posted 08-31-99 05:39 AM ET        

Most fans seem to want a somewhat revolutionizing game, or at least evolutionary. In my "three sensitive polls", a majority stated so. Almost EVERYONE also thought that Firaxis wouldn't change too much except graphics in the game. Depressing? Firaxis doesn't listen to us? I think they do, but they don't want to blunder in ideas in random like like Activision did with mixed results.

Okay, we have brought a lot of great ideas to Firaxis. Wouldn't it be great if Firaxis did some polls on some of those ideas to really see what their fans would enjoy to see in a sequel?

Firaxis is in early development of Civ 3. It is not too late. Firaxis, I urge you to bring out some of the more daring ideas you kind of like, but are unsure of, and have polls on them. That way you can bring in a couple of cool new game ideas that won't turn out to be a turn off for the public.

I have heard borders were introduced by this forum long ago, even demended that it should be included, and how did that turn out? A balanced great suggestion that Firaxis didn't want that turned out to be a tremendous, raving success that saved SMAC from being a new graphic replica of Civ2. Honestly, what would you have thought of SMAC without borders? The public know what it wants.

Interactively making the game with public is the future, Firaxis. Do this, and you're way ahead before you start.

The problem is, I know you won't do it. You see only the trouble coming. The demands coming. So we will have to do it for you, if all the other fans are willing. After all - Love and hate, that's Firaxis for us. All Firaxis have to do is show some support of this.

Let's bring suggestions on possible polls in here and have them out in this forum. This can't possibly be a bad idea?

posted 08-31-99 10:54 AM ET            

We both share the same hopes and worries. My sense is that Firaxis is simply so successful now (sales figures) and overworked (as a result of the sales figures) that the idea of taking the risk and hassle by truly listening to us and straying from the relatively easy and virtually guaranteed Civ. formula doesn't seem a good idea on many fronts.

posted 08-31-99 12:13 PM ET            

The best thing would be if MarkG or DanS would organize the polls and we just tell them what people here would like to vote about... I guess it would be perfectly alright to organize them here as well even though the participators won't be as many.

There are lots of interesting issues to vote about. Here are a few:

Unit design? If included, how much micro do we want? I have a love hate relationship to unit design: way to much micro, but anyway an interesting idea.

The ICS issue? Not much to vote about perhaps, be gone you thing...

"Invisible" spies, diplomats included? Any other unconventional units?

How long into the future do we want the game to stretch?

Shall religion be included?

Of course everyone need as much info as possible before voting and perhaps the best thing to do is to redirect people the Civ 3 idea hreads at Apolyton.

-----------------

I have one poll I would like to have included personally: I would like for the choices you make as a Civilization to translate into bonuses and negatives in play. Like social settings. If you go to war a lot, in time your nation would grow morale and/or production bonuses and maybe negatives in trade and research.

Some people might want Civilizatons to have bonuses right at the start. Russions always morale boost and so on. (personally I would like the russion A.I. to play aggressively and thereby have a higher probability of getting military bonuses(see my suggestion)).

Other people don't perhaps want any bonuses in an Earth based Civ at all.