FIRAXIS: Burn-Outs? Or Sell-Outs? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  FIRAXIS: Burn-Outs? Or Sell-Outs?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   FIRAXIS: Burn-Outs? Or Sell-Outs?

Khan Singh posted 05-19-99 01:04 AM ET
I can only think of two reasons for Firaxis to remake Civ, again.
Either, (1), they have no new ideas and are reduced to tweaking a twelve year old game for lack of something better to do. Or, (2) they have been thrown a huge bundle of cash to marginally improve the Smac engine and foist it off on a credulous public as Civ3, "a breakthrough entertainment experience".
In either case, I can understand and sympathize. There is no shame in being a dried up husk mentally. Really there isn't. It can happen to anyone. If this <i>is</i> the case, then Firaxis should focus their efforts on remaking all the Sid Meier classics, and then remaking them again. They can thus be usefully and innocuously employed until the day they die. I ,personally, look forward to playing Railroad Tycoon 5, the Diesel Years.
On the other hand, if Firaxis has agreed to slap a fresh face on the Smac engine in exchange for a huge pile of cash, well, that's the sort of Green Economics we can all understand. Why, in the US, the term "sell-out" isn't even an insult anymore. Why should it be? Firaxis makes money, Hasbro makes money. Everybody makes money. Sounds like a win-win situation to me. Why, the only people who don't come out ahead are the games buying public, who might otherwise have a good, new game. Instead they hopefully buy Civ again, for the third or fourth time. But nonetheless this sort of agreement is perfectly understandable, from Firaxis's point of view, anyway. And we should all try to see it from Firaxis's point of view, instead of from our own.
That's all. You may return to drooling over Civ3 now.
This is great. The Dark Side <i>is</i> more powerful! I can feel its Force flow through me like electricity!
yin26 posted 05-19-99 01:17 AM ET
Khan,
I'd love to see your wit gainfully employed at the Apolyton site helping make sure Firaxis DOES come up with something new. That's my idea anyway, and I can use all the help I can get. Civ3 doesn't have to be the same old thing, especially if we have a guy like you telling them what will happy if it is.
http://civilization.gamestats.com/forums/
Shining1 posted 05-19-99 01:21 AM ET
CivIII is potentially a much better game than CivII. Whether Bry Unn Renn Oldz is the man to do the job, we shall see.
I do hope they find a better name than 'Sweep of time'. Brings to mind in all kinds of bad stuff like gameshows and brooms...
Ronbo posted 05-19-99 01:29 AM ET
Khan,
Civilization is not a 12 year-old game. The original version came out in 1991, which means it is only eight years old. Do try to get the facts straight if you want to slam the game, its design, or its programmers. Yeesh, Pirates! is only twelve years old, and that was three projects before Civ...
Freddz posted 05-19-99 03:59 AM ET
I'm with your clear head, Khan. Don't let the optimists get to you.
Rong posted 05-19-99 10:08 AM ET
Khan and Freddz, seems like we are the "Dirty Three" who are the only ones strongly opposing the idea of an uninspiring civ clone.
Actually, aren't we the rebels and THEY are the dark side?
May the force be with you.
jimmytrick posted 05-19-99 10:15 AM ET
I will the rebels this much:
Until we have a breakthrough in AI, Civ3 will play like the others in the series. Until then....
come over to the dark side!
Goobmeister posted 05-19-99 10:24 AM ET
I will go along with the feeling against an uninspired clone, I'd easily rather SMAC.
At the same time I will (however painfully) agree with Yin. Here is an opportunity to put to voice the things (however radical in change) that you would like to see added to the Civilization experience.
Are there other games I would like to see more than CIV III? You bet! (unfortunately Pirates II is one of them ) But since like many of us I am convinced that I could do a better design job than those who have been successful in this field for years, I am happy to put in my two cents.
Especially over at the Apolyton site instead of here.
