 |
| |
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
And it was a success: It took even me in for a few weeks  , and it certainly did take in the reviewers. 
But in fact, and this is my final conclusion, everything the pessimists said was an understatement: CivIII, imo, is one of the worst 4xgames ever made.
Why, you ask? Well, the main reason is, everything in the game -not just the leader faces- is a caricature. Take government systems, for example: Instead of giving us a lot of governments, but making the differences between them subtle, they opted for just 5, but ridiculously overdid their effects. Because of forced labour, Despotism and Communism, in the hands of a human player, are unbeatable. Take forced labour away, however, and Democracy/Republic will be unbeatable. Instead of real life shades of grey, we get a small number of clownish caricature-governments, and not even those are well balanced.
Exactly the same with units: The obvious thing would have been either a stone/scissors/paper approach or stacked combat, or both. There should have been a large number of slightly different units to reward the master tactician, who finds exactly the right thing for the job. Instead, we get caricatures again: Enjoy moving enormous amounts of one-and-the-same overpowered attack unit (Horsemen/Knights/Cavalry) individually through the landscape, but only if you are a masochist, because itīs equally cumbersome and unrewarding.
I could go on and on, but it all comes up to this: They wanted to create a simplistic Mickey-Mouse style Civgame, that appeals to Command-and Conquer players, because that is where the mass market is (and where most reviewers are), and, to add insult to injury, they didnīt even have the decency to test it well!
My advice (to myself  and others): Never again buy a game that has Sid Meierīs name on it! These days, thatīs a guarantee for shoddyness. 
Last edited by Comrade Tribune on 18-12-2001 at 04:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
felder
|
|
I agree with your comments (i.e. everything is simplified), but I disagree that this simplification makes an awful game. The game (for me at least) is fun to play. I do get the impression that Civ3 is a good game that is a great game in the making. It just needs some tweaking (multiplayer, scenarios, culture overhaul). Essentially I look at this like a beta version of the Civ3 Multiplayer gold edition that is sure to follow which will (or should) fix a lot of what needs fixing.
Out of curiosity, what is your take on Civ2? Presuming you've played it, how does it differ from Civ3 in this regard (over simplification)? I ask this because if you've played Civ2, I assume you liked it because you got Civ3. If you didn't like it, how is Civ3 worse? Furthermore, what game features the level of sophistication that you seem to be demanding of Civ3?
Finally, I think comparing Civ to Command and Conquer is a bit of a stretch. They are quite different games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
The late game is so tedious that the once famous "just one more turn" becomes "please not another turn".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by felder
I agree with your comments (i.e. everything is simplified), but I disagree that this simplification makes an awful game. The game (for me at least) is fun to play. I do get the impression that Civ3 is a good game that is a great game in the making. It just needs some tweaking (multiplayer, scenarios, culture overhaul). Essentially I look at this like a beta version of the Civ3 Multiplayer gold edition that is sure to follow which will (or should) fix a lot of what needs fixing. |
After playing it for some time now, I think it canīt be fixed. The balance problems are not in the numbers, they are in the rules themselves. For example, with having more and more units, and the need to supply them with shields, your production capacity went down in CivI/II, which was a good thing. Paying with gold, instead, if you are willing to sacrifice science, your army can grow to unreal numbers without any real counterbalance. Despotic Conquest canīt really be fixed, Mounted Units can never be balanced, because their retreat ability means that, managed carefully, they will have no losses at all.  Apart from something as unimportant  as realism, how do you want to balance immortality?
quote:
Out of curiosity, what is your take on Civ2? Presuming you've played it, how does it differ from Civ3 in this regard (over simplification)? I ask this because if you've played Civ2, I assume you liked it because you got Civ3. If you didn't like it, how is Civ3 worse? Furthermore, what game features the level of sophistication that you seem to be demanding of Civ3? |
I believe that CivI was, at its time , the best game on the market. Simplicity, at that time, was a necessary evil, because of RAM limits. I donīt think the same simplicity would have been a good idea, had it been entirely a voluntary design decision.
As to CivII, I consider it a slightly improved CivI, but not quite as good as I would have liked it to be. There are a few things about CivII where I am less than enthusiastic: It was a bit more predictable than the original, the AI was not a killer, random maps were poor, and they didnīt fix ICS. That all said, I consider it a better game than CivIII: The governments/units/combat system mostly felt right, they didnīt have this comic-book-like atmosphere about them. CivII had some issues, but it was certainly a serious effort, while CivIII is more like some weird joke...
quote:
Finally, I think comparing Civ to Command and Conquer is a bit of a stretch. They are quite different games. |
What I meant is it reminds me of RedAlertII/Command and ConquerII stylistically; Ridiculous Factions = Ridiculous CivIII Governments, Unbalanced Units = Unbalanced Units. I actually prefer C&CII over CivIII: It doesnīt remotely pretend to be about history, and it has cool movies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Surgeon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Libertarian
The late game is so tedious that the once famous "just one more turn" becomes "please not another turn". |
well find a game you like and PISS OFF.
