Not Fair and Just Not Fun Anymore

[BanastreTa]

Originally posted by Disk Killer
Ok, I swear I'm not out to make anyone look bad/feel bad but....

I've been going with my girlfriend for a year now, and introduced her to computer gaming. Her first game was Tropico, her second was Railroad Tycoon II, and her third is Civ3.

She has played 6 games now (all chieftain) and is getting better and better...and won all 6.

You convinced her not just to play, but to excel at Civ 3?

Buy this girl a ring, right away!

[Dis]

I did read the post above mine (for a change ).

chieftan level is a joke. I'm not even a good civ2 player (I have never won diety- only emporer). Yet I tore the ai apart on chieftan.

I admit chieftan is more challenging than chieftan in civ2. But it is still fairly easy. If a new player doesn't win the first time, they will win the second time without a doubt. The production and research advantages do make it nice for a sunday gamer.

[EnochF]

Now the Deity-level ubergeeks have got me feeling all defensive. To be fair, I'm not so bad a Civ III player that I actually lose at Chieftain. In fact, the only full game of Civ III I ever played was on Chieftain, and I won via Diplomatic victory. I would have tried for the Spaceship, but my continent didn't have any aluminum, the other computer players hadn't discovered it yet, and the only uranium source in my territory "dried up" on the same turn that I discovered it.

I have yet to finish any game of Civ III on Warlord or higher because inevitably something frustrating happens that just pisses me off. One game comes to mind, when I was playing the Greeks. The Romans were above me, the Egyptians to my east. I was expanding in every direction, but all of a sudden the Egyptians (they're off to the east, remember?) start attacking one of my westernmost cities with roughly seven thousand war chariots. I probably could have won that game if I slogged through a millennium of warfare, but the prospect seemed terribly dull.

Anyway. I hate powergamers and I hate what they've done to the sequel of my favorite computer game ever. But there's an add-on to Tropico coming next month that will keep me up for weeks. ^_^

[Moraelin]

Now I'm just getting even more curious. Exactly what IS the problem with the idea of having a few extra options? Noone would force you experienced powergamers to use them, if it makes the game too simple for you, so why not?

Do you really need bragging rights so badly, or what? Do you need someone who lost, to make you feel good about winning, or? It's just a game, you know. If you think everyone will bow to your might just because you can beat a silly game on deity, think again. Yes, you've got the mad skillz, but noone will offer you a big fat job just for that, and there won't be hordes of women wanting to have your baby just for that. Trust me, it just doesn't happen. Stop taking those game bragging rights too seriously, because the vast majority of the world doesn't either.

Or is it just the usual "fanboy brigade to the rescue" kind of situation? In which case, relax already. Noone asked for fundamental changes to the game engine, that would ruin the experience for everyone. Well, not in this thread, anyway. There's a lot of frustration for the casual gamer that can be avoided with only minor changes. And which can be implemented very easily, so it's not like Firaxis would have to dump years of manpower into that. A resource slider and/or an extra difficulty level under Chieftain are stuff that can be coded in an afternoon.

[Dis]

by the way I only play at Regent level right now.

Once you learn a few things about the game chieftan should be fairly easy. But a new player may not win the game his first few times. A strong grasp of all the rules is what is needed.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Now I'm just getting even more curious. Exactly what IS the problem with the idea of having a few extra options? Noone would force you experienced powergamers to use them, if it makes the game too simple for you, so why not?

Actually, its not the options I am worried about. What I am worried about is the possibility that the designers water down the core engine to the point that the game is no longer the challenge that it can be. More on this in a bit.

I agree that some options could and should be added, very easily actually. What Sunday gamer wants to launch the editor and thumb through pages of arcane sounding variable names? What Sunday gamer is going to remember the correct sequence of backing up the civ3mod.bic and how does he/she keep track of what bic to mod for which situation/scenario? I believe it would be too easy for the designers to add a preferences screen during the start game sequence to give every user easy access to the .bic settings (the screen would be linked to the .bic so the choices would be the defaults the next time). This would be so easy, in fact, that I am surprised they did not do it right out the gate.

Do you really need bragging rights so badly, or what? Do you need someone who lost, to make you feel good about winning, or? It's just a game, you know. If you think everyone will bow to your might just because you can beat a silly game on deity, think again. Yes, you've got the mad skillz, but noone will offer you a big fat job just for that, and there won't be hordes of women wanting to have your baby just for that. Trust me, it just doesn't happen. Stop taking those game bragging rights too seriously, because the vast majority of the world doesn't either.