Goob
trippin daily posted 05-19-99 10:31 AM ET
Ronbo, 12 years or 8 years? Who gives a ****. It was still a long time ago for a company far, far away. Civ is still a over used and abused (CtP) concept. That is something you can't dispute. Unless they make huge leaps and bounds in the AI, it is just another clone with fancy graphics. If all it takes for you to go out and piss away 50 bucks is a box with pretty pictures on it, along with Sid's name, then be my guest. I'll be one of the few smart people who actually waits and sees if this game is worth all it is already hyped up to be.
Trippin Daily
Khan Singh posted 05-19-99 01:03 PM ET
Yin, you groveling Firaxis toady,
So you want some constructive thoughts for Firaxis about Civ3? Well here's my best idea: Firaxis, [i]don't[/i] make Civ3. Do something [b]constructive[/b] instead. Turn away from the Dark Side and its endless cycle of destruction and sequels. Rekindle the burning fire of creativity and let its light show the path to the future.
General Khan Singh
Rebel Alliance HQ
Khan Singh posted 05-19-99 01:05 PM ET
Ignore the post above, read this one instead. Since when has the UBB been off?

Yin, you groveling Firaxis toady,
So you want some constructive thoughts for Firaxis about Civ3? Well here's my best idea: Firaxis, DON'T make Civ3. Do something CONSTRUCTIVE instead. Turn away from the Dark Side and its endless cycle of destruction and sequels. Rekindle the burning fire of creativity and let its light show the path to the future.
General Khan Singh
Rebel Alliance HQ

Ronbo posted 05-19-99 01:45 PM ET
Trippin...
Note that I didn't say I would run out and buy CivIII if it comes out. I *think* I might hold some sort of record for the most copies of the original Civilization ever bought by a single person (regular and AGA versions for the Amiga, and DOS and Windows versions for the DOS-box, all bought and paid for). However, I will not buy another version if it doesn't substantively improve gameplay. I have not bought CtP because the reviews I have seen are lackluster or worse. I don't care whose name is on a box if the game is a quality product. Seeing Reynolds/Meier's names on the box is not a guarantee of a good product, but they have a good track record so far. SMAC is the only game I have bought in the past year on the day it came out, and that was because I played the demo and knew that I liked the game. I am not stupid...
jsorense posted 05-19-99 01:50 PM ET
Well since you asked my opinion, . . . . . . . .
Oh, you didn't?
Well, why should that stop me?
Trying not to appear to be a Firaxis Toady apologist, here is my observation. It seems to me that Firaxis is endeavoring to initiate a simultaneous two-branched business strategy. One branch, lead by Brian Reynolds, will produce large, sweeping (think scythe rather than broom Shining1) Civ-type games, which are destined to be cash cows for Firaxis and it's publishing partner.
The other branch, lead by Sid Meier, will produce the more cutting edge type games based on concepts that have been under development for years. These games, although truly innovative, may not be attractive to the broadest of the gaming public. I would put SMG! in this category.
Imran Siddiqui posted 05-19-99 02:11 PM ET
Burn-outs or Sell-outs? Neither!
Civ3 is what we've all been waiting for. Don't tell me that BR and SM are happy with what has been done with the Civilization name to Activision. I bet that they want to show what REAL Civilization is! Run out of ideas? I believe people said that when they started Civ2. Man, did you ever play Gettysburg? They are not done yet, I assure you! Civ3 is most gamers dream! If it were just a SMAC clone, it'd be out before Christmas. I bet you won't see it until at least 2001, with many new changes.
Imran Siddiqui
tfs99 posted 05-19-99 03:33 PM ET
>>>> Khan Singh
UBB has been off ever since at least March. You can still use HTML and (maybe) UBB in the Off Topic forum
SMC3 n ... Ted S.
bene4 posted 05-19-99 04:24 PM ET
Personally, I believe that the recent plan of Hasbro, Microsoft, Firaxis and Sony to provide Ages of Civilizations to be very exciting news. However, the fact that important components will be released "Every two weeks or whenever they have been through our rigourous quality assurance program" seems to be a bit beyond what a consumer should be asked to bear. I am happy to hear, however, that the normal "rigourous quality assurance program" no longer includes faxing the non-compiled, fully commented code to very remote locations for etching onto dried fish, off which it is painstakingly copied back into high end XT machines by very well trained, ex-NASA monkeys.
