Mad as Hell and Not going to Take it Anymore!

DarthVeda · March 14, 2002, 21:33

You know, I think I've been had. I seem to have bought a graphical update of Civilization I. Phallanx vs. Battleship (or modern armor in this case) and all.

I finally played this game that I got last year and came to the realization that Firaxis is a bunch of charlatans. Sid lost his touch and the fact that Brian Reynolds was not part of the project shows, BIG TIME. The total lack of insight and creativity is blatantly obvious.

It's unmistakeable... there are tread marks on the cover. This game was rushed no doubt about it. What do we get to date? Piecemeal patches and not even one damned apology about the grand promises that were made and not kept.

As I leaf through my CD Case I can count about nine or ten Civilization-style games and their clones. Civilization II is probably the most robust and replayable games among the whole lot. I have followed the creation of Civ 3 pretty closely and was initially excited when it came out. Then I realized that it had been hurried out the door by Firaxis. I will explain just what we (the civilization fans) are missing.

Firstly, Civilization III is not created within a new engine. It is a highly modified Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri engine. SMAC had both multiplayer and scenarios to keep the game entertaining after the first one or two plays through. Civ III has neither. I can only wonder how both features got "lost" and where they are sitting in the Firaxis studio.

Now I'm not going to give conjectures about how Firaxis and Infogrames may be planning to have the consumer pay $50 for these features in an expansion down the line. The game studio makes off like a bandit in that case, they can drop features to rush the game out faster and have consumers fork over the cash later.

I won't even get started on how the "wonder movies" are basically a pseudonym for "insert movie here."

But anyway. Civilization III is a fair dissapointment even in the gameplay department. I look at games like Call to Power 2 and SMAC, both of which really pushed the threshold in turned based strategy, and I realize that Civ3 is simply a rehash of old material.

Why I bet with a couple of graphics tune-ups and renaming, you could relase a mod-pack for Civilization II and call it Civ 3.

I'll admit that Civ3 represents the series well, and might even be fun to play, but one might as well get Civilization II for $30 less. The only major difference is one less way to win and a few graphical changes. Plus with civ2 you get a ploethera of scenarios and multiplayer options to enhance your civilization experience. It's still the same game, people!

All of this high-praise for Civilization III might as well be praise for the genre in general. It's recycled gameplay. Nothing more. It's just in a new skin with a number of (important) features missing for the sake of corporate cash cow milking. SMAC and CTP2 raised the bar, Civ3 just points at the bar while laughing all the way to the bank.

Anybody who is thinking of buying this game, I recommend you save your money and do one of two things:

1) Buy Civilization II. It's the same game, with older graphics but with multiplayer and scenarios. Replayability factor is about a million fold greater.

2) Wait for Infogrames/Firaxis (tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum) to release the "Civilization III Gold Edition" which will no doubt give you the privelege of shelling out $50 for Civ3 with the features it sliced for a Christmas season shipping date.

And for those who think Civ3 is a good game as it stands: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE MISSING. BUY CIV2.

Those of you who already bought Civ3 and still give it high praise after this post, don't bother giving Firaxis piecmeal praise and half-hearted demands. They're obviously not listening.

Just stop dilluding yourselves. Realize that Firaxis/Infogrames have taken your money and will take it again with the expansion. You have still yet to buy the game. Stop acting like you actually have it.

Stop praising the Beta. Wait for the real game. Get some sun in the mean time.

korn469 · March 14, 2002, 21:51

have you tried any of the mods yet? they fix some of your complaints (especially about combat), and really do improve gameplay, though AI techwhoring has been something of a joykill for almost everyone

though multiplayer is beyond our reach as of now

March 14, 2002, 21:59

I agree that Civ II is a much better game and it came out over 6 years ago! Alpha Centauri had many really good features, but I did not find the game as interesting as Civ II. That is probably because I can't see how "Polymorphic Software" can give me better military units. In Civ the upgrades make more sense.

GeneralTacticus · March 14, 2002, 22:08

Quote:

And for those who think Civ3 is a good game as it stands: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE MISSING. BUY CIV2.

