The Civilization feeling

[Ari Rahikkala]

IIRC Civ1 had the quillotine also. And Civ2's city view is by far the most rushed-looking thing in Civ games.

[Az]

I really liked those settlers coming and settling ..... and all the other thing you said Orange .... totally correct !

LightEning - yes I forgot to mention that! The Civ 1 city view beats the Civ 2 view by far even with the enhanced graphics Civ 2 has. The city view in 2 looks like a small village, even if the city's population is in the millions. Go with a graphic enhanced Version of the Civ 1 city view to give more of that Civilization feeling!

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

Did anyone ever notice that in Civilization I everything felt more like you were actually ruling an empire, as if things were important and slow enough for you to realize everything that was going on. In Civ 2 it seems to me that everything is so rushed that you miss a lot of things and don't get the "Civilization feeling". Some examples of this are listed below...

Discovery advance
Civ 1 - Picture of advance fades in with description, and science/military adviser give suggestions for next science...
Civ 2 - message pop ups.

Building cities
Civ 1 - small movie clip of horses coming into the area and cutting to a view of a small village...
Civ 2 - message pop up with "construction" picture

Diplomacy
Civ 1 - Talking on the battlefield with the Civ Rulers
Civ 2 - talking in a room with some guy that taps his foot a lot

Of course there are places where Civ 2 improved over Civ 1 in giving "the Civilization feeling"...

Reaching Alpha Centuri
Civ 1 - Video clip of a small dot getting closer to some big red planet
Civ 2 - full length video of astronauts founding the first settlement on Alpha Century. (I'd change the music though...)

Conquering the planet
Civ 1 - I believe just a message pop up
Civ 2 - Video of conquering each Civ with guillotine.

Wonders
Civ 1 - pop up of wonder with description
Civ 2 - Video showing the wonder

I think Firaxis should blend some of the traits of Civ 1 and Civ 2 to give a Civ 3 that has the Civilization feeling. Civ 2 rushes things a bit, it just doesn't always feel like you're ruling an empire, just going through the motions (expanding, building the same old same old) where as Civ 1 just seems to give you more of a feel for your empire. If you do something important (found a city, discover an advance) don't give it a message pop up. Make it come alive! I don't know about anyone else here but I'd rather have a slow paced out game that I can enjoy rather than one that ends in an hour or two. Any Comments on this?



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Adm.Naismith]

OrangeSfwr, I agree with you

quote: Did anyone ever notice that in Civilization I everything felt more like you were actually ruling an empire, as if things were important and slow enough for you to realize everything that was going on. In Civ 2 it seems to me that everything is so rushed that you miss a lot of things and don't get the "Civilization feeling".

But that's true not only by graphics choices.
The full fact is that the game start to fall from a strategical to tactical level in many aspects, some for the better some for the worse. The graphics simply follow the same path: castle view become the throne room, the city view become sort of a village view etc.

IMHO that's true for so many suggestion we make here at Apolyton about CIV III (I try to avoid it, but still fall in same mistake myself): we often ask for lot of very detailed, tactical, micromgmt things, losing the beuty of the whole Civ greatness.

May be that CTP II is the first step in the right direction, because it appear to me that the developers are cutting some detail parts that growth too much importance, leaving a better strategic game than original.

Can Firaxis afford the same challenge? Let's hope for the best.



------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Garth Vader]

I don't remember what Civ's conquering sequence was, but I do remember it being much better than Civ2's. The first time I played Civ2 I remember being dissipointed by the conquer victory. The Alpha Centauri win in Civ2 was very impressive though!

[IntgrSpin]

I think the simplicity of the gameplay had a lot to do with the atmosphere.

For example, when you purchased a CIV1 carrier, it was understood that you weren't building JUST a carrier, but rather a carrier with it's support ships. In Civ2, you have to move the carrier with its AEGIS cruiser.

Also, when a game is nuanced to death, little tricks always pop up that kind of ruin gameplay, like surrounding your city with airfields to stop incoming bombers and nukes.

I'd like to see the option for a return to simple Civ1 type gameplay... while fixing some of the things that Civ1 got wrong (quickstarting, diploblitz, etc...).

And let my bombers pillage goshdarnit!

[UltraSonix]

IntgrSpin has hit the spot. I mean, in SMAC, it's a case of, "Oh, it only Industrial Nanorobotics". The focus on the big picture is starting to infrige on the little things that count.

(And the airbase idea is cool! I didn't even know that!)

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Lord Magnus]

One of the few things that CTP improved over Civ2 is its video, although Civ2's Alpha Centauri video is better than CTP's alien video. CTP's opening video is better than Civ2's. CTP uses a nice cut scene when you conquer the world as opposed to Civ2's picture. The wonder videos of both games are about matched (I like Civ2's wonder videos a bit more). The point I'm getting at is that videos enhance the Civ feeling a great deal.

------------------
Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

[Lord Magnus]

On another note Civ games do take a long time and it would not be wise to slow down the game a significant amount for the sake of the "Civ feeling". The best would be if Firaxis could implement the "feeling" without large reductions to speed or if there was a option where you could chose a slow, detailed game for someone who is relaxing and playing against the AI and a fast but drab game for people who like to play fast or multi player games where people may prefer to wait the least amount of time for their opponent.