I also applaud this conglomerates choice to make these important components available on a subscribtion basis, shipped to the Museum of Egyptology nearest to your location on high capacity 5 1/4 inch floppies. This will make applying all components in proper order much easier.
Insider reports that suggest that AoC should include 2 units, 4 colors and support for the Microsoft Wheel Mouse Professional 4 (to be released late 2010) and that additional features (like a 4 channel MIDI soundtrack, and 8 colors) will be available in the PlayStation version indicate that this game will be pushing hardware to it's limit.
I am really looking forward to the advanced diplomacy options which will allow you to argue with all 1 civilizations supported by the game about everything from whether the 2nd disk goes before or after the 7th, to whether "Please insert disk <error 207>" indicates disk 3 or 4. An artists rendition of the installation process is to be available with payment for a 5 year subscription, that will outline (with surrealistic overtones) the proper sequence of diskettes, including dependancies, incompatibilities and whatnot.
I hear that multiplayer is so easy to do that people are doing it without even purchasing sufficient licensing - getting roommates, spouses, neighbors, siblings, parents involved in inserting diskettes. The stern warning issued from both the conglomerate gets right to the point (available for online viewing on the main Firaxis site).
I really feel that all these companies are doing the right thing to provide gamers with the most value for their gaming dollars in this time of technological innovation. I only hope more companies will see the way.
Giant Squid posted 05-19-99 10:34 PM ET
[sarcasm]
OK, everyone. You're entitled to your opinion. But please take Civ2 off your hard drive, since it was only a clone of the original Civ meant to milk unsuspecting gamers. Right?
[/sarcasm]
Giant Squid
Jason Beaudoin posted 05-20-99 09:54 AM ET
I'm excited by the prospect that Firaxis will be making a CIV III.
HOWEVER...
...and that is a big however...
I hope and pray that they don't make the same mistakes that have been made with SMAC, CTP or any other game of its kind. Don't get me wrong, SMAC was an OK game, but in my opinion, they "dropped the ball" in certain obvious categories. I believe that if they are going to make a new CIV III, they will have to take a serious look at the game engine, maybe even the way the game genre is physically constructed in order to make this a truely innovative game.
I particularly agree with jsorense... I have a nagging suspicion that the financial potential of CIV III is the real driving force behind Firaxis' decision to create a new CIV than any other factor. That point is even suggested in Brian Reynolds' own comments about their decision to go ahead with this project. That fact alone troubles me, since that tends to bring out more of the same rather than inspire creative game innovation. When one reviews the products that have been developed over the past year, it is clear that the one thing that this genre needs is innovation.
Aredhran posted 05-20-99 10:06 AM ET
I concur with the Rebel Alliance Headquarters. The only thing that *REALLY* needs a major improvement is the AI.
All the rest is just "nice to have" features and cosmetics. But, given the choice to voice my opinion as to what the new and improved features should be, I'd rather speak up than stay silent. So I am tainted by the Dark Side...
When/if Civ3 comes along, we might be getting a better game, not a brand new one. If I feel it's *truly* better, I'll get it otherwise I'll just keep on SMACing. That's more of a fringe position, hence I must be one of these "gray" characters, like Han Solo... Good guy, but still a scoundrel
Aredhran
Jason Beaudoin posted 05-20-99 02:27 PM ET
I just don't want a game that comprimises one aspect for another. I don't think that the aesthetic appeal of any product should suffer in order to focus more heavily one part. If we're going to agree on just making awesome AI, why don't they scrap all the artists and sound people all together, go hard on the AI, and have a text base game? Sure, we would have a game that could beat us hand over fist, but who'd want to play it?
