A Slice of Civ3 Feedback From The Official MOO3 Forum

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 03:02

Now I know people will think I'm just being selective, but if you wander over to the off-topic official MOO3 forum, these are the standard comments. So to the people who say that the whiners here are just a vocal minority, God help you all if even just ONE of the other gaming forums showed up here to register stuff like this:
_____

I sure hope that with all the changes QS is making from MOO2 that they don't do what Firaxis did to Civ 3 - i.e. take a great game and then ruin it thinking that they were "improving" it.

Case in point Civ 3 corruption issue "if player has too many cities then corruption will become rampant and this will improve the game" - WRONG.

"We want to streamline Civ 3 so we'll drop the movies and this will improve the game" again wrong. I for one, was expecting even better movies for Civ 3.

Wonder movies shouldn't have been axed. I spent lots of time, effort, and planning (heck, I can't even BUY it now) to get a unique wonder of the world and I don't get to see some gratifying movie... its just disappointing, like Cola without fizzle.

The game is formly based on warfare with the entire playing experience revolving around military units and declaring wars. Corruption does absolutely nothing to curb conquest, why would it? Corruption merely reduces your income and production in the farther cities, so what? Instead of producing 6 shields like a city close to your capitol is, it produces only 2- big deal, just use it solely for churning out your ancient swordsmen to attack your neighbors... it's better then having no city there! If there was perhaps a penalty for expanding too fast and far instead of just a diminishing benefit then it would actually work. More cities = more citizens = more research, so expand until the last tundra and desert has your flag raised on it.

And with the way they made the Civ3 AI, peace is not only boring but extremly difficult to maintain for the following reasons:

1. The AI still declares war and attacks without any logical reason. Sometimes a civ will be 'polite' with me, and I'm midning my own business and out of the blue he sends two units to a heavily fortified city and surprise attacks me. Why??? Also, AI will often randomly demand some token fee as tribute- like "give me 6 gold or feel our wrath!". Now, maybe a leader of an ancient despotism *might* actually do this, but a democracy in 2040?! Not only this, but usually the civ is weaker then me or supposedly "is in awe of" my culture. So much for culture making a difference.

2. Conducting trade with the AI is futile. The scenario is all too common. Civ A has strategic resource B. I have a few resources of my own, so I send my diplomat to work something out. I ask for his resource, and I offer a resource of my own which he does not have. No? Ok, how bout my resource plus some gold per turn? Still no??? Geez, ok how about TWO of my resources for your ONE resource? STILL NO!! I have a screenshot somewhere of my diplomat asking for Incense, and I put Dyes, Horses, Iron AND Furs on the table-- He refused! And I assure you, this is very common, the AI simply asks for too much from you, so why go through the hassle, just declare war and take what you want by force.

3. The AI likes to build in small otherwise useless pockets within your still forming nation... I know I've heard all the arguments about how it's a 'good' tactic but the fact remains, its annoying! You have a nice layout for a modest nation and while your culture borders are building up some jerk sends in a settler in a tiny pocket void of your cultural influence as of yet and settles there, ignoring the lush green valley to the north with gold and ivory... We're humans not computers, stuff like this #### us off and that's when the big stick comes out!

4. Border tresspassing- Why does the AI like to use your nation as a giant public race track for their units? And if you want to try to work something out through diplomacy, chances are they will declare war...

Sorry for the ranting, Its jsut that I had so much faith in Civ3... I honestly gave it alot of tries... hours and hours of gameplay trying to find something good about the game, but besides the nifty unit animations there just isnt anything there

But that might just be me..

The whole corruption model smacks of "no play testing". I've even noticed that if I build a few cities farther away, and get them established, THEN build more cities closer in, the corruption in my outer cities increases... (in my ESTABLISHED cities).

To add insult to injury, firaxis simply did not listen to its gamers, since the patch hardly addressed anything of real value. Just out of curiousity... how long has the game been out? And can fighters conduct air superiortiy missions successfully yet????

The only strategy that has held my attention at all is the tech broker strategy... which doesn't work even 1/4 as well post-patch.

What I love about the way the MOO developers are working is giving us tons of details on game mechanics and modelling, and keeping the super hush hush secrets in the realm of storyline and art. Keep up the good work lads!!

my other pet peeves are: having to move (and attack with) each unit individually; govt types; ancient wars lasting more than several lifetimes; advances based on weird techs (e.g. communism = police stations); ltd tech tree; advisors wearing someone else's national costume; no reflection of switch in emphasis on cities in ancient times, to land/castles/dynasties in medieval times, and then back again to cities in modern times.... rants on and on to ever decreasing effect

All in all, Civ 3 is one of the worst games i have ever had the misfortune to play. MOM is in my opinion far superior to the civ series. MOM had better pathfinding than civ 2 - units ALWAYS found their way. Better graphics, better combat system, more originality, just as good AI (1.3 patch). I spent far more hours on MOM and MOO2 than any other game! I just wish that MOM worked in windows

