Any news on DOM-III

[Zen]

CUnknown said:
Yeah Zen--

You're definitely in the minority of the minority that is Dominions 2 fans. CivIII can't hold a candle to Dom2, despite the vastly larger budget and huge popularity.

I never said Civ3 was on par with Dom3. If you see the references it was considering the entire series (which you can see applies to games with sequels). I may not at this point say that Civilization or Civiliation 2 is as good as Dominions 2 *right now*. But I do remember when they came out and I played them, I enjoyed them very nearly as much as Dominions 2. Dominions just is more fresh in my mind since it's been a while since I've played them.

Or, actually, because of the vastly larger budget and huge popularity. Any game with such a huge budget is going to be marketed at a large audience so it can make money (or someone is getting fired, right?). Any game marketed at a large audience is going to be hindered by the "common-denominator" factor, therefore probably not as good as dom2 because it isn't limited in that way.

So let me see the arguement. Because a game is marketed to a large audience it is going to be hindered by that fact and won't be as good as someeone who doesn't have the kind of budget to market to a large audience?

If that is the arugement, how much money does it take to have a good game that does appeal to a large audience since it can be defined by monetary means? If a good team makes a good game that is marketed to alot of people or a good team makes a game that is a niche game, it shouldn't matter since it's not the money that is the determining factor, but the development. By what your saying it means that Dominions 2 will never be as good as it is right now since it doesn't take alot of money and would actually be better if it spent less money, especially on things that are considered 'fluff' (like graphics). So cut out Kristoffer O. and the money he gets from Dominions 3 (lets assume after taxes and work effort its something like $0.000003 an hour) will make it even a better game.

Also--most of that budget is going towards graphics, which any true gamer knows is mostly irrelevant to a good game-playing experience.

I didn't know you worked for Firaxis in it's financial department to confirm this. So the majority of what Civ4 will be from Civ3 will be graphical and it will be a total flop, in direct contradiction to what is being reported in interviews and the development journals.

Assuming that isn't what you meant but that if that is what is going to happen, I agree with you. Civ 4 will be a waste of a game and nowhere even close to Dominions 2, let alone Dominions 3.

So, mass marketed games are a large number of people making decisions about the game with regards more or less only to profits, not to a good gaming experience, and on top of that, they're wasting most of their money on a less-important part of the game (graphics). These games are just bound to be worse than a small project done by gamers for gamers.

Profit is a high priority in any business but depending on the business. The sacrifice of quality for profit is the balancing of the fine line as any business owner will tell you. And while I may not know the Gaming Industry like the back of my hand or all the ins and outs (if you happen to be one that does, then I'll take your word for it) developers work as hard as they can to make the best game they can in the amount of time they have to work with because it directly impacts their future.

Whether or not it is successful is entirely up to how they do.

I'm not saying they -have- to be worse, but if they're not, it's pretty damn awesome. Get me a copy of that game.

I agree with you. Maybe I just have more faith on this particular project because I've been following every worthwhile TBS I've seen lately (there aren't that many) to quench that hunger for it.


Edited for stupid typos.

[Zen]

Also, just for the sake of arguement. I don't think the Civ 4 graphics are all that superfantastic. Especially when you consider immersion.

The new RoN with it's weather effects, enviroment variables and such is a huge step up in graphics for a "strategy" game that add to immersion.

I certainly wouldn't buy Civ4 for it's graphics.

[Beorne]

Cainehill said:
Not to mention Final Fantasy Tactics,
...
Or action / RPGs such as Vagrant Story (one of the most amazing things I ever saw on the PS, with great characters, cut scenes, and voiceovers : "Shouldn't we wait for the reinforcements?" "I am the reinforcements." Or Valkyrie Profile, or various other gems that came to be on the consoles.

You have cited the best of the best of the PS games, I think these almost unknown games are the best of the best in "athmosphere" and story. They have a mysterious, obscure and dramatic story. PC games are nowhere near (reagarding script).
It is impressive how, in the modern days, high tech is cheap and good ideas are scarce (I'm thinking of SWep3, but the concept is similar)

[Arralen]

Zen said:
I certainly wouldn't buy Civ4 for it's graphics.