Or is it just the usual "fanboy brigade to the rescue" kind of situation? In which case, relax already. Noone asked for fundamental changes to the game engine, that would ruin the experience for everyone. Well, not in this thread, anyway. There's a lot of frustration for the casual gamer that can be avoided with only minor changes. And which can be implemented very easily, so it's not like Firaxis would have to dump years of manpower into that. A resource slider and/or an extra difficulty level under Chieftain are stuff that can be coded in an afternoon.

Actually, very many people in very many threads are asking for fundamental changes to the game engine. That's the point. It doesn't matter whether it is in this thread or not. The volume of the *whiners* is at the level that I worry the designers will change the engine to mollify them. Then the game may very well be ruined for those who have been seeking bigger challenges for years.

And yes it is a challenge. Resources are a challenge. You start out with only 1 horse and 1 salt peter and 4 or 5 of a single luxury type in your area. No Iron, no Coal, no Rubber, No Aluminum, nor Uranium. This is a challenge. And it is not an unrealistic challenge, many areas of the world are resource poor. I would not mind if the designers give us slider bars and options, but they may not.

Combat is a challenge. You can never be quite sure what will happen if you hurl your tanks at the AI in penny packets. You will unexpectedly lose some battles, thus the player must commit more forces and utilize multiple arms to accomplish an objective.

About lack of success for Sunday gamers. I have been very puzzled about the comments related to being unable to win the game at Chieftain level. When I got the game, everyone where I work got it too. Many of them would be Sunday gamers (hardcore Sunday gamers maybe). So tonight at a meeting I asked if any of them had given up, or if any of them had been unable to win at Chieftain. They all laughed. Not many of them are hard core gamers. None of them could understand why anyone would give it up after 1 playing. So I am still baffled. I think that instead of being unable to win, those who have given up may be unwilling to adjust. No big deal. Nothing personal. But also no fault of the designers. Is it Leonardo's fault if you do not like the style of the Mona Lisa? No, it's on you.

Oh and BTW, maybe the same things that compel those who complain to complain compel those who enjoy the game to contest them. The desire to comment is what drives these boards in the first place. Only, lately in the general forum the most comment worthy thing is the negative comments. So there you are. I don't need braggin rights. But I'm going to make comments just as you do. You and others may speak negatively about the game and it's designers. I may speak negatively about your comments and some of those making comments.

I will say that you seem to be one of the more reasonable people around here Moraelin. Hence I have taken the time to explain the view from my side of the fence.

Salve

[Moraelin]

notyoueither, as long as it's sharing impressions, nothing's wrong with that. Whether you like the game as it is or not, sure, it's up to you. My problem wasn't with you, it was more with posts along the lines of "you crybaby newbies don't deserve to play Civ 3. Go play Power Puff Girls instead." That "crybaby" paid good money for the game and had no enjoyment out of it. How about sharing some tips, instead of shooing them away? (In an insulting way, no less.)

Why would anyone give up on the game after 1 try? How about in Dissiden't own words: "But a new player may not win the game his first few times. A strong grasp of all the rules is what is needed." If on the minimum difficulty level a newbie gets his/her rear handed over, than that minimum level is not low enough. The minimum difficulty level should be precisely a kindergarten sort of level, where someone with zero experience can learn the ropes.

Because what being a newbie really is like, is that you don't even have half a clue of what you're supposed to be doing, or what you even CAN do. Much less have a strong understanding of the rules, and much less have some advanced strategies down the sleeve. And most often than not you don't have an experienced player next to you, to tell you what you're doing wrong, either. (Like Disk Killer's gf had.) It boils down to: learning curve. If you run into not only losing, but also not having half a clue why, well, for most people it counts as a bad experience.

I've already used Tropico as an example of what minimum difficulty should be like, let me give you another example now. Serious Sam. The minimum level doubles the player's max hp, and gives him/her health regeneration, too. Short of camping in front of a squad of missile launchers, there's no way in heck to lose on that setting.

Civ 3 not only fails to do that, but there is also a good probability that on your first game you'll run into some cruel twist, like having no resources. (Especially since a newbie will likely fail to do the settler diarhea, and won't have a large enough territory for resources.) Or having the whole continent declare war on you, without even telling you WHY they're annoyed with you.

