Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Jaybe]

You killed my father... prepare to die.

Aaaaahhh, such sweet memories (The Princess Bride)

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[Capt Dizle]

Yeah, I agree with that. Civ3 is a cheap knock clone of the Civ line and I am pissed off about it. I admit it. People are here saying "aw, you are just pissed caused they didn't make it like SMAC".

Right. 100%. SMAC, despite idiotic rantings from choir boys here that every comparison is opinion and therefore irrelevant, was demonstratably superior to Civ3 in gameplay.

My charge is that Firaxis has sold out to the commercialism in the market. And that is not alright. There is nothing wrong with a person and a company getting filty rich as long as they start out to make a great game. But in this case, and I am not talking about the people who did the project, but the bigwigs at Firaxis, there was no attempt to make a great game.

And because of it they will never get another dime from me.

[Velociryx]

D'oh! I feel like a total slacker...my apologies, Catt...I just now saw your off topic note...and you're very welcome! I enjoyed my exploration of Civ3, and I most definitely feel as though I got my money's worth out of the game.

My only wish is, that there were significantly more to discover in the world of Civ3....and perhaps there is....perhaps one of the bright, talented folks currently making the rounds in the Civ3 Strat forums will find something totally overlooked by me and the rest of the crew I was holding strategy conversations with in the strat threads I began shortly after I got the game.

I hope that proves true.

That would probably prompt me to reload the game to see what else we may have missed....

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Theseus
OK, in my little Coracle-fest, something interesting to talk about.

Thanks, Coracle, for bringing this up...

Civ3 is NOT a descendant of SMAC. It is clear that there are a whole bunch of people who wish that it were.

Civ3 IS the inheritor of the Civ line. All the crap you complain about? Every version has gone through its own sub-branch evolution.

Theseus,

Good posts.

I don't think anyone felt that CIV3 was supposed to be a descendent of SMAC. Well maybe some....

But clearly you can understand the reasons CIV3 draws comparisons to SMAC. Firaxis as a company has made only one other TBS game that being SMAC. SMAC despite using the same engine as the previous TBS games bolted on some great new and innovative ideas.

CIV3 OTOH has more of a retro feel to it. I know it was stated by Sid that they wanted to get more of the feel of CIV1 into it, but I don't know if that is simply a true statement, a ego trip for Sid showing his CIV1 was better than Brians CIV2 (and later SMAC), or spin doctoring/self rationalization covering up the fact that the game was rushed to meet a Xmas deadline before all the bells and whistles could be bolted onto it.

I've heard the arguements that CIV is a historical game and that it shouldn't necessarily have the innovations that SMAC had b/c SMAC is SCIFI (thus allowing it greater freedoms limitted only by imagination). I think there a grain of truth in this but not that it be the end all be all. To my mind CIV is a historical simulator allowing opportunities for alternative histories. The whole tech tree is heavily influenced on the way mankind (particularly western culture) developed. The way the ages are defined etc. all are from our current cultural POV. It does not have to be so. I think looking at the game from an alternative history point of view allows quite a bit more creativity then what is evidenced in the more Retro (i.e return to CIV1 fundamentals) CIV3 that was delivered. ("Course this may be a matter of preference in game design, Brian Reynolds vs. the remnant of Firaxis that stayed.)

So I guess to summarize I don't buy that arguement. Creativity always has an outlet. It bothers me when creativity appears stifled (both from a gameplayers POV and from a designers POV), which is the kinna the feeling I get from CIV3.


Og

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Talent

so what you're saying is that the reason why civ3 doesn't work is because of the historical context rather than a future one.