Imran Siddiqui posted 05-20-99 03:52 PM ET
Cool! I'm the Empire! I want to be Darth Sideous! Yeah!
Seriously, Pirates 2 is not feasible (Cuttroats is about to come out, which is basically Pirates 2), and Colonization was dubbed a critical flop. So, what else could they do with Hasbro. CIV! To actually make the greatest game of all time. CTP was an abomination, and they want to set the series right!
Imran Siddiqui
Hugo Rune posted 05-21-99 06:37 AM ET
"Seriously, Pirates 2 is not feasible (Cuttroats is about to come out, which is basically Pirates 2), and Colonization was dubbed a critical flop. So, what else could they do with Hasbro. CIV!"
How about a new game? A new gaming idea unlike no other? Originality? Noooo....
I tend to agree with criticisms against originality, but Let's actually see what FIRAXIS comes up with first. That the game is called Civilization 3 doesn't automatically mean that they will only "marginally improve the Smac engine and foist it off on a credulous public as Civ3, 'a breakthrough entertainment experience'". We actually have to see some of the game before passing judgement. Who knows, just because it's called Civilization 3, why couldn't it be a Racing Game or a Flight Simulator?
Seriously, we should have a wait, give firaxis a break and then see. It would be more fun if they could make games based on merit alone and not on "Sid Meier's" or "Civilization", but that's marketing for you.
Imran Siddiqui posted 05-21-99 03:43 PM ET
"How about a new game? A new gaming idea unlike no other? Originality? Noooo...."
It is interesting how most on these forums seem to remember Civ, Civ2, Colonization, and Pirates as the only games Firaxis made! We seem to forget about Gettysberg! That WAS that "new gaming idea unlike no other". They can still do it people, they just want to fix up Civ, before moving along.
Imran Siddiqui
Khan Singh posted 05-21-99 04:48 PM ET
I have no objection to Firaxis doing a history of the world game. But there are a lot of things in Civ that I just don't want to do anymore. I don't want to play the "English" and have my first city, London be in Britain, my second city, Coventry be near Warsaw, my third city, Bristol be somewhere in Scandanavia and eventually wind up with York where Calcutta should be and Cambridge in Central Africa.
I don't want to go to my city display for Cambridge (in Central Africa, of course) and turn some of my "peasants" into "jugglers" or "mimes" or "movie stars" or whatever to quell the "peasant revolts" affecting my cities.
I don't want to build a temple, then a granary, then a library, then a marketplace, then.....need I go on? And renaming these things something else will not help in the slightest.
Civ2 was a great game system and SMAC is the most suberbly polished version of that game system. But eventually all good games must go to Silicon Heaven. Go to the light, Civilization. Go to the light.
Druid posted 05-21-99 05:54 PM ET
If Civ3 is the SMAC engine, with some "new" tweaks, set on earth with the Civ2 units and empires, it deserves to be a flop.
What *IS* needed is some modern AI, as Aredhran has said.
There is a chance.. at this point only a chance.. that Firaxis will see the light of the non-dark side on the AI issue, and adopt an open standard. This is being actively discussed on the Apolyton boards. But, of course, we dont know that Brian's thinking is.
Downside from Firaxis' point of view. It will require some new software design and a truly "open" approach to making the game work.
Upside from Firaxis' point of view. First on the market with *the* idea that will revolutionize the next generation of JOMT ["Just One More Turn"] games.

.....okokok.... I may have inserted some of my thinking into the "upside" argument.
But if the AI does not make a major improvement, I will not buy Civ3. I have learned how to beat that way of playing.. 3 times now.
Urban Ranger posted 05-24-99 03:09 AM ET
Civ/Civ 2/SMAC are not really "empire building games." They are cities/bases building games. If Civ 3 is to be make, it must break with the old way of doing things. Most cities didn't appear because a ruler had sent settler units to the city sites. Therefore, Civ 3 must let a person to build his empire and let cities govern by natural dynamics... damn it!
