26-11-2001 06:14									#1
	My Thoughts on Civ 3 (a newbie's rant) Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hi, long time lurker, new poster:

All of my problems with Civ 3 are probably related directly to the evil corporate incarnate that is infogrames. Having dealt with them during my time at an advertisement company, I know exactly the many ways that they sacrifice quality for an early release date. I'm serious, man, they've got like ****ing video game storm troopers over there.

This game was released four months too soon. Why else would the modern era be such a weak part of the game? Because it was never finished that's why. I wouldn't be surprised if the patch that we're all waiting for simply fixes the bugs, but the new techs and units we're all waiting for don't come until Q2 of 2002 as an "Expansion Pack."

What is Civ 3 other than a graphical face lift? Sure the AI and resource system are cool, but where are all the new units? New Technologies? What I expect from a sequel is progression. Civ 3 basically rehashed what we liked from Civ 1 and 2 and blended it together.

We're still using a tile system? Come on. This is my ONLY complaint that may be Sid's fault. But don't you think its time to move out of 2-d?

This may be sacrilige... but if they were just going to mix up one and two and spit out a game four months early, the least they could have done was add in the good stuff from Call to Power and Alpha Centauri. I mean, C2P stole stuff from Sid, why can't he take it back? I want some ****ing water cities man.

My Wish List:

Terrain Improvements:
Improved mines
Highways (I haven't ridden a train since I was three)
Farmland (Where the **** did this go? If I have to look at that slop they call irrigation one more turn... at least Sn00py did something about that)
TERRAFORMING (i HATE deserts... and yes, we can bring down mountains)

Units:
-Could bombard actually DO something? What a waste of time that is... oh yeah, cannons are GREAT... oooh I damaged the spearman!

-Since when can a bowman stop a tank? Unless these dudes have watched Rambo, I highly doubt it.

-Armys, yep, another USELESS idea under its current application. Armys fight together, maybe if they fought together in the game....

New Units:
Air Transports (I assume we are currently using the New York City bus system to move our troops to afghanistan)
ACTUAL MODERN WAR UNITS
Commandos
I don't know, just more... I am getting really sick of having just Modern Armor and Mech Inf at the the end of the game... that is just ****ing BORING.

New Techs: MORE!!!!!
Computing, Networking, etc, cloning... the fact that the modern era has about four techs is a little unsettling.
How about we have each technology actually DO something... there's nothing more annoying than spending twelve turns on Steel, then realizing that the innovation that helped spur America's Industrial Revolution does NOTHING in the game.

Wonders: MORE
Make some UP for Chrissake. Statue of Liberty? Where did that one go huh?Cure for Cancer gives you one happy citizen? Oh thank the mother of god, by that time, all of my major cities are like size 30 anyway and haven't revolted since the middle ages.


Phew... happy to get that out.

But let me just say this: I had a great time playing this game.. it was highly nostalgic, and I think the general praise that it has received in the public's view has been because of that. How could you NOT like a civ title? Come on, that's like the Pope coming out and saying he likes sodomy after mass.

But nostalgia was all it was... I want Civ 3, not Civ 2 1/2.

	26-11-2001 06:41									#2
	Suffering from ads?

1. Do we need an individual rant thread from EACH poster here? I'm not even irked. It's getting funny, now.

2. Most of your points were brought up in several threads (as recent as a couple days ago) which talked about what elements of SMAC and CTP should have been combined into the game.

3. (Not a flame) We need to get an active moderator in here who locks some more of these clutter threads. DAnQ and MarkG did a good job today, but they should be working on higher level stuff.

	26-11-2001 06:46									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

No doubt, I agree it probably should be merged... I don't know... I just think a lot of us have been let down and we just need to get it off our chests in a public arena where people will actually listen to and understand it.

I mean... I told my girlfriend my problems with the game and she laughed at me, called me video game dork and asked me why we haven't been out as much since the game has been out.

Point taken.

	26-11-2001 07:29									#4
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Fair enough. I feel your pain. Tell the girlfriend that if she's a little mre sympathetic you'll take her to dinner.

When I first got Civ2, my girlfriend got so pissed off she went and got a Civ2 to put on ther computer so I'd at least play it at her place.

	26-11-2001 09:15									#5
	Re: My Thoughts on Civ 3 (a newbie's rant) Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Daveraver I want some ****ing water cities man.

F()ck that! I hated water cities. I turned them off in SMAC.

quote: Farmland (Where the **** did this go?