------------------
Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

Actually, I'm hoping for a game that can't be played in 2 hours. The longer the better, make each year really count. I can't stand how Civ 2 has the BC times last the same amount as from 1900-1950. I just feel like I missed so much, and with extra time it will give a chance for the whole world to be colonized and change hands.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
Dealer of the POBS Poker Club - The next game starts at 12:00 AM (EST)
Webmaster of Apolyton Picture Contest IV

One idea for making the time right. How about good and bad rulers, on a scale of 1 to 10. Under an excellant ruler a lot gets done quickly, under a bad ruler the country stagnates. Alexander the great conquored the eastern world in 13 years, impossible in civ 2. under the 1970s British governments the economy collapsed and very little was done. This could also show periods of recession, when building projects are delayed by funding losses, business investment decreases, etc.

[Ferdi]

"Civilization feeling" was more important in civ1 because it was a new type of game. Before each turn it was a discovery, I was unable to know what is going to happen in the next turns.
With civ2 all was already known. It was just an "industrial/insipid" version of civ1. However I liked civ2 but not as much as civ1.
I think that civ3 should be very different from its precursors to give us a new taste of discovery.
It isn't the number of civs, wonders, military units,.. that will make a new great civ game but new concepts and deep inovations.

[Adm.Naismith]

Ferdi, I agree with you 100%! Still a lot of people ask for a "CIV II with better graphics and some fixes".

What opportunity they'll miss! Civ was a great game because it was a great, innovative idea.

IMO sequels are too often only a good "easy money" opportunity for a game company.

My hope is that apparently Sid doesn't like to repeat himself (as he designed others at CIV II project), so to had be forced to take care of CIV III may add some interesting twist to the original idea.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Sirotnikov]

I also noticed that. That was partly due to the fact that civ 1 was a full screen game with it's own interface, while civ 2 was in a windowed interface. If I want a strategy game in a windowed interface I'll play solitair. Also the iterface was grey while it should be made of warm colors like CTP or the HEROES games. It can also change according to your civ color, race, charachteristic and science. It did so a little. FOr instance when you had WE LOVE THE *** DAY it was a different picture for every era, and a different pic for founding a city.

Also, colors should be nice, not too bright and contrasty (CTP has this problem a bit) and not too cold and dark colors (civ 2 ToT, or Alpha centauri).

Also the interface should be costumizable (i liked ToT function of expanding or collapsing certain city view tabs) It should fit the time line (although alpha centauri was dark the design was very fitting for the game. I only don't understand why do they persist having the future PC interface orange/green/red/white over black like the old DOS interface. Come on, a few centuries has passed since then (in the game time of course).

Also I agree that the events are now as if less significant. You build a city and you get a lousy message box. The city view screen was very unfitting. Oh, and would you believe a market place built in the 20th century would look the same as one built in the 20th century BC?

We need something to give us the worm and fuzzy feeling of exploring and really ruling and empire. Mommy, make it magical again.... like the first time we played CIV 1...

[Stormdancer]

*sigh* I hate 'me too' messages. Hopefully I can add a little bit more than that to this thread.

In Civ1 I got a real feel of "I rule an empire!"
In Civ2 I got a feel of "I rule this game."

It's all the little details that add up to produce a truly immersive environment. From the city-founding animations to the throneroom improvements, Civ 1 did a better job, I think. It felt more personal.

Though I do think the city founding animations should be updated to reflect the era - sort of odd to see a horse & wagon settler team building a city in an era of spacecraft.

As Sirotnikov says... make it magical again!
Probably one of the hardest design criteria imaginable.

[TheLimey]

Game pace is a good point.

I think that you should avoid as much micromanagement as possible, but instead include situations where the player has to stop and consider the situation, if they want the best solution.

An example of this might be a Wonder paying for certain levels of improvements in cities, which goes obsolete. When the crutch disappears, the player needs to consider which of those improvements that were 'free' are really necessary and so on.

He might choose to reduce science or luxury spending, change government, or build gold producing TI's instead.

These choices are what should pace the new Civ rather than a forced 'slow' pace.
[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited July 07, 2000).]

[Steve Clark]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 07-06-2000 09:14 PM I can't stand how Civ 2 has the BC times last the same amount as from 1900-1950. I just feel like I missed so much, and with extra time it will give a chance for the whole world to be colonized and change hands.

Then play scenarios specifically designed for the ancient period (or any other periods or events that you like). The main game has to be GENERIC to allow for all types of strategies and gameplays. Don't any of you know that there are new Civ2 scenarios coming out all the time and many of them address shortcomings in the main game that are spoken about here and elsewhere?

Just to rant some more , instead of coming here and whine, check out the dozens of sites that offer scenarios. Some are lousy but some are truly masterpieces. In playing some of the better ones, you will come away saying 'I didn't know you could that in Civ2!".

