Are you little kids never satisfied ? Go crying to your mother but don't bother us !

[n.c.]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm really getting pretty mad about all those whining settlers around here !

Well I'm getting sick of ironically arrogant Kings.

The game bites, IMO (just returned it today). If you are satified, good for you. Those of us with higher standards will move on.

Originally posted by Earthling7
apart from that, Civ3 is SMAC on Earth.

That is quite an insult (to SMAC of course).

Originally posted by Tani
there's no excuse to make the combat system away from the level of realism achieved in civ2. it should be towards realism, not away.

Add many other factors to "combat system" and "SMAC" to "civ2" and I agree.

[splangy]

Wow, this poor guy needs SOMEONE to agree with him, and I, at the risk of being flamed, DO!

Atleast I agrre that way too many people are angry becouse of

A: you cant use the rails to do a 1 turn blitz
B: units dont fall like dominos if there out-classed
C: the AI is strangly smart

All this adds up to is humans now having to fight long wars and cant just EXPLODE, taking everything in the path with them. Also, older strats simply dont work. And in the end this adds up to having to think more. One of the major shortcomings of civ2 was it was sooooo easy. This, however, led to the big egos and the ability to say "I won this game so easy, I must be a true master!"

However annoying it is not being able to take land as long as it took for troops to be built, it was never fun once you owned 50% of the world or so. You continued to play until victory but it was never as sweet as actually progressing, fighting, and having to think. For example-

In civ2 you simply pumped out the latest units and overan a opponent, war meant nothing, trade was basically "me, me, me!", science was "you discovered Flight!" *a turn later* "My lord, the zulus just discovered Warrior code...", Borders were non-existant, as was culture. In the end though you always got that feeling of superiority, like it was so easy, often saying things like " did they have any doubt I was god?" and " Another game, another overwhelming victory". But during the game the thought always occured when you were about to complete a improvement or wonder, or conquest , etc, that this was just overkill. You couldn't lose. you knew it.

In civ3 you have to secure resources to produce the latest troops, war is very real and in your face, trade is very even, science is often a struggle, borders/culture is always a consideration. When you finish a game (that you won) you get that releif feeling, the one you get when you finish a great project. During the game you have to push, HARD, to win. But isn't it all the more sweeter in the end...?

My $0.02

[splangy]

Originally posted by n.c.
Well I'm getting sick of ironically arrogant Kings.

There was NOTHING arrogent in his post, that I could see.

The game bites, IMO (just returned it today). If you are satified, good for you. Those of us with higher standards will move on.

WOW! You returned it, your kidding! You must be so Cool (to quote a 11 year old, someone at his grade level )
That sounds pretty damn arrogent to me, but I guess im not up to your "Standard"

That is quite an insult (to SMAC of course).

Smac was a peice of $hit (IMO), Civ3 is WAY better (again, IMO)

[Steve Clark]

splangy: You have to excuse n.c. He's not a kid but an arrogrant ***** who thinks the world should revolve around him and his standards (as evidence in many of his OT posts).



(Must be something in the air today.)

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Pembelton: Here's an idea. How about working on making your non-gaming life less hellish and perhaps then you will see that Civ3 is truly a game of fun?

Huh? Who says I haven't been doing that? And at many times desperately trying at that?

When did I ever say that Civ3 wasn't a game of fun?

I don't need your condescending attitude about what has gone on in my life. So **** off and go back to your happy happy world.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by splangy
There was NOTHING arrogent in his post, that I could see.

Here are some of the highlights:

-You're a bunch of never satisfied kids !
-no reason to cry !
-Are we listening to the spoiled generation ?
-The generation of kids that always got what they wanted
-You can't beat the AI !
-You're too stupid to beat the AI.
-you can't beat it, thus you cry that the game is broken.
-you just can't find the cheat codes.
-now you have to THINK !
-I spit on you negative whiners !
-Go to your mother and ask a cookie.

-"That sounds pretty damn arrogent to me"
Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word. Let me know if you need any help.