Ok its rude but seriously this board is FULL of people that just cant stop whining. It's sick! If you dont like it, if its no fun just STOP. Some stores where I live even have a 7 day 'return it if you dont like it' policy.
Phew. I know I'm one of the rare people on these boards that like the game but seriously sometimes things just arent what you expect. GET OVER IT!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Be'lial
|
|
United Kingdwom
Dec 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
I'm sorry, I completely agree with Surgeon.
I've been reading these boards since the day Civ 3 was released in Europe, and what was originaly a set of decent comments on some peoples perception of the game has unfortunately turned into a set of people whining about the same things *again* and *again*.
Get over it. If you hated the game, then return it and stop shouting about how bad it was.
Constructive critiscism is fine, but when the same people leap into every single thread and make the same totally negative comments for no apparent purpose, it just makes the boards pointless. If you really want to preach, scream and shout, got to a general gaming board and post there. At least you might affect other peoples opinions - posting critiscm like this on the Civ 3 boards is pointless and annoying for the people actually enjoying this brilliant game, or at least trying to make it better.
Just to go against the flow - I personally think Civ 3 is the best evolution of the genre so far. Its the first 4x game I've ever played where the AI shows some semblance of intelligence. I love the resource concept, and I like the seperate ages thing.
(Obviously, this doesn't include Master Of Magic, easily the best 4x game ever created... :-) (and no, thats not sarcasm!) )
In fact, I even like the idea that no matter how much I'm winning by, I still have to put a tiny amount of thought into my actions - I don't know why, but a lot of people here seem to prefer the Civ 2 and SMAC concept of taking 5 units, and totally overrunning the world in 2 turns.
Phew.
Rant mode off.
P.S. Re the original comment. Huh?
The same government types and concepts have been in all 3 civ games - how come suddenly their clownish and childish? And yes, the pop rush is overbalanced, and will probably be fixed in the next patch. Its not like Civ 2 or SMAC had unbeatable strategies that always conquered the computer, is it? :-)
(for goodness sake, in SMAC you didn't need a strategy - just build units intelligently, something the computer never managed to grasp).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Be'lial
|
|
United Kingdwom
Dec 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Deonwulf
My problem isn't with people trying to make the game better, or at least get it altered to how they want it.
Its with people like Yin26, who appear in almost *every* single thread, make some pathetic, highly insulting comment about people who can't respond, and expect everyone else to agree with them.
When they do post a complaint more than "Firaxis are a bunch of mediocre clowns", its imply to re-iterate their protest against fundamental issues in the game - i.e. resources, etc.
If they hate the game so much, why do they spend all their time here screaming about it - certainly nothing Yin26 has posted will ever be noticed by the Firaxis team, given that they ignore anyone who starts insulting like he does.
(Sorry Yin26, I've seen several people say you provided a lot of ideas before the game was released. but for entire time I've been here, I've yet to see one decent comment from you that wasn't a put down or insult).
Graphics wise - as always, its personal preference. Civ games are never going to have good graphics, I don't ever expect to be impressed graphically by them.
I do however like the redesigned screen layout - its nice to see so much on screen at once, and have all the buttons easily accesable.
Finally, the governments - the original speaker wasn't talking about CTP2 or SMAC, which I've already agreed elsewhere have far superior govermental systems, but to Civ 2 - and the main difference there is that the unbelieveably overpowered Fundamentalism has been removed.
Other than that, the same 5 government concepts have always been part of the civ series. If you don't like them, then its not Civ 3 you have a problem with, its the whole series.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Be'lial
The same government types and concepts have been in all 3 civ games - how come suddenly their clownish and childish?
|
They have never been so exaggerated. In the real world, Democracies donīt have infinite War Weariness -instead, they have mighty media that combat War Weariness perhaps better than an authoritarian regime could. Nor are they that efficient. On the other hand, not even a Despotism has *that* much Corruption. Yet again, even a despotic regime canīt sacrifice half of the population to build up the economy with the speed of lightning. I simply hate those gaudy over-exaggerations.
And itīs not governments only: Everything in CivIII is painted with an extremely broad brush. As if the philosophy was 'Letīs not incorporate anything that an 8 year old canīt understand.' 
They took CivII, broke it, stole a few good ideas from other games -civ-specific traits and units from AoK, strategic resources from ImperialismII-, added a few bad ideas of their own -Pop Rush, unkillable Fast Units, idiotic faces, psychedelic colours-, and mixed it all up to create an unplayable eyesore.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:16
|
|
quote:
CivIII was designed to look good at first sight ... and it certainly did take in the reviewers... |
But surely not all reviewers are as shallow as you suggest. I think that after that sheer number of games, of course they're not often going to find something they consider exceptional (either good or bad), thus most ganes get a reasonable sort of 85% or so, plus they won't have the time to spend weeks on the game. BUT, nonetheless they are doing this for a living - and the strategy reviewers surely can be said to be experienced in all the sorts of games people on this forum are comparing Civ3 to. And the fact that so many reviews give outstanding scores surely is at least worth a thought.
