Would Civ 3 have been as successful without the existence of the other Civ games ?

[prince_aki]

Maybe.

[ACooper]

Even more so. People wouldn't have anything to compare it to so it would be freash and new.

[prince_aki]

What about the other games in the market now?

[ACooper]

Originally posted by prince_aki
What about the other games in the market now?

The "Civ" games are unique. (I'm including CTP1 & 2) They follow an expanse of history. As turn based games they are similar to board games for the computer. You can't really compare RTS games to TBS games because, by nature they are very different.

What other popular games out there are like any of the Civs? There are a few clones but they were all inspired by the original Civ. Since in your question you excluded other Civ games, then this would be the "original" Civ game and therefore stand one it's own.

[Heliodorus]

I don't think so.
My opinion is that the modern computer game market is driven more by hype than by reality.
Civ1 was released when the real gameplay mattered. Civ2 was nothing more than a polished version for the market as it was at the time - it existed entirely on hype, and it succeeded only because Civ1 had done so well.
Some people loved SMAC/AX, but I think they were more clones of Civ2 with the names changed. I never caught the fire for these, and never finished a single game I started.
Civ3 was a hype-driven enterprise. Sid Meier is a wunderkind now. Like other wunderkind (e.g. John Romero, John Carmack, and the collectives behind Blizzard's remarkable successes), even if they turn out unimaginative near-clones of earlier titles (Quake3, Diablo2) people buy it in lockstep without really thinking about them. The notable exception is obviously John Romero, who entered into two legendary Greek tragedies, becoming both Icarus and Achilles - doomed by his own pride and ego.

It's comparable to all-star game voting by fans. The folks that DESERVE to be recognized for their achievements only end up being so recognized the year AFTER they deserve it. However, the chain of recognition continues and the player continues to go to the All Star game until one year AFTER his merits no longer warrant it.

[Raion]

Maybe, its the title.

When looking at games, one picks up Civilization, one instinctly knows what it means and is, one looks at it, and says "So What!" -- one looks around, and one looks at the game again.
What could put this guy in the Hall of Fame as a game designer?
One looks again, and says "It must be alright!"
One says "I want value for my money!"
One buys it because it is popular.

"Civilization"
and that is what one gets with the game.
Virtual Reality, that not virtual reality, not merely a game, but an experience, not a reality but a reality, not really a game, but a game.
A Gaming Experience!


Makes young people mad!
Makes adults mad!
Makes everyone aware of - Duh! -- Civilization!


And it comes in a box!
Like the Microsoft OS for your computer!
Another download upgrade what now game!

[AZWildCat]

Originally posted by Heliodorus
Civ1 was released when the real gameplay mattered. Civ2 was nothing more than a polished version for the market as it was at the time - it existed entirely on hype, and it succeeded only because Civ1 had done so well.

I humbly disagree. If Civ2 was a success only on the merits of its predecessor, it would not still be the loved game that it is by scores and scores of people. It may have been a polished Civ1, but its massive success indicates it was not merely due to being a polished Civ1.

Some people loved SMAC/AX, but I think they were more clones of Civ2 with the names changed. I never caught the fire for these, and never finished a single game I started.

I did catch the fire for it, and still play it from time to time. I would agree that they are in some sense clones, but even the name suggests a linkage to the Civ-series, so similarities are to be expected.

It's comparable to all-star game voting by fans. The folks that DESERVE to be recognized for their achievements only end up being so recognized the year AFTER they deserve it. However, the chain of recognition continues and the player continues to go to the All Star game until one year AFTER his merits no longer warrant it.

...and people don't end up on stamps until 10 years after they're dead. I guess it's a matter of if you want to view an All-Star game as a gauge of the flavour of the month, or a recognition of an extended excellent career (or possibly a blend).

---
AZWildCat

[FNBrown]

AZWildCat - What happened to Lute's boys last night?

... just a friendly jab from a former Sun Devil.

[Raion]

Oh, and one knows it can be a great gift.
To Political Leaders of the World, to people everywhere.
Dropped on the heads with computer in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel, whereever.
The Congress.
Your boss.
The Terrorists!

Leave 'em baffled!


Probably cheaper too, or when they get real phone lines overthere!