And I will certainly not buy it because of it's graphics - they plainly suck, judging from the screenshots:

- comic-style leaders

- Troops are portrait realistically as possible (real-time 3D rendering, I suppose ..), there are even squads (to tell the army size?). As in every "good" RTS game, units are bigger than buildings and even mountains. I hate that. Either do realistic graphics, or do icons. I must admit the first will not work with a strategy game because of scale. (Yes, I hated Panzer General 3D as well)

- Woods don't look like woods, but like some lonely trees only

etc etc.

And even if the graphics where ok, there are lots other things that simply suck ...

[Taqwus]

Civ always had scale and logic problems -- fighter jet sorties that last a year, missiles that could be launched from cities *into* a submarine at sea, the inability to fly units over enemy units lacking any AA capability whatsoever, no concept of supply lines, free field upgrades...

...but more irritating to me than all of that was the tendency to put in an AI with delusions of grandeur, so that even when you *obviously* could erase it from the world at your whim, it would stridently demand certain percentages of your treasury or your latest technology (even if it lacked the espionage capabilities to know what you had). Or otherwise needlessly provoking you by dropping colonies on tiny areas of your islands. Might as well annihilate them just to end their nonsense.

[NTJedi]

Zen said:

I disagree. I think the reason Civ_4 will be popular because of the groundwork that was laid with Civ and Civ2 to produce a good TBS game.

Of course Civ and Civ2 were good and help with the sales... but the sales also come from having a big publisher and advertising/marketing budget as well. Dominions does not have this so it will obviously not do as well.

Zen said:
That being said, Civ_4 will do good or bomb on it's own merits. It does however have the benefit of being it's own IP and recognized as having the potential of being a very good game.

I agree... it's possible Civ_4 might be better than Dom_3 or vise versa. Too hard to tell right now.

=============================

The point I was trying to make is that I believe a majority of the CIVILIZATION gamers would find DOMINIONS_2 to be a better game than CIVILIZATION_3. And because DOMINIONS cannot match the advertising/marketing design of CIVILIZATION it will remain this way.

[Saber Cherry]

Taqwus said:
Civ always had scale and logic problems -- fighter jet sorties that last a year, missiles that could be launched from cities *into* a submarine at sea, the inability to fly units over enemy units lacking any AA capability whatsoever, no concept of supply lines, free field upgrades...

20 turns / 400 years to "build" an archer... with a city thus unable to even START building a temple (a 4 to 40 week project) for 400 years. An aircraft carrier needing upkeep equal to a paratrooper. Cities falling into unrest because their garrisoned nuclear missiles are moved to a remote location. Any victorious unit suffering no (permanent) losses, or at least losses that cost anything.

If they would just make Civ marginally more realistic with each generation, I'd love it. But no... strategic resources were added, so you can "move" and "use" tanks under a total oil embargo (no strategic reserve allowed!) and your economy functions at 100%... you just cannot "build" tanks! Of course! And your cities fall into chaos unless you constantly give enemy nations advanced technology so they don't cut of your vital silk and spices... if Bush gave North Korea 'nukyuler' secrets in exchange for a kim-chee supply-line, I humbly suppose that Americans would finally realize he's an idiot, rather than celebrating "We Love The President Day." But then I'm young and don't remember when England overthrew its government because German subs were sinking the vital gem and fur imports. Or when German tanks magically roamed North Africa without burning any gasoline, but lost anyway becase the rubber embargo prevented them from building new Marines (at 6 years per new unit).

I don't care about graphics too much. Graphics can be really neat, but iff the devs would spend a trivial effort on creativity or realism, Civ IV might end up being worth buying. If they don't, a $10M or even $10B (and that can buy a lot) graphics do-over will not entice me. I didn't like Civ III nearly as much as II.

[Saber Cherry]

And don't forget the expansion pack, "Civ IV: The World Pays for a Patch Edition."

[Arralen]

You know that not a thing of what you have mentioned seems to have changed?

[PDF]

About Civ4 : I don't expect much from it, except more eye-candy and (surely) simplified mechanisms... I was enthusiastic about Civ, happy with Civ2, get bored with Civ3, now what's the point of doing a 4th sequel ?