Dunno about your co-workers, but the only of my co-workers that bought Civ 3 did give up on the first try. Why? Standard Cruel Twist #2. All the continent allied against him, without giving him half a clue as to why. In a few turns, the combined might of 7 nations was rolling over his cities, like it's noone's business. Bang, you're dead.

For ME, it should have counted as obvious to bring a few allies of my own. That's what I had done instinctively when it happened to me. For him, apparently it wasn't that obvious. After telling him what to do, apparently all was good and fine, and he's been playing some more.

Which brings us in a full circle to the beginning of this post: share tips instead of proclaiming that crybabies don't deserve to play Civ 3.

[Deornwulf]

IMO it should be nie impossible to lose on Chieften Level. It should be so easy that any experienced gamer should be repulsed by the idea of playing at that level. There should be constant advice screens popping up to move the player along. In fact, Chieften level should almost require its own subset of code so it runs differently than the rest of the levels. In plain language, it should run like a tutorial.

Many successful game titles have tutorials that are just like that. The computer states specific goals to be accomplished and once the goal is completed, the player is allowed to move on to more advanced tasks.

[Spatzimaus]

It seems to me that the people complaining about resource allocation are the same ones complaining about losing a tank to a pikeman. You hate when the elements of randomness go against you, but how many times have you restarted a game because you had too MANY Iron?

Make it simple. If there are N players in the game, then there will be N of each strategic resource. That's right, 1 per player. So, if there's no Iron in your territory, that means someone else MUST have at least 2. If your continent, with 4 civs, only has one Iron, there must be at least 3 extra somewhere else in the world; go exploring! Or, start a war for the one nearby. Longbowmen (4/1/1) don't require any resources; neither do Riflemen (4/6/1).

I had one similar to Grachnar; 16-player game, I was Persians, placed between the Egyptians and the Greeks. I had iron, but when it came time to build Knights realized that I had no horses. Egypt, however, had 2, and Greece had 5 (4 on one city; how fair is THAT?). If I didn't take over at least one of them, I'd lose. So, I made a lot of Immortals, gave Greece a lot of money to let me borrow some horses for 20 turns for Knights, saved up some money, and bribed four other civs to jump into the fight against Egypt (they had better terrain). Next thing I know a world war starts, every civ at war with at least five others, but when the dust cleared Egypt was dead and I had most of their cities. And their horses.

I love that the game actually gives you a MOTIVATION to fight. You can't always just sit back and play defensive; there will be times when you NEED to fight, and have to find a way to do it.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Spatzimaus
I love that the game actually gives you a MOTIVATION to fight. You can't always just sit back and play defensive; there will be times when you NEED to fight, and have to find a way to do it.

Exactly

Even in a overall peaceful strategy there will be times for the good of your empire that you're going to need to go to war. The game makes it difficult to be a total war monger or a total peacenik. It may not be what everyone wants, but it's the most convincing empire strat game I've ever played.

The people most unhappy with this system seem to be the sort who want to play the game their way each and every time without being made to adapt to the current situation. Civ2 and SMAC effectively let you play exactly how you wanted without ever paying attention to anything outside your territory if you wanted to play that way - Civ3 forces interaction and struggle with the AI no matter what the difficulty or overall strategy, how is this a bad thing?

[jackshot]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
Civ2 and SMAC effectively let you play exactly how you wanted without ever paying attention to anything outside your territory if you wanted to play that way - Civ3 forces interaction and struggle with the AI no matter what the difficulty or overall strategy, how is this a bad thing?

Because it is bad not in theory but in practice. My interactions are fine, it's the lack of options I am chafing at.

I play on Emporer, I win some I lose some but its not really because of anything I do after a certain point. Luck is either here or there and the solutions are either arcane or nonexistent.

Usually my only real fallback option is the restart button. This is not good.

[Dadeo]

The challenges that are associated with scarce resources can improve the game but the problems associated with 'war weariness' can bring your empire to its knees. Tactical strikes to pick up the needed resource are not an option when the AI refuses to talk with you. You have to cripple your research by sliding up the happiness meter until the AI decides to allow a peace.

I like the scarce resources - if the designers wanted us to go to war to get them (and apparently they did because the AI will seldom trade a resource you really need) then they should make it easier to get out of the war or at least reduce the effects of a long term war.

Twenty turns of combating war weariness will put you well behind the tech race in a close game.