C3C is dissapointing

dandan · February 7, 2004, 01:56

I thought I would make my dissapointment with the Civ3 Conquests expansion pack known to others. As a long standing fan of Civ, I must say that the newest addon doesn't live up to the hype. It has very few fully developed scenarios, many of the other scenarios do not work (and even crash my machine), new units, buildings, etc. are not available in normal play, and it's still full of bugs to a point that is not becoming of a professional game development group.

As a beta tester (for a brief time), I shouldn't be surprised at this less than Civ-worthy product. The developers were very gung ho (when not rude) with the suggestions made by testers, and they made sure that some of us simply got thrown off the test team (because of the awful online interface) never to be readmited as the login arrangements were beyond belief in terms of accessing the test site.

Some of the ideas in the pack are good, pity it doesn't extend to the whole of the game. Of Great Sid Meyer, please have mercy and come back to save us from these awful addons that spoil thy greatest game!

Inverse Icarus · February 7, 2004, 02:16

why do people feel so compelled to register, and then post their grievences? is it really worth the time?

i mean, it's not like you saying this will change anybody's mind about anything. if someone hates the game, they're going to agree with you, and if someone likes the game, they're going to try to convince you otherwise, or refute your points.

me? i'll just shrug, because i don't care if you like the game.

Rasputin · February 7, 2004, 02:41

not everyone has purchased the game yet, so people posting their opinions here allows potential buyers to see al lsides of the story...

vmxa1 · February 7, 2004, 02:42

Yup you are way to late. Even JimmyTrick was midly happy with C3C. The consenus is that it is the best thing to happen to civIII and got a 4 star in Comp Games.

This board is full of full fledge beta testers that still play and post. Many posters here have some work on the CD.

Rasputin · February 7, 2004, 02:48

`i have only had the c3c expaqnsion pack for two days and only palyed part of one game so far.

i was not after the secenaqrios so their lack or not does not bother me, all i wanted was a game that was fixed from the orignal civ3 release, i shouldnt hav ehasd to pay for two expansion packs to fix bugs they put in.

having said that, i happy so far

Dis · February 7, 2004, 03:34

I wouldn't pay for a fixed civ3 epic game.

But I did enjoy the scenarios. They weren't perfect, and I felt they could have spent more time on them (especially on somre artwork).

But compared to the horride PTW expansion, this one is pretty good.

Capt Dizle · February 7, 2004, 03:45

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Yup you are way to late. Even JimmyTrick was midly happy with C3C. The consenus is that it is the best thing to happen to civIII and got a 4 star in Comp Games.

This board is full of full fledge beta testers that still play and post. Many posters here have some work on the CD.

Even me?

Well, I have adjusted my expectations way down. The current Firaxis staff is never going to be able to reach the heights that Sid and Brian Reynolds did.

So really I am just expecting Civ4 to be just a normal run of the mill game. Anything above that is a bonus.

Capt Dizle · February 7, 2004, 03:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
`i have only had the c3c expaqnsion pack for two days and only palyed part of one game so far.

i was not after the secenaqrios so their lack or not does not bother me, all i wanted was a game that was fixed from the orignal civ3 release, i shouldnt hav ehasd to pay for two expansion packs to fix bugs they put in.

having said that, i happy so far

Firaxis always puts bugs in their releases and they do not charge extra so quit *****ing. As if you didn't know...SMACster!

lethe · February 7, 2004, 05:17

Actually I am in the opposite camp. I decided to try Conquest at a friend, and the small changes brought Civ 3 from lackluster to quite fun. I probably won't plow down the kind of hours that Civ 2 and SMAC ate, but then Brian Reynolds wasn't in on the development.

Rasputin · February 7, 2004, 05:21

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Firaxis always puts bugs in their releases and they do not charge extra so quit *****ing. As if you didn't know...SMACster!

never palyed SMAC !!!

dandan · February 7, 2004, 07:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX
why do people feel so compelled to register, and then post their grievences? is it really worth the time? ... me? i'll just shrug, because i don't care if you like the game.

"because" I like the game too much to stand by and allow mediocracy to creep in in its new incarnations. and whatever remarks by people like you (aka "dills") care to make won't stop me from making my point to highlight this tragedy. capish?

CerberusIV · February 7, 2004, 08:41

Is dandan a Coracle DL? This all sounds familiar.

GhengisFarb™ · February 7, 2004, 10:02

Tragedy? I think not, sad yes, but not a Tragedy.

MoO 3 now that was an absolute abomination and plague on all mankind. Evil incarnate has a name and it is Quicksilver.

ducki · February 7, 2004, 10:30

Quote:

new units, buildings, etc. are not available in normal play,

I think this just shows how customizable the game is.

Quote:

and it's still full of bugs to a point that is not becoming of a professional game development group.

The beta patch is a wonderful thing. The mere fact that Firaxis have released a patch in beta form is a huge step, IMO.

Quote:

As a beta tester (for a brief time), I shouldn't be surprised at this less than Civ-worthy product.

Now this is starting to sound a little bit like a bitter lashing-out in response to a perceived slight. I may be wrong, but that's how the post sounded to me after reading this bit.

