Archers shoot down cruise missiles... AI hardly notices nuclear attacks...MP anybody? - Page 3

Eddin · October 30, 2001, 15:46

this fool doesn't deserve to be shot down actually (looks a bit like me when I'm not in for reasoning). Your arguments are absolute crap :no:, you haven't played the games, and if I was to believe what was in reviews, I would be dazzled astoundingly. Just look at all of the LotR previews or the CIV reviews. Those guys are either total morons or don't get their info right. Sometimes they are actually correct, but still, it bears no relevance as they have all been positive.

And as many people stated, you should also look at the rating all these reviewing sites have given it.

Actually, I find it surprising that the only one who is being negative is the one who hasn't even played the game

Makes you wonder

And I think it's simply weak you don't post anymore or wont listen to simple reason, cause that's what's against you boy.

Boris Godunov · October 30, 2001, 16:09

I'm not gonna flame others, but in this instance, Yin is behaving like a spoiled child. Anyone who expected the game to conform 100% to the way HE wanted it to be has to have one hell of an ego. There are tradeoffs. Having played it, yes, there are some things I miss and wish were in, but the overall game is wonderful so far. Since no 2 civ players can agree on what should be done with the game, throwing a temper-tantrum over a few of your ideas not being implemented is just abject silliness.

If you want a game that is 100% the way you want it, then learn to program and make your own. That's the only way it will happen.

Cheers.

ProfessorPhobos · October 30, 2001, 16:39

Yin is definetly being hypocritical. For example, "good gameplay" is far too vague for him to acknowledge it in the review, but "indifferant AI" is not. Both are equally vague- Good Gameplay to Bob might be bad Gameplay to Dan, and an indifferant AI to me might be a screaming, pissed off AI to someone else.

A lot of the minor stuff- birds chirping, a handful of interface issues, are fine. It's not like the game was going to be perfect right out of the box. A quick patch will likely fix that sorting issue mentioned, for example.

I certainly do not trust the cruise missile thing- I think it was being transported and ambushed as an attack of opportunity. Most logical explanation.

Anyway, nothing is stopping me from buying the game as soon as I possibly can.

jsw363 · October 30, 2001, 16:48

I think that many of the bugs will be fixed in patches. Not a perfect solution, but adequate.

About the Nukes, Arhers etc. This is obviously the way Firaxis designed the game. If you don't like it modify it. I haven't played yet, but I think that you should be able to change the specifications using the editor. Only speculation of course, but I think that these complaints are fairly easily addressed.

faded glory · October 30, 2001, 16:55

This is not what I detected when I played. The AI expands fast and has a knack for building units. AI is a challenge.....but again I stressed this long ago for all the "Single Players" out there who pleaded that an AI can be better then a Human.

To them I say Kudo's

Again you have been proved wrong..

This is of course not to say AI isnt good. There good, but as mentioned the stupid decisons are still there. There are just far less of them

I was personally defeated by the AI. More probably becasue it was my first run at the game. But still..they seemed pretty damn good Compared to CTP2 and Civ2.

They still dont co-ordinate well. They will send an army and take your cities. But take them back...and there are no more enemys to be seen.

Steve Clark · October 30, 2001, 17:06

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory
They still dont co-ordinate well. They will send an army and take your cities. But take them back...and there are no more enemys to be seen.

Sounds like some of my offensives.

Sometimes I had to use all my units to capture and that left nothing to hold. AI should have the same problem.

The diplomat · October 30, 2001, 17:26

With all due respect to Yin, I don't get it. Why did he start this thread? He does not have the game, so he cannot know from his own experience if the game is bad or not. He apparently started this thread just to say:"look this reviewer said all these bad things about civ3." So?!?! Who cares if the reviewer did not like something about civ3? Especially that the reviewer had lots of great things to say about civ3. He said that the graphics were good. He said that the animations were good. He also said that the interface was much better than civ2. More importantly, the reviewer said that the gameplay was even more fun and addictive. These are great things about the game. Yin conveniently forgets them, just to focus what the reviewer did not like.

Dante Alighieri · October 30, 2001, 17:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yin, what I am saying is can't you take the AI/nuke thing as something that might be a result of difficulty level?

The archer thing does sound like a bug, though might need confirmation.

It doesn't sound like a bug to me. It sounds like this guy left a cruise missile, with no defense, just sitting around with no other units protecting it. Even in real life archers could take a cruise missile with nothing protecting it.