[GePap]

Civ3 is a sequel, and thus will be judged not only on its merits , but who it fits into the development of the series. On its own, civ3 is an OK game, not as exciting or easy to play as say MOO2, in my opinion, but its better than most games out there. Yet I judge it, rightly I believe, in comparison with Civ and Civ2 (by far the best of the series), and there, it fails. Civ is much like the Godfather trilogy: Number 1, classic. Number 2, the best, number 3, a disappointment.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by GePap
Civ3 is a sequel, and thus will be judged not only on its merits , but who it fits into the development of the series. On its own, civ3 is an OK game, not as exciting or easy to play as say MOO2, in my opinion, but its better than most games out there. Yet I judge it, rightly I believe, in comparison with Civ and Civ2 (by far the best of the series), and there, it fails. Civ is much like the Godfather trilogy: Number 1, classic. Number 2, the best, number 3, a disappointment.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

(I still find Civ2 to be superior over Civ3)

Charles.

[CAB]

I have bin a “Civer” since as long as I can remember, the first version I played over and over, the second instalment I played even more until I grew up.

Now I don't know how many years later, I seek more from a game than senseless killing and bad story.

I have played civ3 I don't know how many times now, and not been able to finish one whole game, why?? (and I don’t play for just a few hours)
I think that I just at some point loose the interest in the game. I ask myself the question, why are this game so unrealistic?
Then it hits me, this game are not written (or made) for hardcore strategists, it is made for the gaming market!!!!

The game feels more like a family board game, not a game who aim for realistic civilisation simulation. This is a simple game for the masses.

Nowadays I seek realism, or at least a game that try. A good game nowadays who aim for that goal, to some extent (that I know of), is Europa Universalis I & II.

Civ3 is a game of just more of the same, nothing develops during the game. In real life civilisations rise and fall, spawn in to new several other great civilisations etc., and I se no such thing in this game.
The military part has nothing to do with reality what so ever. You don't even use your different military units as they where used in reality.
Far example, since when did you ever use cavalry to ever invade a Walled city etc., there are so many flaws (in my view) that the gaming experience gets damaged along the way.
One word; “supply”!!! (don’t exist, except for paying your troops one gold a unit, quite lame)

Now, I only play the game when I'm really bored.... Don't get me wrong here, the game runs smooth, it is balanced well and have some cool new features, but in the minds of many hardcore strategists, realism is now a very important factor.

I doesn’t even matter how much you try to tweak units and other stuff in the game, it can never achieve anything close to reality.

Still.... I love civ.... as it was.... five years ago and now!?!?
I just wanted to play this game five or ten years ago... now I just get irritated of the lack of realism.
Sometimes I just hate to grew old and insightfull....

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by CAB
The game feels more like a family board game, not a game who aim for realistic civilisation simulation. This is a simple game for the masses.

Nowadays I seek realism, or at least a game that try. A good game nowadays who aim for that goal, to some extent (that I know of), is Europa Universalis I & II.

Realism makes or breaks the strategy genre - plain and simple. But I concur realism is everything!

Charles.

[Raion]

Realism in a computer game. Get real!

Who would really ever want to program it!

Civ III is a game, one can play, if one wants realism, read a book about History. No one has the time to try and make money with a game and provide a few people with realism. Every game that has tried that has failed to sell many copies.
Simply no one has time for it.

Play Civ III through a few times, and change the civ3mod.bic file a few times to change it, and wait for a patch if they change some things around; it still is a good computer game, and after some games I have bought, it still is better than most.

Realism, phooey!

[OneInTen]

Realism in computer game: Switch computer off, get up, open door, walk out.

That's real.

[Encomium]

I didn't know it was "successful" (other than in sales). A great many of us find it a big disappointment.

It would be LESS of a disappointment if not for Civ II, if that is what you are asking.

NOTE: Five years after coming out Civ II was still going strong, in large part die to scenario-building. You can be CERTAIN interest in Civ III will quickly fade after this year.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by OneInTen
Realism in computer game: Switch computer off, get up, open door, walk out.

That's real.

Wrong again, fella.

There is no excuse in Civ III for LESS realism than in Civ II. None.

Civ III:

Bombers cannot sink warships!! I guess Sid missed Pearl Harbor. LUDICROUS.

Tanks, cavalry, and even elephant units have airlift capablity!! (But cannon and leaders don't!). Never happened, and idiotic.

Immortals did NOT have "swords".

Galleys did not fire cannon broadsides at other galleys (as depicted in the animation) - that a thousand years before cannons were mounted on ships!

Privateers and submarines attacked merchantmen and TRADE - not enemy warships.

Longbowmen should be Engish-specific, and have a high defense value against knights - as occured in actual battle after battle.

An invading army cannot use existing roads even though not pillaged by the defender (as in Civ II).

War elephants were very poor on the defensive (they should be 4.1).

Cruise missiles should NOT have a range of "2'. That's the same as artillery!

Naval units did not spend their time mucking around bombarding "improvements", and the only ship with the firepower to do so was the battleship.

Borders in the real world do not flip over someone else's improvements and fortresses due to some weird AI "culture" value.

Civiilzations do not hold grudges for MILLENNIA as occurs with AI civs.

Garrisons do not vanish if the city they are in defect to the other side. With a strong garison they would not flip AT ALL.

And on and on. . .

All of these, and many more, are examples of lack of realism WORSE THAN IN CIV II, and so very easy to correct - except for privateers and subs effecting enemy trade.

I expect a game that ATTEMPTS to simulate the real world and History, not one that is too careless to give a damn about it.

[Archaetus]

That was impressive.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Raion
Realism in a computer game. Get real!

Who would really ever want to program it!

Civ III is a game, one can play, if one wants realism, read a book about History. No one has the time to try and make money with a game and provide a few people with realism. Every game that has tried that has failed to sell many copies.
Simply no one has time for it.

Play Civ III through a few times, and change the civ3mod.bic file a few times to change it, and wait for a patch if they change some things around; it still is a good computer game, and after some games I have bought, it still is better than most.

Realism, phooey!

Reading books or activities that take place when you're not playing games has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. Games are only as realistic as the developers design them, the imagination and coding ability are the only two limits. So I completely disagree with you. Just becuase you're happy with it, and you're preference is that 'realism' is a lesser need, does that mean the rest of us share that view? Nope! I'm definately all for realism.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by OneInTen
Realism in computer game: Switch computer off, get up, open door, walk out.

That's real.

Actually we had hoped that you would have followed that very exmaple, but you're still here. But OiT what does daily life and activities outside the gaming sphere have to do with gaming preferences? If you don't want to discuss games with us then you can turn off your computer and walk out your door - and leave the rest of us to our discussion. Otherwise make a valid point and move on. I know you can't resist commentary when it comes to criticism - but face the facts not everyone feels the way you do about this game, and we still have the right to discuss it without being sniped for our opinions.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Encomium
All of these, and many more, are examples of lack of realism WORSE THAN IN CIV II, and so very easy to correct - except for privateers and subs effecting enemy trade.

I expect a game that ATTEMPTS to simulate the real world and History, not one that is too careless to give a damn about it.

Not only does Sid Meier support realism in his games, but he once stated that Civ was a "realistic historical journey through time, with a future that only the player can decide" or some variation of that. Ofcoarse we know about the game hype, but that asside - his intentions were true. I don't understand what people like OneInTen and Raion are talking about - realism improves the game, not ruin it. Why would anyone not want realism? I fail to see the logic in this thinking - all the games that are being produced now are using cutting edge 'digital photo imagery' and other variations of 'capturing realism'. I love realism!

Charles.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
Not only does Sid Meier support realism in his games, but he once stated that Civ was a "realistic historical journey through time, with a future that only the player can decide" or some variation of that.

he has also said that if at a point he has to choose between realism and fun, fun always wins

[OneInTen]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley


Actually we had hoped that you would have followed that very exmaple, but you're still here. But OiT what does daily life and activities outside the gaming sphere have to do with gaming preferences? If you don't want to discuss games with us then you can turn off your computer and walk out your door - and leave the rest of us to our discussion. Otherwise make a valid point and move on. I know you can't resist commentary when it comes to criticism - but face the facts not everyone feels the way you do about this game, and we still have the right to discuss it without being sniped for our opinions.

Charles.

Oh get real. There's no sniping. I'm saying that realism is served up in copious doses by real life. Computer games will never be real because to do so would violate the laws of physics. So to complain that something is not real is like complaining that the sky is blue, or water is wet.

Besides, a great number of philosophers would say that reality is subjective rather than objective and therefore the game can only hope to model one person's reality, not everyone's ...

The bottom line is civ is a game that uses real world concepts to enhance the accessibility of gameplay, not a game that is deeply rooted in simulation. Any game designer who, when tasked with the choice between what works as a game and what is real, chooses reality isn't doing much of a job.

You can debate realism all you like, but you should at least keep in mind that the game is based on the highly unlikely concept of a single ruler living and leading their people for a period of 6050 years. Whether immortals carry swords or even flower pots is hardly an issue compared to this whopper of a reality twist.

Yet if you can swallow that one down whole, that which is the whole basis for the entire series, why so much trouble with the rest?

[morb]

Originally posted by OneInTen
Yet if you can swallow that one down whole, that which is the whole basis for the entire series, why so much trouble with the rest?

because the rest is what kills the fun.

You're missing the point. If realistic elements enhance gameplay and make it more fun, they should be included. Sid's mantra failed here. He didn't deliver neither fun, nore realism. Everything that works in this game, such as the fun beating realism in the case of one ruler over all ages, is a relic of the first two games.

The game is broken beyond repair. I've given up and went back to SMAC. Or what should more accuratly be called BRAC, for Brian Raynold's Alpha Centauri.

[CAB]

I do not see the logic of walking out the door and feel "real life", normally real life is boring and not much is happening.

But to introduce you to a good realistic simulation of civilisation through history would put you on the edge.
If you play a game, and at one point say to your self, this is so weird, I don't feel like manipulating history, this feel like a kids game.
You build some, research some, build military units and attack... feels more like the streamlined masses of crap games out there. Granted that Civ III is better than most games, but as a realistic simulation game quite badly.

I seek the thrill of govern or control a civilisation, make decisions that to me seem sound and realistic, to wage war like you did a thousand years ago, or at least in a way that seems logical.

I do know that a game of this magnitude would be very hard to make, but there are a few good games out there that have allot of realism in them.

CivIII is a good game is it is, it just lack that thing for me now. I will continue to play it from time to time, but it will never be any of my favourites. Civ II was a greater experience when I first played that, even though it had less new features over Civ I.

But back then realism wasn't so important to me as it is now.

[Ironikinit]

I like Civ III a lot, but I want to say that I appreciate what CAB just said. Real life is a bore sometimes. If my life was exciting, I wouldn't play computer games.

Unlike a lot of people who liked Civ II but dislike Civ III, CAB says that the difference isn't so much the change in Civ, but that his taste in games has changed. Civ is still pretty much the same. You build cities, you explore, you expand, you research, you try to dominate. The basics are all still exactly the same. What's changed is CAB's perceptions and values. It's silly to blame Civ III for not being Civ II when (in a matter of speaking) for many, Civ II isn't what it was. People change whether they want to acknowledge it or not.

CAB wants more realism now, and Civ has never been realistic. It's not a simulation. Just as an example, even on huge maps, the cities are way too big. They take up an area bigger than a small country or at least a state or province. How many cities can you fit in the British Isle, for example? How many are there in reality? Then there's things like the the combat system, and how units don't need supplies. While it works fine from a gameplay point of view, it's just goofy in terms of realism that guys mounted on horses and armed with rifles can destroy a tank battalion.

Other games are a lot more realistic. Historical accuracy is a big deal in Europa Universalis, for instance, and a there are flight simulators that attempt to make flying a simulated plane as realistic as possible. EU only covers a few hundred years, of course, and it's still really ambitious. Many realistic wargames only cover a single battle or campaign. Civ is more for fun, and I'm fine with that. A game doesn't have to be realistic to be challenging, either. Chess isn't a realistic representation of war.

About the original question, no, I don't think Civ III would even have been made if not for the built in market created by Civ I and II. If it had been, it probably wouldn't've sold as well as it has or made as big a splash with the awards.

[Raion]

Reality to me is in the sense that one try to even get through the game.
I read where Sid was originally an engineer.
It's not so much that the game is historical, which is the reality some of you are talking about, the reality of this game, is even playing through it!
That the real part!
The fun is what anyone makes it!

I just rather not have reality in any computer game!

Yuck!

A time machine would be needed first, to even know historical reality!

By the time one would read all the books and all the viewpoints about history, one probably would be dead.

Reality is the Library of Congress, I guess I am just not ready to actually read all the books in that Library though.




The reality comes from playing Civ III or talking about it, because it gives one a different reality!

[Raion]

Oh, and in History, probably no one will even remember that people even played CIV III.

Won't even be mentioned!

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Raion
Reality to me is in the sense that one try to even get through the game.
I read where Sid was originally an engineer.
It's not so much that the game is historical, which is the reality some of you are talking about, the reality of this game, is even playing through it!
That the real part!
The fun is what anyone makes it!

I just rather not have reality in any computer game!

Yuck!

A time machine would be needed first, to even know historical reality!

By the time one would read all the books and all the viewpoints about history, one probably would be dead.

Reality is the Library of Congress, I guess I am just not ready to actually read all the books in that Library though.




The reality comes from playing Civ III or talking about it, because it gives one a different reality!

Oh yeah that makes alot of sense. I have no problem with the fact that in your opinion you would rather play an un-realistic game. Me on the other hand, I lean more toward the realistic games. But Civ is not only renowned for its Historical realism but its "playable" realism as well. For example: Can submarines be bombed by bombers (in the game they can't) but in reality they can. That's what we mean by realism.

Charles.