A reasonable plea - don't be so shallow

[Bibor]

By shallow i mean guys that did civ3... just read 4 comic books about history and then made a game.

Obviously, it's the new "name of the game".

Germans and russians all speak english with funny accent.
Arabs all wear turbans, are dirty and don't use water.
(american) Indians speak perfect english and use bows and arrows.

Same is true for CIV3.

Conquests scenarios did some improvements (like heavy cavalry in Rise of Rome scenario; separate techs for different nations), but it's still at elementary grade level: pyramids are a great huge buildings in... err... egypt, that ...umm... give you a granary in every city. yeah! that's it!

This game is so naive i am having a hard time to cope with it. Sure, on strategical level its a masterpiece, but hey, Firaxis, give it some dignity.

Anyone heard of Uncommon valor? Now that's a game that does not underestimate the players' intellect.

Give me a CIV game with complexity (and intelligence) of Uncommon Valor and I swear I won't play another game till end of time.

-kirby

 

[thestonesfan]

I'm sure Firaxis started rehauling their development process after they read your plea.

 

[mitsho]

What do you mean with uncommon valor? (I'm sorry, english is my third language and I didn't find an explanation in my dixionaire)

mfG mitsho

 

[The Last Conformist]

If I interpret those ramblings a-rightly, he's not in favour of the cartoony style of CivIII?

 

[warpstorm]

Uncommon Valor is a hardcore wargame about WW2 in the South Pacific. I think it sold a couple of copies, so it isn't surprising you never heard of it. It is a very in depth game that is probably only of interest to dedicated buffs of the history of the battles. For them it is a great simulation.

I have it, but I don't find it fun to play.

The guys who made it can make the games they want since they are essentially retired and doing what they want rather than having to have a commercial success.

 

[mitsho]

@warpstorm thanks for info. I even didn't remark that he meant a game

And I don't think it's necessary to make this game 'that' realistic! I mean I still want to be able to play it.
And your example with the pyramids. Yes they are buildings that give free granaries in every city. You can even explain this with historical 'facts'. But even if you could, it would be right the way it is now. Cause we have to keep complexity out of the game. I'm all for realisticness as long as the game stays simple!

mfG mitsho

 

[Bibor]

I'm sure Firaxis started rehauling their development process after they read your plea.

I'm sure they did. I had a word with the devs and they told me that this post made them re-think about making CIV4 a first-person shooter.

 

[Longasc]

You could have made your posting easier to understand if you really want reasonable answers.

I think you are not satisfied with the shallow level of representation of the various nations, e.g. Egypt: Cleopatra look, Pyramids, War Chariot. That's the only difference to other civs. Besides two rather fitting traits because they were really very religious and industrious because they used so many slaves to build the Pyramids. Was that your point?

Well, people suggested more diverse and viable forms of government for Civ4. More unique units for every civ and even special abilities.

Uncommon Valor is a hardcore grognards game. I bet they will not make Civ4 a grognards game. It never was and as warpstorm told us, they want Civ4 to sell well, not to please a certain group, a minority. To please both groups, now that's genius.

You did not like the cartoonish graphics style? Ugh, well... it can be even worse, Warcraft 3 has a terrible influence on Pirates! graphics already, they are even more cartoonish. Civ3 is not very cartoonish compared to them, and I agree - this style is really awful. If you have a problem with C3C graphics, you will probably not want to play Pirates! -> or perhaps Civ4? who knows, fear the worst, expect the best.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I actually rather like the cartoony graphics. Realistic unit graphics would be really jarring given the videly varying scales between units, resources, cities, etc (compare that aluminium can to a major city!), and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who does not want realistic graphics scales for CivIV.

The only real alternative as I see it is CivII-style iconic graphics, and while that wouldn't bother me, it would scare away the typical customer.

 

[thestonesfan]

I'm sure they did. I had a word with the devs and they told me that this post made them re-think about making CIV4 a first-person shooter.

Well, in that case, good job.

I don't mind the look of Civ3 at all. And your complaints are kind of odd. When do the Native Americans speak perfect english? When does anyone talk? Are you referring to when the units go "Ah-ha!" when they win a battle?

 

[Bibor]

I am not talking of graphics at all! Is there any comment on graphics in my post? I like the graphics. What's the matter with you guys?

I just want some more realism - not in game mechanics - but in the general relation to history.

But then again, If you don't understand already what am I talking about, I cannot explain.

If its not game mechanics, if its not the graphics, then what in the world am I reffering to? hmm...


Let me give you a hint: the introductory animation for Civ vanilla was a GREAT improvement in what i want.
-kirby

 

[huh?]

Sounds like you want more micromanagement.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I am not talking of graphics at all! Is there any comment on graphics in my post? I like the graphics. What's the matter with you guys?