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: FIRAXIS: Burn-Outs? Or Sell-Outs?
Khan Singh	posted 05-19-99 01:04 AM ET I can only think of two reasons for Firaxis to remake Civ, again. Either, (1), they have no new ideas and are reduced to tweaking a twelve year old game for lack of something better to do. Or, (2) they have been thrown a huge bundle of cash to marginally improve the Smac engine and foist it off on a credulous public as Civ3, "a breakthrough entertainment experience". In either case, I can understand and sympathize. There is no shame in being a dried up husk mentally. Really there isn't. It can happen to anyone. If this <i>is</i> the case, then Firaxis should focus their efforts on remaking all the Sid Meier classics, and then remaking them again. They can thus be usefully and innocuously employed until the day they die. I ,personally, look forward to playing Railroad Tycoon 5, the Diesel Years. On the other hand, if Firaxis has agreed to slap a fresh face on the Smac engine in exchange for a huge pile of cash, well, that's the sort of Green Economics we can all understand. Why, in the US, the term "sell-out" isn't even an insult anymore. Why should it be? Firaxis makes money, Hasbro makes money. Everybody makes money. Sounds like a win-win situation to me. Why, the only people who don't come out ahead are the games buying public, who might otherwise have a good, new game. Instead they hopefully buy Civ again, for the third or fourth time. But nonetheless this sort of agreement is perfectly understandable, from Firaxis's point of view, anyway. And we should all try to see it from Firaxis's point of view, instead of from our own. That's all. You may return to drooling over Civ3 now. This is great. The Dark Side <i>is</i> more powerful! I can feel its Force flow through me like electricity!
yin26	posted 05-19-99 01:17 AM ET Khan, I'd love to see your wit gainfully employed at the Apolyton site helping make sure Firaxis DOES come up with something new. That's my idea anyway, and I can use all the help I can get. Civ3 doesn't have to be the same old thing, especially if we have a guy like you telling them what will happy if it is. http://civilization.gamestats.com/forums/
Shining1	posted 05-19-99 01:21 AM ET CivIII is potentially a much better game than CivII. Whether Bry Unn Renn Oldz is the man to do the job, we shall see. I do hope they find a better name than 'Sweep of time'. Brings to mind in all kinds of bad stuff like gameshows and brooms...
Ronbo	posted 05-19-99 01:29 AM ET Khan, Civilization is not a 12 year-old game. The original version came out in 1991, which means it is only eight years old. Do try to get the facts straight if you want to slam the game, its design, or its programmers. Yeesh, Pirates! is only twelve years old, and that was three projects before Civ...
Freddz	posted 05-19-99 03:59 AM ET I'm with your clear head, Khan. Don't let the optimists get to you.
Rong	posted 05-19-99 10:08 AM ET Khan and Freddz, seems like we are the "Dirty Three" who are the only ones strongly opposing the idea of an uninspiring civ clone. Actually, aren't we the rebels and THEY are the dark side? May the force be with you.
jimmytrick	posted 05-19-99 10:15 AM ET I will the rebels this much: Until we have a breakthrough in AI, Civ3 will play like the others in the series. Until then.... come over to the dark side!
