 |
| |
|
|
|
quote:
But if you had read my post, you will see that what annoys me is the people who post that they are selling their game or repeatedly posting how much you hate the game. I for one don't care if you are selling your game. You shouldn't care that I enjoy the game. I'm keeping my copy of Civ 3, because I think that it is better than Civ 2. |
If you had bothered to read the post that started this thread you would see that entirely one sentence is about selling the game
quote:
You'll find my copy on Ebay this week. |
And just because you don't care does not mean others who have yet to buy the game who are looking for a bargain don't care. The post had more meat to it than "I'm selling the game". He gave reasons why he was dissatisfied with the game.
The internet is full of noise and to complain about such a small amount in a sea of noise is being nitpicky in my opinion. I suggest that you learn to filter out the garbage from the gold as fits your own tastes. Oops I just added to the noise.
|
|
| |
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
Apparently, you played for many hours before abandoning the game. For $50, that is about all you should expect. You got your money's worth. . .. |
You're very easily pleased. I hope YOU earned that $50.
I got my money's worth from Civ II. But Civ 3 is indeed a beta version with us as playtesters.
Even witrh battleships being built in lakes by the AI in Civ II, that game was more enjoyable, more fun, and better developed than Civ 3. 
quote:
Spaceship victories are Builder-oriented. I finished two Conquer victories which didn't even have a cool victory animation at the end. . |
As for cool animations, at least Civ II had one when your spaceship reached Alpha Centauri. In Civ 3 you launch your spaceship and that's it - SEE ya. No landing, no success. It just leaves. Big effin' deal.
Last edited by Coracle on 21-03-2002 at 05:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ACooper
The whole game is more modeled on Civ 1 than on Civ 2. This was an intentional game design choice, not due to "laziness" or just to make the AI more challenging. |
I have a problem with this being a design decision. I could see if Civ2 was considered a total mess that going back to a previous version might make sense. Obviously Civ 1 was a less complex game than Civ 2. So to decide to use the less complex, less features, version sounds like a cop out to me. In all software people expect more of the same with added features in new versions. I have never met anyone that said they would prefer Windows ME to run more like Windows 3.1 because they liked single threaded OS's like MSDOS better. It's the same thing with any software, including games. I could see if they added 3D graphics or some new technology, but they didn't really upgrade much in the way of graphics or technology. So I and many others expected a more in depth version of the last iteration and that is not the case.
quote:
I like it, you may not. Neither side is wrong, neither is right. |
I agree with you there. If you like it as is more power to you. I however feel cheated and if the game was not to your liking in a certain aspect I am sure you would let your feelings about the matter be known. I am just sharing my point of view about the randomness, which many people seem to see as well.
quote:
Forgive me then if I don't understand the problem. |
So you are saying that you have not experienced truly lopsided results in combat between turns with different units? I see it in every game I play. I have played many computer games and this is the only one where the underlying rules are so blantantly obvious and the game stops being a Turn based strategy game and more of a game of yahtzee or Risk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nationalist
|
 |
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by number6
If you had bothered to read the post that started this thread you would see that entirely one sentence is about selling the game
|
True, there was only one sentence that actually spelled it out. However, that sentence is the climax to a post that reads like a short story. He tells the dramatic story of his betrayal by Firaxis, By Sid, buy game reviewers, and so on. He complains about the injustice and the immorality of it all. Finally he hits us with the big one. "I'm selling my game on E-Bay" It may have been ne sentence, but it as he one that was supposed to be the most meaningful.
