 |
| |
|
|
Johnny_Was
|
|
Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
So, it's not finished. We know it's not finished. Sid knows it's not finished. And at least one member of the mainstream press has had the courage to admit publicly it's not finished. But where's the spark to keep us playing while Firaxis gets around to finishing it?
Like the teenage boys who joke 'yeah, but you can't 'hold' personality' Firaxis seems to have ignored the lessons learned from SMAC and gone straight for the skin. Sure, Civ III looks nice (although it's already been improved by some user-made patches that add grey mountains and raised land) but where is the personality?? It's sooooo dull. Longtime fans of Sid's strategy games were slavering at the thought of this game becuase of how strongly the line had progressed - Civ to Civ II to SMAC, is a pretty strong up-curve; SMAC is an almost perfect game - we all hoped (and rightly so) that Civ III would incorporate all the experience gleaned from making those other games. Boy, were we wrong. Do you remember how much you hated Sister Miriam? Or how irritating Morgan was? Sure you do. Those AI players were extremely well defined. Now, what do you think of Bismarck? Or Elizabeth? Can you even tell them apart? Nope. And what happened to the amazing SMAC interface? Ok, the hotlinks are still there but they're not where we need them. Why doesn't the game tell me what new units I can build now my scientists discovered Iron Working? Why doesn't anyone tell me what benefits I get now that I spent 50 years building The Sistine Chapel? [Actually, this has been addressed by a user-made patch that swaps out the Wonder Splash Screens with ones that are actually useful but it's appalling that the community had to make that change.] Why have Trade and Spying been marginalised to the extent that they just seem to 'happen' in the background? Why do I have to go into a city screen to see how many units the city contains? Why can't I tell at a glance which units a stack contains? Where are the Wonder Movies? The movies in SMAC were really starting to approach the level of ART and they contributed enormously to the reward system of the game; I would always take a little breather when I triggered a movie and feel a great sense of accomplishment - but no more! Where the hell is Multi-Player? I don't need TCP/IP but PBEM would have been nice. On and on... My list of problems with this title seems to spiral into itself. Some of the changes are good - I like the fact that I can't 'hold-build' Wonders anymore [I'd still like an option to rush them, though], I like that building a settler takes so much out of a city you can't just build dozens of little cities all over the map but have to be more deliberate with your expansion, I like the way resources are handled. Firaxis did some things right, but where, oh where, is the personality? They've pruned Civ so far back that there's no impetus to keep playing it anymore - that delicate 'one-more-turn/one-more-reward' system has been gutted. I guess if you'd never played a turn-based strategy game you might like Civ III... But the rest of us should go back and pick up SMAC-X - it's still great.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ScottVib
|
|
You can see the number of units that are in a stack. There are little white lines next to the top, how to see exactly which units are in the stack, well how would you propose to do that on one square (currently if you click on the square (right click) you an see all the units and their rank elite, veteran, etc.).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RichM
|
|
I agree with the poster. I think this game gets a C- for atmosphere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I agree 100%. Civ3 is the lite beer of the Civ series. Less filling. Tastes great....for the first game. There is no depth and there is no fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kmj
|
|
Johnny_Was, jimmytrick - Return it. Do you think fixing coastal fortresses will suddenly make the game less dull? No; it won't. If you don't like it return it.
Just a couple comments from my point of view:
1) The core of the game seems quite finished and balanced. Can't say lack of multiplayer makes it unfinished, because they told us that MP wasn't in the plans for now.
2) Civ3 and SMAC are completely different types of games: for example: one person (maybe in the features we want thread) said they wished it had radio towers like SMAC.. why? by the time you are able to build them, expansion has rendered them pretty useless. I think individual civs do have some personality, but not to the extent of SMAC, which is fine. SMAC was Sci-Fi, with seperate factions identified by unique ideologies; Civ3 is not like that, and it shouldn't be. I'm glad that Civ3 doesn't have the "feel" of SMAC, but I found SMAC to be pretty boring after the first couple of games.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
RichM
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I give it an A+ for game mechanics, especially since you can tweak alot of stuff you don't like, but it does lack flavor. Part of the fun for me was how the previous civs drew me into pretending I was the emperor. With this game, though challenging, I feel like I'm just pushing game pieces around. I'm not 'there'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Johnny_Was
|
|
Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
from KMJ:
'2) Civ3 and SMAC are completely different types of games:'
Say WHAT?
Civ 3 and Gunship are completely different kinds of games. SMAC and Grim Fandango are completely different kinds of games.
Civ X and SMAC are the exact same kind of game - turn-based-explore-expand-exploit strategy games. SMAC-X is really the refinement of the first Civilization [and some might argue of every turn-based strategy game]; it takes the basic gameplay components - found a city, research tech, interact with other civs - and refines them until they deliver diamonds. The only real problem with the game is the Tech Tree which is a little esoteric - we all instinctively know what 'Alphabet' is; 'Neural Grafting' we have to look up - but if you're willing to do the work you'll come away with a gaming experience that will have nourished and satisfied you - possibly changed you. The game has a cultural and social message that elevates it above the prosaic and makes it Art - it's no accident that the Planet is actually a character in the game and if you mistreat it there are consequences, or that you can win the game by achieving Transcendence - and makes it's mark with breathtaking design choices.
also from KMJ:
'If you don't like it return it.'