I know perfectly well what I am missing by playing Civ 3, which is nothing. I have Civ II, and off the top of my head I can't think of anything I did in Civ 2 that I can't do in Civ 3 (save running over enemy civs with a bunch of howies, and what is so good about that?). I agree that SMAC does many things better, but I have NEVER been able to see how people can claim Civ 2 is better than Civ 3.

korn469 · March 14, 2002, 22:27

GeneralTacticus

i agree with you, while Civ2 does triumph over Civ3 in some gameplay areas, as a whole though Civ3 beats Civ2 on the gameplay side

but on the other hand Civ2:MGE does have multiplayer and scenarios

though gameplaywise i would consider civ3 and SMAC a draw, which is quite sad, and then SMAC does have multiplayer (though it does have a scenario editor it hardly useful, look at the number of SMAC scenarios compared to Civ2 scenarios)

though SMAC certainly wins on player immersion while civ3 wins on graphics

i would say buy SMAC instead of Civ3, but the AI in SMAC is totally inferior, which means that you'd be better off buying Civ3, or waiting till the expansion/gold edition then buying civ3, because out of all of the civ genre games, the only one that is still being patched is civ3, and it does have the possibility of an expansion pack

GePap · March 14, 2002, 22:31

I think darthveda has taken his critisms too far.

I agree that there are many disappointing aspects to civ3, too many good ideas left out, when they had already been implemented in earlier games. I agree that the combat system is in some ways inferior (but in some, superior), but Civ3 is not a worst game than civ2- it is different, in the way SMAC was different from civ2. Resources and culuture, small wonders, the new diplo screen (even if some vital concepts like real alliences were taken out) all make for a significantly different game that does have its charms. The lack of scenerios and multiplyer (though i don't care that much for this) do hamper the game, but once they come in (and Infogrames would have to be suicidal to keep these thigs out), civ3 will be a good game to play.

Is civ3 what I wanted it to be? NO. Is it a bad game? NO.

1 · March 14, 2002, 22:37

No one is forcing you to play the game. If you don't like it so much, sell your copy on E-Bay and suck up the $10 loss you just sold it at. For someone who feels so libral on voicing his (or her) complaint, try making your own game and making it better than Civ 3. It isn't easy. Appreciate what you have, some people have more serious and pressing issues in their lives than to complain about "computor games" on Civ 3 Discussion forums.

korn469 · March 14, 2002, 22:45

i can see why DarthVeda is disappointed with civ3, but some of it can be overcame with one of the various mods, and there are many, personally i endorse the blitz mod but i am completely bias, The Balancer is coming along nicely and they are running a tight ship, LWC is quite popular, Player1 has a very conservative mod that should help some, then there are are number of mods that i am less familar with, and everyone seems to love sn00py's graphic mods

and if combat is your #1 complaint, double, triple, or even quadruple hitpoints, and most of the crazy results will disappear

Capt Dizle · March 14, 2002, 22:46

This is the same thread you have all read 1,000 times. Only the names are changed to protect the guilty.

MOHonor · March 14, 2002, 23:02

What I think is important for everyone under the age of 18 to think about is this:

Perhaps it's just not your taste in games. That's nobodies fault. It's hard for many teens to distinquish between "It Sucks!" and "It's not my kind of game". And let me substantiate this possibilty with the fact the game is back in the top 10 according to Gamespot:

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...854619,00.html

So anyway you're welcome. Now go live a productive life without Civilization III and scary Greek forums and be merry.

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · March 15, 2002, 00:09

What I really want to know -- is that Governor Jesse "The Mind" Ventura in your avatar, or Destro from G.I. Joe? Enquiring minds want to know!

Dan

Capt Dizle · March 15, 2002, 00:19

Dan, you don't know who that is...wow! You must be suffering from a cultural gap or something.

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · March 15, 2002, 00:26

Is it one of the Backstreet Boys? I have to admit, I don't follow pop music very closely...

Dan

MosesPresley · March 15, 2002, 00:47

Quote:

General Tacticus: I can't think of anything I did in Civ 2 that I can't do in Civ 3 (save running over enemy civs with a bunch of howies, and what is so good about that?)

