Are you satisfied?

PatLasch · April 9, 2002, 05:45

In the same spirit as the multiplayer poll. Are you satisfied with Civ3? Simple choices of yes, no, or yes but I wish there was more to it.

Yes, but I wish there was more to it would mean that you are satisfied with it, but still want more. Which would be coming in an expansion pack or patch.

Thanks for voting.

kailhun · April 9, 2002, 07:04

I voted 'yes, but I wish there was more.' Although satisfied isn't entirely correct. It's more I don't feel ripped off. But civ3 is far below par in my opinion.
I've played it since it came out and enjoy it. But less and less. Although the aggressive tech trading accounts for the latest dip in enjoyment.
What disappoints me most is that Civ 3 could so easily have been so much better. It is a wasted opportunity to evolve the civ-line. A pity, a great pity.

Robert

delfino · April 9, 2002, 07:15

in fact I wish there was a lot more. more units, more buildings, more wonders, more resources, more civs, more techs, more options, more terraforming. And even, this may come as a surprise: more turns.

PatLasch · April 9, 2002, 10:09

So far only 21% are not satisfied. Firaxis is a busines and so far it looks like they have left people wanting more, Isn't that what they should be doing? They haven't abandoned the game, and we all know that more is planned. They're doing their best.

Martin Gühmann · April 9, 2002, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by delfino
in fact I wish there was a lot more. more units, more buildings, more wonders, more resources, more civs, more techs, more options, more terraforming. And even, this may come as a surprise: more turns.

So did you ever tried modded CTP2, it offers all this stuff? And more governments, more tile improvements, more terrains, more features.

And if This is not enough add some more buildings, wonders, terrains, orders, goods, governments, buildings, units, tile improvements, techs, AI strategies, turns, city styles, ages. And if you find this is just some boring rhule tweaking than add some new features, if you ever wanted to enslave the whole population of a city when you conquer it - no problem thanks to the scripting language slic. Or what about prisioners of war or refugies, re-adding the element of guerillas known from Civ2. A pop-boom when a certain advance is discovered...

-Martin

AJ Corp. The FAIR · April 9, 2002, 11:41

I've just met Zylka's avatar.

So yeah,

I'm satisfied now

AJ

Wittlich · April 9, 2002, 11:58

Is Civ3 a good game with a lot of potential? - Yes.

Am I satisfied with the game as it stands right now? - No.

The main reason I originally bought 2 copies of Civ3 (Limited Edition no less) was for the possibility of multiplay. For the most part, I only play civilization with multiplay (my roommate and I play over our household LAN). So IMO, I will not be satified until there is the eventual release of Civ3 MGE (for lack of a better name).

Oh, and yes Martin, while we await the release of Civ3 MP, my roommate and I continue play the modded CTP2 over our LAN. There are still a few minor resync problems, but overall - It's great!

ixnay · April 9, 2002, 13:18

I'm satisfied. I'm sure there will be more eventually, but as it stands now I enjoy the game and have fun with it.

DrSpike · April 9, 2002, 18:06

I voted yes, but.....

I have played civ3 more than any other game I've bought for a while, but the simplified nature of the gameplay as regards civ2 or SMAC is disappointing. I think a lot will depend on whether the game can be succesfully adapted for MP, a prospect that to me looks unlikely.

Coracle · April 9, 2002, 19:29

Not a chance.

Civ III is likely the most irritating disappointing game I've ever played. Not the worst game, just the most disappointing.

At fifty dollars a pop I expected more than a flawed beta game that needed at least another six months of development.

Ninot · April 9, 2002, 20:14

In the immortal words of Shakespeare

"I am satisfied" -Antony, in Antony and Cleopatra

just a note... i dont believe in being satisfied and wanting more...

thats like having a true or false question, and answering all of the above.

PatLasch · April 9, 2002, 20:39

I included the wanting more choice to give an option for those who really want multiplayer or scenarios but are satisfied with the game as it is.

Andrew Cory · April 9, 2002, 22:44

I have wasted more time with this game than I care to think about. On a pure entertainment/US$ scale, I have gotten my money's worth and more...

I do have a few minor quibbles with the game, and things that I would have done differently had I been the designer. Having said that, on its own terms, Civ3 is _great_...

