CivIII's quality.

[Fitz]

First of all, Mark, please feel free to close this thread and help it die if it gets filled with spam or turns into a stupid flame war.

In the interview thread, I inadvertantly let myself get sidetracked, and rather than take the whole thread of it's intended purpose, I thought I'd start a new thread in case anyone (especially Mark) wanted to further comment or discuss (ie argue) my point. I will state my opinion, my arguments, and rebutt some of the most common counter arguments.

The opinion I posed: CivIII is not a quality product, and Firaxis/Infrogames should be ashamed of what they produced, or at least stop trumpeting it as a fantastic product.

Note that I am not saying that I was ripped off by Firaxis. I am saying that CivIII is not a great game, it is a mediocre game.

Arguments supporting my opinion (probably the normal):

1) It was a "step-backwards", to steal a phrase of a column writer, from the direction that Alpha Centauri, and apparently Civ I and II from what I have heard/read, was going. The system was simplified, units and techs were removed, fantastic concepts ruled out completely.

2) Replayability is an issue for many, including myself. I personally played Alpha Centauri for years, including at least a year of playing 10 hours a week. I play CivIII about 1-2 hours a week on average, although that tends to be 2-4 hours every two weeks.

3) Many veteran Civ and Alpha Centauri players were severely dissapointed. The reason seems to be primarily 1 & 2 of course, so this point is merely a supporting point, not a point in itself. I take it as a pretty good indication of the failure of CivIII to live up to its potential though. Ask Vel or OO (known to me through AC) what there opinions are of CivIII, or better yet ask them how much they play it or if they even still play it, and you will start to get my point here. It's also kind of hard to deny that most of the articles here at Apolyton have been negative comments about CivIII (which proves to me that Mark isn't too biased )

Arguments against my point (and rebuttals):

1) CivIII has less bugs now than SMAC/X or CivII did, and they patched the few that were game breakers.
1r) I agree, which is the primary reason I play CivIII. Can't deny this one, and their support has gone well so far. This may mean that they can stop supporting the game (like they did SMAC/X) and it will still be very playable.

2) CivIII has sold millions of copies.
2r) You find out about the quality of a product after you buy it. In addition to this, most high selling products are very low quality, designed to be bought, played for a while, then be tossed away when no longer interesting. Does this sound like a quality product to you? Apparently game reviewers are stupid enough to think yes, which is why such games can get high reviews (and continue to sell), despite low quality. Examples include CivIII, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, Duke Nukem, Half-life. Note that every one of those except CivIII is realtime, and that the primary aspect of the game is multi-player.

3) The graphics were improved.
3r) Are you going to be bought off by a graphics designer? And how does this balance out the lower design quality elsewhere?

4) The AI was improved.
4r) This is debatable. First, the AI does not do well in the later game. Second, this comment begs the question was the AI improved or the game dumbed down to the point where it seemed improved?

5) Firaxis was forced to an early release by Infogrames, and has done a wonderful job patching the flaws this caused.
5r) How does an early release in any way indicate a quality product? Even if the bugs are later patched, there are bound to have been dozens or more design improvements left out.

6) Firaxia/Infogrames had to consider mass market appeal to stay in business.
6r) Which certainly explains why the game is dumbed down. This argument is, like #5, an explanation for why CivIII is a failure, not an argument that it is not.

7) If you don't like CivIII why don't you go play something else and get the hell out of this forumn?
7r) Several points here. I don't hate CivIII, I just think it's quality leaves much to be desired, especially considering what it could have been! I prefer playing it SMAC/X currently because I finally got tired of that game, and I wanted to play a game that I will only play a couple of hours a week. With SMAC/X, I can't stop (1 more turn syndrome). CivIII is a passable game, and it doesn't demand commitment. Furthermore, while I am playing it, I would like to discuss certain issues and aspects of the game with other players.

My basic point, overall, is that CivIII severly failed to live up to it's potential, Firaxis sold out quality to mass market appeal (and incidentally sales), and that just because I believe this doesn't mean that I can't play the game, like certain aspects of it, and (hopefully) get along with most of the posters on this forumn.