Yah I liked having farmland too.

quote: New Units: Air Transports (I assume we are currently using the New York City bus system to move our troops to afghanistan) ACTUAL MODERN WAR UNITS Commandos I don't know, just more... I am getting really sick of having just Modern Armor and Mech Inf at the the end of the game... that is just ****ing BORING. New Techs: MORE!!!!! Computing, Networking, etc, cloning... the fact that the modern era has about four techs is a little unsettling. How about we have each technology actually DO something... there's nothing more annoying than spending twelve turns on Steel, then realizing that the innovation that helped spur America's Industrial Revolution does NOTHING in the game. Wonders: MORE Make some UP for Chrissake. Statue of Liberty? Where did that one go huh?Cure for Cancer gives you one happy citizen? Oh thank the mother of god, by that time, all of my major cities are like size 30 anyway and haven't revolted since the middle ages.

More is not necessarily better! Look at CTP and CTP2. They had more of everything but everything was so badly implimented that those games sucked. I'd rather have less of everything but have what's included balanced and well implimented. I want good gameplay not just the ablility to build more stuff.

quote: I want Civ 3, not Civ 2 1/2.

Civ3 is way different than Civ2. Just like Civ2 you have to play it more than a few times to get to the meat of the game. After my first game I thought Civ3 was perhaps not as good as Civ2 but now after 4 I wouldn't want to go back to Civ2.

	26-11-2001 09:17									#6
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

to GM lmao

I email myself the save games and play it at her place! I think this begs a new thread... or at least a poll delving into the gender of Civ Players... in my experience... it has been one of the most gender-diverse titles in video game history...

Last edited by Daveraver on 26-11-2001 at 09:24

	26-11-2001 09:24									#7
	Re: Re: My Thoughts on Civ 3 (a newbie's rant) Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Simpleton F()ck that! I hated water cities. I turned them off in SMAC.

Well, not exactly water cities... what I'm trying to get hint at is the INCREDIBLY weak modern age... I'd like for it to extend a bit into the future.

quote: Yah I liked having farmland too.

Dude... it was so pretty... so pretty.

quote: More is not necessarily better! Look at CTP and CTP2. They had more of everything but everything was so badly implimented that those games sucked. I'd rather have less of everything but have what's included balanced and well implimented. I want good gameplay not just the ablility to build more stuff.

But you can't deny that planes are pretty useless, paratroopers and marines are too, helicopters are stupid... and well... if you want to be effective you have to use modern armor vs mech inf, and well... I'd like more options in the modern age is all.

quote: Civ3 is way different than Civ2. Just like Civ2 you have to play it more than a few times to get to the meat of the game. After my first game I thought Civ3 was perhaps not as good as Civ2 but now after 4 I wouldn't want to go back to Civ2.

I wouldn't want to go back either... I think I should restate why I'm angry here: Because Infogrames made Firaxis put out a game waaaay before it was the finished. I think that the insipid modern age and bug ridden game is proof of that.

	26-11-2001 09:31									#8
	Got spare money?

Just keep in mind: Firaxis didn't have a gun to its head when it signed the contract. And, to my knowledge, Firaxis was never sent an e-mail weeks before release saying: "Surprise! We're moving up the release date on you by 6 months!"

Yes, the loss of Brian Reynolds no doubt hurt them. But what did they do? Hire people to make a golf game and in the mean time cut out MAJOR features and planning for Civ3.

That was a Firaxis decision and I hold them accountable.

	26-11-2001 09:58									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by yin26 Just keep in mind: Firaxis didn't have a gun to its head when it signed the contract. And, to my knowledge, Firaxis was never sent an e-mail weeks before release saying: "Surprise! We're moving up the release date on you by 6 months!" Yes, the loss of Brian Reynolds no doubt hurt them. But what did they do? Hire people to make a golf game and in the mean time cut out MAJOR features and planning for Civ3. That was a Firaxis decision and I hold them accountable.

I guess I'm just hanging onto whatever scrap of brand loyalty Sid Meier has instilled in this now dissillusioned young man. But I do know that Infogrames is the closest thing we have to a dictatorship in the video game industry...

	26-11-2001 10:10									#10
	Suffering from ads?

Well, I suspect Sim Golf will be pretty good (for its genre) precisely because Sid paid a lot of attention to it. He did not, as far as any of us can see, take a leading role with Civ3. There's your difference. And you'll also notice that Sim Golf *somehow* managed to havt ITS release date pushed back so that more work could be done on it.