For instance, Culture is a _wonderfull_ idea. I don't know how much it actualy mirrors real life, but that is almost beside the point; I can now steal a city based on how cool my empire is! Do I need to secure my border? Build a cathedral...

Bombardment is an awesome idea, and one that I am deligted to see. It needs a bit of fine tuneing (immagine if they had horses pulling those cannon, giving them a movement of 2, or if you could set the %-to-hit for any bombardment unit.), but this is a welcomed addition to the game...

Leaders are an interesting addition, one that adds a bit to the overall stratagy and complexity. Do I go to war for a leader? Do I build an Army (an army being a powerfull unit), or do I rush a wonder, generating more culture? Or do I stay at peace? Decisions, decisions...

Resources. Gods, this is an idea whose time is well past. Why go to war if not for resources? I wish they were incremental instead of one size fits all, but that might add too much complexity to the game. Having said that, this idea makes trade all that more importaint...

Corruption. Ok, I admit, I add a few more forbidon pali to the game. But with corruption being a factor, I have a whole new layer of decisions to make, and these decisions will effect my entire game. Republics may be more corruption prone, but they also don't get war weary as fast. Which is more neccisary? More layers the better...

Come one, I have heard each and every one of these factors being *****ed about, and yet I have to shake my head. Yes, there are imperfections in the execution, (that's why I voted "yes but I wish there was more to it. "), but I can see what they are going for, and I like it. Moreover, I can see what they have achived, and I like that as well...

Inverse Icarus · April 9, 2002, 23:31

not satisfied.

N. Machiavelli · April 10, 2002, 01:32

Satisfied? No.
Content? Kinda.

I'm none too concerned with multiplayer, but my beef with Civ3 is that is seemed to be designed around the AI, rather than the AI designed around the game. Many concepts were tweaked/removed because they made the revelation that a $50 AI is less sophisticated than the human brain. As a result they confine the game into a scope within the understanding of the AI, and not the potential of the player.

Take a look at the 100000000 gold/turn exploit in the game's release. It was, indeed, a flaw and was 'corrected'. You can no longer ask the AI for 100000000 gold/ turn. Then again, you can no longer ask for 1 gold/ turn either.
How about another exploit involving capturing a city, selling it back to the AI for a ridiculous amount of money, then recapture and repeat. Well again they 'fixed' it. I can now no longer sell a city. I can give hundreds of thousands of my citizens away for free, but can no longer sell a city I captured on another continent to an ally on the same continent.

They heard the horror stories of evil humans crushing their pathetic AI in Civs gone past and adopted the policy of shaping the game around the limits of the AI when they discovered that expanding the AI around the ni-limitless possibilities of the game was too much work. Then, when exploits were discovered around their limitations, they removed the concepts outright rather than attempting to adapt the system around it. It's akin to amputating an arm because of a hangnail.

Civ3, if taken by itself without considering the prequels or releases made by other companies, is ok. After all, this isn't "SMAC2". But an evolutionary progression should never have even been an issue. Instead, we have a de-evolutionary step. They took out the great concepts in SMAC and Civ2 and gave us bobbing, animated, cartoon leaderheads. Customizible units were traded for 'resources' (the system were saltpeter is considered so widely spread that I can build Riflemen without it and yet still need it for Cavelry). "Please call off your war against my friend, XXXX." gave way to "Give them 100,000 gold in exchange for 1 gold? They'll never accept such a deal!". Terraforming? Farming? We cant have players attempting to turn a 50% defense bonus hill into a 10% defense bonus(huh?) grassland tile? If we did that, the Tank might have realistic odds against the Pikeman in an open field.

This kinda just turned into a semi-rant. I apologise for that. Those who do not already have me on their 'Ignore' list, feel free to do it now.

I'm probably going to go back to my 1-City Diety game now.

delfino · April 10, 2002, 02:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann

So did you ever tried modded CTP2, it offers all this stuff? And more governments, more tile improvements, more terrains, more features.

And if This is not enough add some more buildings, wonders, terrains, orders, goods, governments, buildings, units, tile improvements, techs, AI strategies, turns, city styles, ages. And if you find this is just some boring rhule tweaking than add some new features, if you ever wanted to enslave the whole population of a city when you conquer it - no problem thanks to the scripting language slic. Or what about prisioners of war or refugies, re-adding the element of guerillas known from Civ2. A pop-boom when a certain advance is discovered...

