civ 3 sucks

[pat01]

I ve always been abig sid meier's fan. I ve played everything and spent hundred hours on civ 2 over the years...over 5-6 years.
My expectations for civ 3 were VERY VERY high...I was really thrilled when I saw it in the store but now.-..after 3 days of intense playing I am kicking myself for spending so much money on such a waste of time.

the game just plainly sucks... even at the lowest levels the Ai cheats horribly, and all the enemies are incredibly aggressive...if you are under attack you will see every single one of your cities in a small amount of time by incredible armies coming from nowhere... the editor sucks, the changes in gameplay suck, diplomacy is worse than civ 2, the music is annoying, and the game lost all the emotion that civ 2 had (I really really liked the movies of the wonders and the big emphasis on them)..the game is unbalanced, dull, and...and this is the worse it is horribly slow... and I was thinking about civ 2 as slow between turns...this takes up to one minute!!! (pentium 3 600, 256mb ram)

also they took out fundamentalism (they say it was unbalancing...just change it!) and the option to play the world map with all civs starting from their real starting location...
as a long time civ 2 fan this hurts a bit =)

[Coracle]

It doesn't "suck".

It is just badly flawed, a beta product, and filled with half-witted ideas such as Culture Flipping, settler diarrhea, massive corruptions, and a lot of other stuff such as an inadequate Editor, no scenario-building and no cheat mode.

But if you paid fifty bucks for it you get HOSED.

[Grrr]

How many times have we seen these threads. They are pathetic. Pure

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by pat01
I ve always been abig sid meier's fan. I ve played everything and spent hundred hours on civ 2 over the years...over 5-6 years.
My expectations for civ 3 were VERY VERY high...I was really thrilled when I saw it in the store but now.-..after 3 days of intense playing I am kicking myself for spending so much money on such a waste of time.

the game just plainly sucks... even at the lowest levels the Ai cheats horribly, and all the enemies are incredibly aggressive...if you are under attack you will see every single one of your cities in a small amount of time by incredible armies coming from nowhere... the editor sucks, the changes in gameplay suck, diplomacy is worse than civ 2, the music is annoying, and the game lost all the emotion that civ 2 had (I really really liked the movies of the wonders and the big emphasis on them)..the game is unbalanced, dull, and...and this is the worse it is horribly slow... and I was thinking about civ 2 as slow between turns...this takes up to one minute!!! (pentium 3 600, 256mb ram)

also they took out fundamentalism (they say it was unbalancing...just change it!) and the option to play the world map with all civs starting from their real starting location...
as a long time civ 2 fan this hurts a bit =)

So, basically, you wanted to pay $50 for Civ 2 w/ better graphics?

[Coracle]

Actually, the color palette of Civ 2 was much better.

Civ 3's map has ugly colors with hunks of stuff (an aluminum garbage can?!?) that make the map look like a dump. The mountains look like giant red zits.

[Cyclotron]

I too am an ardent player of Civ2, and have been for many years. Please consider answering a few questions for me:

Originally posted by pat01 the game just plainly sucks... even at the lowest levels the Ai cheats horribly, and all the enemies are incredibly aggressive...if you are under attack you will see every single one of your cities in a small amount of time by incredible armies coming from nowhere...

Doesn't it seem, though, that Civ3 is actually challenging compared to Civ2 Diety? Cheating isn't good, but Civ2 did it wildly so it doesn't seem like it's valid to hammer on Civ3 for that.

the editor sucks

Yes.

the changes in gameplay suck

Could you elaborate?

diplomacy is worse than civ 2

Really? I find the bargaining table to be immensely more complex, enjoyable, and diverse than the Civ2 system. What, precisely, did you think was worse than Civ2?

[Tuberski]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the graphics are better, but stuff like the wonder movies are really a waste of time. That being said, the time not spent making wonder movies should have gone to making the gameplay better.

[Grrr]

Actually, the color palette of Civ 2 was much better.

Well why don't you make a mod for CivII and stick to that then!

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by pat01
I ve always been abig sid meier's fan. I ve played everything and spent hundred hours on civ 2 over the years...over 5-6 years.
My expectations for civ 3 were VERY VERY high...I was really thrilled when I saw it in the store but now.-..after 3 days of intense playing I am kicking myself for spending so much money on such a waste of time.

the game just plainly sucks...

Pat01,

I'm not that fond of Firaxis' moves either, but let's be honest about it: civ3 doesn't suck! It disappoints in some ways, but it appeals in other ways: I won't get back to civ2, that's for sure.