Hmmmm...

	26-11-2001 10:58									#11
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by yin26 Yes, the loss of Brian Reynolds no doubt hurt them. But what did they do? Hire people to make a golf game and in the mean time cut out MAJOR features and planning for Civ3. That was a Firaxis decision and I hold them accountable.

Not all personell decisions/changes are mutable or avoidable. You're assuming that the people tasked to the golf game could have been put on civ3?
Personally I think I'm glad they weren't (And that was a very funny thread of yours on civ3 golf a while ago btw )

	26-11-2001 11:03									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

It definitely has the feel of an unfinished product, and not just because the multiplayer wasn't included. Things like corruption and the cultural defection of cities look to me like they weren't fully tested/thought out. I think with more testing they would have set corruption much lower and city defection would have been made much less frequent.

	26-11-2001 11:05									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

No, what I mean is that Civ3 should have been top priority and Sim Golf put on the back burner. Of course, it might well be that this 'sim' craze will net Firaxis more money than Civ3 could, so it's hard to blame Sid's decision to basically ignore Civ3.

Naaaw, it ain't THAT hard to blame him! LOL!

	26-11-2001 11:07									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by ravagon Not all personell decisions/changes are mutable or avoidable. You're assuming that the people tasked to the golf game could have been put on civ3? Personally I think I'm glad they weren't (And that was a very funny thread of yours on civ3 golf a while ago btw )

It is so simple. Only Firaxis can be held responsible for the depature of Reynolds. (and here I consider Reynolds part of Firaxis...he was one of the 3 owners.) Infogrames can't be expected to clean stable instead an independent house. I don't care wether Sid had any options to move people frpom Golf* or not. The problem came with the departure of most of the civ3 team. The bottom line is Firaxis didn't have the horses when they needed them. Firaxis is responsible.

*Who knows...maybe Golf is a better bet...I REALLY doubt it...but who knows

	26-11-2001 11:28									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GP The problem came with the departure of most of the civ3 team. The bottom line is Firaxis didn't have the horses when they needed them. Firaxis is responsible.

I think the operative phrase there is "most of the civ3 team" (true or not - I don't remember exactly how many left?). Whether it was preventable or not I don't know either (I assume "not" given the fact that they left) and I have no information on which to base an assessment, but losing such a large fraction compromised them in ways they couldn't compensate for in the time remaining until release.

I think Infogrames should have at least given them more leeway in the matter. Another month or so and it would've still been before Xmas right? True they also had commitments to distributors etc, but these have always been "looser" (In many publishers cases anyway) when its been necessary to allocate additional time to properly finish a project...

	26-11-2001 11:50									#16
	Tired of ads?

I really don't care if it was preventable or not. They are STILL repsonsible. If they can't manage that, than they shouldn't take on bug contracts. Enough with the blame it on Brian excuse and the blame it on Infogrames. Firaxis is responsible. But it looks like they got out the major parts of a good game. So hopefully they can finish it in patches and expansions.

	26-11-2001 12:12									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I think someone drove a truck of money up to Sids house and said "here ya go, go crazy! If you make half-arsed titles in the future, it doesn't matter, because you still have enough money to buy a small south pacific country!"

Sad, but true. Sid got complacent through sucess. He left someone else to (Briggs/Morris) to do civ3. Without Reynolds, they were kinda lost, probably thought to themselves - well, what the crap are we going to do now? Then they got to thinking civ2 was pretty good, let's just rehash that....and honestly, what has changed between civ2 and civ3? Culture + resource system...and that's really it. The AI may be different, but in time I'm sure plenty of holes will be discovered in it...holes that are different from civ2, but they'll still be there. Combat, and the addition of armies - pathetic! Was this firaxis' way of taking a very good idea from CTP and distancing themselves from it so they wouldn't look as if it had been stolen? As they stand in civ3 at the moment, armies are basically just a single unit with much higher hit points.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm having a fair bit of fun with civ3...but im disappointed in that it really is civ2.5, and firaxis were too lazy to include wonder movies! (No no, you're right Nick Rusko-Burger. single frames are much more exciting and rewarding than an entire animated movie!!)

	27-11-2001 15:36									#18
	Re: Re: Re: My Thoughts on Civ 3 (a newbie's rant) Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Daveraver Well, not exactly water cities... what I'm trying to get hint at is the INCREDIBLY weak modern age... I'd like for it to extend a bit into the future.

