Thread Tools
Old May 13, 2002, 18:59   #31
Akka
Prince
 
Akka's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In front of my computer.
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Then why do people choose to boycott CivIII? I've seen many messages go like this:

"Civilization 3 sucks and Infogrames sucked us out and betrayed us. I'm never going to play Civ3. At least Civ 2 Multiplayer Community has been revived"

I mean, if something's improved, and you like it more than any other Civ (Including Civilization II) then why express so much negativity? Why pay attention to how many improvements have been made, instead of what the contents are?
I do not boycott Civ3. Some are, because the change in gameplay are just not up to their taste. Others just prefer the previous magic that Civ2 has. Others are nostalgics. Others just feel so betrayed that they don't want to have anything to do with Civ3.
Personnally, I play Civ3 because there has been some improvements that I just can't do without (support system in gold for the whole civ instead of the hideous stupid system of the "home city", graphics upgrades), but I still come back sometimes for a little game of AC.

Quote:
If I recieve a package in my mailbox and it's in a brown box and then I open it to find a million dollars, I'll be happy. If the next day I recieve a package in a green box, the packaging hasn't improved much. But when I open it, if I see that there is three million dollars, I will be even happier. Moral? Don't pay attention to how much it 'improves', pay attention to what the contents are.
That's a very, very silly comparison. Very.
We're not talking about gifts here, we're talking about products. It's like if you own a 5 years-old Pentium 166 MHz, and you go to buy a new comp. This new comp ends to be a Celeron 333 MHz. It's much better than your previous computer. Still, compared to what is the today's standard (Athlon/P4 at more than 1,5 GHz), it's pretty below.
COMPARATIVELY, your old Pentium fared much better, as the computers at this time were at max at 200 MHz.

Quote:
I offer a theory. Most of you were exposed to Civilization II before Civilization III. I myself was exposed to Civilization III more than Civilization II. I had no expectations for Civilization III, so therefore I enjoyed it. I had high expectations for Civ2 because of all the praise its getting, but it disappointed me.
I was exposed to Baldur 1 much sooner than Baldur 2. Still, I found Baldur 1 to be a big pile of Sh, while Baldur 2 was one of my favourite all-time games.
I was exposed to Frontier for years before playing First Encounter. I loved both. Still, I prefer First Encounter.
So I don't think that "being exposed first" is a good answer.

Quote:
I see the same thing happening in the forums, except Civilization III is the one coming after Civilization II. High expectations were set upon Civilization III, as high of expectations as I had for Civilization II.

Yet it failed to meet up to expectations for me, just as Civilization has for you.
Again : you can't compare a 5-years old game to a shiny new one. Civ2 is better than Civ3 RELATIVELY OF THE TIME, not absolutly.
Another example on top of the Pentium one : Duke Nukem 3D could be run in 800x600. It was a pretty high resolution for the time. Diablo 2 can be run in 800x600 too. It's as good as Duke Nukem. Though, the standard now is not 640x480 like it was five years ago. It's now more about 1024x768. So, though they reach the same max resolution, Duke Nukem had a higher resolution in its time than Diablo2 has in its time, so we can say that Duke Nukem has a better resolution than Diablo2.

Hope I was not too hard to understand
__________________
Science without conscience is the doom of the soul.
Akka is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 19:33   #32
Nubclear
NationStatesCall to Power II Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamRise of Nations MultiplayerACDG The Human HiveNever Ending StoriesACDG The Free DronesACDG The Cybernetic ConsciousnessGalCiv Apolyton EmpireACDG3 SpartansC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansCiv4 SP Democracy GameDiplomacyAlpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV PBEMAlpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG Peace
PolyCast Thread Necromancer
 
Nubclear's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: We are all Asher now.
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally posted by Fitz

Because CivIII is not an improvement in more areas that it is an improvement. The AI is improved. The graphics are (IMO) about the same as SMAC, although I can see that having been exposed to them first, I might easily think that.
I agree with you in a sense that the resultion of the units, etc...Is the same. However in Civ III IMO, are much more fresh. I can tell what terrain is what. Which unit is what. I can tell a pikeman from a spearman from a warrior from a Panzer. I personally just don't get that in SMAC.

