 |
| |
|
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
This is mostly in response to Zylka's thread. And I have to say, I completely agree with all of his points. There is no doubt in my mind that there are problems with civ3. Hell, there are thousands. But put it in perspective. Civ3 is about 500 megabytes. That's 500,000 kilobytes. 500,000,000 bytes. So I am not surprised you found seventy problems with it. Does anybody remember the List for firaxis? The goddamn thing was 678 ****ing pages. Yes. I am sure of that number. Civ2 was a greater game? Does anybody remember how goddamn annoying it was in civ3, when you couldn't trade maps unless the AI deemed it an even trade? You couldn't offer 40 gold to go with it! The best you could do was give a gift of 50, and hope they'd trade then. Or do you remember how much it drove you nuts when you set a city on settler before you realized how long it would take, and you had to start all over again because you didn't have the population? Or even little things. Like getting the road to command. It isn't even possible to say that civ2 was better.
So yes, I agree that civ3 was somewhat of a dissapointment considering what we knew we wanted, but give the designers a ****ing break. They did their best. They gave us a great game, far greater than any civ game before. This is one disappointment that isn't going to be uninstalled for more hard disk space.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquelne
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
This is mostly in response to Zylka's thread. And I have to say, I completely agree with all of his points. |
I keep seeing people who say they agree with "all" Z.'s points.... and I do always wonder: Even the one about JoA's cleavage?
quote:
What counts is the end result, especially in a commercial world in which we paid for the product. |
$50 gets you Civ3, not whatever you expected or wanted. A lot of people seem to act like Firaxis was _obliged_ to make Civ3 the game they wanted/expected, not the game Firaxis wanted to make (or, at least, "the game Firaxis ended up with.").
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elucidus
|
|
Well, civ2 has it strong points. I miss hitpoints and firepower still, but ultimately I enjoy Civ3 more. I am still anxious to get a better editor, but in the meantime I do what I can to make things better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ColdWizard
|
|
so? i'm not discussing the past, only the now
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
You are comparing a recently released game with a highly enhanced version of Civ II that didn't exist till LONG after it came out. Anyone can improve a game after its released. Well anyone that is allowed to and so far Civ III is being improved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquelne
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ColdWizard
so? i'm not discussing the past, only the now |
Coolmage does have a point - As a "sequal" to Civ2 I think it's perfectly reasonable to be very disappointed that Civ3 lacks two of the previous game's major features.
If you wanted Civ3 for new and better MP or scenarios you're out of luck. Firaxis has made noise about adding them later. Ar that point some of the "Civ3 sucks" people can become "Civ3 sucked" people.
The trick to not hating Civ3 seems to be in not thinking "It should be Civ2 or SMAC but better." People are putting way too much emphasis on thier own expectations and a name.
Ooo, ooo, one more (really long) thing: "Civ3 is very disappointing, because it can't do so much that Civ2/SMAC can." should not lead directly and inevitably to "Civ3 is a poor game."
I was pretty disappionted with my first few civ3 games, too. But, maybe just because I was having a good day otherwise, I put aside my disappointments and tried to see what sort of gameplay civ3 actually had to offer. Approached it with a very open mind. I now think it's pretty rough, and it doesn't give me anything like the _kind_ of gameplay experience Civ2 did (it may seem odd, but it reminds me of Imperialism II), and I think the serious gamer really needs to try to "work with" Civ3 to get a good experience
For example:
I play on Emperor or Diety, but despite that I quit quite a few games very early because my inital position is too good. So: Frequent restarts.
I rarely ever play a game untill the victory screen pops up - it gets tedious very quickly after I'm sure I've won. So: Late game tedium (if you don't do something.) Or, possibly - You'll get borerd if you can't judge when you've won.
I've made some pretty hefty modifications to the game using the editor. So: Some assembly required.
I have to do all those things to keep Civ3 from, ah, "getting up my nose."
And I think the above is necessary for a "hardcore gamer" - at least one like me - to enjoy Civ3. Finally, I think that many aren't.... thus the dissatisfaction being aired here. I'm not saying you should have to "jump through hoops" to enjoy a game. Just that you _do_ have to with this one.