I'm also somewhat disappointed in Firaxis latest patch: they could have done so much better if they had better followed up and implemented some of our suggestions.

But I'm sorry to say (please don't feel offended ), you've got no right to complain: you've only played for THREE DAYS !!!!!

You may know from your civ2 experiences that it takes a lot LONGER to get to know games such as these ...
and after having read your post it's rather clear to me that you still have to learn almost everything about the game.

Lately I don't experience early aggressiveness from AI civs at all anymore (emp AND deity). It's YOU and YOUR gameplay that defines the AI's attitude toward you.

Come back within three weeks or better months, then you'd know what you're talking about.

Right now you just can't!

AJ

PS: hundred hours civ2: that's a minor achievement if you'd ask me. (equals 1 to 6 months playing civ2, not 5 to 6 years as you falsely claim) Real civ2 players know better!

[Grrr]

AJ is FAIR in what he says.

100 hours of Civ 2. Isn't that like 2 games, probably on chieftain.

[Grrr]

Oops double post.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Grrr
AJ is FAIR in what he says.

100 hours of Civ 2. Isn't that like 2 games, probably on chieftain.

Man, you're fast!

(and right on top as well )

AJ

[Grrr]

Someone like that can't claim to know CivII anyway. I wonder if he reached 100% approvemnet rating.

[Thrawn05]

One question: Did you download 1.21f patch? If not, then don't complain, because we've seen plenty of posts like yours.

BTW: I have a P3 550Mhz and 256MB of SDRAM, and I don't have to wait a minute on the larger maps. Perhaps you should turn off the music, but I guess you like the music since you didn't mention it in your complaints.

[Spock]

AJ is right.....give it time before sending Civ3 to suckcity(this goes for any game) . It took me 3 days to just finish my first game...I lost it....then I lost 4 or 5 more in a row before I won one(then only after reading what Vel had to say concerning strategy...a thread I highly recommend for beginners)

Have patience...then have some more.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by pat01
....after 3 days of intense playing I am kicking myself for spending so much money on such a waste of time......

That sure qualifies you as an expert.

[Tuberski]

How can you hate a game you play INTENSELY?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Tuberski
How can you hate a game you play INTENSELY?

self-mutilation. a great way to relieve stress.

[Sarxis]

pat01:

Don't mind these guys- they have been put through a lot over this game--

Yin-gate
The Apolyton Civil War
Firaxism
Bugs that give wanted features, but are fixed (taking away features)

Plus they have seen so many 'Civ3 sucks' threads to make even the stoutest reader fail in his convictions.

[Though, the mere fact of so many such threads must make one wonder...
]

[Dida]

Well, Civ3 has the potential to be a great game. Bu at this point, this game is so friggin buggy and uninteresting and disappointing to play, I simply stopped playing it 2 months ago. Just think about it, every patch has about 30 bug fixes on them, and the # of bugs never seems to decrease. Civ3 is completely screwed, it will never be a great game, that is hopeless. At this point, I got Warcraft 3 and AOC to play until Age of Mythology come out.
So, forget about Civ3, it is a dead game. Or will be pretty soon.
The most interesting thing about Warcraft 3 beta is that, it contains 10 time LESS bugs than the retail version of Civ3. Think about it. Firaxis, you can do a better job.

[notyoueither]

Anunikoba. Good points. Except you can read too much into the number of detractors. How many of them are first time civ'ers who are disappointed? How many are die-hard Civ2/SMAX players? Many, many, many, nay, it's an uberload of the later. Is it a bad game? Or is it just too different from Civ2? I would put $5 on the impossible bet that if MP were out right now, UberKruX would be shouting down any of the detractors. What will happen when MP comes out?

Dida. Stay tuned. 1.21 has actually been play tested by players. Can you imagine that! Wow.

But once again, it aint done yet... so it's a little early for final verdicts. These threads are just some of the burdens that we must carry. I've grown philosophical about them (for the most part). In the end they are not going to have much, if any influence on the outcome.

BTW. Does the pat01 DL dance?

[codemast01]

time not spent making wonder movies should have gone to making the gameplay better.

I totally agree. Unfortunately, I think they spent too much time on the 3d leaders instead.

wonder movies are really a waste of time.

The wonders movies are boring after the 3rd game. However I still find the advisor movies hilarious.

No CivIII doesn't suck. It is average. This is not terrible but definately not a compliment either.

[MarkG]

i'm going to close this thread simply because it's boring....

better arguments next time, thanks!