Quote:
However, the complexity of the game has been reduced drastically, generally to the detriment of the game, and the help/Civlopedia has definately been dumbed down from SMAC, if slightly more comprehensive.
I disagree that it's simplicity is to the detriment of the game. I enjoy it very much. Yes, there is room for improvement in that area, but I personally do not believe it detracts from the game.

Pac-Man is a very simple game, yet it can be extremly fun at times.

Quote:
The simplicity may of course be the reason for an improved AI ::shrug:: but the whole of the package is that is is worse. A good stand alone, but worse in comparison, and that's an overall worse, with few standout improvements.
I agree that there are good and bad things about every game. I disagree however, that civilization is an "overall worse" when compared to Civ II or even SMAC.

My issues with SMAC are mainly the graphics. My eyes aren't quite as good as they should be, and trying to pick out green dots in a pink infested world can be quite difficult. I usually just build and I got a good spot.
There are also numerous graphical oddities with SMAC that sometimes crash my game. Sometimes I even get a BSoD. But SMAC, in my opinion, is good enough to keep playing. But I personally would never say it's better than Civilization III.

In fact, I hold them at equal regard. I like Civilization III because it's fun. I really can't explain why I like Civilization III, I just do. With SMAC, it allows me to use my imagionation. The storyline is so well thought out, and theres so much fiction to it.

But, that is just how I feel.
Nubclear is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 19:36   #33
Fitz
King
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: & Anarchist
Posts: 1,689
I guess I'm just a complexity freak.
Fitz is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 19:50   #34
Swissy
Civilization III MultiplayerTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersCivilization III PBEMRise of Nations MultiplayerIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerBtS Tri-League
 
Swissy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,436
IMHO we have the negativity because of the forums. I watched as many civers piled thread upon thread and reply upon reply in these forums for well over a year on how this civ community preceived Civ3 should be. Ideas were collected, shifted and collated into lists that were gleefully sent to Firaxis. When the bits of the game were revealed, most civers ignored the warnings that Civ3 wasn't going to be what they expected (wanted?). Those who dared cast doubt on what true form the game would take were flamed and in some cases banned. Then the game was released, it was (shuddder) not what we expected. Add to this the bugs and holes in the game code. I am surprised that there is not more scathing remarks about the game, the designers and publisher.
__________________
"The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved - loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."--Victor Hugo
Swissy is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 19:52   #35
Nubclear
NationStatesCall to Power II Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamRise of Nations MultiplayerACDG The Human HiveNever Ending StoriesACDG The Free DronesACDG The Cybernetic ConsciousnessGalCiv Apolyton EmpireACDG3 SpartansC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansCiv4 SP Democracy GameDiplomacyAlpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV PBEMAlpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG Peace
PolyCast Thread Necromancer
 
Nubclear's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: We are all Asher now.
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I do not boycott Civ3. Some are, because the change in gameplay are just not up to their taste. Others just prefer the previous magic that Civ2 has. Others are nostalgics. Others just feel so betrayed that they don't want to have anything to do with Civ3.
Personnally, I play Civ3 because there has been some improvements that I just can't do without (support system in gold for the whole civ instead of the hideous stupid system of the "home city", graphics upgrades), but I still come back sometimes for a little game of AC.
Alright. That's your right. And even I love Alpha Centauri, just look at my avatar.

Quote:
That's a very, very silly comparison. Very.
We're not talking about gifts here, we're talking about products. It's like if you own a 5 years-old Pentium 166 MHz, and you go to buy a new comp. This new comp ends to be a Celeron 333 MHz. It's much better than your previous computer. Still, compared to what is the today's standard (Athlon/P4 at more than 1,5 GHz), it's pretty below.
COMPARATIVELY, your old Pentium fared much better, as the computers at this time were at max at 200 MHz.
Correct, but that does not change the fact that the Celeron 333 is better. Again, why spend time comparing instead of spending time playing?

Quote:
I was exposed to Baldur 1 much sooner than Baldur 2. Still, I found Baldur 1 to be a big pile of Sh, while Baldur 2 was one of my favourite all-time games.
I was exposed to Frontier for years before playing First Encounter. I loved both. Still, I prefer First Encounter.
So I don't think that "being exposed first" is a good answer.
If I may quote myself...

Quote:
I offer a theory. Most of you were exposed to Civilization II before Civilization III.
The operative word being theory. Who knows, this may be the case for the majority of Civilization players, or it may not be. I am simply offering a theory. It's possible, is it not?