-"I guess im not up to your 'Standard'"
Not yet.

splangy- There have been some improvements. Many of us simply expected much more (anf to break what was fine).

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
thinks the world should revolve around him and his standards

One of the most important being the thought in your signature.

Anything substantive to add, or would you like to just lob me softballs like that one?

[Steve Clark]

Awww, come one guys, lighten up. Everyone is getting way too serious about the pros and cons of this GAME and about each other's obnoxious opinions.

[CyberGnu]

Umm, exactly who is complaining about the AI being too smart? I've read a lot of the negative posts here (I've written my share too), and I've yet to see someone say 'the AI is too smart'.

And while I in my first game or two thought to myself 'wow, they've finally got the AI reasonably smart', I eventually realized that I was a tad hasty...

Have you ever tried waging a war in the expansion phase? The AI can't deal with that. I the last game I played before I returned the game I started out on the same island as the Romans, only eight or so tiles away from where I built my capital. Knowing that I can never compete with the expansion rate of the computer (since he produces like one settler per turn) I immediately attacked him.

He happily went ahead expanding. I took city after city from him, and he kept churning out settlers. After a while I realized that this was actually the only chance I had to keeping up with the other AI's... I left one city be, waited until he produced another settler, followed it and as soon as it settled, I would take over the old city. In record time I had the entire island.

Not once did he try to defend himself from me. Building three spearmen instead of two in each city would propably have saved him... Or go on the offensive. If he had built three archers I would have ben toast...

What the AI CAN do are two things which it couldn't do before: Conduct warfare in the modern/industrial age with a reasonable chance of success, and handle diplomacy. But that's it. In many respects, the AI is still the same piece of crap we're used to... The only real difference between deity in Civ II and III is the level of AI cheating.

So, with that part of the initial rant dispelled, what is left? Oh, yes, protection of the status quo... I don't really understand your argument here. First off 'as long as things are the same as civ II I'm happy to pay $50 for it'. Doesn't make any sense, does it? Second, some parts are seriously WORSE than civ II, combat being one of them.

So, in closing: I'm going back to a game that is consistenly amusing, where I have a decent chance of failing on deity, but one that I can assured of a good struggle regardless... Master of Orion I. Sad to think that this is still the best game out there...

[CyberGnu]

And while it has been said already in this thread, I think it bears repeating: Why I and so many others spend time and effort complaining about the game have two reasons.

1) We were expecting too much. I read the civ3.com site every day in October. I was in Boston on the launch date, and actually felt emotion over the fact that I would miss out on buying the game the first day. Obviously, I was expecting something with more impact than any other run-of-the-mill strategy game... I was, in short, expecting Civilization III. Instead I got Civilization 2: The Graphics Update. (Come to think of it... Civilization III is kind of what I expected TOT to be... Also a disappointment).

2) We're hoping that either this game be fixed, or that in the future other civilization games are playtested before release. If Firaxis has adopted the policy of rushing games for instant profit Activision style, maybe Firaxis should stop making strategy games. If Firaxis doesn't make them, there is obviously more space for companies who does care about the finished product, such as Blizzard. But we should not silently accept that companies release crap that sells on the basis of name alone.

So, Shy, how about some apologies to the people you've offended?

[Libertarian]

Firaxis is not even the publisher. You owe their hard working developers an apology.

God, the hubris.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should he apologize?

Some of you people need to be offended. I'm sorry if you don't like perhaps the best game game made in years, but you don't have to go hog wild making silly threads saying the Game is too hard (and yes there have been MANY threads saying that).

I was, in short, expecting Civilization III. Instead I got Civilization 2: The Graphics Update.

Obviously you haven't played the game enough. Culture and Resources drastically change the way the game is played. More diplomatic relations are needed to keep your might going strong. A smarter and more personalized AI makes the game much more fun and harder to win.

[Steve Clark]

Imran, you're wasting your breath.

[Jason]

Ditto Imran, ditto Cybershy. Please consolidate all the "I'm a newb, I hate civ3, luv me!" "This game is too hard" and "Arise ye civers and revolt" threads into one "Pretentious BS" thread that normal users can easily ignore.