-Martin

yeah I know that there a lot of additions to CTP2. but I would like to see some of that stuff going into Civ3 as well. in fact I would like to be able to merge the two together. have ceased to play CTP2 long ago, might have another go at it soon.

Martin Gühmann · April 10, 2002, 10:48

Quote:

Originally posted by delfino
yeah I know that there a lot of additions to CTP2. but I would like to see some of that stuff going into Civ3 as well. in fact I would like to be able to merge the two together. have ceased to play CTP2 long ago, might have another go at it soon.

N. Machiavelli discribed the problem here perfectly, if a feature needs too much work than it won't be included or if it won't work in the final game than it will be removed, so costumizability is a feature that seems to require a lot of work, so Firaxis says we can't handle it so no way. The same is true for stacked combat armies instead of units, the problem here is that you have to write some routines for your AI to stack its units, so Firaxis thought that is to much work let's skip, and there are right that this is a lot of work and if it does not work than the AI would look lame, passive and stupid. But it is always worth to do this kind of work.

Some of the other features I mentioned above requires a scripting language like slic in CTP2 or the availability of the Civ3 source code. But I think a scripting language won't be in Civ3:

"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis

Mike just forgot one thing a scripting language gives also the power to the user to fix the bugs of the programers, and increases the potential of the game immense. So I must say Civ3 is to cautious or better to shy in improving the genre. But I must admid Firaxis is just a game company that wants to make money. And from this point of view Civ3 is a success it doesn't count for them if you play the game in three years still. Actual that would be bad for them as you wouldn't desire to buy a new game. So they just try to maximize their profit by minimizing their work. And their aren't punished so far, here in Berlin the German version of the game I think is still offered for 50? actual 40? - 45? is a good price for a new game but I would say Civ3 is now worth 30? - 35? not more rather less.

-Martin

Harovan · April 10, 2002, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
But I must admid Firaxis is just a game company that wants to make money.

At least Firaxis released a game, sure with many flaws, but it's a game. Not like Activision, who sold the customers a game construction kit with a lousy demo for the price of a game.

Andrew Cory · April 10, 2002, 12:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

At least Firaxis released a game, sure with many flaws, but it's a game. Not like Activision, who sold the customers a game construction kit with a lousy demo for the price of a game.

Oh dear, which game was that?

ahenobarb · April 10, 2002, 13:03

Quote:

Originally posted by PatLasch
So far only 21% are not satisfied. Firaxis is a busines and so far it looks like they have left people wanting more, Isn't that what they should be doing? They haven't abandoned the game, and we all know that more is planned. They're doing their best.

It depends on how you interpret the poll. "Yes, but I wish there were more", sounds restless. I don't think too many people want to blaze guns and say "dissatisfied". But there could and indeed should be more (I think everyone had been expecting more, at least I know I did in the run up to the development of Civ III).

You're right there are doing their best, but shouldn't they be doing their best to give us "more"?

Martin Gühmann · April 10, 2002, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
At least Firaxis released a game, sure with many flaws, but it's a game. Not like Activision, who sold the customers a game construction kit with a lousy demo for the price of a game.

Actual it is a construction kit, it allows to create unlimited games next to the original game, currently we have five diffrent games: MedPack2, ApolytonPack, Cradle, World at War and of course GoodMod, and that isn't the end. Activision's fault to drop the game to early in order to maximize their profit. So in the end Firaxis just released one single game and not five or more. At least CTP2 never cost more than a game like Civ3, Sid's name does not improve it so much, that it is worth the extra money, but there are people think exactly this and bought it.

-Martin

Dr Strangelove · April 10, 2002, 16:33

NO! I'm not satisfied! Civ 3 is just as bad as Civ:CTP! When I've completely eliminated a civilization, and I do mean with absolute certainty, and that civ refuses to die and continues to be technically at war with me thereby causing a permanent major morale problem, I call that faulty programming. Face it, Civ 3 is bugged!

The Activision support staff for CTP was bad enough, they were utterly useless and arrogant as well, but the Civ 3 support staff won't even reply to e-mail....ever.

I will never buy another Firaxis game, and I will never again buy one of Sid's games. Tragically he has killed the very genre he created.