He has some valid complaints, and he has every right to post them. However, I'm sick of the melodrama that is behind everything. If you like the game, good. If you don't like it, good. If you have constructive criticism, good. If you have a story that sounds like a 13 year old's temper tantrum, then expect to be questioned. I have no problem with talking about what is right and wrong about this game, I just dislike the way the so-called critics treat their complaints like their opinion is the only valid opinion, resulting in posts like Roy's. As I have said before, this isn't just nitpicking one man's post, its criticising a whole line of posts that I have been reading lately. That is why I brought JT into this. I wanted to give my opinion, because I don't think that it is wrong or that I am a bad person for enjoying Civ 3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
i agree that civ3 was rushed out the door for christmas, and that in the rush to get it out it isn't as polished as it could have been
however, i could never go back to civ2, civ3 completely triumphs over civ2 imo, and while there are a couple cool gameplay features from civ2 i would like to see brough back, like guerrillas civ2 can not substitute for civ3, except for multiplayer and scenarios, two things i didn't really dabble in
also the argument that the civ2 combat system is far superior to the civ3 combat system is false
civ3 units don't have enough hitpoints in the default ruleset, but if you change that the problems with the combat system disappear, and then real comparisons can be made between the two systems, and in that i think the civ3 system will come out on top
SMAC has the best combat rules, but they are all related to units and the unit workshop, additionally copters are so unbalanced that as soon as MMI comes into play the game simply ceases to function in any sort of challenging manner
the argument that the civ3 combat system is inferior to the civ2 because civ3 lacks firepower might be a creadable argument if it was actuallyed used in a creative way, like in starcraft where the different damage types presents interesting combat outcomes; however, civ2 used firepower and hitpoints to make modern units stronger against ancient units, this can easily be duplicated with changes to the attack and defense strengths, traits like 2x horse units (the pikeman), and 2x air units (aegis cruiser) from civ2 add more to the system than firepower, because it creates interesting combat outcomes that encourage combined arms, but units of this nature weren't used enough in civ2 to really give it an edge against civ3 in terms of combat systems
armies, the lack of collateral damage, air missions, and bombard gives civ3 the edge
all the player needs to do is fix hitpoints in the editor, but this is quite easy
EDIT: while civ3 has a number of problems, it is a good game, just not as great as it could have been...so when people say that it is the most flawed game ever all i got to say is try a really flawed game like paintball extreme
Last edited by korn469 on 21-03-2002 at 06:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
civ3 units don't have enough hitpoints in the default ruleset, but if you change that the problems with the combat system disappear, and then real comparisons can be made between the two systems, and in that i think the civ3 system will come out on top |
If this is true shouldn't the hitpoints be patched instead of using the editor? Why should I have to use the editor everytime I want to play a new game of Civ III. That's not what I payed for. I want to boot up the game and start.
quote:
the argument that the civ3 combat system is inferior to the civ2 because civ3 lacks firepower might be a creadable argument if it was actuallyed used in a creative way, like in starcraft where the different damage types presents interesting combat outcomes; however, civ2 used firepower and hitpoints to make modern units stronger against ancient units |
Exactly! Give us more not less. Creatively upgrade what you have don't throw it away.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
thinkingamer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Vote with your money, people! Firaxis got ZERO dollars from me for Civ3. I tested it. I found that it sucked. I deleted it.
Now, if all the people here who thought likewise DID likewise, perhaps Firaxis would get a real message. Water under the bridge there. I guess.
But those of you YET to buy the game should think carefully before (IMO) wasting your money. |
Yep, Yin is right...... from now and on i will never buy a game from Firaxis, unless i''ve tried the demo......... i guess i thought Civ 3 would turn out brilliantly as SMAC but it didn't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nationalist
. If you have a story that sounds like a 13 year old's temper tantrum, then expect to be questioned. I have no problem with talking about what is right and wrong about this game, I just dislike the way the so-called critics treat their complaints like their opinion is the only valid opinion, resulting in posts like Roy's.
|
Actually it was a pretty reasonable complaint and valid for him. jimmytrick's posts are more akin to the unreasoning howl of a 13 year old's temper tantrum. I hate to critisize a person but, infantile attack posts are a habbit with jt.
quote:
As I have said before, this isn't just nitpicking one man's post, its criticising a whole line of posts that I have been reading lately. That is why I brought JT into this. I wanted to give my opinion, because I don't think that it is wrong or that I am a bad person for enjoying Civ 3. |
Well it it nitting, but that's ok. But the fact, which you note, that there are whole lines of posts not simply critisizing minor issues or wanting some tweeks but expressing serious pain about fundamentals of design and execution is very significant. Obviously serious resources were diverted from the game to the nodding heads and 'advisors' which could have been better spent on making the game playable. There ARE good inovations, which are left incomplete or not thought out well. Diplomatic dialoge like 'my bad' and the infintile end screens which can't be avoided are just unbearable, and I have a fairly high pain threshold.
I don't think the problems are just differences in play between II & III, it is that between AI cheating and suicide, a retro combat system and other problems the game fails to meet standards of current game systems and of progress from the previous level.
My criteria for a successful game of this type is that I want to play it again and again and because I can do or learn someting different each time. You don't buy a board game to play once do you?
No one who takes the time to write here does so because they hate CIV, they do so because the love the game and either feel it is fine or find it need improvements or are pained that it has become someting horrible. No one should ever be personally critisized for their opinion about the game or their experience.
There is right and wrong, that is what discorse and debate is to uncover. Childish attacks telling people to go away because you don't like their opinion or arguments is what is unacceptable and it is for that reason I do wish jt would go away, or at least stop frothing at the keyboard, as I at least am beginnig to cringe whenever I see that handle. This is the first and I hope last time I ever have to say that. Even the Neo-Nazi's on the board are better behaved.
When I access this board and threads, I do so to see peoples opinions, especially opposing opinions, not to discourage them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus
|
|
quote:
Why should I have to use the editor everytime I want to play a new game of Civ III. |
EVERY time you play new game?