I mean, nationally based army support, being able to move units around in representative governments, rushing production with population, luxury resource trading, borders, culture, no more senate, era-based tech tree, a river-crossing combat modifer, no 50 percent shield penalty for switching from improvemenst to units... These are things you encounter in normal playing that make the experience different from Civ2 by a considerable margin. You can dislike them, but dismissing them as insignificant is just lazy.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I was, in short, expecting Civilization III. Instead I got Civilization 2: The Graphics Update.

One of the few things that don't feel new in this game are the graphics. This game is not as bad as people are convincing themselves and others.

What is new:
Culture
Leaders (armies)
Bombardment (not new, but you said Civ2)
AI and Diplomacy

You know the rest. I can't be bothered with this. Play openminded and you'll see

[Robert Plomp]

FOR THE MATTER OF FACTS:

I didn't say everybody should love the game or shouldn't have any problems with it ! Again, read my 2nd post !!

Of course you can dislike one or a few things in the game !
And you're free to your opinion and to publish it here !

But there are too much people overhere that are blowing minor problems up to big huge bugs ! They're shouting that civ3 sucks, or that it has been rushed. People telling everybody to not buy it etc. etc. etc.

You're free to your opinion, if you think civ3 sucks, that's fine. But it really makes no sence to push your opinion up to everybody by starting 10 threads for every little bug you found or every little change you dislike !

Because that's what happening right now.
Read the top 10 thread by someone. I reacted and said I agreed. It lists 10 negative topics about civ3. Of course there are negative parts in the game ! Of course there are bugs. But the major "Civ3 sucks" clan that's walking around overhere.........


Yes, most of the 'crying and whining' people around are new at Apolyton. I noticed that. I'm sorry if you're a very normal settler, it's hard to not generalize in here.
And no, I'm not saying all settlers are kids, I compare the whining and crying people about civ3 with kids. That's something else.

Now you can continue spreading the hoax that civ3 sucks.
Never satisfied.......................

CyberShy

[CyberGnu]

Libertarian, well, it's all one mess to me...

Imran, yeah, I noticed Resources and Culture. Unfortunately both things are poorly implemented. The resources are too important, at least when combined with the corruption and culture. A simple fix, like many people have suggested, involving allowing people to build the untis but paying a lot more for them would be a immensly better system than it is right now.

Culture is just plain crap. While I like the fact that neighbouring citites can change allegiance because of higher cultural value, the rest of culture is horrible. Why does my borders grow because I build a library? Why is a library the first thing I have to build in a conquered city? None of that makes sense. Borders should be a function of your military might and the speed of your units. (Historically, the border of a country has been as far as force could be projected. One days ride in medieval times, for example). And cultural reasismilation of concquered cities is defying all logic...

the combat system is actually worse than Civ2... Yeah, civ 2 didn;t have bombard, and an entire stack could get wiped out in one go... but firepower more than compensated for that. If nothing else but forn the simple reason that I had a rough idea what would happen if I attacked with a swordsman against a fortified phalanx... In civ 3 anything can happen, regardless if you're attacking with a warrior or a tank.

And you've propably heard about corruption...

So, while I can agree that there are a few differences, I don't think they are enough to warrant a step up...

Oh, and as I posted in another thread... the AI isn;t all that good, after all. It can handle modern warfare and diplomacy, but it still sucks most of the time.

Jason, see my response to Imran. If you are counting pure innovations, almost everything on your list was part of CTP... So basically Civ 3 is Civ 2 + Stuff from CTP - a nunfunctioning combat system - poorly implemented culture.

Earthling, likewise. I don't think bombard makes the game any different... It's mainly a cosmetic change. Armies are poorly implemented, the sum of the parts is acutally less than the whole...