I'm with the general on this one. I loved Civ 2, but the endgame, militarily, was a foregone conclusion. I would stack a bunch of howitzers and just run over the AI like they weren't there.

Also the lack of real borders in Civ 2 used to drive me crazy, not to mention the constant micromanaging of the build queues, especially towards the endgame.

I could go through an entire game of Civ 2 and never build a single naval unit nor a caravan and still win. Naval power, at least on water maps, is very important this time around. The AI in Civ 2 was idiotic, but good for its time. I think the AI is so much better this time around. I actually see coordinated attacks on strategically important areas. The AI goes out of its way to bombard my resources.

The only wonder movie I miss is the one for Leonardo's Workshop. I dig the music for that one.

I know I don't speak for everyone on this, but I don't care about multiplayer. I mean, who has six months to play a game by e-mail. That's not my idea of fun. The scenarios will come with time, just like they did with Civ 2.

For me, and this is MHO, this is a fine installment of the Civ series and plays extremely well. I enjoy it far more than any of the previous versions. One or two more patches to iron out some of the small bugs will just about perfect this one.

I think all of this nostalgia for Civ 2, is just selective memories at work, but whatever, if you don't like the game, don't play it.

DarthVeda · March 15, 2002, 01:11

You know, Civ3 isn't a terrible game. It can be fun to play, but the replay value, for me at least, is terribly low. It's not really a leap in technology, and without multiplayer or scenarios, there's nothing to really bring me back to play again. And the rest is just venting heat about how I hate add-ons that add features that should have been in the game to start with.

And for all interested parties, my avatar is William Bedford Diego, from System Shock 2. He is the captain of the Von Braun.

notyoueither · March 15, 2002, 02:51

Well, it's clear that many Grognards are disappointed at this point in time with the latest installment of civ. Not all, but many.

I guess I could be called a Grog-whatever, since I've been civin since numero 1. I find the current installment is not perfect, but I still enjoy it. I think War Weariness runs up far too quickly. and I hope that either they tone it down or give us a better understanding of its mechanics. One or the other will happen I am sure.

As I've said before, I am more than happy to allow the developers the opportunity to make the game *all that it can be.* I prefer to be involved in the process by playing and making suggestions from within, and I am having fun with the game now.

OTOH, I can understand that many will wait to see what the developers do before they invest much effort on the product. It comes down to personal preferences. To each his own.

Salve

Kilroy_Alpha · March 15, 2002, 05:50

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
have you tried any of the mods yet? they fix some of your complaints (especially about combat), and really do improve gameplay, though AI techwhoring has been something of a joykill for almost everyone

though multiplayer is beyond our reach as of now

Would you say Call to Power 2 is an excellent game? Of course not, even though you can MAKE IT FUN by using the right mods. I loved playing modded civ2, but at no point did I feel I HAD to either make my own mod or use someone elses just to enjoy the game. It was plenty fun playing it right out of the box. Same goes for SMAC.

Now civ3, as far as myself and many others are concerned, is UNPLAYABLE out of the box. I have played one game of civ3 unmodded, and it was not fun at all. When people HAVE to change the rules of the game, just to feel that they are getting what they paid for, the game has failed. At least, in the case of CTP2, they had the foresite to make the game very, VERY moddable. Unfortunately Firaxis has not had the same wisdom.

And, I could give a damn what the public in general thinks of this game. That same public led Fox to believe that airing "Glutton Bowl" was a good idea. **** the public.

Cookie Monster · March 15, 2002, 10:10

All I have to say is that when MOO3 comes out I will wait until I see an overwhelming majority of gamers praise the game in these forums before I buy it.

I bought Civ3 the day it came out. I bought the limited edition too......

Then after reading everyone's impression on the game I saw that for every one positive post there were at least 10 negative posts about this game. After weeding through the garbage I found that compared to my own assesments of the game I noticed something. I, like many others, was enjoying the game somewhat but noticed that something was just not right with Civ3. It lacked that "one more turn" feeling I had with the previous versions. Sure I wanted to keep playing but it was only to see the ending of the game. (I like to finish every game I buy at least once).

