 |
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Congrats Firaxis and Apolyton.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
As Catherine the Great, Czarina of all the Russias, remarked to me upon her election to Secretary-General of the United Nations:
Told!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
kimmygibler
|
|
Wow High Heat 2002!
That is well deserved. Even for a game that was very very poorly patched, the open customization and modding options made up for it. Can't wait for 2003...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
As usual, Yin is correct.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Gamespot's player reviews were tainted. Disgruntled jerks who thought that because they wasted a large chunk of their lives playing the predecessor to Civ 3 they owned the series posted bogus null reviews to lower the average. In response, other reviewers posted falsely inflated reviews. In other words, the numbers are about as valid as a compulsive whiner's opinions.
Take a look at the quality of some of the player reviews. No thought whatsoever went into some of them, both the favorable and the rabidly disappointed.
Let's not forget that the Gamespot reviewer did address what he considered to be Civ 3's flaws in his review. I find it annoying how self proclaimed experts presume to smugly invalidate the opinions of people have dedicated their professional lives to the industry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
What I have a problem with is people giving Civ 3 a zero when they don't really consider it a zero. Are they really saying that 100% of the games they've played is better? No. They're saying that they're mad they didn't get the game they wanted so they wanted to do something petty.
Does that answer your question?
Honest reviews are fine by me, unless they're honestly biased and shortsighted.
Edit: I want to make it real clear that I like Gamespot a lot, and that includes their player reviews. I read them, not all of them, obviously, but some. That's how I knew that jerks had been at work trying to smear Civ 3. Even before I started reading Apolyton.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
 |
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
The problem is that most of the people who are buying/playing Civ3, including professional reviewers, are not long-term fans of the series who have been heavily into scenarios, mods, etc... They either never played the previous games (before their time), or just played them in the basic plain-vanilla form, and never devoted much thought to what Civ3 could/should have been based on their Civ2 experience. OK, so it looks better due to an advance in the state of the art in graphics and has a few new features - that must make it better than Civ1/Civ2 - Civ2 was great so if Civ3 is better it must be great, too - "Game of the Year!". As to the "late game tedium", this is believed by most people to be an unavoidable consequence of the TBS genre, so fans of the genre don't hold it against Civ3.
The core fans represent a minority of the buyers (actual or potential). They see beloved features from Civ2 missing, new featured requested by the fan community for years not included, and poor implimentation of such new features as were added (as compared to other TBS games with similar features). They are disappointed to the point of feeling betrayed.
What can/should Firaxis do about it? Well, they were hired by Infogrames to do Civ3. The game is a hit, so Infogrames is happy. Infogrames cares about units sold, not whether the Civnards are happy (be different if it was a nitch product aimed at Civnards, but it's not). Very likely, Infrogrames will not finance any further effort by Firaxis to "fix" Civ3 via free patches, with the possible exception of adding features that were clearly advertised but not yet delivered (a fully functional editor, maybe MP). Infogrames has no incentive to finance anything for which they will get no return. How many more units would they sell if they do a Civnard patch vs if they don't? Firaxis perhaps has more reason to care, because their reputation is on the line, but again the sales & reviews speak for themselves and it would be easy for Firaxis to ignore the Civnards as an excessively vocal minority with little influence on others. Maybe they will care, maybe not.
I think we can expect a fully-functional editor via patches: able to add units, etc... plus place units, cities, civ starting locations, etc... on the scenario starting map. A Civ2-style scripting language is more iffy. If they really did promise MP, there may be an MP patch. I expect anything else will go into an expansion product or "gold edition" that you'll have to buy if you want it. Based on the reviews and sales, though, I expect that there will be such a product (maybe more than one - there were essentially 3 for Civ2). Firaxis will probably try to address the gripes of the Civnards in those products, to the extent that the schedule and tasking from Infogrames permits. In that regard, I hope MP was not promised in such a way that they need to do it as a patch - it is big enough to provide room for piggybacking other things.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2002 08:25
Now, get ready for that tsunami of new members... 
It's almost incestuous, or does Firaxis use its "influence" in the right places?!
Just read the torrent of complaints about this very flawed game on this and the other site. Just check out the number of people who want to sell Civ III on Ebay. 
Someone should sue Gamespot for misleading marketing 
|