I see. I probably haven't played enough Civ3 yet to get a feel for the modern age as so far I have been playing pretty conservatively and not pressing to advance to quick. The consequences are that the game usually ends before I have too much gametime left to play in the modern age. BUT with every game I play I improve. Hopefully, by the time I'm getting to the modern age in 1000 AD a patch addressing this will have been released.

As far as farmland goes I really wish they still had that option. The only guess as for a reason to take it out is to minimize the amount of micromanangement you would have to do near the end of the game. I know in Civ2 it sometimes was a bother to more all your settlers around trying to upgrade everything to farmland.

quote: But you can't deny that planes are pretty useless, paratroopers and marines are too, helicopters are stupid... and well... if you want to be effective you have to use modern armor vs mech inf, and well... I'd like more options in the modern age is all.

Planes are definitely toned down significantely but I'm not sure if it's necessarily a bad thing. I'll need more games under my belt before I decided. I haven't used the others too much yet so I'll take your word for it.

quote: I wouldn't want to go back either... I think I should restate why I'm angry here: Because Infogrames made Firaxis put out a game waaaay before it was the finished. I think that the insipid modern age and bug ridden game is proof of that.

Yes, Inforgrames definitely seems to be the bad guy here. Hopefully, Firaxis can put many issues to bed with a really good first patch.

	27-11-2001 19:06									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GP It is so simple. Only Firaxis can be held responsible for the depature of Reynolds. (and here I consider Reynolds part of Firaxis...he was one of the 3 owners.)

The main reason Brian and company left (and I had it from the BHG folks in person ) is that they were told that they'd be working on Civ3. They were totally burned out on Civ and its turn-based kin and wanted to do something real time.

BTW, game programmers (even those at Firaxis) aren't in it for the money. All of them can get MUCH better paying jobs (even in this day and age) doing something else for a living. They are doing it because they love it.

	27-11-2001 21:17									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin Now, don't get me wrong, I'm having a fair bit of fun with civ3...but im disappointed in that it really is civ2.5, and firaxis were too lazy to include wonder movies! (No no, you're right Nick Rusko-Burger. single frames are much more exciting and rewarding than an entire animated movie!!)

Hmm, since Civ2 was essentially Civ1 with better graphics I guess it was really Civ 1.5 then? And since Civ3 only has the resource model and armies it is really Civ2 then?

Hmm, from the original Civ until Civ3, yeah, Civ3 is really the sequal to Civ1, so it should be Civ2.

Now where's the real "sequal", Civ3??

Oh and regarding Sid being bored with Civ, yep, that's why he was so interested in SimGolf, he was as bored with the Civ concept as Brian was except Sid didn't leave, he just moved to a different project.

My question is this: How much better would Civ3 have been if a devoted third party developer had done it like Quicksilver is doing with MOO3? As opposed to the bored "aww man, we have to do another Civ" mentality that Firaxis seems to have demonstrated in this title.

	28-11-2001 00:07									#21
	Re: My Thoughts on Civ 3 (a newbie's rant) Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Daveraver Highways (I haven't ridden a train since I was three)

Well, that's your problem isn't it? In most countries the trains still go faster than the road transport...

Now there's an idea - the railways could mean different things for different civs.

For the French and Japanese civs, the railways move units instantaneously.
For the American civ, you can only connect a limited number of cities, and units won't move very fast on them.
For the Indian civ, you can evacuate an entire city onto a single train.
For the English civ, you have to pay enormous amounts of gold to move on the railways, only 60% of the network will be functional at any given time, and each turn you have a 10% chance of a train crash resulting in the loss of your unit.

	28-11-2001 03:00									#22
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by WarpStorm The main reason Brian and company left (and I had it from the BHG folks in person ) is that they were told that they'd be working on Civ3. They were totally burned out on Civ and its turn-based kin and wanted to do something real time. BTW, game programmers (even those at Firaxis) aren't in it for the money. All of them can get MUCH better paying jobs (even in this day and age) doing something else for a living. They are doing it because they love it.

That's an interesting note. Thanks.

It pretty much fits in my my thesis that Firaxis is responsibel for not being able to keep a happy team together. Infogrames doesn't hire people at Firaxis. Nor do they assign who works on things. Firaxis took the contract on and then had issues because they couldn't deliver a team to work on the game.

(branching off) I would think that this kind of work could be lucrative for the owners (Sid, Brian, etc.) much in the way that the owner of a mid-sized architecture firm can make a fair amount of money (multiple 6's).