Goobmeister	posted 05-19-99 10:24 AM ET I will go along with the feeling against an uninspired clone, I'd easily rather SMAC. At the same time I will (however painfully) agree with Yin. Here is an opportunity to put to voice the things (however radical in change) that you would like to see added to the Civilization experience. Are there other games I would like to see more than CIV III? You bet! (unfortunately Pirates II is one of them ) But since like many of us I am convinced that I could do a better design job than those who have been successful in this field for years, I am happy to put in my two cents. Especially over at the Apolyton site instead of here. Goob
trippin daily	posted 05-19-99 10:31 AM ET Ronbo, 12 years or 8 years? Who gives a ****. It was still a long time ago for a company far, far away. Civ is still a over used and abused (CtP) concept. That is something you can't dispute. Unless they make huge leaps and bounds in the AI, it is just another clone with fancy graphics. If all it takes for you to go out and piss away 50 bucks is a box with pretty pictures on it, along with Sid's name, then be my guest. I'll be one of the few smart people who actually waits and sees if this game is worth all it is already hyped up to be. Trippin Daily
Khan Singh	posted 05-19-99 01:03 PM ET Yin, you groveling Firaxis toady, So you want some constructive thoughts for Firaxis about Civ3? Well here's my best idea: Firaxis, [i]don't[/i] make Civ3. Do something [b]constructive[/b] instead. Turn away from the Dark Side and its endless cycle of destruction and sequels. Rekindle the burning fire of creativity and let its light show the path to the future. General Khan Singh Rebel Alliance HQ
Khan Singh	posted 05-19-99 01:05 PM ET Ignore the post above, read this one instead. Since when has the UBB been off? Yin, you groveling Firaxis toady, So you want some constructive thoughts for Firaxis about Civ3? Well here's my best idea: Firaxis, DON'T make Civ3. Do something CONSTRUCTIVE instead. Turn away from the Dark Side and its endless cycle of destruction and sequels. Rekindle the burning fire of creativity and let its light show the path to the future. General Khan Singh Rebel Alliance HQ
Ronbo	posted 05-19-99 01:45 PM ET Trippin... Note that I didn't say I would run out and buy CivIII if it comes out. I think I might hold some sort of record for the most copies of the original Civilization ever bought by a single person (regular and AGA versions for the Amiga, and DOS and Windows versions for the DOS-box, all bought and paid for). However, I will not buy another version if it doesn't substantively improve gameplay. I have not bought CtP because the reviews I have seen are lackluster or worse. I don't care whose name is on a box if the game is a quality product. Seeing Reynolds/Meier's names on the box is not a guarantee of a good product, but they have a good track record so far. SMAC is the only game I have bought in the past year on the day it came out, and that was because I played the demo and knew that I liked the game. I am not stupid...
jsorense	posted 05-19-99 01:50 PM ET Well since you asked my opinion, . . . . . . . . Oh, you didn't? Well, why should that stop me? Trying not to appear to be a Firaxis Toady apologist, here is my observation. It seems to me that Firaxis is endeavoring to initiate a simultaneous two-branched business strategy. One branch, lead by Brian Reynolds, will produce large, sweeping (think scythe rather than broom Shining1) Civ-type games, which are destined to be cash cows for Firaxis and it's publishing partner. The other branch, lead by Sid Meier, will produce the more cutting edge type games based on concepts that have been under development for years. These games, although truly innovative, may not be attractive to the broadest of the gaming public. I would put SMG! in this category.
Imran Siddiqui	posted 05-19-99 02:11 PM ET Burn-outs or Sell-outs? Neither! Civ3 is what we've all been waiting for. Don't tell me that BR and SM are happy with what has been done with the Civilization name to Activision. I bet that they want to show what REAL Civilization is! Run out of ideas? I believe people said that when they started Civ2. Man, did you ever play Gettysburg? They are not done yet, I assure you! Civ3 is most gamers dream! If it were just a SMAC clone, it'd be out before Christmas. I bet you won't see it until at least 2001, with many new changes. Imran Siddiqui
tfs99	posted 05-19-99 03:33 PM ET >>>> Khan Singh UBB has been off ever since at least March. You can still use HTML and (maybe) UBB in the Off Topic forum SMC3 n ... Ted S.