I thought all you had to do is set them once. I did this with 8 civs on tiny maps and it seemed to work for me. Isn't this also true with units?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquelne
|
|
quote:
So to decide to use the less complex, less features, version sounds like a cop out to me. In all software people expect more of the same with added features in new versions. |
The heretics must be hunted down, tried, and then burned, For they have not followed the wisdom of the Elders. The game _claims_ to be Civ3, yet does it have all the features of Civ2? No, it does not! But wait - it compounds it's heresy with lies! It _claims_ to be from Sid (May his code have no bugs)... but is it? No, it is not! My poor flock, sheep that you are, are vulnerable to the devil Marketing, and it's debased child, Hype. Fire is your only defense, and your just recourse! Flame on!
Haunters of the Pit that they are, the developers have tried to foist "Culture" on you. They have tried to ply you with Resources - both Strategic and (Slaves of Jezabel!) Luxuries. Bombard baits you, Air missions will decieve you, and a stronger AI will only confound you. Yes, my baahing-ones, these _could_ be considered "new features." But can _any_ new feature be worth the loss of Wonder Movies? Or Market Gardens? No, of course not! Only a demon-loving, baby-eating, boot-licking Fanboy could think so.
This is the truth - _never_ let yourself be distracted from it: Civ3 has fewer techs! Planes can't sink ships! And - the most terrible truth of all - Spearman can beat tanks! Civ2 - after only a dozen patches - achieved perfection. By all that's holy, there is _no_ reason why Civ3 shouldn't be just like Civ2. This so-called "Civ3" is NOT what we were expecting!
... Not what we were expecting. What, I ask you, can be more damning?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
I do agree with Roy with the patches. All but one game I bought (other then civ3), had only one update, which usualy was some stupid multiplayer patch that was released the day the game came out. The exception is Quake3, but i never downloaded a patch yet for that since I'm currently boycotting FilePlanet.
I am amazed that there are patches coming out for Civ3 left and right. I guess this is a current trend amoungst all gaming companies? |
Thrawn05
the only games that don't get patched are those abandoned by it's development house, the only exception i can think of to this rule is maxis, which hardly ever releases patches (instead they charge you 30 bucks and call it an expansion pack)
quote:
I don't think the problems are just differences in play between II & III, it is that between AI cheating |
paulmagusnet
i agree civ3 does have serious flaws, an AI built to mission impossible standards that self destructs because of MPPs and communism in the industrial age is one of them; but cheating AI? the AI in civ2 cheated more and was less effective, iirc didn't the AI on diety in civ2 get +25% to combat in addition to the other cheats
__________________________
the thing is i will jump in on any serious discussion of the really important problems in civ3, but i don't understand why so much time is focused on relatively minor things that the editor allows us to fix quite easily
to me civ3 has the following major problems
*culture is simply a bonus for buildings and there is no real strategy behind it, "build it and they will come" a player should have to focus resources into culture and there should be an oppertunity cost to it
*there are too many filler techs, and it is quite easy for the player to run out of anything but units to build in virtually all of their cities
*air, naval, armies, and nuke and are not even close to the cost effectivness of ground units
*tech research on a strategic level is not important enough, and the tech tree does not present the player with tough choices like the SMAC tech tree did
*diplomatic victory is flawed and is in need of a serious overhaul
*besides trading (which is a great improvement over previous civs), diplomacy seems neither immersive nor important, and it is also very open to exploit, additionally a player's past actions have little diplomatic impact on the AI besides making it furious, but this doesn't significantly change it's responces from a civ that is gracious
*the AI is too easy to defeat militarily early in the game
*the AI self destructs when it switches to communism later on
*advance is too fast in civ3, and the low cost of buying techs takes away the incentive to research them until MPPs plunges the AI into stupid wars
*lack of a true scenario editor
*lack of multiplayer
*an overall lack of immersion in the game, this i truly believe came from rushing and it will can not be remedied in a patch, so i have gotten over this one, but i do get oh so wistful for SMAC
the others simply need solutions, and i think those solutions are possible in a patch (except for probably MP), and certainly if not in a patch in an expansion pack
those are the largest factors in making the game feel tedious, so by the end of the game basically it boils down to a quick spaceship victory or your just swamp the self destructed AIs with cav, tanks, or modern armor, and this is the point where players seem to quit
Last edited by korn469 on 21-03-2002 at 09:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
I am amazed that there are patches coming out for Civ3 left and right. I guess this is a current trend amoungst all gaming companies? |
Left and right. Well there have been TWO patches so far. I guess that could be ascribed as one from the left and one from the right. More to come. Perhaps that will come from Zephod Beeblebrox's third hand.
Its not a current trend. MOOII had three patches before they left it alone. Even the Impressions City building games have had patches and those things are nearly bulletproof in comparison to most games.