Basically that we'v got trouble deciphering your posts.

 

[sir_schwick]

In many way I agree with you. The representation of non-Western civilizations in Civ 3 was terrible. The tech-tree was an insult to the major Eastern cultures. Americans as a civ! That's crazy. There are way more deserving civs such as the great island of Minos(Dorian Greece). The Indus River Valley(India came way after it). A lot of deserving civs and ideas are left out. I don't think they should change the units, but make all units graphics, sounds, speech, improvements and wonders unique for each civ. I hated that the Pyramids weren't the Temple of Tikai or Angkor what for their respecitve civs. Magellan's voyage should have been Marco's voyage. The Apollo program should be unique for every civ. All the civs should look different as wella s play different, I see your point.

 

[warpstorm]

Personally, I don't mind the irreverant attitude they took for Civ3. I would rather they show more class and elegance, but I don't really care if they make it more historical (in fact, I'd rather they not bother).

 

[The Last Conformist]

I've stated that the history buffs isn't the customer base segment they're primarily trying to satisfy.

 

[Longasc]

I have enough indians in Civ3, no need for "Minoans" in the already well represented fertile crescent or the mediterranean.

Unique Wonders... hmmm... perhaps a different style of Pyramid for the Aztecs or so, but in general - if every civ can have its respective wonder, there would be no wonder races anymore.

I would also say there are way too many civs and by far too few real differences. Aztecs, Mayans, Incans - heck, they are basically native South American Indians. How about giving them real uniqueness instead of having 3 civs basically represent the same culture group sharing the same basic trait?

You can also bet that the Americans will be in the next game, because they were from Civ1 and one should not forget that this really not remarkable young civ is right now the last remaining superpower and Sid Meier, creator of the series, is also an American.

There are interesting discussions regarding the topic of certain tribes evolving into nations, e.g. Franks becoming French, Anglo-Saxons English which can become Australians or Americans and so on.

I do not know if this will really work, but it is an interesting thought. I think we already have enough Civs - we need more real differences and a lot more interesting governments that are really worthwile, right now I would say Republic - Communism or Monarchy-Communism in C3C. Theocracy is an interesting concept e.g.

I will bow before the developer that comes up with a sound concept for corruption - now this is something of real importance. Or a smarter AI. Capable of D-Day-Invasions.

 

[sir_schwick]

The Pyramids are still The Pyramids.
If Cambodia builds Angkor Watt, then Egypt cannot build The Pyramids. This way every culture has unique architechture, you can even see that in the city view. The city view also nees a major upgarde, specifically accurately reflect the population. it is not as though it has any other purpose then to show the city, although all it really is now is some houses, a skyscraper, and the improvements.

If you want all the civs to be different, then there probably should be differential developement. All civs reserach techs in different orders and arrive at units resources in different ways. Maybe some discover tech early that others discover later. Some might get special unit types(not UUs) etc. I would like this kind of system. They approached it in the Middle Ages scenario.

Really they should have all the civs that ever existed. Current computer HDs could easily handle it. Heck, I would even do some research, and I think most of the people on this forum would, to get Firaxis the info they needed. It would make a good community contribution to add some historical(replaying history that is) depth to Civ 4.

 

[Chauliodus]

In many way I agree with you. The representation of non-Western civilizations in Civ 3 was terrible. The tech-tree was an insult to the major Eastern cultures. Americans as a civ! That's crazy. There are way more deserving civs such as the great island of Minos(Dorian Greece). The Indus River Valley(India came way after it). A lot of deserving civs and ideas are left out. I don't think they should change the units, but make all units graphics, sounds, speech, improvements and wonders unique for each civ. I hated that the Pyramids weren't the Temple of Tikai or Angkor what for their respecitve civs. Magellan's voyage should have been Marco's voyage. The Apollo program should be unique for every civ. All the civs should look different as wella s play different, I see your point.

Naw, the should stick to being Euro/Middle Eastern-centric. And if you don't like it, make your own mod.

 

[Bibor]

At least when Sid created Civ1 he had the conscience not to put America as a civ into game. With civ2, things only get worse, and he probably knows this.

As for the game being Euro/Middle-eastern, it's a matter of time when the western civilization will be begging the Eastern for mercy. Hell, I'm western too, but I can see it coming.

So put your haughty ideals like "black people are not humans" and "indians are to be slaughtered" to a safe and lock it down forever.

Every nation has its great virtues and flaws. India and China make more than half of the world's population.

You know what the great Wstern civilization is to China? A spot on the map. A country that can be overrun with chinese soldiers armed with spoons. A market that is not wothy of fighting for.

In 20 years, you'll be begging to have any western civilization inculded in any compter game, so better start to make some changes now, before its too late.