Quote:
Again : you can't compare a 5-years old game to a shiny new one. Civ2 is better than Civ3 RELATIVELY OF THE TIME, not absolutly.
Then do you agree with me that Civ 3 is better than Civ 3 absolutely ?


Quote:
Another example on top of the Pentium one : Duke Nukem 3D could be run in 800x600. It was a pretty high resolution for the time. Diablo 2 can be run in 800x600 too. It's as good as Duke Nukem. Though, the standard now is not 640x480 like it was five years ago. It's now more about 1024x768. So, though they reach the same max resolution, Duke Nukem had a higher resolution in its time than Diablo2 has in its time, so we can say that Duke Nukem has a better resolution than Diablo2.

Hope I was not too hard to understand
Not at all

Correct, but they both now reach the same resolution. If your computer was frozen on 1024x768, and let's just say for the sake of conversation that that resolution was the only one that Diablo2 could go to...For you personally, will Duke Nukem have a better solution or will Diablo 2 have better resolution?

It all comes down to which you prefer. I prefer Civilization III because it has a fun factor for me, where Civlization II has none. For others, its quite the opposite. Civilization III has no fun factor, while Civilization II has it all. Others do not care. Some others like you (assuming that I an understanding you correctly) prefer Civilization II over Civilization III because at the time, it was better. (I am not sure if that came out correctly, I do hope you know what I mean.)

But back to my original question: Why the Anti-Civ3 attitude? For me, it just does not seem logical for someone to prefer Game A over Game B just because it was better at the time, when Game B is overall, superior.

I hope that I made sense
Nubclear is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 20:16   #36
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
I haven't played a game with the new patch, so what I have to say may change when, eventually, I do. However, I do not like Civ III. I adored Civ, Civ II and SMACx. Each took the series to a higher level. I would play game after game, adicted to the adrenalin. However, I am now so turned off, that I haven't played a game of Civ - any version - for several months. I expect that when I do play a game again, it will be SMACx, not Civ III. SMACx remains the best game in the series, IMHO.

Ned
Ned is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 20:36   #37
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally posted by LordAzreal
I too find it strange that so many whiners make their way onto these forums.

When they whine about it, I often find their complaints somewhat exaggerated. Though I do see problems in the areas they are whining about, I find their negative attitude and anger off-putting. It gets harder to have a decent discussion when a whiner enters the thread.

YOU seem to be doing all the "whining", whining about those who criticize this very flawed beta game.

And I feel the same way about the mindless Firaxis fanboys and their other flacks.
Coracle is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 20:42   #38
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
Re: Why the Anti-Civ3 Attitude?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tassadar5000
While playing Civilization III today, I realized something. So I go through the Civilization III forums, and I mainly see messages that are slamming, insulting, or are otherwise deragatory messages towards Civilization III. I have to ask the question: Why?

SIMPLE ANSWER:

We do not like getting ripped off by Firaxis with their underdeveloped flawed game, a game missing VITAL basic features such as scenario-building, MP, and cheat mode.

The game as it is even now has so many problems, ranging from idiotic Culture Flipping to braindead AI diplomacy. See other threads for particulars and details.

We expected BETTER than Civ 2 in concept and implementation; a game more involved and developed. Instead, Inforgrames clearly had Firaxis DUMB DOWN the Civilization game to try to make more profits by appealing to a wider (more ignorant) public, and that is why they plan to market a whole load of future disks containing features the original should have had in the first place.
Coracle is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 21:03   #39
Tuberski
 
Tuberski's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ACK!! PPHHHHTTBBBTTTT!!!
Posts: 7,022
Re: Re: Why the Anti-Civ3 Attitude?
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Coracle



SIMPLE ANSWER:

Quote:
We do not like getting ripped off by Firaxis with their underdeveloped flawed game, a game missing VITAL basic features such as scenario-building, MP, and cheat mode.
You had no MP with Civ 2, and crappy scenarios. Why do you feel you NEED cheat mode? Some people don't play MP or Scenarios.


Quote:
The game as it is even now has so many problems, ranging from idiotic Culture Flipping to braindead AI diplomacy. See other threads for particulars and details.
Many people like culture flipping. Diplomacy is better than Civ 2.