I'm not a generally a huge whiner. But I know when I see a sell out, and I get very annoyed by those who trumped CivIII as a fantastic game, the pinacle of it's kind, and refuse to accept a different point of view. If you are going to be blind (from my point of view of course) to this, that's your perogative, but please stop belittling those who see it in it's full. Feel free to argue your side, but flaming or complaining about whiners makes you look like a lesser man in many cases.

[AlrightyThen]

I appreciate your opinion, and others like it that have been voiced. Speaking of experience from being 'in the business' I can tell you that product decisions and release times are driven solely by the needs of the marketing department and - of course - the needs of the fiscal quarter. Until you realize that business does not cater to the consumer's need foremost, you will always be disappointed. I have given up. Many talented developers are either leaving the field, making their own creative outlet, or putting up with it. Those putting up with it are not at their best because they have become fixers, not creators.

Its about the $$$.

And you all know you are going to buy the expansion...and Civ 4...and Civ 15.

Just stop spending your discretionary income and - in addition to bringing the country to its knees - you will see some changes made.

[Arrian]

Ok, Fitz, fair enough. I disagree. I think it is a quality game, and I DO feel the "one more turn" syndrome.

The main difference between (most of) those who like the game or are ok with it and (most of) those who are disappointed or infuriated, seems to be whether or not they played & enjoyed SMAC. I tried it out and didn't like it. Therefore, the failure to include various features from it doesn't faze me much, though I can see the merits of features that didn't make it into CivIII (particularly when discussing the UN, which is woeful).

-Arrian

[khyron]

Originally posted by Fitz
The opinion I posed: CivIII is not a quality product, and Firaxis/Infrogames should be ashamed of what they produced, or at least stop trumpeting it as a fantastic product.

Hmm. Perhaps a better way to summarize would be that CivIII is not the quality product the veterans (and dare I say, elites and GLs ) had hoped it might be. It really doesn't suck, and I can kind of see how it could bring new blood into the fold, but for you and for me, who doubtless have fond memories of holding Moscow, Kiev, and three or four other Russian towns hostage with nukes while extorting huge sums of cash from Uncle Joe in Civ1, there's something more that we need.

How was that for diplomatic double-talk!

Originally posted by Fitz
It was a "step-backwards", to steal a phrase of a column writer, from the direction that Alpha Centauri, and apparently Civ I and II from what I have heard/read, was going. The system was simplified, units and techs were removed, fantastic concepts ruled out completely.

One of the big selling points, in my mind at least, for SMAC was the diplomatic model, be it in the form of simply being able to request that a warring faction call off its hostilities with a third party, or the jockeying for power in the Planetary Council. The realms that were open to you there...ahem...pleased me mightily, to coin a phrase. As far as I'm concerned, the inclusion in CivIII of a diplomatic model similar to SMAC would have been enough for me to tip the scales.

But then, I was always easy to please.

[SomeOneElse]

i played smac, enjoyed it greatly
i play civ3, enjoy it greatly

[Fitz]

khryon, perhaps indeed that is a better way to put it. But I think that a step backwards is a step backwards, regardless of who is actually aware of it. Just because a new comer to the fold doesn't realize what he is missing doesn't mean that the missing stuff is excusable.

Arrian, I'm glad to hear that you've managed to find the one more turn syndrome, and would be interested at some point to hear (or be reminded of, since I think I've seen it before) of your reasons for disliking SMAC/X. Not much I can say to argue with your post really.

Alrighty Then, I am unlikely to buy the Civ XP, unless I hear fantastic things about it first here. Or unless all my normal SMAC/X MP buddies decide as a group to get it, which is unlikely given the recent release of NWN (another Infogrames release too rushed). I certainly wont buy anymore Firaxis Civ/Smac games without waiting a couple of months, play testing it first on someone elses copy, and carefully perusing the opinions of it. I'm also sorry to hear you've been so jaded, but maybe I am too in some ways.

To add a new refutation to the debate, Marg (IIRC) pointed out the "number of strategies being devised". I must say that I have already taken the "CivIII stratagy" forum as further proof of my point. The stratagies that could be devised mostly have, and the number of new ones being developed are rapidly petering out. Compare and contrast that to how long the SMAC/X stratagies flowed and evolved, and you can easily see the fact that CivIII is a simpler, less enthralling, and less deep game. Both games have a easy surface layer for the newcomer to deal with, but you can delve for a long time in SMAC/X, but you soon run out of newness in CivIII without going to rather extreme measures.

