Anthony Coulter
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 27
Before worrying about the transition from Civ2 to Civ3, look at the transition from Civ1 to Civ2.
Civilization 1 was a great game for its time, but when the sequel came out, we found that Civ2 was so much better. Sure, Civ2 still had problems. Starting techs are random, the airbase bug messes up hills, the AI is stupid, and all sorts of other annoying problems exist... But Civ2 is better.
I doubt that Civilization 3 will be perfect. I know that Civ3 will not be perfect. For every feature, there are supporters and detractors. (Some of these features, like the civ-specific units, will be optional, which I find to be the best of compromises.) Still, Civ3 will be superior to Civ2. Okay, they will only have 16 civs. That's fine with me, considering that Civilization 2 only had 1 Civilization that came in many different colors. Maybe the special resource thing is going to be annoying because you need to wire it back to your capital. It's still a good feature. How is a civilization without access to uranium going to build nukes? I would like to add extra tweaks that may or may not interfere, just to add more ideas to consider with gameplay.
From what I hear, Firaxis is turning Civilization 3 into a new gaming experience with many factors to consider simultaneously. You can't just sprawl settlers out indefinitely with this new system. You have to take the 2-point population drop into account. Now, you can't recklessly build armies, either. You need to build according to the resources on hand. You also have certain types of units (optional, as they recently stated) that are just the opposite of being resource-based; they're set from the start. Annoying or not, these changes will prove interesting.
If it is compatible with my computer, I will be getting Civ3 no matter what they do. It will be better than Civ2.
Anthony
Civilization 1 was a great game for its time, but when the sequel came out, we found that Civ2 was so much better. Sure, Civ2 still had problems. Starting techs are random, the airbase bug messes up hills, the AI is stupid, and all sorts of other annoying problems exist... But Civ2 is better.
I doubt that Civilization 3 will be perfect. I know that Civ3 will not be perfect. For every feature, there are supporters and detractors. (Some of these features, like the civ-specific units, will be optional, which I find to be the best of compromises.) Still, Civ3 will be superior to Civ2. Okay, they will only have 16 civs. That's fine with me, considering that Civilization 2 only had 1 Civilization that came in many different colors. Maybe the special resource thing is going to be annoying because you need to wire it back to your capital. It's still a good feature. How is a civilization without access to uranium going to build nukes? I would like to add extra tweaks that may or may not interfere, just to add more ideas to consider with gameplay.
From what I hear, Firaxis is turning Civilization 3 into a new gaming experience with many factors to consider simultaneously. You can't just sprawl settlers out indefinitely with this new system. You have to take the 2-point population drop into account. Now, you can't recklessly build armies, either. You need to build according to the resources on hand. You also have certain types of units (optional, as they recently stated) that are just the opposite of being resource-based; they're set from the start. Annoying or not, these changes will prove interesting.
If it is compatible with my computer, I will be getting Civ3 no matter what they do. It will be better than Civ2.
Anthony
