt Civ III will be very much better. There is for an example no real reason to play on a torus instead of a globe, just lazy programming. Sid is an old man, he should retire to being a CEO and leave it to a younger crowd to take the game forward.

No younger crowd cares about civ.

quote:

I will buy Civ III, and I will play it alot, but I am pretty much convinced it won't be great. (Compared to other present day games it will not be close to the earthshake caused by the original Civ. Especially if the AI remains as weak as it was there.)

*crosses fingers*

I really hope civ3 does well and the genre is reinvented. But computer gamers have fickle agendas, one minute something is good and the next it's considered ancient.

Bblue · January 23, 2001, 18:32

Somewhat off topic but....

If anyone is looking for a (IMHO) fun, balanced TBS game they should check out 'Titans of Steel' This game is based off the old FASA game mechforce and an older freeware program by the same name.
Basically its a turned-based tactical stradagy game where can design your own mechs, advance your pilots, then bet the dog out of an opposing team of mechs.

and the best part is....
IT'S FREE!! so if you don't like it all you wasted was the download time.

While the current version is set up for play vs the AI and for player vs. player over a LAN connection, there is also beta code in the program that can allow play over the internet. The game designers are currently VERY active and while working on several things one is getting the internet player-to-player mode up and running.
while the graphic are pretty basic and documentation is sparse, the game is ecellent and is the ONLY game that has ever came close to holding my gaming attention as long as the CIV series.

Check it out at www.titansofsteel.de

Just an helpful note from an old-timer that stops by every other blue moon

------------------
"Power does not corrupt; it merely attracts the corruptable"

Wiglaf · January 24, 2001, 19:01

Mods? Get this spammer some justice

The Commodore · January 29, 2001, 11:57

<<<-----is Stars! fan,good game,that.

As a RTS and TBS fan,I think that TBS is still live and kicking...RTS is a good MP format, but for SP, TBS will allways rule.

Wiglaf · January 29, 2001, 19:14

Yeah, RTS is worthless on SP, no question there.

The sad thing is that SMAC/Civ/TBS games aren't that great on SP, either. The AIs can be beaten if you learn the right moves, hurting potential replay value with veterens of the genre.

*sigh*

Bkeela · February 1, 2001, 10:03

quote:

Oh, and I'm not trying to be like the SMAC hater Bkeela - just a bit curious.

Hmmm, I love SMAC, it's SMACX I dislike.

Bkeela.

Wiglaf · February 1, 2001, 19:13

*Gulp*

Bkeela's back!

*Gulp*

I thought you made a thread "people still play smac?" which trashed everything about the game, from its replay factor to its core status as a classic... am I wrong?

*draws lightsaber and stares into the eyes of darth vader*

Bkeela · February 2, 2001, 02:17

Well, I don't play it anymore, but I still like it if that makes any sense. I started a game about a month ago, and midway through I just lost interest in continuing. I've truly played it to utter death, yet I can still appreciate it as a great game.
I think the point of that thread I did was not so much putting the game down, but amazement that people are still excited about SMAC. [I can't even comprehend people who are still into Civ 2!]
About the only game I have that I could honestly say has great replayability value is Master of Orion II.

Bkeela.

Wiglaf · February 2, 2001, 23:05

You can't beleive people are in to civ2? Why? Because it's old?

I don't understand, please explain. It gets me pretty upset when old games = bad games. I suppose people don't like thinking they're the only ones in the world playing a specific thing that is uncool at the momemt, best game in the world or not. And in civ2's case, thousands are still in to it, so explain why you are so amazed.

*Prays Bkeela isn't his father*

------------------
The fault lies not in our SMAC, but in our stars.
~ Vanguard, February 2, 2000.