Not that I'm not trying to find as much newness, depth, and enthrallingness as possible in CivIII.

[khyron]

Fitz, I concur with you about the newbies thing. Just didn't make that clear for some reason.

I obtained CivIII as a gift, so I couldn't beat the price. I honestly don't mind playing it, and I really think that one or two of the things they introduced were good ideas--strategic/luxury resources and, to a lesser degree, culture--but I admit that SMAC has once more seen the light of day in my house. CivIII doesn't get as much play as its predecessors, though.

Okay. My pizza dough's probably risen enough. Dinner calls!

[Nubclear]

Someone please close this thread before its out of control. Please. I'm begging you.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Fitz
The opinion I posed: CivIII is not a quality product, and Firaxis/Infrogames should be ashamed of what they produced, or at least stop trumpeting it as a fantastic product.

Note that I am not saying that I was ripped off by Firaxis. I am saying that CivIII is not a great game, it is a mediocre game.

Your opinion granted. Although mine is completely different. I consider Civ3 a quality product, certainly one of the best in the genre.

Originally posted by Fitz
1) It was a "step-backwards", to steal a phrase of a column writer, from the direction that Alpha Centauri, and apparently Civ I and II from what I have heard/read, was going. The system was simplified, units and techs were removed, fantastic concepts ruled out completely.

This somehow assumes that SMAC was a "step-forwards" from Civ2... As I have already written in another thread, I did try SMAC, but never become fond of it. For me, SMAC was a "step-sideways". Yes, the game incorporated lots of new, creative ideas. Alas, not all of them suited my taste... I quitted playing SMAC after about 20-25 hours. I still enjoy Civ3 a lot after maybe 200-250 hours...

Originally posted by Fitz
2) Replayability is an issue for many, including myself. I personally played Alpha Centauri for years, including at least a year of playing 10 hours a week. I play CivIII about 1-2 hours a week on average, although that tends to be 2-4 hours every two weeks.

Originally posted by Arrian
The main difference between (most of) those who like the game or are ok with it and (most of) those who are disappointed or infuriated, seems to be whether or not they played & enjoyed SMAC. I tried it out and didn't like it. Therefore, the failure to include various features from it doesn't faze me much, though I can see the merits of features that didn't make it into CivIII (particularly when discussing the UN, which is woeful).

Arrian is right, I guess. I have always been wondering why so many people expect Civ3 to be SMAC2. I do not think it was ever supposed to be SMAC2. It has always been designed to be Civ3 and there is certainly more of a common stuff in Civ2 and Civ3 than in SMAC and Civ3. I am personally happy to see many of the SMAC concepts left out, as I did not like them. I appreciate new Civ3 concepts like culture and resources a lot more.

Originally posted by Fitz
3) [...] It's also kind of hard to deny that most of the articles here at Apolyton have been negative comments about CivIII

Well, I would not be THAT sure about this. I have been following the forums for months and I would not dare to summarize my impressions in this way - however, it is true that the non-satisifed players were vehement in expressing their minds here. Besides, the number of posts is not very relevant - I believe we should rather think of how many people post positive articles and how many posters present the rest with negative opinions (hey, Coracle, where is your post? this thread still lacks one... )

Also, I am quite confident that if we dig through the forum archives, we would find that LOTS, if not most of the negative posts were addressed in the patches and can no longer be considered valid.

Originally posted by Fitz
1) CivIII has less bugs now than SMAC/X or CivII did, and they patched the few that were game breakers.
1r) I agree, which is the primary reason I play CivIII. Can't deny this one, and their support has gone well so far. This may mean that they can stop supporting the game (like they did SMAC/X) and it will still be very playable.

Can this be called a "rebuttal"? More of an approval, isn't it?

Interesting enough, especially this point could be taken as the closest-to-objective measure of whether a game is a quality product or not. With a game, its main concept and tens or hundreds of interdependent subconcepts are something that is difficult to call "good" or "bad", "quality", "mediocre", or "inferior", simply because some people like this or that, while some people don't. Just the fact that some people don't does not mean it could not be a quality product.

On the other hand, the number of bugs is definitely something that is not influenced with players' personal preferences. And in this aspect, Firaxis did a very good job. The game is now pretty stable and very few real bugs still hang around.

A game with that few bugs, a game that will "still be very playable" (your words) even with no more support, is IMHO a quality product.

Originally posted by Fitz
2) CivIII has sold millions of copies.
2r) You find out about the quality of a product after you buy it. In addition to this, most high selling products are very low quality, designed to be bought, played for a while, then be tossed away when no longer interesting. Does this sound like a quality product to you? Apparently game reviewers are stupid enough to think yes, which is why such games can get high reviews (and continue to sell), despite low quality. Examples include CivIII, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, Duke Nukem, Half-life. Note that every one of those except CivIII is realtime, and that the primary aspect of the game is multi-player.

Well, the point here is that you can't really sell a million copies unless the public is generally satisfied with the game. A million copies is way too much to attribute to positive reviews only - you need the positive word of mouth to get to this level, I believe. I am not very sure if your examples were of low-quality overrated games... I personally played Warcraft, Diablo, and Duke Nukem and I have found all of these games of high quality and much fun.

Originally posted by Fitz
4) The AI was improved.
4r) This is debatable. First, the AI does not do well in the later game. Second, this comment begs the question was the AI improved or the game dumbed down to the point where it seemed improved?

For me, this is not debatable. I have spent hundreds of hours playing Civ2 and 200+ hours playing Civ3 and I am 100% positive that the AI in Civ3 is way better than in Civ2. Period. I do not think that the other part of your rebuttal is relevant. Even if the game was really somehow dumbed in order to have the AI perform acceptably, it would have been a wise decision. What good is a single-player strategy game that has tons of great concepts in it, if it has an AI that is simply unable to make meaningful use of them? Veteran players would still be waiting for the multiplayer edition to fully enjoy it (just like they are now...).

Originally posted by Fitz
5) Firaxis was forced to an early release by Infogrames, and has done a wonderful job patching the flaws this caused.
5r) How does an early release in any way indicate a quality product? Even if the bugs are later patched, there are bound to have been dozens or more design improvements left out.

The early release and the induced bug patching has very little to do with the quality of the product as it stands now (which is what we are talking about, I assume). IMHO, it is a different story - yes, if Firaxis worked on Civ3 for two more years, they might have released a true gem in the end, instead of "just a quality product". On the other hand, if Firaxis worked on Civ3 for two more years, they might have gone bankrupt, releasing nothing at all. Business is merciless, Fitz - I am in it, too, and you can't imagine how often I feel miserable about not having one more month... Especially with creative projects, there MUST be a line where you stop, otherwise you can improve your product forever, never releasing it and never making a single penny out of it.

Originally posted by Fitz
6) Firaxia/Infogrames had to consider mass market appeal to stay in business.
6r) Which certainly explains why the game is dumbed down. This argument is, like #5, an explanation for why CivIII is a failure, not an argument that it is not.

Well... a failure... from your point of view (and for many veteran Civ2/SMAC players), it may look like a failure... for lots of others (like me, Arrian, and thousands of others), it is a great game... for Infogrames, it is a bestseller making lots of money... for Firaxis, it is such a success that they even care to continuously patch the program, not only fixing bugs, but even fine-tuning the game itself... Apparently, everybody has his own measures to distinguish between a success and a failure. As with #5, I do not think this is a point relevant to the quality of the game. It is something relevant to the complexity of the game, which might have really been dumbed to appeal to mass market (ok, I admit - I am probably also part of this mass market ).

Originally posted by Fitz
7) If you don't like CivIII why don't you go play something else and get the hell out of this forumn?
7r) Several points here.

This is a bit unfair. Civ3-advocates use such wording only when addressing people that keep posting the same silly stuff all the time, bringing nothing new and just repeating "Civ3 sucks" over an over, often including personal insults to the advocates or even Firaxians.

Originally posted by Fitz
With SMAC/X, I can't stop (1 more turn syndrome). CivIII is a passable game, and it doesn't demand commitment.

Fitz, I wish I could feel the same way about Civ3. I really wish. That would help me live a more productive life... But seriously, I do feel the one more turn syndrome with Civ3, no doubt.

Originally posted by Fitz
My basic point, overall, is that CivIII severly failed to live up to it's potential, Firaxis sold out quality to mass market appeal (and incidentally sales), and that just because I believe this doesn't mean that I can't play the game, like certain aspects of it, and (hopefully) get along with most of the posters on this forumn.

OK, here is my basic point:

What the "potential" really means, is debatable. The potential may be what a game could be if designed for the hardcore TBS players, with an unlimited budget and unlimited amount of time. From this point of view, yes, Civ3 is an ultimate failure, I must admit.

However, that definition of potential is, of course, unrealistic. Firaxis had to design the game for mass market (it is about money, money, and money again), with a limited budget and limited amount of time. Having this in mind, Civ3 lives up to the potential very well.

It seems to me that your point of view can be expressed like "it is not good enough", while mine as "it is great, but could certainly be even better". I do approve many of the complaints heard in the forums, I do not feel really blind, if I am to use your wording. Yes, there are dozens of improvements I could think of. But what Firaxis did with Civ3 seems like a very good job to me. I can't help myself but consider Civ3 a quality product.

As someone following the forums, you must be aware of the fact that there are people who like the game and that there are others who don't. I guess a simple poll like "Do you think that Civ3 is a quality product or not?" would be of more use than yet another thread discussing this issue in thousands of words. All of your points (a "step-backwards", replayability, veteran players being disappointed) are based on your subjective feelings/ratings, just as my rebuttals are. We can't persuade each other that we are right - we simply feel different about the game. And so it is going to be... no matter how many threads there will be about the issue.

Originally posted by Fitz
To add a new refutation to the debate, Marg (IIRC) pointed out the "number of strategies being devised". I must say that I have already taken the "CivIII stratagy" forum as further proof of my point. The stratagies that could be devised mostly have, and the number of new ones being developed are rapidly petering out. Compare and contrast that to how long the SMAC/X stratagies flowed and evolved, and you can easily see the fact that CivIII is a simpler, less enthralling, and less deep game. Both games have a easy surface layer for the newcomer to deal with, but you can delve for a long time in SMAC/X, but you soon run out of newness in CivIII without going to rather extreme measures.

Well, the number of strategies... something I tend to agree with. However, my explanation of the fact is a bit different. I believe that there are less strategies leading to the victory in Civ3, because the game is well balanced. You can't simply emphasize one aspect of it, while ignoring others - you really need to pay attention to everything in Civ3. However, again - that is my experience only...

[Velociryx]

Good thread, and good points raised on both sides (and the discussion has been civilized too! Kudos to everybody for that!)

My opinion of the game is pretty well documented here, so I'll avoid a re-hash as much as possible....IMO, it's a good game that didn't live up to the legacy of its forefathers. A good game in a family of great games. That, combined with the design decisions made to simplify the game make it fun for me to play, but not compelling to play (recently, I have been finding a good deal of enjoyment in participating in the "mini-tourneys" posted on the strategy forum....it's nice to do comparisons of approaches).

The new concepts are good concepts. With slightly different implementation, they coulda been GREAT concepts.

With slightly different implementation, and more careful consideration given to the tech tree(s), there could have been a pool of strategic choice in the game that was both wide and deep.

There isn't, and that's too bad....cos there coulda been.


-=Vel=-
(who HEARTILY agrees, by the way, the the condition of the game immediately upon release--the game I paid sixty bucks for....one of the "Limited Edition" people who got lured in by the prospect of those "designer's notes"--was NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, a quality product, and after the shine of newness wore off, it got exponentially more difficult to support it...UGH)

[GI Josh]

I've never played SMAC, so I don't know what I'm missing. Overall, I agree with Vel - Civ3 is good and what's so frustrating is that it's so close to being mind-blowing great. I have two main criticisms:

1) AI does quite well pre-RR when the equally spread defense and huge stack offense is really the best option most of the time. Once RR and arty comes into play, or even cavalry, the AI is poor. Also the AI does not do a good job of taking out strategic resources, which are so key to a war more than a few turns long. I don't really blame Firaxis much, combined arms warfare is very complex (that's why staff colleges in the Army are so long). MP will cure all this. The ideas of luxuries and strategic resources are excellent and fairly well-implemented. In MP there will be lightening strikes deep into enemy territory against strategic resources with quick, overwhelming combined arms attacks on border/coastal cities. I think modern warfare in Civ3 will be fantastic.