Well... i must also admit that civ3 wasn't all that it cracked up to be. I didn't get the game right when it was out... So I was actually pretty excited to get it. I kept looking on the site for more information and screenshots.. I ended up gettin it for Christmas. I played the game for about 3 days straight, no problems really.. seemed like a great game. (Although I really hadn't done much) When I first met a person, I really liked the new diplomacy, you could ask and give much better then anything i'd seen before. (Cept maybe Ctp2)

But that's when it started a downfall. The turns seemed to get longer and lonnnnger... and it soon took a full minute or so for the Ai's to take their turn. Now, i figured it wasn't that bad.. and i played on.. I soon conquered a few enemy cities, and i was learning about culture a bit more.. I found out i could take cities culturally, and I set out to do it. I also learned about the corruption, now, i found it wasent bad, and i still played on.

Then i found out that the turns got longer... it soon took a good 4 minutes of waiting for an AI turn to complete... I realized a few loop-holes in the AI diplomacy. (Some have been mentioned) But others were the in-ablity to offer, or to demand cities. The AI simply wouldn't give em up, and they didn't want to give anything for mine either. I could offer every one of my cities for 1 gold, and he wouldn't take it. I could also do some other things. I found he would go to extra-ordinary measures to get advances.

But still, I decided to play on. Now, i was gettin pretty darn annoyed, it was now taking a full, if not more, 8 minutes of waiting for the AI turn to complete. (That is just sittin there, waiting for the little "Please wait" sign to change.) I soon tryed a few things, takin enemy and allied moves off, taking every other possible thing that could bog the game down off, and it only got worse.

But... i played on.. i was deturmined to get up to Modern tanks. I did, and i was dissapointed. I also noticed a few military loopholes. Knights defeating tanks etc... I remember them talking about luck, but is it at all possible for a knight to beat a tank? No. Also, i would have liked a bit more varaity in modern units. Tanks are obviously the beat choice for almost anything. Modern armor are for defending. That combo can't be beat.. except by nukes. And even nukes (when i got them) wern't all that pleasing... they just wern't as evil as they were in the other civs... i didnt feel as satasfied. The land destruction around the blast zone was nice, but i would have liked the chance of units surviving to go down to about... 20%?

Bah.. and one more thing.. the pace of the game was Un-barably slow. It's taken me since Christmas to get to the modern age. I still havent gotten everything. I decided to stop playing for awhile...

Bah... overall.. it was a good game in the beginning, (When it wasn't bogged down, and it didn't have as many overall problems. And it was terrible late game...
____

After looking for equally postive comments to post here, I gave up. Feel free to post the one or two that you might find. By the way, I am not saying I endorse any of these particular gripes, but I certainly do endorse the overall sentiment that Civ3 is a horribly sub-par game, and I think it is worth mentioning that the Civ3 criticism is strong (very strong) at other sites besides here.

So? Patch like crazy, Firaxis!

http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/mess...on3&msg=6488.1

Alexander's Horse · February 6, 2002, 03:06

Good idea. We can go there and say beware, Firaxis is a piece of crap without MarkG closing our threads.

MarkG · February 6, 2002, 04:09

trolling trolling trolling
everybody is trolling..... tonight

hey yin, how about i start copy-pasting all the civ3 reviews?

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 04:33

Hey, that's a great idea!

Need some help?

The best one by far ends like this:

Quote:

Sad to say, the only people I can really recommend this to are to die-hard fans of the original. For strategy gamers, if you are a turn-based fan I actually say stick to Alpha Centauri or Master of Orion II, and pray they make a MOO3. Civ3 isn't the savior of this genre.
...
Civ 3 did not even achieve Civ 2's feat of copying gameplay. Sure it added some improvements of its own, but it did not change some very important things like the gameflow. Worse, it took out some things and messed up the engine in other ways, like combat and zones of control. And I still can't get over how the tech tree keeps degenerating and making less and less sense with each incarnation. It seems less time was spent historically reseaching the game to give it that educational flavor, as it is looking at current events and adding what looks good.

Grumbold · February 6, 2002, 04:52

You're never going to get a balanced view of a game from a website devoted to something else. People who like the game (yes there are some) dont spend their time roaming the web looking for anywhere to say how wonderful it is. A small percentage of those who are disappointed seem to get their kicks from venting their spleen everywhere they go.

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 04:58

Quote:

You're never going to get a balanced view of a game from a website devoted to something else.

Curious. And yet we have a Civ3 site, the most popular on the Net as far as I know, just crammed with bad things to say about the game. The accusation from supporters?: Ahh, they are just an isolated group of Trolling Terrorists. They don't represent the REAL state of affairs.