Quote:
We expected BETTER than Civ 2 in concept and implementation; a game more involved and developed. Instead, Inforgrames clearly had Firaxis DUMB DOWN the Civilization game to try to make more profits by appealing to a wider (more ignorant) public, and that is why they plan to market a whole load of future disks containing features the original should have had in the first place.
You do realize, don't you, that at one time you were a part of that wider (and more ignorant) public. As were we all. You have three arguments that you use over and over, and yet you never support those arguments.
__________________
"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside. Look out, he's fuzzy, let's get out of here."
Tuberski is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 21:12   #40
Jethro83
Prince
 
Jethro83's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 834
Re: Re: Why the Anti-Civ3 Attitude?
Quote:
Originally posted by Coracle
SIMPLE ANSWER:

We do not like getting ripped off by Firaxis with their underdeveloped flawed game, a game missing VITAL basic features such as scenario-building, MP, and cheat mode.
True. Scenario-building, multiplayer, etc. are deeply missed. Still, no excuse to Satanise Firaxis. If anyone should be Satanised, its Infogrames. They control the funding that goes into publishing this game. They control how and when it is released. Unfortunately, the game was still incomplete around Christmas time. It suffers from Pre-Chrismas Rush Syndrome. However, it is still a decent game considering. It was INFOGRAMES who ripped you off.

Quote:
The game as it is even now has so many problems, ranging from idiotic Culture Flipping to braindead AI diplomacy. See other threads for particulars and details.
Again, Pre-Christmas Rush Syndrome. The powers that be (Infogrames) forced its release. Firaxis would've done a better job if given more time to do it. But considering they didn't have that time, these problems are minor. And all the whining I see of them is exaggerated.

Quote:
We expected BETTER than Civ 2 in concept and implementation; a game more involved and developed. Instead, Inforgrames clearly had Firaxis DUMB DOWN the Civilization game to try to make more profits by appealing to a wider (more ignorant) public,
The mindless minions of capitalist society are unfortunately, the majority of the western world. Infogrames knows this, and as such steers Firaxis into the direction that will appeal to them.

Quote:
and that is why they plan to market a whole load of future disks containing features the original should have had in the first place.
Firaxis probably DID want to initially implement these features. But again, THEY WEREN'T GIVEN ENOUGH TIME BY INFOGRAMES TO DO SO!!! We're lucky Firaxis are dedicated enough to fix the errors. And we're even luckier that Infogrames is going to support them in doing so.
Jethro83 is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 21:20   #41
- Groucho -
Diplomacy
Prince
 
- Groucho -'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Contrary to other people, I won't praise Tassadar for his post.
What you are doing, Tassadar, is comparing a game from 1996 to a game from 2001. It's nothing but normal that things evolves during this time. When you talk about the value and the greatness of something, it's always relatively to things that are on the same scale.
No, it isn't. Which is the better tank to have in a fight today: the T-34, a very innovative design for its time, or the M1 Abrams, the current MBT of the US Army? You can pick the T-34 if you like, but I'll take the Abrams. You'd be dead before you even knew there was a fight.

Quote:
What makes so many people say that Civ2 is better than Civ3 is that Civ2 was much better in its time than Civ3 is. Civ3 has not improved enough according to improvements of the time.
So what? He wasn't talking about whether Civ3 had met some sort of "expected rate of evolution" standard. He was talking about what he liked today.

Quote:
If I hear that a motorbike in 1930 was reaching 200 Km/H, I will be pretty impressed. I will say that this should have been a rocket in this time.
Though, if I buy a sportive motorbike today, I will expect it to have discal breaks, to be able to reach at least 240-250 Km/h and at least 100-120 horsepower. And I can still feel it's not that much a powerful machine.
But if you needed a bike to actually ride today, which would you pick? The new one of course.