Steve - I have played some of the biggest and best scenarios that Civ 2 innovators have built. But that doesn't change the game any. I want to be able to start a game on earth with a bunch of other tribes speckling the globe and have time to enjoy the conquering of other tribes, and eventually empires. I don't want to see 4000 years go buy in 12 minutes. In Civ 1 I realize the time scale was very similar, but it didn't go buy as fast. In Civ 2 there was a shortcut for EVERYTHING. Micromanagement helps to slow time a bit, but to much of it becomes annoying. Civ 3 needs the right mix of Micromanagement, full screen messages, and other event triggers to slow the game to a respectable speed.

I think StormDancer represented my feelings best when he said...

quote: In Civ1 I got a real feel of "I rule an empire!" In Civ2 I got a feel of "I rule this game."

That says it all

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
Dealer of the POBS Poker Club - The next game starts at 12:00 AM (EST)
Webmaster of Apolyton Picture Contest IV

[Az]

I don't know ... but maybe it's that :

remember the cities in CIV1 ? no , I mean on the map ? remember ? squares with the color of the CIV ? oh that's what I like about it! it looks poor and lousy but it gives you the feeling of a map . and I actually liked it more that those ... pagodas , european country homes , pyramids or clay houses or whatever .....

so I guess what I wanna say is bring the squares back ! .

?


P.S. I didn't just say that , did I ?

------------------
Prepare to Land !

Dalgetti - My jaw dropped when I read that. I wanted to say that but I swear I'd get hissed and booed out of Apolyton. Thanks for having the guts to say it I agree 100%. The square makes it feel more like a map. The skyline view kinda screws with the mind the more ya think about it. Thanks Dalgetti

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
- Dealer of the POBS Poker Club - The next game starts at 12:00 AM (EST)
- Webmaster of Apolyton Picture Contest IV

[IntgrSpin]

No booing or hissing here. I like the map-type view also.

Maybe Civ3 could let you play either a graphical interface similar to test-of-time, or a strategic interface similar to Civ1.

On the strategic map, we could clutter it up with info like build cues, trade routes, and military units, next to the city display.

[CornMaster]

I agree with IntgrSpin there should be an option for a 2D and 3D graphical world. This could also be triggered by zooming out. But i'd prefer 2 seperate modes that you can change within the game. And no animated units. I just hate that. Sorry if I stepped on an toes.

[UltraSonix]

I'm sorry Orange, but noooo! The game's slow enough as it is! I want to feel the civ-feeling too, but to me, civ isn't living through 4000 years of history. It's building cities, wonders, and mostly importantly, conquering my enemies. To me, it doesn't matter that BC went down the drain in 12mins, just as long as I can build an army and go kick some Mongols! That's "The Civilization feeling" to me.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[MidKnight Lament]

I'll also put my hand up for a 2D or 3D option. Someone recently cited the old Battle Chess example - the animations were cool to watch to begin with, but other times you just wanted the bare basics, and the top-down view was simpler, less cluttered, and much less time consuming.

Obviously I don't know the mechanics behind it all, but I can't imagine that adding a 2D map would take all that long to implement. There's design issues, sure, but I think it's worth it. Not only would it appease those who don't want to see the bells and whistles because they can be annoying or non-conducive to quick play, but it would also help keep the minimum requirements down as low as possible. It sounds like Firaxis are going to go all out to give us top-of-the-line graphics, and that's fine, but a simpler 2D option would make sure that those without a new PC can still enjoy the game the whole way through.

Chances are I personally wouldn't be playing in 2D mode most of the time, but you can bet I'd be switching to it once I got into the slow end-game.

Options are good.

- MKL

[Steve Clark]

Which is exactly the model that is common to most hex-based wargames (eg., from Talonsoft). IIRC, in most of those games, you have 4 views: 3D normal (zoomed in), 3D display (zoomed out), 2D normal and 2D display. Most grognards after a while, ended up playing exclusively on the 2D maps (clearer to see units) and only use 3D for line of site, terrain analysis, etc.

UltraSonix - I guess everyone has their own idea of how to play the game. But to me the longer and more drawn out it is, the more important everything seems. It would also make the game realistic in that all land could be settled and cultivated by the time 2000 AD rolls around (assuming a world map) What do you think about the map view? City view or square with name?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
- Dealer of the POBS Poker Club - The next game starts at 12:00 AM (EST)
- Webmaster of Apolyton Picture Contest IV

[MidKnight Lament]

Steve - I'm all for hex too, but in lieu of that a 2D view would still be nice.

- MKL

[phunny pharmer]

I personally don't like hex, but I do play hex games.

I also support 2D view. 3D is complicated, and much harder to customize. I would prefer customizability over better graphics. I also don't want to see animations when there are battles. This is for several reasons. First, they get repetitive after a while. The option would be turned off after the tenth time. Second, I don't want to see Firaxis spending time on this when they could make the game better in other more pressing ways. Third, simple is better; when the system isn't broken, don't change it.

I also think large, drastic changes would make Civ3 lose the civ feeling. However, I won't define 'large, drastic changes' because there are other changes that I want to see!

[Par4]

I never played civ1

*teary eyed

------------------
King Par4!!

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai