What does Civilization mean?

[Certhas]

Years ago I played a game called Civilization. It redefined the word strategical computer game, and it redefined the word addiction.

It singlehandedly created and at the same time mastered a whole genre, and it mastered it to a degree that all further games in the genre would be meassured by it.

By now we have seen half a dozen of iterations of Civilization. Stuck in awe with the brilliance of the original none of them ever touched the essence of the game, and yes this was a good thing, Civ II built upon Civ1 adding a few things introducing a few new balances to keep track of and increasing teh AI, SMAC introduced a few more things, and so on, but the mechanics stayed the same, even the ressource systems and similar things were left the very same with alterations and variations but the same at the core. The differences in Game mechanics were so marginal that only the real hardcore Civ gamers would find that they changed significantly, for your avarage hardcore gamer it was the case that the strategies that lead to victory in Civ 1 still were possible in Civ 2 and SMAC. Minor variations and additions were neccesary, yes, but just as the essence of the game stayed the same the essence of Gameplay stayed the same, and honestly it became boring.

Now Civ III is beeing developed and the Hardcore Civ players write suggestion lists along the same lines again, small additions, small variations which work to perfect and complete the masterwork that begun with Civ1.

But this will also mean that it will not be on par with Civ1 it will not continue in it's spirit by creating new dimensions of Gameplay, and to boldyl go where no game has gone before! It will not redefine addiction or strategic computer gaming!

My biggest hope for the developers of Civ III:

Question all the holy principles of Civ I question cities, question turnbased, question a tiled map, question micromanagement.

The goal must not be to recreate the best Civ1 possible today but to lift Civ into a new area of gaming! And therefore the basics the fundaments of Gameplay introduced by Civ1 have to be shaken and to be rebuilt.

The goal must be to make the most addictive, subtle, brilliant, and fun game ever. Civ created a template to which you can add details to get to new heights, this is what Civ2 and SMAC did, but the brave create a new template.

This is of course not without risks, the team might fail at that, it might be simply a bad game, but without that risk greatness cannot be achieved. I think it is a step that has to be taken!

I believe that Sid is doing what I propose in his Dinosaur game, but I also believe that Civ3 has earned the right to try it, too. And it can do it in a different direction. If Firaxis will succeed in this then the Triology of Dinosaurs, Civ III and SMAC might together be the all encompassing foundation for the new face of the genre, SMAC representing the old way, as a direct ancestor of Civ, and the other two opening new fields. And alas this would indeed be something to look forward for.

Frank Hellmann,
The Keeper of the Certhas Iaur Minas.

[Nikolai]

I agree!! And a project called Guns,Germs and Steel; located in the "alternate forums", have many good ideas, that I think Firaxis should look at!!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[Zer0_T0lerance]

I STRONGLY AGREE!!!

------------------
Zero

[Ralf]

A nighmare scenario would be a "Sim City 3000" type of Civilization-3 upgrade. Heres the recipe:

Take the old classic game (Sim City 2000) - dont change (and dont add) *any* important under-the-hood game-parameters except for very few superficial ones, like:

- One added in-between building-zone, and oh yes the...
- Garbage-dump zone.

Now, add smashing up-to-date graphics. Sorry, old SC-2000 fans - Thats about it!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 18, 2000).]

[Maccabee2]

How about a hex-grid instead of a diamond grid? Any thoughts?

[Shogun Gunner]

I'm down with that. Good thoughts.

Down with SimCity 3000-type upgrades!

[UltraSonix]

To me, the central idea of "Civ" is the ability to determine the fate of a civilisation in a TBS game. And this mean war, dipliomacy, and city management. I don't care how they try to implement a Civ3 that compasses these central elements - I just want them to do it well. Perhaps that means a Civ3 that deviates from the past styles of civ games - but to me, it's not a must.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

[Adm.Naismith]

Certhas, to be fair you can found A LOT of very revolutionary ideas in this Forum. You should read carefully The List v.2 document, or browse a bit more.

Revolutionary change to Civ model aren't accepted from all the community: I sustained some of them against people that cryed "don't touch the winning game".

The most common response is that if you change too much it isn't a Civ sequel anymore: my point is a good game is a good game, whatever its name.

OTOH, we must consider that Firaxis can choose to keep the general model quite similar to Civ2/SMAC, so we should (I do, usually) suggest minor improvement too.
Just in case, a bit is better than nothing. Expecially if Firaxil will change a lot of bit


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