So in short, when someone promises that the latest version of game X is coming out and it will be awesome trust me......I'll wait to see what the general consensus is first. Then when the game drops in price to $19.99 I may consider buying it. I won't get burned again.....

korn469 · March 15, 2002, 10:57

Quote:

Now civ3, as far as myself and many others are concerned, is UNPLAYABLE out of the box. I have played one game of civ3 unmodded, and it was not fun at all. When people HAVE to change the rules of the game, just to feel that they are getting what they paid for, the game has failed. At least, in the case of CTP2, they had the foresite to make the game very, VERY moddable. Unfortunately Firaxis has not had the same wisdom.

well did you get your money back? the last game that i thought was completely unplayable was SimCity3000, after two days of playing it i knew i would hate the game, and it wasn't even as fun as SimCity2000, so i took it back to Software Etc. exchanged it for SMAC and never looked back

i loved SC2k, and i hated SC3k, something wasn't right about it, they had lost the magic...i felt the same way about SC3k compared to SC2k as many of you feel about Civ3 compared to Civ2, however virtually all gamestores will let you exchang a game if you bring it back in less than a week, so if you hate Civ3, do what i did with SimCity3000, take it back and get another game and then write that game off

because all of you who think the game is flawed, and are hoping firaxis will take care of all of the issues, they won't, modders will go well beyond what firaxis will do, and even then they might not be able to make the game fun for you...while i'm sure that firaxis will fix bugs and will try to improve the gameplay some, they aren't going to totally overhaul civ3 in a patch, so if it is unplayable to you now, i doubt a patch will help, unless if it is one single issue that frustrates you

having said that though, even at full price, computer games are probably one of the best values for your entertainment dollar out there

you just need to find a game you like, wait till people you trust review it, and even then be prepared to exchange it if you don't like it

Brutus66 · March 15, 2002, 13:47

Quote:

Wait for Infogrames/Firaxis (tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum) to release the "Civilization III Gold Edition" which will no doubt give you the privelege of shelling out $50 for Civ3 with the features it sliced for a Christmas season shipping date.

He scored a direct hit here. Kinda reminds me of what the Bismark did to the Hood.

Quote:

try making your own game and making it better than Civ 3

Ridiculous comment, 1. Creating a good game takes a talented team a good long while. This guy just wanted to get what he thought he was buying, not empty promises.
I personally enjoy the game ok, but we play multiplayer games almost exlusively in our house on our lan. When I got Civ3 home and found it was single player only, it was essentially DOA as far as we were concerned. Sid's ears must have been burning that day...

DarthVeda · March 15, 2002, 16:33

I reguard quality of the work over timeliness of the release.

Jethro83 · March 16, 2002, 09:12

While it is understandable to be somewhat disappointed about the negatives of the game, it seems that some positives are forgotten. But anyway, the main reason releases are rushed isn't entirely the developer's fault. The corporate bigwigs who publish and market the games are at fault.

They bump timeliness to the top of their priorities list because they will make more money off it if it is released at Christmas time. Any other time and they consider it a liability.

Like anyone who loves a good game, I value quality over timeliness, and it is a problem that games with great potential end up axed unless they are churned out immediately by Christmas time. Civ III isn't the only example of this brutal mutilation of the gaming industry.

Take Ultima Ascension for example. Back in 1999, EA threatened to axe all funding towards Ultima Ascension if it wasn't released at Christmas time. Even though Richard Garriott and his team at Origin needed more time to get it right, EA didn't care. They had waited half a decade for Ultima Ascension to be released. It was continually bumped back due to new hardware technology. EA didn't care that the game wasn't ready, they wanted it out at Christmas with no excuses. Of course, Ultima Ascension was so unfinished that the beautiful plot that the first eight games in the series were renowned for was brutally mutilated. None of the pieces fit in place anymore.

Perhaps a better known example was Sin. That game promised to be an innovator in the First-Person shooter genre. Unfortunately, the corporate bigwigs who had the power over its release rushed it for Christmas. What ended up on store shelves was a dismal effort that only scored 45% reviews in the top PC magazines. Even an expansion with all promised fixes couldn't fix it and it ended up as one of the cheapest games in the bargain bin within a matter of months (most games take years to get like that).