Quote:
Because the standards have changed. It always comes back to common standards.
What is wrong with comparing a game from 1996 to one from 2001? He is talking about which game he would rather play TODAY, now, in 2002. He has two CDs in his hands: CivII and CivIII, and the question is, which one would he rather play? His conclusion is he would rather play CivIII. Which is a perfectly valid conclusion.
__________________
What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?
- Groucho - is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 21:39   #42
MOHonor
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 89
It's been said before a million times but it's worth repeating. There is only one thing more loathsome devoid of merit and ultimately wrong than being stuck with a purchase you don't like. And that is expending more and more energy on that thing you can't stand. The people who haunt these forums assaulting those who enjoy this game are really pretty confused. I can't think of anybody anywhere who would invest hours days weeks months and for some years of their lives wallowing in something they detest. Yet for some of the rocket scientists on this forum that's exactly what they do. Christ even yin26 eventually figured it out even though it took him 3 years or so. Don't give of so much your time will and effort to a product you don't like. Unless you enjoy being victimized which to be honest a few of you obviously dig. At least the fanboys have an excuse. They're talking about a game they like. What's yours?
MOHonor is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 21:53   #43
Jethro83
Prince
 
Jethro83's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 834
MOHonor, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

What a waste of time whining about what one doesn't like, as opposed to actually doing something they do like.

Just because there are those of us who enjoy playing Civ III, that doesn't give whiners the right, duty, or privilege to flame away at them. Let us enjoy Civ III in peace.
Jethro83 is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 22:29   #44
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Echinda
No, it isn't. Which is the better tank to have in a fight today: the T-34, a very innovative design for its time, or the M1 Abrams, the current MBT of the US Army? You can pick the T-34 if you like, but I'll take the Abrams. You'd be dead before you even knew there was a fight.
Which would you rather have when attacked, a dream tank with all the bells and whistles that may never be built, or a real tank?


Civ3 is the best available strategy game imho.
Zachriel is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 22:52   #45
Jethro83
Prince
 
Jethro83's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
Civ3 is the best available strategy game imho.
I agree wholeheartedly. And I exercise my right to agree whether the whiners like it or not.
Jethro83 is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 23:33   #46
cutlerd
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Agoura Hills, CA USA
Posts: 101
I agree with much of what has been stated here previously. Essentially many of the whiners have placed Firaxis into a catch-22 situation. Too many folks who are complaining that CIV3 is too much unlike CIV2 or SMAC would, I think, have turned around and complained that CIV3 was not a new enough game or was CIV2.5 had Firaxis made it too much like its predecessors.

I can say as a long time civ player, way back when CIV 1 was a new game, that CIV 3 has held my interest and challenged me far longer than CIV1, CIV2 or SMAC.

I found CIV2 to be horribly bound as a single player game into certain set strategies. With little or no difference between CIVs, the only basic difference between game #1 of CIV2 and game #2000 of CIV 2 was your starting location...and that was basically: am I on an island or a continent?

After that, it was race to Armour, go Fanaticism, and Spy the crap out of every non-Democratic civ in the game. Once done with that, you then turn on the Democracies by landing mlllions of Robotic Arty on their rail lines and take them down in 1 turn.

It got really boring!

SMAC was an improvement. The different strengths and weaknesses of the civs was pretty cool, so that playing Diedre was a different experience from playing Morgan, but the game bogged down in massive combats after a while and the story line, while excellent the first time I played it, became annoying when playing for the 100th time. Fungus shmungus.

CIV3, however, is almost never the same game twice. Each Civ plays so differently from the others, and the introduction of resources means each civ itself plays differently depending on what combination you have.

Playing India? Who cares about resources? Don't need horses. Don't need iron. You can kick arse anyways!

Playing Persia or Rome? You are a god with iron and a wimp without it. No iron in your neighbourhood? Better find it quick even if it means distant colonies.

Playing Iroquois? Again....who needs iron? Get a horse and go to town.

I enjoyed playing the Germans my last game. Everyone beating up on me and me saying to the computer screen "enjoy this now laughing boys....one day I'm gonna have panzers...and I'm keeping a list of everyone who has wronged me...and there will be a reckoning!" And there was.

In CIV2, playing the Americans starting next to the Romans was no different than playing the Indians starting next to the English. In CIV3...it's a HUGE difference...and vive la difference!

In addition, I enjoy bombardment in CIV3. It allows for economic warfare, for strategic warfare, and for combined arms. Need to invade a strongly defended continent in CIV3 in modern times? You have to work at it. You have to bombard the flanks of your invasion path to cut the enemy's roads so as to blunt his counter attacks. Very realistic...very historical. Very DDay.

I also think Culture is a great addition. In CIV2 your side felt like a collection of loosely tied city states rather than a nation. In CIV3 you get borders. Also, Culture opens up the game by allowing you a new way to get territory.