Finally, and I don't know how many times I have to say this... My last game before I returned it I won on Deity. I had to turn off cultural/spacelaunch/diplomatic vicorty and crush my opponents, though, so I guess that could be considered cheating. I'm not complaining about the game being to hard... Just not a civilization game.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Yoleus
Quite nice! A completely free attack on other people opinions. You sure are a smart guy: you truly understand that the "right of speech" is actually bullshit. You know that "politeness" is really a waste of time, do you?

You go first and lone into my ignore list.

Hey, buddy. Check this website's rules. In it you will see that free speech is not a right on this privately owned site.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The resources are too important, at least when combined with the corruption and culture. A simple fix, like many people have suggested, involving allowing people to build the untis but paying a lot more for them would be a immensly better system than it is right now.

NO NO NO! I hated it at first, but then I realized that it is a great idea. Resources SHOULD be too important. Can any country do anything without oil today? See Nazi Germany in WW2 in North Africa. You have to TRADE for resources.

This ain't your father's Civ.

Culture is just plain crap. While I like the fact that neighbouring citites can change allegiance because of higher cultural value, the rest of culture is horrible. Why does my borders grow because I build a library? Why is a library the first thing I have to build in a conquered city? None of that makes sense. Borders should be a function of your military might and the speed of your units. (Historically, the border of a country has been as far as force could be projected. One days ride in medieval times, for example). And cultural reasismilation of concquered cities is defying all logic...

Borders as a function of culture is a gameplay decision to emphasize culture over military. After all, the idea of nation is that people under that banner share, mostly, the same cultural ideals. Also the higher your culture, the more respect you gather among your rivals in the game. In my current game, I have loads of culture, and no one has dreamed of attacking me. Culture can also lead to better deals because other nations respect you more.

the combat system is actually worse than Civ2... Yeah, civ 2 didn;t have bombard, and an entire stack could get wiped out in one go... but firepower more than compensated for that. If nothing else but forn the simple reason that I had a rough idea what would happen if I attacked with a swordsman against a fortified phalanx... In civ 3 anything can happen, regardless if you're attacking with a warrior or a tank

Haven't seen any real abominations with the combat model. Lot of people said it has been rare at best *shrug*.

Jason, see my response to Imran. If you are counting pure innovations, almost everything on your list was part of CTP... So basically Civ 3 is Civ 2 + Stuff from CTP - a nunfunctioning combat system - poorly implemented culture.

Luxuries and resources were in CtP? They do change the game completely, you know?

[Robert Plomp]

I think I should come with some personal reactions.

CyberGnu: So, Shy, how about some apologies to the people you've offended?

I haven't named any name. How can I have offended anybody ?
I have spoken out in general, and I clearly said that I wasn't speaking against all people with positive criticm and all that.
I have spoken against the whining and crying kids. If I offend whining and crying kids by calling them whining and crying kids.........

A completely free attack on other people opinions

It's not an attack on people opinions, it's one on people's behavior.
People seem to be unable to split up those things.
And like someone else already explained, why can't I voice my opinion if you can ?

Settler = kid ????

You know the difference between a comparison and an equality ?

Chill, man. It's only a game (sadly).

Please tell that to the crying and whining crowd............!

You mean Cybershy is not whining?

No, I'm angry. It happens over and over again.
I've seen it happening with Civ2 MGE, Civ2 ToT, SMAC, CtP, CtP and CtP II.

I'm sure the same would've happened if civ and civ2 would've been released in the internet era (civ2 quiet was, but in the early years)

if post on a message board make u angry u could also be called a child cybershy or u are definately not emotionally mature. Its gotta be one of the two.

If people on street voice rascism it's good to get angry,
if someone voices rasism on the internet........ please, it's just the internet.

That's what you are saying ?

Im not sure but im guessing u probably voted for Gore as well, that is if u were old enough to vote at that time

The USA are just one of the many countries in the world.
What makes you think I'm from the USA ?

I cant help but think that your post was flame bait however

to who ?

i felt the need to post in order to let u know how childish and immature u sound.

Fine, why didn't you tell the civ3 haters ? They're allowed to write their nonsense without you labeling them to be childish ?
Only people that label people childish are nominated to be labeled childish ? In that case you're nominated to be labeled childish as well right now

And then it nerves you, and you ask yourself why this game, that you really want to like, want to play, just have too mayn flaws here and there.

