To Firaxis, learn from other games and give us something new

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
Thanx Blue Moose, I forgot about that one. It strengthens my argument even more.

Arr, that was the idea! Our enemies will fall before righteous arguements! To battle!

PS. You too will feel the same when you become a Warlord!

[Martinus Magnificus]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Not really, what is your criteria for success? Better gameplay? More profits? More units?
For Infogrames I'm sure it is more sales.

I agree. It depends what point of view you take. But when I look from the perspective of the dedicated fan, I can only conclude that Civ III has taken a step down in many ways. Firaxis could have easily kept all good features of Civ II and SMAC, while adding improvements like better graphics and better AI. What we call Civ III had better be called 'Culture I', since it is in many ways a stripped version of Civ II with the main addition of culture (which is IN ESSENCE a good idea, only poorly implemented IMO). I can't really think of this game as a true and worthy successor to Civ II. What I - and I think many more dedicated fans to the series - actually wanted was an upgraded Civ II with better graphics, more diplomacy options, new units and techs, etc.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
What we call Civ III had better be called 'Culture I', since it is in many ways a stripped version of Civ II with the main addition of culture (which is IN ESSENCE a good idea, only poorly implemented IMO.

What I... actually wanted was an upgraded Civ II with better graphics, more diplomacy options, new units and techs, etc.

I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand what you really mean. But according to your post you got what you wanted...

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Caliban


I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand what you really mean. But according to your post you got what you wanted...

Didn't you read his post? He said he wanted all the good features from CivII and SMAC as well. Which is *not* what is in CivIII.

I imagine some of what is lacking is....

1. Government System from SMAC (so you can vary many factors of the government)

2. Ability to transfer food from city to city.

3. More realistic combat as in CivII, I don't see why they got rid of firepower *and* increased hitpoints of later units.

4. More diplomacy *options*. The ability to have multiple items on both side of a trade is a nice addition, but where are all those lovely options from SMAC?

5. Supply rovers

6. Unit customization from SMAC (this could be done well even in a historical game, they'd just need multiple weapons that have the same power but look different or some other distinguishing factor between archers, spear-users, swords, and armor). Remember about this, just like in smac, it is an option you wouldn't have to use.

7. Improvements for water squares.

And this doesn't include anything from other civ-like games. I bet there could have been a nice public works system, or even a hybrid public works/worker system (maybe workers early on, but it becomes more ecnomical to use pws later in the game or something).

[Martinus Magnificus]

Thanks for your clarification, BM. That's exactly what I'm talking about. God (and Firaxis themselves off course) only knows why they didn't just keep all the good stuff from Civ II and SMAC and improve on it.