I find the AI in CIV3 to be much improved. I have had times when in thinking about the game when not playing, I have tried to imagine what I would do in the AI's position. Lo and behold...when I fire up the game and resume, the AI does just that. They work together against a common foe, and each has its own temperament. The AI also actually challenges me....and while yes, it does trade more easily with the other AI civs than with me...nonetheless I do a fine amount of trading.

And speaking of trading...thank God they got rid of those damned camels from CIV2! Talk about boring....moving your trading caravans up and down the map. Ech! Same with spies. WAY too overpowered in CIV2. I happen to think they are too expensive in CIV3....but I'd much rather err on that side than the CIV2 ubber super spy mode.

With the latest patch 1.21 my complaints with CIV3 are few and far between:

1. More late age wonders

2. The space race needs to be delayed...it happens before some interesting techs are discovered

3. Spies need to be a little more effective

4. Nukes should be more devstating but the penalties for using them should be more severe

Devin
__________________
Devin
cutlerd is offline  
Old May 14, 2002, 00:24   #47
Civ Old Timer
Settler
 
Local Time: 16:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
Tassadar5000 - You might already know this but there was a red-green patch for SMAC's eye sore art that might help you see that land better. It made the land more brown than red.


I'm in the CIV 3 is weak camp but there's no denying that it's better than most of what's out there. But given the game's past that just isn't good enough. Why remove things that people like? Why remove things that worked, especially when the stuff you're adding doesn't work? It makes no sense. It would not have been hard to do that. If you're pressed to get something out for x-mas why re-build the logic of it from the ground up?

As it stands the game has a weird mesh of goals - simplicity on the one hand and more true to history on the other (culture, resources, high spy failure rate, etc). The whole thing has a frankenstein feel to it. And I see that in the patches too, where things are modded up and then back down again. Nobody seems to be at the helm of this boat.

The gaming industry is too obsessed with making things brand spanking and revolutionary (to be fair our whole culture is like that). I didn't want that. I wanted the developer to focus on making what was weak in the earlier games better. SMAC had a lousy intrusive interface and no way to get rid of it. Its tech was hard to understand and the colours were gross. But that game's concept in a historical setting would have been great.

For what it's worth, I really like the graphics in Civ3. The advisors need some tweaking, because some don't work well or are arranged oddly (gov't type in the military advisor and not the foreign advisor? huh?). The modern resources are quite ugly and often hard to see. Now that would be an easy thing to patch, so why hasn't it been done?

I think this whole whiner vs. fanboy thing is really overdone. Every game community does this. Get some tougher skins, I say. We can all disargree, sometimes strongly, and not dive into the "why do the [whiners] [fanboys] people come here? They ought to... " Fill in the blank with something nasty.

C'mon, we're all trying to enjoy the same game here. Discussion is good. I've seen a lot of good posts on both sides.
Civ Old Timer is offline  
Old May 14, 2002, 16:37   #48
Andrew Cory
Warlord
 
Local Time: 16:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SF bay Area
Posts: 198
I played SMAC for (maybe) a month. The unit workshop was dull, the dipolmacy was fun, but I didn't get enough chance to use it, as there were only 8 factions. Overall, I felt a bit cheated by SMAC.

Civ2 was a lot of fun. The problems with it were (as has been noted elsewhere) the undefined boarders and no difference between civs.

To me, the holy grail of TBS has always been, and will always be: MoO2. How much so? Well, a buddy of mine and I sat down over the course of months, and just for fun, designed a MoO3 to correct any obvious flaws with the game, as well as adding in new ideas. (BTW: immagine my surprise when MoO3 was announced and many of my (documented) ideas were in the game!)

If the test we must use is "how well does Civ3 compare to games made today", then I would say that Civ3 kicks ass. It _is_ the new standard and all TBS have to at least match it. I would love to see a more complex diplomacy screen, a better spying system (the one MoO2 had was _perfect_), and trade is getting better, but needs a bit of work, but for all that, this game is the best TBS I have ever seen. Yes, it has problems, yes, there is room for improvement, but even if they did not release an XP or another patch, I could happily play this game for years to come.
__________________
Do the Job

Remember the World Trade Center
Andrew Cory is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:36.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team