Well, that really knocks the whole spirit-of-sharing-and-learning-from-each-other on the head, doesn't it? I had, perhaps foolishly, thought that these boards would be a good place to come and engage in a discourse of investigation, possibly even mourning, with people who know and love this series. These kinds of brusque, narrow responses will not get anyone invited to my house for spiced cider this holiday season.
I love this series, I really do, and I so badly wanted Civ III to blow the top of my head off. But it doesn't. It has some great ideas and even some innovation, but ultimately feels like a step backward. And that makes me sad.
have a calm day
was
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kmj
|
|
Johnny_Was:
You wrote in to say that you're not having fun playing the game. Patches are not going to change what you don't like about the game. I don't see what there is to discuss, and I'm not sure your purpose was in the "spirit-of-sharing-and-learning-from-each-other" to start with. It was in the spirit of "I don't like this game and I think all real turn based strategy players should go back to SMAC". I didn't mean to come off as being abrasive, but judging from what you posted, the game isn't worth your time. Makes sense to return it.
Civ3 and SMAC are both turn based "expand and exploit" strategy games, true. But SMAC was pure fiction... that's what sci-fi has to do with it, drake. Civ3 is an abstraction of history. To make the civs any more unique than they aleady are would be to be imposing a probably biased interpretation on history. The civs do have characteristics, but they're much more muted and I think they should stay that way. Obviously this is a matter of opinion. My point is that just because something was in SMAC, that doesn't mean you should expect it in Civ3.
Judging from your last comment, Johnny_Was, you were expecting way too much from civ. Unless you think...
[quote]
The game has a cultural and social message that elevates it above the prosaic and makes it Art - it's no accident that the Planet is actually a character in the game and if you mistreat it there are consequences, or that you can win the game by achieving Transcendence - and makes it's mark with breathtaking design choices.
[/quote[
...of alot of games. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but really, I've never felt that about any game. Maybe I'm a philistine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
I must say, I'm starting to agree. Despite my unhappiness about the lack of scenario tools, I decided to give the game a good run through to see what it offered. I'm now about 3/4 of the way through the first game that didn't crash irremedially and there's lots of good stuff in the system. I like the expanding borders, the small wonders, use of changing resources, even the cultural features. And I really like many of the combat elements, including armies and leaders, ranged units and so on. It mirrors the development in board wargame concepts a decade or so ago.
But, I have to say, the diplomatic system combined with the corruption rules, really limit your options. My empire is now very large, but further military fun is unlikely. I'm too big to expand much more due to corruption and too strong for anyone to attack me given the present diplomatic model. So I'm left to play out the game as a manager. Perhaps I'll build the spaceship, but I've never really enjoyed that much.
This diplomatic system seems to expand the trend set by Civ2. By giving the human player more diplomatic options and strategies, the game really gives him or her more control over the actions of the AI controlled civs. The result is often a more predictable and therefore more boring game. I really enjoyed Civ I because you were often faced with unpredictable situations. But based on my experience so far, the addictiveness of Civ3 declines steadily as the game progesses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ludwig
|
|
There was a lot in SMAC to like, and a lot that I miss here in CivIII. Just to give an example - the ability to have a military "conference" with an ally AI and direct him to attack a given city was a huge plus and its absence in CivIII is a decided minus. [Especially since I can't understand it. You've got the code already - why not use it?]
But one thing from SMAC that this game DOESN'T need is "atmosphere". The atmosphere in SMAC was nice...the first game. After that, the fact that the game is trying to read me a story and the fact that the AI's have wired personalities and ideologies [all but one of which made them saps in the game, and would-be-saps-if-you-met-them-in-real-life] that never change made the game get stale just about instantly. I played a second game just to see things "break" ["What if I throw planet busters all over the place? What if I try to see if I can't deliberately get the mind worms to go berserk?"] and then I never played it again. CTP had better replayability than SMAC.
There, now that I have trolled back I feel better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote:
I'm now about 3/4 of the way through the first game... My empire is now very large, but further military fun is unlikely. I'm too big to expand much more due to corruption and too strong for anyone to attack me given the present diplomatic model. So I'm left to play out the game as a manager. |
If you played a harder level you would enjoy it longer since the AI Civs would be bigger threats. Somehow I doubt you are playing Diety or even Emperor.
However, I would like to add that the heavy restrictions with the tech tree, heavy restrictions which with size/distance which lead to corruption, and editor limitations do hinder the potential of the game. But they are working on a patch.
Last edited by Pyrodrew on 17-11-2001 at 06:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jonasf
|
|
Seattle
Oct 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
Wouldn't it be fun if your enemies talked?? There are soundcards in PCs nowadays and I think it would be much nicer if for example Bismarck shouted at you when you declared war or you get to hear Queen Elisabeth whine about how you are almost ripping her off in the latest deal. Same with the advisors, wouldn't it be nice if they had voices with character and personality. You could HEAR how angry they were or how friendly and happy they are with you....
There are lot's of those small things that are more or less standard in a modern game today that are for some reason missing in Civ3. I think Civ3 is a good game, but it doesn't have that extra spice that makes you identify with it, where it kind of becomes your world and you have more real interaction with it and it's characters...
I agree that the game is lacking in personality. They could have made it a lot more fun just by adding sound for example.........
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2001 19:43
|