So, the site dedicated to the "real" state of affairs is slanted. Sites having NOTHING to do with Civ3 are slanted. At some point the people lauding Civ3 need to face facts:THEY are the minority here.

Anyway, I just wanted to provide Firaxis yet another link to some great insights to how to fix the game, since it's apparent they have completely and without rest dedicated themselves to finally releasing the finished product.

I know this, you see, because Firaxis hasn't said anything to the contrary!

MarkG · February 6, 2002, 05:43

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
And yet we have a Civ3 site, the most popular on the Net as far as I know, just crammed with bad things to say about the game.

crammed? where?

sure, if we take you as the example, 95% of the content on this site by you is bad about civ3

but lets try to see a bit beyond that, shall we?

Zanzin · February 6, 2002, 06:06

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
trolling trolling trolling
everybody is trolling..... tonight

hey yin, how about i start copy-pasting all the civ3 reviews?

Not making any assumptions or anything, but I think it's blatently obvious all the sites that gave civ3 good reviews played it for all of about 5 mins. Unless the reviewers were deaf, dumb and blind, which is always a valid possibility. Hell, look at the people employed at Firaxis.

Deathwalker · February 6, 2002, 07:25

Though I think Civ needs to be a little updated and badley needs an exspansion path to fix the major problems. The game is not the worse ever. I do like the game, but it needs an exspansion pack to bring it up to release level, not alpha build.

OneInTen · February 6, 2002, 07:45

Cracking my knucles, I step up to the challenge. Lets see ...

Where to start? I know, ars technica, my old hangout.
Did a search for civ 3 in their gaming forum, clicked on a thread (one entitled "civ 3", so it seemed like it would at least be on topic):
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenT...5&m=2200970053

I give a quote, one from each of the 4 posts in the thread:

"I thinkthey are great...it makes the game more fun, and it forces you to actualy play the geo-political game in orger to win....culture is cool too."

"But yeah, regardless of all the *****ing about the game, I think its virtual crack."

"Oh, and yeah, I'm addicted to it."

"mmm, civ3 = crack."

Hrm, so much negativity, I feel disheartened, I don't know if I can continue my search! I guess you were right yin, everyone everywhere really does hate the game!

Alexander's Horse · February 6, 2002, 07:53

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
hey yin, how about i start copy-pasting all the civ3 reviews?

You mean those crap worthless kiss Firaxis on the arse reviews from gaming sites?

They are worse than the communist press. Aren't you ashamed to publicise them Mark?

DaShi · February 6, 2002, 07:53

Quote:

Originally posted by OneInTen
Cracking my knucles, I step up to the challenge. Lets see ...

Where to start? I know, ars technica, my old hangout.
Did a search for civ 3 in their gaming forum, clicked on a thread (one entitled "civ 3", so it seemed like it would at least be on topic):
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenT...5&m=2200970053

I give a quote, one from each of the 4 posts in the thread:

"I thinkthey are great...it makes the game more fun, and it forces you to actualy play the geo-political game in orger to win....culture is cool too."

"But yeah, regardless of all the *****ing about the game, I think its virtual crack."

"Oh, and yeah, I'm addicted to it."

"mmm, civ3 = crack."

Hrm, so much negativity, I feel disheartened, I don't know if I can continue my search! I guess you were right yin, everyone everywhere really does hate the game!

These guys aren't exactly cream of the crop, are they? Are you sure that you want them endorsing your product?

2dfx · February 6, 2002, 08:11

Well I can't say much since I haven't got the game, but did you look at some of the other threads linked from the Arstechnica thread you just posted OneInTen?

Some quotes from the thread titled "Topic: Civ3, Civ2 and SMAC: why can't we get the perfect game?"

"All three of these games have a piece of the puzzle, but Sid has failed to get it all together."

"We'll see. Civ2 was an excellent game. SMAC was even better. The team dissolved, and Civ3 is 50/50... half-baked. Some love it, some don't."

"Anyway, I'd go so far as to say I hate Civ3. I don't play it anymore. It bores me. I don't like the way corruption is handled. I don't like the way combat is handled. The are some things I love, but the things I hate cripple the game, IMO."

"Civ3 is the mass-market, dumbed-down product that is designed to have the broadest appeal with the least complexity possible. Basically it is exactly the same situation we had with Sim City 3000.

SMAC will always be the best."

Antonin · February 6, 2002, 08:40

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26 ...By the way, I am not saying I endorse any of these particular gripes, but I certainly do endorse the overall sentiment that Civ3 is a horribly sub-par game...

But of course, you're still here, saying the same things you've been saying for months.

It's called "a life." Get one.

OneInTen · February 6, 2002, 08:54

Quote:

Well I can't say much since I haven't got the game, but did you look at some of the other threads linked from the Arstechnica thread you just posted OneInTen?

