NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

171# EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH CIV STARS!!! Only on Apolyton! The civ stars reveal all their secrets! 170# MOD = MORE DOUGH? "It's simple, we just want good games!" 169# CIV3 SHOULD ALLOW "SCENARIO PARALLELS" Civ2 scenarios converted to civ3. Wouldnt it be great? 168# WHY CIV-SPECIFIC UNITS ARE A GOOD IDEA Snapcase defends unique units 167# CTP2 - FOUR OPINIONS Solver guides you to the world of the CTP series COLUMN ARCHIVE

In the last few weeks, we have been flooded by all kind of information concerning Civilization III: previews, screenshots, interviews, official website updates etc. All this flow of information have been generating reactions that go from excitement all through to protest. Some of the more exalted fans claim that they can hardly wait for the game to be released, wondering that it will be the cornerstone of PC games evolution. Others have been demonstrating themselves as contrary to some of the features already announced, such as the number of civs on each game, and they apparently do not believe that Sid Meier will be able to perform his magic one more time.

The question that clearly arises to us is: will it be that the Civ model is revealing signs of exhaustion? When the first Civilization game was released, ten years ago, it has produced an impact equal to that of an earthquake on the PC games community. Such impact was deepened by Civilization II, which is, up until now, regarded by many as the finest game ever developed for PCs. But since then a lot of Civ clones has shown up on the market, including the so-called "sequels", such as the ill-fated Call to Power series and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, presumably the true Civ "spiritual heir". Those games left an impression that the strategy model proposed by Civilization is actually becoming exhausted. For example, Call to Power II is not a horrible game by any means, despite its bugs and its flawed AI. It has a number of interesting ideas, but the gamers' reactions were of absolute dismay. It is as if the game had grown weary to some; they could not derive more pleasure from it, substituting the famous "one more turn syndrome" by the less known "been there, done that syndrome". The fans of strategy games keep all their hopes on a renovation of the genre, conducted by its maximum creator, the "legendary" Sid Meier. As a consequence, much is expected from Civ III. Perhaps more than what prudence would recommend.

Will Civ III have all necessary attributes to stimulate that change? Will it be that the turn-based strategy game model proposed by Sid Meier has not became wearisome judging by the gamers' point of view? How long will it take for the gamers to start posting messages on the forums claiming that "Civ III is not that good" or "I am not enjoying Civ III anymore"?

All these questions will only be answered when Civ III is properly installed on our hard drives. But it is important to remember that high expectations may lead to a huge frustration, not because of the game itself, but because the model it proposes would be asking for a more radical change. Firaxis has been struggling to achieve this level of change, apparently, although I think that a little bit more of realism would be adequate at this moment, at least for us to give Civ III the proper respect that it will undoubtedly deserve.

---------
A Civ fan.

Comment on this article!

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.