Personally, I was happy with my $10 purchase before the beta patch, with the beta patch, I'd have been happy at $20, which is my price limit on expansion packs. Money well spent, but I also felt the same about PtW - and I only play SP.

lethe · February 7, 2004, 13:56

I love that they stopped ICS. Oh how I hated ICS. I can still wake up in a cold sweat after nightmares about 200 cities.

I do however hate the 4096 unit limit with a vengeance. Oh no, you aren't allowed to build any more modern armour because _someone_ has 400 longbowmen on an island in the middle of nowhere.

asleepathewheel · February 7, 2004, 14:40

Quote:

Originally posted by lethe
I do however hate the 4096 unit limit with a vengeance. Oh no, you aren't allowed to build any more modern armour because _someone_ has 400 longbowmen on an island in the middle of nowhere.

Man does the AI build up horrendous amts of crap units when they are isolated. I'm industrial with cavs and I'm afraid to invade due to sheer numerical superiority. My solution is to make an infantry army or two and just plant them on a hill or mountain, wait 3-4 turns so that the cities are drained, then move in.

I hate the city number limit more than the unit limit. I've run up against it more often than the unit limit.

vmxa1 · February 7, 2004, 15:30

What must the turns be like if you have reached the unit limit?

asleepathewheel · February 7, 2004, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
What must the turns be like if you have reached the unit limit?

IIRC, your cities still show that they built units, they just don't appear. So turn order plays a major factor, as you can build units if they guy before you loses some on his turn, but if its the person after you, the other players will fill the void before your turn comes back around. Purely IIRC, mind you.

That and the turns are slow. you can probably imagine.

Actually this is one bug you can exploit on upper giga maps fairly easily. Similar to the city limitation stuff. Think about it ~4000 total units allowed, but 31 civs. Thats only about 130 (my math is pretty bad) units each. I'm not sure where barbs factor into this, I would think they would.

SirOsis · February 7, 2004, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Tragedy? I think not, sad yes, but not a Tragedy.

MoO 3 now that was an absolute abomination and plague on all mankind. Evil incarnate has a name and it is Quicksilver.

Tell us how you really feel Genghis! I'd have to agree with you though on that one. What a waste.

vmxa1 · February 7, 2004, 17:19

Yeah the hope I can squeeze in a few this turn, would be a pain.
The turns speed drudgery would be hateful. I would also not like to be forced to keep building units, just to try to stop the others from getting more.

Rasputin · February 7, 2004, 17:42

the big issue with civ3 is still the speed of the turns, especially in MP games. it is the one area that eneds to be addressed in any civ 4 game .

Azeem · February 7, 2004, 19:24

I like the tweaks to the editor. Though there are a couple of disappointments (no event scripting, no numerical values for editing corruption for governments, no adding of eras), there's still a lot that can be done with it. Now that they've altered the editor a bit, it's a little easier to build a mod.

asleepathewheel · February 7, 2004, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Tragedy? I think not, sad yes, but not a Tragedy.

MoO 3 now that was an absolute abomination and plague on all mankind. Evil incarnate has a name and it is Quicksilver.

yeah, its hard to compare MoO3 and C3C on the disappointment scale.

lethe · February 8, 2004, 04:09

The incredible speed at which Sim Moves MP games don't progress must be related to their more secure MP code. I play C3C with the same people I used to LAN SMAC with, and there moves were instantaneous. I _think_ C3C waits for confimation from all players before moving a unit.

It has to do something weird, because it's impossibly slow even on a 100mb lan. Or perhaps all units are covered in honey and sticks to the ground?

Rasputin · February 8, 2004, 04:12

Quote:

Originally posted by lethe
The incredible speed at which Sim Moves MP games don't progress must be related to their more secure MP code. I play C3C with the same people I used to LAN SMAC with, and there moves were instantaneous. I _think_ C3C waits for confimation from all players before moving a unit.

It has to do something weird, because it's impossibly slow even on a 100mb lan. Or perhaps all units are covered in honey and sticks to the ground?

i think that some of the slowness is due to the computer checking trade routes often and every move can impact this so sloaw things down

a better trade system is needed anyway

WarpStorm · February 8, 2004, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by lethe
...but then Brian Reynolds wasn't in on the development.

No, but he was very much in on the Civ3 design and development. A lot of the original design and code was from when he was in charge of it.

snoochems · February 8, 2004, 13:46

Rasputin

where you at in brisbane? I'm in hamilton. Good to see a fellow brisbanite.

WarpStorm · February 8, 2004, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
i think that some of the slowness is due to the computer checking trade routes often and every move can impact this so sloaw things down

a better trade system is needed anyway

Even without trade at all it would have to do these same checks. This is the code that determines the best path for units to travel on. Any time there is a change (road building, city building, city destruction, etc.), it needs updated.

lethe · February 8, 2004, 17:56

It's got to be more than simple pathfinding that bogs it down in lag. As said, in SMAC we never experienced anything similar. (Nor in any other MP game where pathfinding is critical, like RTS games a plenty.)

vmxa1 · February 8, 2004, 20:15

I can only say that when a settler squats during the animation to build a new city in a really huge map with lots of civs, that can take several minutes on 3.066GH machine.