Inverse Icarus · April 10, 2002, 17:00

a lot of people would consider a construction set a step up from civ3

Unspeakable Horror · April 10, 2002, 18:57

You are right!

Uncle Thade · April 10, 2002, 19:05

I voted No! also, I am not satisfied at all with this product and it came out in a seriously flawed state. I have spoken at length with many of my friends who are civer's and we, all 13 of us, have come to the conclusion that FIRAXIS should recall this product and finish it!!!

While there are some fantastic things in this new imagining of CIV I believe INFORGRAMES forced FIRAXIS to push out this yet undeveloped product.

The litany of complaints in this forum is an indication of how many problems there are in this game.

For example: AI that just won't listen, when asked to move from your territory it simply meanders about your empire trying to find it's way home; AI that is far too skewed in favor of the AI dominating ( I wouldn't mind if the AI was balanced and trade, Technology Trading, asinine deals, etc.); War, yeah sometimes I like to be a warmonger, but this war weariness is also asinine, once again it should be like pollution in previous CIV's turn it on or off; Battleships versus Frigates, Tanks vs. Phalanx's is still not fixed; no multiplayer (as promised); unrealistic movement through the ages; AI city building is freaking hilarious (how much code is skewed to ensure it builds non stop with no hinderance from government, technology, etc.); AI Unit overbuilding when having to sit through 8 civs and anywhere from 30 - 100 units on screen moving even with everything turned off is monotonous, I have yet to have the patience to finish a game where I don't have to sit and watch the parade of units; mid to late game boredom and imbalance; Advances that are only worth advancing to another advance and give no value what so ever after discovering them; GW's not doing their jobs; laughable dimplomacy ( i've seen better in my little sister's Playtime with Barbie when Ken comes over to put the moves on the old Barbster); I've said this before but Wonder Movies (yeah we all turn them off after a while) but they inspired me several times when I had played CIVII for the millionth time; flawed combat, resources, no terraforming and so on and so forth... I could go on for pages.

Anyhow, I am uninstalling, trading CIV III in and finding a game that isn't unfinished and full of imbalanced gameplay. I have never finished this game and I have been CIVing since CIV came out, so this is truly a depressing day for me. My gaming money is very important to me and when I am duped into buying something just because it has somebodies name attached to it (shall we revisit Diakatana), I for one am very offended and sad that the industry has come to this. I could have waited another year for CIV III, but then again who's to say that extra year would have helped. Compared to CIV III, SMAC-X and CIV II are masterpieces. It will be a while before FIRAXIS gets my trust back, so we'll see how they handle an expansion and multiplayer, but for now I am shelving everything FIRAXIS. I hope the MOO3 team looked at CIV III and said to themsleves better not do any of this...

...still I am faithful fan of the CIV series and will continue to support it but CIV III is quite frankly a coffee coaster.

Thrawn05 · April 10, 2002, 20:46

I'm still happy with Civ3. I just bough JK2, and find myself playing Civ3 more then that (I sent JK2 back BTW).

SpencerH · April 10, 2002, 22:15

No.

BucksRock · April 10, 2002, 23:51

Definitely NO as well. So what's the "ignore percentage" on this one, Danny-boy?

hexagonian · April 11, 2002, 10:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
At least Firaxis released a game, sure with many flaws, but it's a game. Not like Activision, who sold the customers a game construction kit with a lousy demo for the price of a game.

Ahhh..., but now CTP2 can be had cheaply, and due to the work of Modding community, is suddenly looking a lot better.

Here's one for you...

Firaxis will release a comprehensive Editor as a Gold Edition (and they WILL charge for it, mark my words) and the customer will end up paying a lot more for the civ3 experience than he paid for the CTP2 experience.

Funny, because the Editor was promoted as an included feature before the game ever hit the shelves.

And Firaxis has already said that any scripting language used in civ3 will not be released because they (Firaxis) do not think that the fans will have any ability with it other than to create more bugs!!!

I'll stay with the incredible construction kit that is CTP2, thank you very much.

Nostromo · April 11, 2002, 14:54

Yin pointed out a while ago that satisfaction is function of expectation. Those who expected that Civ 3 would be God's gift to civers are, understandably, very disappointed right now. Well, believe it or not, I actually enjoy this game. It's not perfect, far from it, but I nonetheless enjoy it. And for those who expect too much out of life, I would suggest the following website.

www.despair.com