Are we getting so caught up in our discussions and evidences-for-the-contrary that we cannot see the game for how it really is? Have the hardcore Civers "lost the dream" due to harsh criticisms, gotten out of control? Perhaps it is just me, but I think that we are no longer able to give a fair interpretation to the game - we are often so involved in defending our own opinions that we cannot take another viewpoint.
Hey, that's fandom. I expect that the most vehement of attackers of Civ3 will eventually either quit the game on principle that they "hate" it or will return after a period of disillusionment, when they realize that they might have just have to deal with some issues. And maybe those who will not hear a word against the game will admit some annoyances. And we'll all basically agree, and can get set down to maximizing our game enjoyment.
C'est vrai, non?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cutlerd
|
|
Agoura Hills, CA USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
As I spend more and more time on these boards, it becomes clearer and clearer to me at least that a great deal of the bitterness about CIV3, especially from longtime forum contributors, is that there appears to have been a long round of pre-design interaction between the game designers and residents of the Apolyton boards.
Because of this interaction, in effect the residents of these boards were led to believe or led themselves to believe that, in essence, they were going to be designing CIV3.
As it turned out, this was not the case. While I was not active on the boards during that stretch of time and therefore cannot evaluate exactly how much forum-fed ideas actually made it into the game, it is pretty obvious that by no means did the game designers intend to take every single design suggestion from every single longtime forum resident and plop it directly into the game.
No doubt, being led to believe one is essentially acting as a defacto game designer and then seeing one's pet ideas NOT incorporated into the game is sure to cause a great deal of resentment and bitterness.
Throughout the postings of chronic complainers like YIN emerges the thread of expectations and suggestions not being listened to. Some of the posts of these people have the tone of jilted lovers...people who had some sort of stake invested into the design of CIV3 and were rebuked.
The comparison of governments is amazingly silly.
CIV2 had a Communism that is basically on par with CIV3. It is a modern government that disperses corruption.
Democracy in CIV2 was a joke. Plain and simple. With the help of the UN you could start wars at will for no reason and have them last as long as you like, with a slight chance that your Senate would tell you to simmer down. There was no public opinion. There was no real evaluation of whether a war was one of aggression or defense.
Democracy in CIV3 is hardly cartoonish, as compared with CIV2. It is the most efficient society for producing goods (a nod to Capitalism more than Democracy), but has a hard time supporting grandiose wars of aggression.
Governments should be very distinct. It is up to the players to provide the subtler shades of policy within those broad government categories. If you want a Democracy government type that allows you to fight longer wars, the answer is not some half-arsed government hybrid between Democracy and Communism. The answer is to run your Democracy in such a way that the effects of war weariness are ameliorated.
Frankly, it was FAR too easy to change government in SMAC. Pay a few credits and WHAM! You can suddenly, in the course of a single turn, change your government's outlook 360 degrees and none of your citizens bats an eyelash. Yeah...that's really realistic! But for whatever reason, SMAC encouraged people, with its low change cost and Social Engineering, to constantly fine tune and fiddle with government until it became almost another strategy vehicle in and of itself.
Civ 3 rightfully IMO does not need that. In history, grand social upheavals are generally required to change governments. Most nations keep their form of government for many many years or even decades or centuries before changing, and rarely does it revert once changed.
Russia went from Despotism for thousands of years to Monarchy through 1917 then to Communism for 75 years and now to arguably Republic.
The US has gone essentially from Monarchy in the 1500's to Democracy in 1783 and that's it.
Look at Rome, England, France, Germany, and any of the other civs presented in CIV3. There is no real-life basis for the type of fine tuning governments that SMAC has.
Devin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Well it's been over 2 months since the initial release of the game and with one insignificant patch the game is still not much more than fun. I find it funny when people say "The game has great potential, wait until it is fully patched ...". My question is, how long should I have to wait before the game is as engrossing as I remember Civ 1 & 2 being? Civ III is definitely all fluff and no real substance. I remember when I first started playing Civ III and how much I enjoyed the new graphics. I enjoyed learning some new rules, but once my modern tanks were decimated by an ancient knight I started to wonder. This game was obviously rushed and I see no sense of urgency from firaxis to address some pretty obvious issues. I really don't understand why people are so defensive of a game like this. I too find the game "fun". However, when a game has Sid Meier's name attached to it I expect something more than merely fun. I expect in depth gameplay, countless hours of game time and utter amazement at superb game design. The game media is partly to blame for my high expectations, they have deifyed Mr. Meier. I had Firaxis on so high a pedestal that I guess this game was ultimately doomed no matter what they produced. Civ III definitely falls short of my lowest expectations for a worthy successor to the Civ franchise. I know some fanboy is going to say something like "If you are unhappy, then leave". Well I would probably leave if I had not spent $50 on a game that falls way short of my expectations and I was way passed the deadline to get a refund. I am stuck with this game you see. Auctioning on ebay is not an option, because I will take a loss. I have a vested interest and I anxiously await a patch to see if the game will get any better. All of the reviews for this game have been very high, but I have to wonder did the reviewers play the same game as me? If you disagree with me, please give reasons why my arguments are wrong instead of attacking me as a whiner. I will not respond to childish attacks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-12-2001 04:50
|