What I am saying is that the rushed release of Civ III is relatively minor compared to a lot of games rushed for a christmas release. Before bagging the brilliant effort of Civ III (considering of course the time constraints), just stop and think about other potential gaming gems that were ruined in this way. You'll know then that it could definitely be far worse.

Jethro83 · March 16, 2002, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by DarthVeda
And for all interested parties, my avatar is William Bedford Diego, from System Shock 2. He is the captain of the Von Braun.

Indeed it is William Bedford Diego. But he is not the captain of the Von Braun. Anatoly Korenchkin was the captain of the Von Braun (the CEO of it if you will). Diego was the captain of the Rickenbacker, a destroyer that was piggybacking on the Von Braun using an elaborate (not really) umbilical system. The UNN were involved to ensure that things didn't go awry, although they failed to do that, and it cost a lot of crew their lives to the Many, a lot of other crew (including the CEO of the Von Braun) lost their individualities and humanity to the Many and the unnamed UNN soldier (the player) lost his humanity to SHODAN.

The Von Braun was owned exclusively by the Tri-Optimum Corporation. The Rickenbacker was a UNN military vessel.

Anyway, sorry for going off-topic. Something just needed correcting.

DarthVeda · March 16, 2002, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by LordAzreal

The Von Braun was owned exclusively by the Tri-Optimum Corporation. The Rickenbacker was a UNN military vessel.

Anyway, sorry for going off-topic. Something just needed correcting.

Yes you are indeed correct, that was a lapse of concentration on my part.

and....

"we are not Anatoly!"

roalan · March 16, 2002, 19:12

I find Civ3 to be OK in some ways better then 2 and other s not. What I did not like most about Civ2 was in order to win militarily you had to take every city on the map.I founfd that tedious and stupid. Also every country could produce tons of BB's Nukes stealth etc. At least in Civ 3 you can fix that. I do not like the corruption in Civ 3 and the hugh amount of cities you can build. But that also can be fixed. So I would say overall civ3 is better. Civ 4 will even be better and Civ12 will be perfect.at $50-75 bucks a shot (Civ 10-12 at $75) it will cost us over $600 for them to get it right.

CapTVK · March 17, 2002, 10:11

Quote:

Originally posted by roalan
I find Civ3 to be OK in some ways better then 2 and other s not. What I did not like most about Civ2 was in order to win militarily you had to take every city on the map.I founfd that tedious and stupid. Also every country could produce tons of BB's Nukes stealth etc. At least in Civ 3 you can fix that. I do not like the corruption in Civ 3 and the hugh amount of cities you can build. But that also can be fixed. So I would say overall civ3 is better. Civ 4 will even be better and Civ12 will be perfect.at $50-75 bucks a shot (Civ 10-12 at $75) it will cost us over $600 for them to get it right.

If money really is a problem you could help with playtesting Freeciv...

Venger · March 18, 2002, 13:03

Yet another person comes to realize Civ3 will be the most forgettable title in the series...

Alas, wherefore art thou Civ4!?

Venger

roalan · March 18, 2002, 17:17

What is this playtesting free Civ?
$ is no problem if the game is made correctly don't want to spend $50 ++ for another version of the same game. I am retired .

korn469 · March 18, 2002, 20:33

Quote:

What is this playtesting free Civ?
$ is no problem if the game is made correctly don't want to spend $50 ++ for another version of the same game. I am retired

roalan

free civ is an open source project to recreate civ/civ2 possibly civ3 now, as the name implies it is free all you need is a download

you can find out more about it at

www.freeciv.org

Coracle · March 18, 2002, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by number6
I agree that Civ II is a much better game and it came out over 6 years ago! Alpha Centauri had many really good features, but I did not find the game as interesting as Civ II. That is probably because I can't see how "Polymorphic Software" can give me better military units. In Civ the upgrades make more sense.

Damn straight.

Civ 3 is a BETA version with us having paid to be playtesters. Nice racket you have, Firaxis.

I have no doubt in a few months many of us will be back playing Civ 2. At least with it we had a Cheat Mode and could make scenarios.