In addition:
I don't care much about MP or scenarios.
I'm completely comfortable with the fact that Civ3 is neither a wargame or a simulation.
So that's another two huge sources of disatitsfaction that don't apply to me.
Hmm... a point? Throw out your preconceptions and explore Civ3 as Civ3, not "The sequal to Civ2" before you toss it. Approach Civ3 as the game it is, not the game you think it should have been. It still has problems, but not nearly so many, and they aren't nearly as acute.
Unless you want MP or scenarios of course - if so, then for the time being, and possibly untill Civ4, you're screwed. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
Let us for the moment ignore all the problems that are NOT related to what's in the mod.
The game mod alone proves what a crappy slapped together game it is. Resource availability is absurd; Espionage costs preposterous; and military units far too few and with stupid values.
Elephants can airlift?? Tanks, too?? Idiotic.
Spearmen have a defense factor the same as a musketman's offensive factor??
Cavalry with rifles have the same defense factor as knights who never heard of gunpowder??
What idiot would build a privateer with an attack value of '2'? (The game originally came with an attack of '1'!!).
Leaders CAN'T airlift??
Submarines were another waste.
There are far too few units and techs.
I could go on, but just look at all the fine mods amateur Civ fans have put together that makes the Civ III game mod look like crap.
Civ III - a beta product - was rushed to market for the Christmas buying season at least five months before it should have been. Now we playtest it at $50 a game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Coracle don't you own ANY other games for you to play. A basketball. A television. Perhaps a book.
You seem to exist for the sole purpose of finding places to rant about Civ III.
quote:
Elephants can airlift?? Tanks, too?? Idiotic. |
Not at all. The US even airlifts the 70 ton Abrahms. I doubt that anyone with elephants is airlifting them but they do weigh a lot less than a tank.
Leaders not airlifting. Now thats idiotic.
If you really must do nothing except rant then do try to make your rants accurate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Not at all. The US even airlifts the 70 ton Abrahms. I doubt that anyone with elephants is airlifting them but they do weigh a lot less than a tank.
|
They can airlift them one at a time in a C-5. However, they usually do NOT airlift them. Usual procedure involved either heavy rail or industrial sealift.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Shhh. You weren't supposed to mention that.
I was trying to give Coracle a hard time.
Oh I got tired of seeing the same ship being used by so many. So I switched to one smaller but more fitting.
Yeah airlifting the Abrahms isn't exactly what I would call practical.
You airlift missile parts too. Its only done because the roads won't take them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarquelne
Hmm... a point? Throw out your preconceptions and explore Civ3 as Civ3, not "The sequal to Civ2" before you toss it. Approach Civ3 as the game it is, not the game you think it should have been. It still has problems, but not nearly so many, and they aren't nearly as acute.
|
Maybe if they called it "Civilization Lite" or "Civilization : A New Direction" that would make people be less critical of the game. This game had a lot to live up to and to date it has been very dissapointing. I think it is perfectly acceptable and natural to compare Civ III with Civ II. My point? When the title of the game clearly states that it is an continuation in a series, people expect more. This game is clearly less in many catagories and like you said you have to try and like this game to play it. I still attempt a game of Civ III now and then, but it takes effort. While Firaxis continues to patch the game I will continue trying to enjoy it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquelne
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by number6
Maybe if they called it "Civilization Lite" or "Civilization : A New Direction"
|
I like "A New Direction". Where Civ2 added more than it changed or refined, I think Civ3 changed or refined far more than it added. The improvements are generally pretty subtle, if not obscure. The absences (compared to Civ2/SMAC) are glaringly obvious.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-03-2002 12:14
but whoa it was cool. Sea levels rose 3500 meters over the next few years (that's the max height) and the entire planet sunk, not to mention while it was sinking somewhere in the vicinity of 500-1000 mindworms attacked me. This was the funniest thing I've ever seen in any civ or SMAC game.
I agree with you on this. I cant believe that after making SMAC firaxis can produce as lame game as Civ3
|