What the other threads say is entirely besides the point. Yin said, and I quote "After looking for equally postive comments to post here, I gave up". Well, at the very first site I visited, in the very first thread I visited, I found 4/4 positive comments.

So I would say that yes, yin is right when people will say he is being selective.

Capt Dizle · February 6, 2002, 09:49

Yada Yada Yada...

Yin is right. I have seen many folks here start off praising the game turn to beening critical of it. Others just dissappear. The number of people posting on the board is about half of what it would be if the game was even average.

Facts are facts. Mark will move any thread he can to make it look better, but most of the comments in the general forum now are lamentations.

MarkG · February 6, 2002, 10:20

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Yin is right. I have seen many folks here start off praising the game turn to beening critical of it. Others just dissappear.

yeah, they are gone just before voting that they have goten their money's worth....

Trifna · February 6, 2002, 11:18

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Yada Yada Yada...

Yin is right. I have seen many folks here start off praising the game turn to beening critical of it. Others just dissappear. The number of people posting on the board is about half of what it would be if the game was even average.

Facts are facts. Mark will move any thread he can to make it look better, but most of the comments in the general forum now are lamentations.

I'm in disacordance here (about Mark). I do agree what he puts out is mostly stuff against Civ III, but I think reasons are different than pure partialism. I think he's reasons are closer to limiting what he sees as whining with what he considers false arguments. I wont say I agree with each ban/closed thread individually (I in most (I think...) case agree with Yin once we un-metaphorize his texts so it says all...). But I know no forum host that is able to host without having a certain percentage that's not as one or other thought.

Capt Dizle · February 6, 2002, 11:26

I got my moneys worth from Civ3. If a game loads and runs and you play it for 8-10 hours then you have your $50 bucks covered.

That doesn't make it a good game though.

MarkG · February 6, 2002, 11:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
I think he's reasons are closer to limiting what he sees as whining with what he considers false arguments.

no no no, it's because i'm geting payed by firaxis. it's actually from the same account that they pay reviewers...

The diplomat · February 6, 2002, 11:34

The civ3 bashing is really getting repetitive and dare I say stupid!

Sure civ3 has problems, some can be fixed by the editor, others would require more coding. But civ3 is not the "worst game ever". It has many trully great features that make a much much better game than civ2, like strategic ressources, trade, and unique units. Furthermore, in all my games I have never experienced these "out of the blue declaration of wars", "horrible pathfinding", or "AI cheating". So I don't know where they are getting all these stuff from.

MarkG · February 6, 2002, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I got my moneys worth from Civ3. If a game loads and runs and you play it for 8-10 hours then you have your $50 bucks covered.

why do some people feel cheated though even if they played the game for a month?

Capt Dizle · February 6, 2002, 11:42

Cheated? I am not saying I was cheated. I am saying that the game is not fun to play. I am saying that I am dissapointed that Firaxis(and Sid Meier personally) would have put out such a lackluster product as a sequel to one of the best games in history. I am saying that they should not expect to be able to count on their name to sell games to me anymore.

I am not saying I was cheated.

MarkG · February 6, 2002, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I am not saying I was cheated.

"some people" != "you"

unless deep inside you "some people"="you"

Capt Dizle · February 6, 2002, 12:13

Mark, you didn't quote some people. You quoted me. If you are referring to someone else, please quote them to avoid confusion.

Capt Dizle · February 6, 2002, 12:17

Mark, you are being silly talking about reviewer being paid by Firaxis. Any idiot can see why reviewers have a vested interest in praising games. As for this forum and you Mark, why, of course traffic goes up if the game is popular and down if not.

Zealot · February 6, 2002, 12:20

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26

Quote:

For strategy gamers, if you are a turn-based fan I actually say stick to Alpha Centauri or Master of Orion II, and pray they make a MOO3. Civ3 isn't the savior of this genre.

Hey, guess what, I was following his advice before knowing it!

MarkG · February 6, 2002, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Mark, you didn't quote some people. You quoted me. If you are referring to someone else, please quote them to avoid confusion.

last time i checked, "some people" != "you" in the english language...

Quote:

you are being silly talking about reviewer being paid by Firaxis

notice the use of a certain smiley

Quote:

As for this forum and you Mark, why, of course traffic goes up if the game is popular and down if not

and somehow i have the power to make games popular? wow....

ColdWizard · February 6, 2002, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Mark, you are being silly talking about reviewer being paid by Firaxis.

yeah, the publisher handles all those marketing details

Bilas · February 6, 2002, 13:21

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
"some people" != "you"

unless deep inside you "some people"="you"

Heh.... Mark you know you were talking about him... as well as others... you quoted him for christ sake! I could also say why do "some people" never criticizes a game when there are obvious flaws in it? and when people do "some people" always take offense at this criticizim.

Ohh... I wasn't talking about you........