I disagree, because civ2 worked very well actually.

there are two things on this point:

1. the game does not necessarily need to be a recreation of history in order to be a historical game. Rather it could be a version of history (with all the plethora of possibilities attached to scenarios, etc...) all that would be needed for this would be to expand the scientific tree and the various possibilities of gameplay (governements city styles etc...) CIV CTP kind of went in that direction with there whole ecotopian concept. but not far enough.
What I mean is this: in our world the north american native civilisations were supplanted by the europeans and therefore their (ancient) technologies of ecology, recycling and equality of the sexes were lost until very recently. Also, matriarchal societies died out for patriarchal societies. there are also many tribes throughout history that (for some reason) didn't last until today that had discovered things that we only discovered later. If you base yourself on the idea that a scientific choice is also based on the kind of culture and social structure that you have...then the possibilities become endless!! If the past is considered more objectively, than we can stand in this imaginative past looking towards our present rather than simply standing in the present trying to decipher the distant past. So, if it trully was ALL the possibilities of history than one possibility could be (for example) and environmental matriarchal society in 200 BC. why not?

there are just as many possibilities in the past as there are in the future (the point is how much of your imagination are you willing to use) and for the CIV3 team the answer was NONE!

The above quote kinna reaffirmed my views. Kudos to Talent who wrote this over in the SMAC forum. It more eloquently describes what I was trying to say above. (also apologies to Talent if he didn't want it over here)

Og

[Theseus]

Whew!!!

Unbelievable thread.

There are evidently a slew of other interesting discussions going on (as Arrian said, "Hee's baaacck!!"), so I'm gonna keep this short.

Vel - Sorry if I went off a little... your responses have been gracious.
Couple things:

Tech "leads" can happen, but tech diffusion always remains possible. My point was, exclusive tech is sorta nonsense (unless aliens are involved). Huge tech leads in Civ3 do happen... although not often enough, in either direction... I posit that geographic settings could play a more meaningful role there too.

Your ideas for linking techs to strategy are fantastic... that's definitely missing.... we have to convince Firaxis, or maybe it will be modders, to water then shrubs.

Re depth via geography, when I shot you "Play out of balance, grasshopper," I was trying to say that unbalanced geography and civ traits can create significantly different problems to solve, and thus a better set of gameplay experiences. Think Rome on a Large map, islandish continents, and uneven resource distribution. I know I know, one shouldn;t have to do that, but I maintain that geography is the source of differentiation, just like RL.

Re my epic game, I went in sort of a similar path that you suggested... I did not have the resources to kill off the satellite civs (which is unbelievable), and all of my own cities were too good to give away. So, as I turned the tide and started going after France, I would capture cities, and then immediately gift them to other civs. The game is pure havoc.

Arrian - Ditto on your view. What's funny to me, btw, is that I actually started with as similar approach... I called it achieving "overwhelming momentum." I've still only finished the one Japanese game with the massive intercontinenal invasion. I am going to finish some more though... I will go to space, I will go to space, I will go to space.

Jaybe - Basically, I think the problem I'm having in the epic Egyptian game is that I entered into a land war in Asia.

Ogie - Between you and Vel, I'm sold on the idea that there could be much more creativity in how climbing tech threads in different ways, and with different strategic impacts, could create more differentiation game to game. It's obviously a very tough balance however... hell, look at one of the most basic... there is NO reason to be a naval power, not for warfare, not for exploration, not for economics... talk about a missing component to differentiated strategies. I don;t know the answer... modders?

OK, on to the other threads... CHARGE!!

[EnochF]

I just uninstalled Civ III yesterday. I updated to 1.21 and played a few games. Although the gameplay was definitely improved from the original release, it still couldn't hold my interest. Then I tried to install one of the mods that added a bunch of extra resources, but it didn't work. So blech.

I'm not buying the expansion. This game isn't worth it.

[Phil_de_geezer]

My two main gripes with Civ3 are:

1) Corruption is so rampant that expansion really isn't an option

2) Cities being overthrown when you've just captured them and there are loads of units inside! There is nothing worse than losing half your attack force because some punky citizens rose up against my goddamn immortals! I mean - how? Grrr!! It makes wars really irritating.

[Miznia]

The problem with Civ3 is that Civ1 was already perfect. All Civ1 needed was an XP with larger maps and more civs.