2) The idea of alternative victories, particularly cultural, is good, but poorly implemented. The score only reflects domination, and the game is too military oriented. More complex diplomacy (apparently in SMAC) along with varied victory conditions would really add to the depth of the game. For example, economic domination of some sort would be interesting, and tie into the commercial trait. Having civs with different attributes and UUs was a good idea - it would be a great idea if it tied into different victory and scoring conditions.

Bottom-line - a good game with (probably unavoidable) replayability as single-player. Assuming lenght of later turns can be limited and game-play accelerated, MP should be a *great* game.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

people seem to be forgetting one more critical aspect to the game's inability to satisfy the hard-core gamers....processing speed. Look at the the large number of people complaining about the amount of time between turns. people want the AI to do all these intelligent things while playing 16 civs on a huge map with only a few seconds between turns...all on a p2-400. Life is about tradeoffs and the tradeoffs in gaming is that games will always come out of the box dumbed down for mass appeal. Great games give you the abilities to mold the game to your personal tastes.

My only major complaints about the game are that some of its cheats are annoying (settler diahhrea, knowing the entire map, hard coded values) and that the AI is fairly useless after RR. i cant wait to get the editor so that my limited free time can be used more productively on a mod.

For the record, i never played smac. I played civ2/ctp/ctp2 and civ3 blows them all away in my opinion.

[Theseus]

1 million + copies sold as single-player.

Watch what happens with PTW...

I believe, maybe it's just me, that Firaxis understands that it is at the forefront of a new development paradigm.

You can't condemn Civ3 in entirety because it isn't DONE yet... won't be until Civ3.9999.

My guess is that the development path for Civ3 will include everything up to massive persistent worlds, which will be Civ4. Think about how much more that means adding... And much of it will come from here and CF.

Some customers may not like it, but that's the way it is. Has Firaxis communicated this effectively... nope, but they're learning.

Dare I say it? Look at the Sims.

It's a brave new world (multiple puns intended).

[Oerdin]

I feel like I got my money's worth out of Civ3 but the game is still something of a dissappontment to me. Oh, it's better then Civ2 but only by a small margin and that is the most disappointing part.

Civ2 was a quantum leap ahead of Civ1 in graphics, enterface, complexability, depth, and design. I can't say the same about Civ3 vs Civ2. That's just my two cents...

[dnassman]

My belief when it comes to playing games is that I take them out of the box, install them and play them on its merits. The people who are disappointed with Civ3 have built up a HUGE expectancy of what Civ3 should be and have developed those ideas over five years (or since civ2 was released).

I bet there were hundreds or even thousands of threads in the civ2 forums talking about what civ3 should be and contain. Obviously when people start imagining what civ3 is going to be like and hope for this thing or that thing, and what is released isn't what they have been dreaming about then of course people are going to be disappointed.

I look at civ3 this way. I started playing it and played it on it's merits. So I learnt to start expanding quickily, I learnt how to use culture, I learnt how to use my Golden Age, how to use my UU, how to conquer civs quickily, and basically how to play civ3 for what it is. I don't like thinking about what a game could of been and dwell on it forever and then come here and compain. I play the game that comes out of its box and thats that (with patches of course).

Love civ3 and believe it will be a great game.

BTW only real-time game I enjoy is the Warcraft serious and next week the release of Warcraft3 is out. Hope we get it in Oz on the same day as the rest of the world. I read that they used 5000+ beta testers on it!!!! Damn!!!!

[khyron]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
Look at the the large number of people complaining about the amount of time between turns.

I must be a weird duck, because I see all these people talking about this, and I actually find that I am thankful for that pause between turns. Yeah, I can think fast with the best of them, but that couple minutes of stretch time where I'm not moving my armies of darkness around is where I think of things like wonders, improvements, resources, diplomacy, what have you. I could just think of it all at once, but I've learned to take advantage of the break.

