 |
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Considering that the scenario editor was the main rason I bought the game, I do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
z0dd
|
|
Buffalo
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
I feel cheated that they purposely left out the mission editor and multiplayer so they can suck another $50 from the consumers. It also makes us wait an extra 10 months for what we should get in the first package.
A big FU!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monoriu
|
|
Do I feel cheated?
Nope, not at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Strollen
|
|
Ya, I feel cheated. I spent $60 for LE, and I have only spent 100+ hours playing. So that is like $.50/hour for entertainment, really a rip off.
Not to menition the game isn't nearly as a good as sex, as exciting as a sky diving, or even as engrossing as a the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.
How dare Sid puts his name on the game that isn't like the most enjoyable thing on the planet. Really he should be ashamed :-)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
wotan321
|
 |
Nowheresville, Man
May 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Since consumers were duped and misled all the way down the road leading up to Civ3's release, you GOTTA feel cheated.
Sure the gameplay is fun and an improvement, but its been YEARS since Civ2. No, they didn't have to make any improvements, they coulda just left Civ2 alone and not even bothered with Civ3. But the did sell us a load of good they DID NOT DELIVER.
Its unbelievable that they could put in hours and hours and hours of gameplay like they purport in their marketing, and not catch the Air Superiority or Scientist bugs. THEY HAD TO KNOW THEY WERE THERE!!
On their website they stated "We want to be there for the Scenario creation community" so they release the game with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to create scenarios with. When they were taking preorders for this game the had to release before Christmas, they should have been honest and said "There is no MP, there is no Scenario editor tools, there are no scenarios, and the game is unplayable in the modern era".
Just kidding, there is no way they would have been that honest. Either Firaxis was told to shut up and help Infogrames market this unfinished product to make as much money as possible, or they joyfully participated in the duplicity. Either way, I kinda feel sorry for professionals who seemed so eager to please the diehard fans of this game series. I will never view Sid or Firaxis with the same respect I had before. We got cheated and its sad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
codemast01
|
|
Technically they didn't mislead us. They did add new stuff. They did add culture. They did redo the trade system. They did add more diplomatic options. However what they forgot to mention was that half the tech tree has been remove; there is nothingness beyond the modern age (the lack of slighly future techs like nanites or underwater cities either shows total lack of imagination or total lack of effort on the part of Friaxis); diplomatic options are not anything that hasn't already been seen in CTP II.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kmj
|
|
I don't feel cheated at all. I feel tired because I stayed up til 5:30 am playing the game.
However what they forgot to mention was that half the tech tree has been remove; there is nothingness beyond the modern age (the lack of slighly future techs like nanites or underwater cities either shows total lack of imagination or total lack of effort on the part of Friaxis); diplomatic options are not anything that hasn't already been seen in CTP II.
Though it would have been nice to have more techs, I really like the new model of advances, and the idea of "eras". Now, I really don't see how the fact that they didn't reimplement things that were already done in Civ2 (future techs), CTP(underwater cities), and CTP2(diplomacy -lets just ignore the facts that (a) it was vastly expanded from Civ2 (b) Civ3 design began before CTP2 was even released (c) CTP2 is a different game by a different company and is in no way a predecessor to Civ3) can be considered a "lack of imagination".
There are so many subtle points (way beyond the combat system and culture, which aren't subtle) which make this a very different from, and better game (IMO) than, Civ2.
But obviously since I had no irrational expectations about what I was getting, I'm must just be a spineless anklebiting Fireaxis "fundie" who has no self-respect. Ah well, at least I'm having fun, and that's what's important to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kmj
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Underwater cities and deep diplomacy were part of Alpha Centauri, who was made by the same team. Though a part of the team left during the development, it's anyway incredible that stuff like the UN, diplomacy, sea improvement and terraformation are inferior (or even completely inexistant) compared to a 2/3 years old product made by the same people.
I just don't understand. |
okay, you have a point that they were part of a previous release by fireaxis.. don't remember underwater cities from SMAC, but I didn't play that too much. My main point was that reimplementing previous things can't be seen as imaginative... though codemast01 does also mention effort.
I really think they chose to expend their effort in different areas because Civ3 and SMAC are supposed to different feels. (I said different types of games before, and was told "what are you talking about, they're both real-time strategy!!!", so I'll try to be more specific this time.) SMAC is sci-fi, post modern: hence all the "future" stuff. I don't miss that at all in Civ3 because that's not what civ3 is about. Same with terraforming, terraforming on the scale of civ3 is much less feasable than it would be in some future world.
Diplomacy- SMAC was about different factions who had broken apart... it just seems to me that the relations between faction leaders would much tighter than those between different civilizations, hence the greater emphasis on diplomacy. Do I think the UN victory could have been improved upon? Yes. I do. Could the diplomacy have been better? Yes. Would it have been simple to use the code for diplomacy from SMAC in Civ3? I have no idea; knowing code, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Knowing the gaming industry, the code probably wasn't written with that in mind. Also note, it seems to me that this was a different team of programmers from those who wrote SMAC. Ever try reading someone else's code? Not always a walk in the park!
Sea improvement? Do we really need it? We have harbors and offshore platforms (the latter I've never gotten around to using I'll admit)... I like that better than having to build some "hydro-worker" and more micromanagement.
That's just my take. It is a different game from SMAC, designed with different things in mind. I don't miss most of the stuff from smac because I found SMAC to be aesthetically lacking, in comparison to Civ2&3 (it has a completely different feel), so I never played SMAC very much. Maybe a dozen games.
Could diplomacy (and many many aspects) have been better? Of course. But given their deadline, I think they did a great job. About bugs: I don't think any are gamebreakers, and I don't think that cumulatively they break the game. either. Maybe they knew about some of them, maybe not. Doesn't change my opinion of Fireaxis, knowing that they have to work within constraints imposed upon them.
edit: s/see/sea
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-11-2001 05:20
, it is not what you should feel when you are playing and looking at the clock and feel suprised that it's almost time to go to work 
|