 |
|
Dida
|
|
I got this game the 2nd day it was released, and now, I'm tired of it. It is just not interesting and very tiresome to controll. I have already sold it on eBay, and got Empire Earth and Yuri's Revenge. I guess the days of TBS has come to an end.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
John-SJ
|
|
Silicon Valley, USA
Aug 1999
time: 21:16
|
|
Diehard Civ fan that I am, I hate to say this, but I'm getting tired of Civ3 too. A couple of things that really bother me about the game. First, on large worlds, even with a PIII computer, in the mid to late game it takes 1 minute minimum for the computer to move. Second, even with a very happy kingdom and research set to 90% and trading techs as fast as I can, I end up building ALL city improvements and have no build choices other than military units. Siiince I generally try to play the peaceful perfectionist I have no need of military beyond a sufficient defense, and yet, this game leaves me no choice but to build military anyway.
So I end up spending less than half my time persuing my strategy and the majority of my time building what the game forces me to build. 
I hate to say this, but I think Firaxis blew it with this game. 
John-SJ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kimmygibler
|
|
I'm not gonna say they blew it yet. They still have a chance to fix the game. It's a long shot, but if anyone can do it firaxis just might have the commitment to long run success that other companies (activision) are painfully lacking.
I mean come on, this is firaxis...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Yes, the building issue is valid one for sure. Other times, things like the explorer come only after the entire map is explored. Huh?
Rookie mistakes. |
I thought I was the only one who noticed that - I got the explorer unit after I new every piece of land on the earth. Kinda pointless. Maybe the explorer should come at an earlier tech...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LaRusso
|
 |
appendix of Europe
May 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by John-SJ
Diehard Civ fan that I am, I hate to say this, but I'm getting tired of Civ3 too. A couple of things that really bother me about the game. First, on large worlds, even with a PIII computer, in the mid to late game it takes 1 minute minimum for the computer to move. Second, even with a very happy kingdom and research set to 90% and trading techs as fast as I can, I end up building ALL city improvements and have no build choices other than military units. Siiince I generally try to play the peaceful perfectionist I have no need of military beyond a sufficient defense, and yet, this game leaves me no choice but to build military anyway.
So I end up spending less than half my time persuing my strategy and the majority of my time building what the game forces me to build.
I hate to say this, but I think Firaxis blew it with this game.
John-SJ |
\1) hold shift while AI moves. it will be over in 15 secs. try normal worlds until you get p4
2) try playing at a higher difficulty level
3) yeah they blew it. they should have probably taken civ 2 glorious approach whereby you slept through middle ages, and then went on tank blitz over railroads and bribing spree, mopping up all the civs.
so i guess civ 1 is your fav then?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Antonin
|
|
Sorry, but I just don't see how Civ3 is 'broken.' I hope someone won't take this as a flame, but maybe some people just hate it because the newness of turn-based SP games is just gone for them.
Maybe their tastes have moved on. Civ1 was new and revolutionary. By now, though, the genre is 'mature' and its bloody hard to be revolutionary. Everything has been done, and all we can hope for is evolution of a formula.
For some people (I'm one of them), this is just fine. For others, maybe it's time to move on to some other type of game.
I've been having a wonderful time with Civ3. It runs flawlessly on my AMD K-6 400MHz machine with 128 M memory, which surprises me because I had a lots of problems running CTP2.
I think Civ3 gives me a lot of fun things to do. I think even the so-called 'problem' with high levels of corruption is simply a new challenge. Perhaps it's a way for the developers to get us to take a new approach to turn-based strategy. (I get the feeling that lots of Civ3 detractors have not taken the time to read the manual.)
To me, Civ3 doesn't feel like its predecessors, and it doesn't feel like SMAC. That's good, although I'm a HUGE SMAC fan.
I like Civ3 a lot. I paid the full retail price of $49.99 and I think it's worth every penny.
That's my 2 cents. To each his own. I hope people for whom the Civ experience has gotten stale can find something else worth their time. Maybe Empire Earth would be more to their liking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandous
|
 |
Atlanta, GA
Aug 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LaRusso
\1) hold shift while AI moves. it will be over in 15 secs. try normal worlds until you get p4
2) try playing at a higher difficulty level
3) yeah they blew it. they should have probably taken civ 2 glorious approach whereby you slept through middle ages, and then went on tank blitz over railroads and bribing spree, mopping up all the civs.
so i guess civ 1 is your fav then? |
SOrry your "arguments" are flawed.
1. Nope, a P3 1 GHz machine should be able to handle ANY TBS easily. WTH should I have to get a P4 to play Civ3 when I can play any other game on the market with NO performance drop?
If they turn off the "patrolling" feature for the AI and not show EVERY SINGLE UNIT MOVING (even with this turned off you still see them) then the PC would probably move faster. It can't be hard to program in a simple routine to have the AI move all it's "unused" offensive units to a central location to be ready to be "rapid-deployed" when needed.
2. Playing at a higher difficulty level does NOTHING to fix the problem caused when Firaxis took units and tech's OUT of the game, thus leaving LESS for the player to do other than build military units.
The only thing playing at a higher difficulty might do is make the player build more military units anyway, and as the original poster stated why would you want MORE military if you like to play peacefully?
3. No, the game play is much better now (IMHO) and I, like others, actually do like how every age is usefull now, but, BUT, just because the middle and even ancient ages are more important does NOTHING to fix the problem that there isn't enough for a peaceful player to do at times!
Oh, and as for the idea of "building" WEALTH, well "wealth" seems to be anything but wealth-giving, at least until you really don't need it by the time you hit industrialization and railroads.
Is Civ3 a good game, yes. Does it have some balance issues, a few. Could it stand to have 20% more tech's and about 35%-40% more stuff to build other than military units? Yep, you betcha.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
It seems some people just bought the wrong game... if you want a game where you can sit peacefully for centuries & never need a military play SimCity or SimEarth or TheSims... or SimAnt or SimFarm or SimCityStreets or SimSim or Simbad or Simballa or Sim'merDownNow or ...
quote:
The minute the proper editor arrives every budding modmaker will be adding techs and buildings. |
And some people don't have patience to wait & act shocked a game company would actually release a game that still needed a patch. Were they born yesterday? Constructive critism posts are healthy, this "TBS days are over" drama is just attention-hunger.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-11-2001 07:43
(The original and experienced team has gone away with B. Reynolds, I suppose). For the game itself - it ain't a bad game by far. Some of you might not have the patience, but there's a lot that can be liked with this game.
|