bene4	posted 05-19-99 04:24 PM ET Personally, I believe that the recent plan of Hasbro, Microsoft, Firaxis and Sony to provide Ages of Civilizations to be very exciting news. However, the fact that important components will be released "Every two weeks or whenever they have been through our rigourous quality assurance program" seems to be a bit beyond what a consumer should be asked to bear. I am happy to hear, however, that the normal "rigourous quality assurance program" no longer includes faxing the non-compiled, fully commented code to very remote locations for etching onto dried fish, off which it is painstakingly copied back into high end XT machines by very well trained, ex-NASA monkeys. I also applaud this conglomerates choice to make these important components available on a subscribtion basis, shipped to the Museum of Egyptology nearest to your location on high capacity 5 1/4 inch floppies. This will make applying all components in proper order much easier. Insider reports that suggest that AoC should include 2 units, 4 colors and support for the Microsoft Wheel Mouse Professional 4 (to be released late 2010) and that additional features (like a 4 channel MIDI soundtrack, and 8 colors) will be available in the PlayStation version indicate that this game will be pushing hardware to it's limit. I am really looking forward to the advanced diplomacy options which will allow you to argue with all 1 civilizations supported by the game about everything from whether the 2nd disk goes before or after the 7th, to whether "Please insert disk <error 207>" indicates disk 3 or 4. An artists rendition of the installation process is to be available with payment for a 5 year subscription, that will outline (with surrealistic overtones) the proper sequence of diskettes, including dependancies, incompatibilities and whatnot. I hear that multiplayer is so easy to do that people are doing it without even purchasing sufficient licensing - getting roommates, spouses, neighbors, siblings, parents involved in inserting diskettes. The stern warning issued from both the conglomerate gets right to the point (available for online viewing on the main Firaxis site). I really feel that all these companies are doing the right thing to provide gamers with the most value for their gaming dollars in this time of technological innovation. I only hope more companies will see the way.
Giant Squid	posted 05-19-99 10:34 PM ET [sarcasm] OK, everyone. You're entitled to your opinion. But please take Civ2 off your hard drive, since it was only a clone of the original Civ meant to milk unsuspecting gamers. Right? [/sarcasm] Giant Squid
Jason Beaudoin	posted 05-20-99 09:54 AM ET I'm excited by the prospect that Firaxis will be making a CIV III. HOWEVER... ...and that is a big however... I hope and pray that they don't make the same mistakes that have been made with SMAC, CTP or any other game of its kind. Don't get me wrong, SMAC was an OK game, but in my opinion, they "dropped the ball" in certain obvious categories. I believe that if they are going to make a new CIV III, they will have to take a serious look at the game engine, maybe even the way the game genre is physically constructed in order to make this a truely innovative game. I particularly agree with jsorense... I have a nagging suspicion that the financial potential of CIV III is the real driving force behind Firaxis' decision to create a new CIV than any other factor. That point is even suggested in Brian Reynolds' own comments about their decision to go ahead with this project. That fact alone troubles me, since that tends to bring out more of the same rather than inspire creative game innovation. When one reviews the products that have been developed over the past year, it is clear that the one thing that this genre needs is innovation.
Aredhran	posted 05-20-99 10:06 AM ET I concur with the Rebel Alliance Headquarters. The only thing that REALLY needs a major improvement is the AI. All the rest is just "nice to have" features and cosmetics. But, given the choice to voice my opinion as to what the new and improved features should be, I'd rather speak up than stay silent. So I am tainted by the Dark Side... When/if Civ3 comes along, we might be getting a better game, not a brand new one. If I feel it's truly better, I'll get it otherwise I'll just keep on SMACing. That's more of a fringe position, hence I must be one of these "gray" characters, like Han Solo... Good guy, but still a scoundrel Aredhran
Jason Beaudoin	posted 05-20-99 02:27 PM ET I just don't want a game that comprimises one aspect for another. I don't think that the aesthetic appeal of any product should suffer in order to focus more heavily one part. If we're going to agree on just making awesome AI, why don't they scrap all the artists and sound people all together, go hard on the AI, and have a text base game? Sure, we would have a game that could beat us hand over fist, but who'd want to play it?