It REALLY does ?
Name them.
Does it have more flaws then any other game that's released ?
Every game (like every child) ships with some bugs. Civ did, civ2 did, SMaC did............ all games do.
Does that qualify a game to............. be named what it's named by the whining crowd ?

Thus if you have a ways too high expection of a game you're allowed to say whatever you want after it because it's not what you would have made of it ?

There are no positive things.

There are things brought up from civ2 and theres new things that dont work.

Thats about the gist of it.

No positive things ? You must be crazy or joking.
Culture, resource system, diplomacy, minor wonders, these things have changed the game dramaticly !

New things that don't work ???????????
What's not working ? Culture isn't ? The resource system isn't ?
Tell me.................... I'm absolutely stuned !

You seem to be so incredibly fond of your own opinion. Anyone else's opinion is clearly but a nuisance, as opposed to your godlike untouchable one.

Quote me.

Hmmm...I think I am the one that posted that the game was broken, and I don't recall being a settler or a kid. I also don't recall having any problems beating the AI so far in civ3.

Pick out the things that apply to you.
You are like a kid applies to you for saying the game is broken.
Pherhaps you dislike it, but saying it's broken............
How can I play a broken game and have fun ?
You dislike it, and I like it. But saying that it's broken just because you dislike it is................. very childish.

Cybershy, the truth is we've got here about 85% of a very great game. That leaves a lot of room for whining.

Nah, it's not 85%.
The problems are corruption and interception.
Corruption can be fixed by playing the game as good as possible but I understand that some people dislike it.
There are some minor things besides that, but those will be patched. (like all new releases receive patches these days)

The game is great, but there might be some bugs.
That doesn't mean it's 85% of a great game, it means it's a great game (100%) but it needs to be patched. That's something completely different.

I haven't heard (read) anybody saying that one of the new concepts is no good. If that would be the case we might be talking about a 85% great game.

Well I'm getting sick of ironically arrogant Kings.

I'm really not feeling superior because I'm a king.
I AM sick though (to keep using the same word) about people that come new in a comunity and take it over this way.
If you're new........... behave like you're new.

The game bites, IMO (just returned it today).

It bites that much that you RETURNED it ?
Did you return civ2 as well ? Since it's for sure not worse then civ2. Explain to me why it bites that much. For how much time did you play it ?

Are you always like that.......... buying something, and then returning it ?

That is quite an insult (to SMAC of course).

Explain me, why is SMAC better then civ3 ?
I'm really absolutely lost in here.
Because a bug ? (interception) that will be fixed in a patch ?
Because something else ?

splangy: You have to excuse n.c. He's not a kid but an arrogrant ***** who thinks the world should revolve around him and his standards

In fact I'm reacting to the crowd of people that things this way.

(as evidence in many of his OT posts)

You're one of the people that thinks that everyone that comes with arguments you disagree with are stupid and self centered ?

How can you be so sure that you're right in our OT debates ?
And I'm wrong to claim to be right ?
Aren't you doing exactly the thing in that case as what you're accusing me from right now ?

Here are some of the highlights:

Arrogance is something different than insulting other people.
I absolutely refuse the claim that I insulted people since I didn't name any names thus the people that feel offended seem to take it, and must deserve it for that reason. (why accept offending if it's not targeted against you ?)

Arrogance means that I should feel better.
I haven't mentioned anything like that. All I have done is dismissing the behavior of some people. Dismissing someone's behavior is the same as being arrogant ?

Thus if someone steals and I tell him to stop I'm arrogant ?
Now you tell me that stealing can't be compared with complaining about civ3. In that case, who sets the standards ? Do you ? Then you're arrogant.

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word. Let me know if you need any help.

Against some fine example of arrogance.
For sure funny since it seems to be said by someone who doesn't understand the meaning himself. (like I explained above)

CyberGnu,
am I such a better civ player then you that I can compete with the AI on King and Emperor level ? Or do I have a good civ3 version and do you have the buggy one ?

