 |
|  |
 |
|
Ballz1998
|
|
Southwestern Virginia
Apr 1999 time: 00:22
|
|
The only reason I would, would be for the single player improvements. Radar Towers, Air Bases, ect. I enjoyed Civ3... well when they finally got all the units and features WORKING. But the unfished release version really pissed me off. I'll definately be waiting at least a month before I buy PTW to make sure they aren't using consumers as beta testers again. It just seems like Civ3 wasn't "finished" without airbases lol. I don't mind paying more money for more features... developement takes money. I just want the features I fricking buy to work right. . .
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sheik
|
|
I agree. I will be buying PTW but will also be waiting to see what people think. I will also be buying it mostly for the single player stuff, though I will enjoy playing against friends. Hopefully PTW also offers more editing capabilities.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Raion
|
|
Civ's always been that way.
Which is better? Having a big company do nothing after the game.
Civ III is still the best game, for editing, adding anything to it, and being free enough, so people can still complain about it.
But, I have played other games, and still, they just are not the same.
I buy it because it kind of tradition, still same way Civ II came out, and other games are usually gone before anything happens with them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ballz1998
|
|
Southwestern Virginia
Apr 1999 time: 00:22
|
|
Look at the fixes listed in the patches... MAJOR fixes even in the latest patch. And the fact that the limited editon tin was such an absurd ripoff doesn't help matters.
Though, I've been thinking extremely optimistically today so let me run this crazyness by you fellow gamers. Maybe computer games always need patches because of this.
Devs only have so much time to get a product out the door before developement starts cutting into profits. And if you don't make money on the game, you can't make anymore games. Developers could put out a fully functional game that works perfectly. However, this would mean the game would have less content. Instead they decide to do as much as they can in a game, knowing that they will probably be able to work out the kinks later on. Just another way of looking at it, and it might explain why I find computer games so much better than consoles. :-)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cidifer
|
|
vcoulnd't you have actually edited it rather then reply with the word edit in your post?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
I'm just confused as to why so many people think everything but the kitchen sink should have been included in Civ3. Would I have liked to have seen extra Civs in Civ3? Yes. Would I have liked to have seen a better diplomatic model? Yes. Would it have been nice to include MP in Civ3? Yes.
But all of us have seen the amount of development time that went into Civ3, and the schedule set by Infogrames didn't even allow for a true beta test phase, so why would we expect to see even more features? Plus, isn't it the game company's prerogative to include other features in an XP and make a few extra bucks? It's not like they're fleecing the consumer. In the grand scheme of things, $30 is token funds.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Explorer579
|
|
Chicago
May 2002 time: 23:22
|
|
I will be buying it! I just hope it is not as addictive as civ3.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tobruk
|
|
quote: Originally posted by WarpStorm
It's not like Civ2 came with multiplayer right off the bat. I had to pay $30 for it (and $30 was worth more then). |
Yeah, that's true. But since Civ2 MP, I haven't really wanted to go back to AI. I don't care how good it is, you eventually find out how it works and then you're just playing to it's weaknesses. I've only had Civ3 for two weeks and I think I've already figured out how to stop them from declaring war on me -- and when war starts, I think I've found how to turn their forces around. When I have a horde coming at me, my strategy is to attack some units behind it, or take a city behind it, and it seems to invariably turn around. Even if it's right next to one of my cities. A human player would do the right thing and just take out my city first -- *** for tat -- then maybe turn around.
Anyway, regardless of whether the AI is really that st00pid, in general, playing against humans, esp. ones you've played before, is much better. Humans learn very fast and adapt. You have to come up with different strategies all the time. It's just a better game.
Who wants to play Half-Life when they could play Counter-Strike? Hmm, I think I've worn out my soapbox here, time to get off.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|