Imran Siddiqui	posted 05-20-99 03:52 PM ET Cool! I'm the Empire! I want to be Darth Sideous! Yeah! Seriously, Pirates 2 is not feasible (Cuttroats is about to come out, which is basically Pirates 2), and Colonization was dubbed a critical flop. So, what else could they do with Hasbro. CIV! To actually make the greatest game of all time. CTP was an abomination, and they want to set the series right! Imran Siddiqui
Hugo Rune	posted 05-21-99 06:37 AM ET "Seriously, Pirates 2 is not feasible (Cuttroats is about to come out, which is basically Pirates 2), and Colonization was dubbed a critical flop. So, what else could they do with Hasbro. CIV!" How about a new game? A new gaming idea unlike no other? Originality? Noooo.... I tend to agree with criticisms against originality, but Let's actually see what FIRAXIS comes up with first. That the game is called Civilization 3 doesn't automatically mean that they will only "marginally improve the Smac engine and foist it off on a credulous public as Civ3, 'a breakthrough entertainment experience'". We actually have to see some of the game before passing judgement. Who knows, just because it's called Civilization 3, why couldn't it be a Racing Game or a Flight Simulator? Seriously, we should have a wait, give firaxis a break and then see. It would be more fun if they could make games based on merit alone and not on "Sid Meier's" or "Civilization", but that's marketing for you.
Imran Siddiqui	posted 05-21-99 03:43 PM ET "How about a new game? A new gaming idea unlike no other? Originality? Noooo...." It is interesting how most on these forums seem to remember Civ, Civ2, Colonization, and Pirates as the only games Firaxis made! We seem to forget about Gettysberg! That WAS that "new gaming idea unlike no other". They can still do it people, they just want to fix up Civ, before moving along. Imran Siddiqui
Khan Singh	posted 05-21-99 04:48 PM ET I have no objection to Firaxis doing a history of the world game. But there are a lot of things in Civ that I just don't want to do anymore. I don't want to play the "English" and have my first city, London be in Britain, my second city, Coventry be near Warsaw, my third city, Bristol be somewhere in Scandanavia and eventually wind up with York where Calcutta should be and Cambridge in Central Africa. I don't want to go to my city display for Cambridge (in Central Africa, of course) and turn some of my "peasants" into "jugglers" or "mimes" or "movie stars" or whatever to quell the "peasant revolts" affecting my cities. I don't want to build a temple, then a granary, then a library, then a marketplace, then.....need I go on? And renaming these things something else will not help in the slightest. Civ2 was a great game system and SMAC is the most suberbly polished version of that game system. But eventually all good games must go to Silicon Heaven. Go to the light, Civilization. Go to the light.
Druid	posted 05-21-99 05:54 PM ET If Civ3 is the SMAC engine, with some "new" tweaks, set on earth with the Civ2 units and empires, it deserves to be a flop. What IS needed is some modern AI, as Aredhran has said. There is a chance.. at this point only a chance.. that Firaxis will see the light of the non-dark side on the AI issue, and adopt an open standard. This is being actively discussed on the Apolyton boards. But, of course, we dont know that Brian's thinking is. Downside from Firaxis' point of view. It will require some new software design and a truly "open" approach to making the game work. Upside from Firaxis' point of view. First on the market with the idea that will revolutionize the next generation of JOMT ["Just One More Turn"] games. .....okokok.... I may have inserted some of my thinking into the "upside" argument. But if the AI does not make a major improvement, I will not buy Civ3. I have learned how to beat that way of playing.. 3 times now.
Urban Ranger	posted 05-24-99 03:09 AM ET Civ/Civ 2/SMAC are not really "empire building games." They are cities/bases building games. If Civ 3 is to be make, it must break with the old way of doing things. Most cities didn't appear because a ruler had sent settler units to the city sites. Therefore, Civ 3 must let a person to build his empire and let cities govern by natural dynamics... damn it!