That's it I think.

CyberShy

[Sten Sture]

n.c. - you returned it already? I haven't even gotten my copy yet... hell I never did return SMAC even though I never got into it, or my copy of Panzer Generals III that never worked. I must be a real lazy sob. Too late to sue the developers for breach of fiduciary responsibility?


Clarkie - did I see in here that you were playing it on some kinda beginner level and tell your bro to stop it with the rain dances.



(Imran clearly has no idea what he is talking about. He's in 10th for god sake!)


-- Add 150 lines to make this post as lengthy as Cybershy's...

[Libertarian]

Libertarian, well, it's all one mess to me...

Well, there you are.

[Robert Plomp]

A simple fix, like many people have suggested, involving allowing people to build the untis but paying a lot more for them would be a immensly better system than it is right now

nooooooooooooooo
imagine a diplo game with civ3 !
It rocks with the current resource system !
Finally a civillization game comes with IMPORTANT diplomacy that goes further then war, alliance and peace.
It's really a BIG GREAT addon to the civ series.

Culture is just plain crap. While I like the fact that neighbouring citites can change allegiance because of higher cultural value, the rest of culture is horrible. Why does my borders grow because I build a library? Why is a library the first thing I have to build in a conquered city? None of that makes sense.

Why do you have to build a library ?
I really don't see the point why you should do that.
Are you sure you played civ3 often enough.

First build a temple / cathedral. (need to do that in civ2 as well)
And there are many other cultural buildings you can build (that you might have build in the city anyway)
Besides that, you don't have to build culture. You can choise to put much armies in the city as well. Just depends on your way of playing.

Why borders grow because of culture..........
Why do you think Paris is that big ? It's because it's culture has had much influence on the vilages around it. The bigger the city's culture is.......... the more it's influence will be to the surrounding vilages. Pherhaps something that doesn't count for a country like the USA. But it counts for the rest of the world.

but firepower more than compensated for that. If nothing else but forn the simple reason that I had a rough idea what would happen if I attacked with a swordsman against a fortified phalanx... In civ 3 anything can happen, regardless if you're attacking with a warrior or a tank.

What's the difference with civ3 ?
(in the game, not in theory)

And you've propably heard about corruption...

no problems with corruption.
It makes the game hard indeed !
I like that.

-- Add 150 lines to make this post as lengthy as Cybershy's...

You don't have to reply to that many people

[Steve Clark]

Sten, my old friend, I didn't think you would get yourself involved in crap like this thread. Forgot to tell you, my bro ran the Y summer camp program for the Presidio district and he's been asked to run all Y summer programs next year. You will find our usual gang in C2-MP talking about Civ3, in a much more intelligent, rational manner. Oh, about the Chieftain thing. They didn't provide an adequate tutorial so I'm using this first game as such. Don't hold it against me.

No, I'm angry. It happens over and over again.
I've seen it happening with Civ2 MGE, Civ2 ToT, SMAC, CtP, CtP and CtP II.

...and in every single forum of every single game that has been released. Trust me on that.

Every game has it's strong points and weak points, but despite that, some just connect to us personally. For me, it is Civ2 and Pharaoh/Cleo/Zeus. For others, it is EU or MOO or CM or SMAC or whatever. We can sit here and debate the flaws of every one of those games, including Civ3; but for many, it may click...no matter what others say about it.

[Robert Plomp]

blatant bump because I didn't write it all to let it drop to page 3.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Kaak
Hmmm...I think I am the one that posted that the game was broken, and I don't recall being a settler or a kid. I also don't recall having any problems beating the AI so far in civ3.

