 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Scouse Gits
|
 |
Liverpool, United Kingdom
Nov 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Sob, sob …gulp…wipes tears from eyes…. and I thought I was the only one to think like that 
I have had little time to play recently but Civ 3 has not grabbed me! Part of this is related to computer problems. Running the game on a Pentium 350 with only 64MB of memory can be slow punctuated with frequent crashes!
My main criticism of the game is this. I don't feel I'm running an Empire.
Playing Civ 2 I could make things happen, not wait for x number of turns to have some plastic faced cultural advisor to tell me that the borders of my estate were rolling forward. In the terms of another game I love … Bridge … it's like playing without being able to trump an opponent's ace.
I believe the designers of Civ 3 have been reading Apolyton too much! They have made a list of the tactics and strategies we use and thought, "We won't let them do this and that". The result is a random mess that doesn't pass as a strategic experience. Civ 2 allowed your nation to focus on the needs of the hour, like counting every beaker to ensure Monarchy in 6 turns not 7! This was real, controllable and great fun. If I wished to build a civilisation with less culture than a yoghurt pot I could!  Too many nuts and bolts of the original game have gone. The baby has been thrown out with the bath water.
What I think many of us wanted was twofold. Firstly, we wanted a better AI. There is much evidence that the Civ 3 AI is improved, but we wanted to challenge this power within the parameters of Civ 2 and not in a game so totally different. Secondly, we wanted the bugs and cheats in Civ 2 removed. (The Oedo years, the Hanging Gardens bug, the incremental rush buying … etc.) What we end up with is Civ 2 removed! I want caravans, diplomats, zones of control and the essentials of a great game made greater by modern and improved programming. I want  Civ 2.75.
------------------------
SG(2)
Last edited by Scouse Gits on 02-12-2001 at 09:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SandMonkey
|
|
It's really funny, i was going to post a thread very similar to this!
Due to some conflicts with drivers and civ3, I can't beconnected to the internet and play at the same time. So the other night I started a game of civ2. I was BLOWN AWAY by the speed in between turns. Wars were fun again. I admit, I really do like certain aspects of civ3 (culture, borders, civ-specific abilities/units, resources), but you just can't beat civ2. As a whole it's more well rounded; graphics that serve their purpose, fast enough to keep me interested, and so on. Sure, we all know how to beat it with our hands tied behind our backs, but sometimes maybe I WANT a war where I can just obliterate someone else.
Oh, and just to hit on the obvious: When I enter into a battle I should win, I do just that! No more of this losing modern units to ancient ones (civ1 anybody??).
Civ2, I  you 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Blaupanzer
|
 |
Fairfax, VA
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
I'm especially dismayed by the stretches of turns with nothing to do. Not only at the beginning, but at other times when the all the relevant buildings are built or being built and there is no war on my borders. Also, the massive disincentive to expand/conquer due to the extent of corruption that simply cannot be alleviated. On the plus-side, teaching the AI to ICS, creating an incentive to stack units, the idea of borders and using culture to expand them are real breakthroughs. However, eliminating the camel and the spy, forcing linear science paths, and forcing the player to fill in every empty square with useless cities or have the AI do the same were not advancements. The unit progression system is good, better than Civ 2's, although leftover longbowman and swordsman options in the days of armored vehicles seems a poorly thought out consequence.
Being a quinticential micro-manager, two other changes really bother me. One is that I can't see the progressive effects of various influences on citizen happiness. Two, I cannot determine how likely a city is to switch cultures, or what measures on my part prevent mine from going or provoke the AI's to join me. The Civ 2 sense of being the master of my empire by choosing how to spend the marginal dollars has been undermined. As a simple example, does it bother any of you that you can't see the contribution of specialist scientists on any of the screens? Or that you have to open negotiations to see info on the AI civ and existing trades you have with them, even though that would be a logical realm for your advisers?
I thought Civ 2 was too much the war game. Seeing Civ 3, I'm not yet convinced that the alternative proposed is really better. The bugs (no air superiority for the humans, silly city trades, 9999999, etc) will be fixed. But play will be the same as now if you ignore the bugs. And play alternates between tedious and interesting based almost solely on AI reactions to the player's actions. Tedious is always bad.
Last edited by Blaupanzer on 04-12-2001 at 00:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SandMonkey
|
|
well, i have ran smack dab into one of the shortcomings of civ in this game...
It's 100 AD and all of the AI's have allied against me already! It actually started in BC times, but has now encompassed all of the AI's. Kinda sucks. If the CivIII AI (which i have to admit is much better)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
 Smash
Blaupanzer, yes, the progressive effect on hapiness bothered me too, and other things mentioned here. reputation is useless... and I dont like difficulty levels. the AI bonus should have been a slider, so players can change it from positive to negative. this way, AI is as smart on regent as it is on deity, just the bonus jumps up. but I dont want to rant here.
I just think that civ2 was a great game, a great sucessor to civ1, also a great game. how good is civ3 will be seen from the amount of time people spend playing it... I for one stopped.
DaveV, yeah. I think I voted the 'modifiable AI' in the list of fixes/suggestions for civ3. AI in civ3 is not modifiable either, and that is not the way to make a classic. patch support will end some day.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
I like the CivIII goto command better than the CivII goto command! It works! Add this and a few of the cool new features of CivIII into CivII and I'll start to salivate.
Seriously, I miss many of the details of CivII which vanished from the more homogenous CivIII, plus all the things mentioned above. They may be able to "fix" CivIII, so I will wait and see, but in many ways, the CivII experience was hard to improve upon. We may have had unrealistic expectations.
It looks like the main purpose of CivIII was to thwart ICS, so it is ironic that the most efficient strategies so far use a grotesque pop-rush version of ICS to beat that design bias. Which is better, an extreme strategy, or being herded like cattle to play only the way the designers wanted. Playing style was matter of free choice in CivII, with notable successes coming in many different and surprising ways. It's what made the game great.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Lars-E,
I believe the archives have been temporarily shut down because of the big slowdown on the servers here. I know for sure that use of the search function has been suspended for this reason.
In my book, every opinion has equal weight, too, and equal value. I think Sid did some playtesting, leaving most of the design decisions to others. He seemed to be more interested in his Sim Golf project.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
The best of friends is:
solo.
He sent me the game over the Atlantic (and that was badly needed since there is no civ3 coming to France before 2002).
Now I haven't even got acquainted with the goto command (...remember those bras with hidden buttons?).
Much too soon for me to say a word about pros and cons. civ3 is in front of me like a newborn infant: don't know at all whether the eyes are going to turn blue.
Anyway I never planned to throw away civ2 (so many scenarios left, and my friend Marquis is in the HoF now).
...and LOL@smash: that was nicely worded.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Julius Brenzaida
|
 |
Currently cleaning the 9000 rooms of Sticky Mouse's Palace
Aug 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
Ming, you’re right on target : civ3 is a great game, too. I like it, good graphics, some nice ideas (commerce, diplomacy, golden ages), tough to play. But it should not be compared too much with civ2. They’re different, that’s it. It’s not because I play civ3 that I won’t play civ2 anymore. Hmm, spies, caravans, wonder movies, scenarios ...
Yesterday I saw civ3 to a friend and he was overwhelmed. I really think the civ2 community dreamed too much ... And there should be some times before we discover some great original strategies (at least I hope so),
Anyway, if I am still in this forum it is to enjoy civ2 and not criticize civ3. I think that civ fans should give a try to civ 3, it’s a good game and it will make them love some aspects of civ2 still better.
But, remember that perfection does not exist.
And that as Smashed put it very nicely, love lives forever.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2001 03:05
|