Patches are, relativly speaking, a bit new to me. They weren't around much when I started playing computer games. Back in 1979. They began to increase in number as the internet grew and as the games grew in complexity. The internet has made it possible for us to get games before the company goes broke trying to squash every last one.
Patches were around long before the internet was available to most. Computer Gaming World has had patches on their CD's since they began to have them. Before then you just had to live with the problems that arose or dial up the companies bulletin board and pay long distance to download the patches.
Heck I know I used to have to debug games myself. Sometimes in hexidecimal mostly in BASIC. One game based on the classic telivision series The Prisoner even used that as a plot device.
SYNTAX ERROR IN LINE 1040
Where 1040 was your resignition code. If you typed GOTO 1040 you lost. Caps only curtesy of Apple ][.
That game also was released with real bugs. Making the fake one especially insidious.
So patching isn't new.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Azrikam
|
 |
London
Jan 2002
time: 05:18
|
|
Just cause nobody asked me, I'll add my 2 cents.
Originally, I was mad because I wanted Civ III to have all the great features and functionality of SMAC, but with the historical setting of Civ II. (which, IMO, would be just about the perfect game)
When it came out and the direction of the game was revealed, I was disappointed, but decided to keep an eye on the feedback to find out just how good a game it was in its own right. From what I heard, it seemed like a step backwards in the series.
I can understand how some people like or even love Civ III, but for me, I've been spoiled, and expect great things from my TBS games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Vote with your money, people! |
I agree. I'll never buy another "Sid Meier" product sight unseen. Unfortunately, almost all reviews of CIV3 give it a high score and there are few reviews that describe the problems that would deter someone like myself from buying it in the first place. In my case, by the time I fairly evaluated CIV3 it was too late to return it (if I had wanted to).
quote:
this takes less than a minute, it is simple to do, and it improves the gameplay 100%++ |
Thats true once you have a particular mod setup. But resetting the unit stats, adding all the extra units and resources etc for each patch has become a bit irritating.
quote:
i think that the people at firaxis have stood behind civ3, and that they continue to stand behind civ3, and i think that soren and mike have done a good job of trying to address our concerns, and that they will continue doing that |
I agree. As long as they continue to try to improve CIV3, I'll continue to put forward my positive criticisms. If they stop supporting the game or want more money for what should have been in the first version my criticisms are likely to be more negative.
Along with the major problems cited by korn469, I'd like to add to the list that the government models are poor, especially in comparison to SMAC/SMACX. How about government specific improvements? Personally, I would like to be able to add a theocracy that could enhance culture generally and that would give more benefits tied to specific improvements or wonders (ie The Sistine chapel would give more culture in the hands of a theocracy than under despotism). At least, we shouold be able to make more changes with the editor.
I think that the game would also improve with more UU's, balanced or unbalanced. It only adds to the interest of playing different civs and improves replayability.
Last edited by SpencerH on 21-03-2002 at 20:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
reluctantfrance
|
|
Minnesota
Feb 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarquelne
The heretics must be hunted down, tried, and then burned, For they have not followed the wisdom of the Elders. The game _claims_ to be Civ3, yet does it have all the features of Civ2? No, it does not! But wait - it compounds it's heresy with lies! It _claims_ to be from Sid (May his code have no bugs)... but is it? No, it is not! My poor flock, sheep that you are, are vulnerable to the devil Marketing, and it's debased child, Hype. Fire is your only defense, and your just recourse! Flame on!
Haunters of the Pit that they are, the developers have tried to foist "Culture" on you. They have tried to ply you with Resources - both Strategic and (Slaves of Jezabel!) Luxuries. Bombard baits you, Air missions will decieve you, and a stronger AI will only confound you. Yes, my baahing-ones, these _could_ be considered "new features." But can _any_ new feature be worth the loss of Wonder Movies? Or Market Gardens? No, of course not! Only a demon-loving, baby-eating, boot-licking Fanboy could think so.
This is the truth - _never_ let yourself be distracted from it: Civ3 has fewer techs! Planes can't sink ships! And - the most terrible truth of all - Spearman can beat tanks! Civ2 - after only a dozen patches - achieved perfection. By all that's holy, there is _no_ reason why Civ3 shouldn't be just like Civ2. This so-called "Civ3" is NOT what we were expecting!
... Not what we were expecting. What, I ask you, can be more damning? |
You, my good sir, are a funny S.O.B.!!! Great post!
I agree with the fanboys here. Civ 3 is challenging in it's own way and a lot of fun. My games have been very realistic in that when you get to the modern age, conquering other countries is not welcomed by a democratic people (which I usually play). I had some difficulties playing/enjoying Civ3 when I first bought it, but now that I've changed my play-style from Civ2, I'm really enjoying the game. My primary complaint is cruise missiles, but another thread suggested how to fix them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2002 05:28
|