1. game is not broken but you are cravin attention
2. the point IS to beat AI, innit. sometimes it is fun to lose but it makes you feel dodgy. the point, IMHO is to have a good fight and win. after all, it is humiliating to be beaten by the code
3. well, you always have deity and i hope you will beat them consistently. the rest of us will play regent, emperor, whatnot and have fun.

this is the most addictive game i have played..ever. wars are unbelievable...
and since i got three ICBMs on my head, i am really happy they do not destroy cities completely. this is not real life, this is a GAME. in a real life, US is not importing ivory in exchange for dyes...it is a simplified take on history....


there is one point where i really get annoyed. it is people claiming that civ2 was better. it is one thing (now) to say it has historical value, much like PONG, or 'battleship potemkin' , but with this civ3, civ2 is history.
the only difference is that back in 96 we did not have forums to claim that the game is 'broken' because caravans go in infinite loops. mind you, camel caravans in 19th century....

[Wrong_shui]

its a good game but its not a great game like civ2 was.

I expected more.

If you dont think its worth buying dl it.

[Robert Plomp]

its a good game but its not a great game like civ2 was.

It has everything civ2 had.
You just have to get used to it.

[jones]

Originally posted by CyberShy
It has everything civ2 had.
You just have to get used to it.

I wonder if you're not missing the point. I think most agree that the game itself has promise. I see two main issue groups, or camps if you will, among the drones:

A
balance and tweaking, including stuff that can be fixed in a patch (AI, diplomacy options, pathetic cruise missiles, combat and so on)

B
stuff that was just plain wrong about the release. Short list:
pbem
editor
scenarios
miniaturized tech tree (errors au jus)
wonder movies
general sense of being rushed and/or incomplete

Now, (A) is highly subjective stuff, and so is (B) to a lesser extent. But many posters fall into both camps. Firaxis claims they'll address (A), including a proper editor ... which I'll belive when i see ... but IMHO they deserve every last bit of the *****ing directed their way for such a crappy release (see B).

After the production values in SMAC and Gettysburg! and ... Maybe it's just a bad idea to make good games nowadays because people get these unrealistic expectations.

Time will tell how they do on (A), but can faithful civvers forgive or forget the Activisionesque higlights of (B)?

[n.c.]

Yes there are improvements from Civ II. Who has said otherwise? (In other words, several of you are arguing a point made by nobody.) We just wanted the game to be better.

someone- "Anyone else's opinion is clearly but a nuisance, as opposed to your godlike untouchable one."

CyberShy- "Quote me."

Okay: "Now you can continue spreading the hoax that civ3 sucks."

That wasn't hard. If I had the inclination there are probably a bunch of other quotes to re-post.

-"I'm really not feeling superior because I'm a king."
Then don't belittle people for being Settlers (yes that is what you did).

-"If you're new........... behave like you're new."
And you did it again.

-"Since it's for sure not worse then civ2."
I played the hell out of Civ II (6-8 hours a day for a month to start) until I got SMAC. In some ways C3 is worse than C2, but mainly I expected more.

-"Explain to me why it bites that much."
-"why is SMAC better then civ3 ?"
I have done so in many other threads. However, you have made it quite clear that you will see no merit in any critique. Actually, you would try to insult me for making them (others here are worse).

-"Are you always like that"
I'm sure that would make you feel better.

-"you disagree with are stupid and self centered ?"
What you responded to was not my quote (nor were several of the others in that part of your post). Anyway, I'm not the one who started an insulting thread telling people to shut up.

I absolutely refuse the claim that I insulted people since I didn't name any names

I think this must be an English as a 2nd language thing, because otherwise this sentence makes no sense.

-"Dismissing someone's behavior is the same as being arrogant ?"
The way you did it, yes. I'll wait until you understand the word for further discussion (my previous comments along that line were not directed towards you, but apparently apply).

Sten- It's too late to sue. Besides, my reaction was more than not getting into it.

Originally posted by Jason
Please consolidate all the "I'm a newb, I hate civ3, luv me!" . . . threads into one "Pretentious BS" thread that normal users can easily ignore.

How about we combine all of the immature "don't say bad things about a game I like waaaa boo hoo!" threads into one that those of of with reasonable expectations can ignore? How about the arrogant, unthinking & pretentious "you're only complaining because the game is too hard for you" threads?

Or how about you "Firaxis can do no wrong" fundies just accept that we don't like the game?