[notyoueither]

Much of what you say is valid opinion Fitz. However, it may not be valid criticism.

To say that Civ3 'fails' because it is simpler is invalid criticism because you are ignoring that the designers purposely intended it to be simpler.

Simpler is not to your taste? Fine. But not designing to your particular tastes in not failing.

[JSeeds]

Originally posted by Arrian
The main difference between (most of) those who like the game or are ok with it and (most of) those who are disappointed or infuriated, seems to be whether or not they played & enjoyed SMAC. I tried it out and didn't like it. Therefore, the failure to include various features from it doesn't faze me much, though I can see the merits of features that didn't make it into CivIII (particularly when discussing the UN, which is woeful).

I think you've nailed it correctly here Arrian. I've found that many people dislike Civ3 because it doesn't live up to the perfect SMAC2 that they had envisioned in their own minds. I was personally not a fan of SMAC. I found the game entirly dreary and depressing. I find Civ3, on the other hand, to be a very enjoyable game. I don't feel the same addiction to civ3 as I once did to civ1/2, but that doesn't make it a bad game. Obviously there was no way that firaxis could satisfy the entire hardcore SMAC community without making SMAC2.

[Chronus]

I bet there were hundreds or even thousands of threads in the civ2 forums talking about what civ3 should be and contain. Obviously when people start imagining what civ3 is going to be like and hope for this thing or that thing, and what is released isn't what they have been dreaming about then of course people are going to be disappointed.

True, unfortunately.

Add to this mix is the expectation that better technology and more RAM should produce a sequel (or a new but similar game) that's exponentially better. And it should, but with a right dose of realism.

The original Civ did not have a script language (or even scenario capability) nor did it have multiplayer capability. Now, these are considered standards.

To make tons of suggestions is good. However, to expect Civ 4 (if one emerges) to have a script language, multiplayer capability, a killer AI that none of the Big Blues could even match, a word processor, a web server, and fifty billion other new features that will soon become "TBS game standards" . . . and all for the relatively same price as other games. . . well, that just seems a bit ludicrous. The growing expectations can be fun when they're met, but keep in mind that all these new standards take time and money. Do we really want to start paying $150 for a game?

There are plenty of people who claim that all this is easy . . . yet, only a smidgen ever deliver.

[Q Classic]

honestly? i've played every civ game.

civ1, civ2, ctp, smac/x, ctp2, civ3.

i loved civ1, civ2, and smac/x... i bought all three of them, and had no problem with the money spent-- the hours of enjoyment i obtained from them more than made up for it... i still play civ2 and smax, for instance.

ctp, i wish i didn't pay for. i'm glad i didn't pay for ctp2. as far as i'm concerned, the money i paid for ctp should have gone for ctp2.

civ3, though... i paid usd60 for it. i was one of the LE suckers. and i'll have to say, that was at least usd20 down the drain. actually, maybe just five... i got MOO2 as part of EB's special package, and truth to be told, MOO2 has occupied more of my time than Civ3.

my main problem with civ3? i couldn't play it. at first, the xp support was abysmal. then the first few patches failed, or exacerbated the situation. and i had to uninstall and reinstall Civ3 three times before i could get it to run with the 1.21f patch in XP. once i started playing it... it wasn't as fun as i execpted.
i dunno, i might be the only one, but i liked all that cluttery interface in civ2 and smac/x... i liked seeing the keybd shortcuts being repeated in menu options...
i didn't like the combat system. i didn't like the trade system.
the graphics? sn00py's mods were much needed. no wonder movies...
i've gotten used to them now, and i have to say, it's a decent game. it's fun. just not as fun. it's not as addicting. i suppose most of it is the result of the shock of having so many new good ideas and new spotty implementations that just threw me.

oh well.

i'll prolly get PTW. but it'll be more for the sake of completion, than anything else.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Fitz
. . .The opinion I posed: CivIII is not a quality product, and Firaxis/Infrogames should be ashamed of what they produced, or at least stop trumpeting it as a fantastic product.

Note that I am not saying that I was ripped off by Firaxis. I am saying that CivIII is not a great game, it is a mediocre game.

Arguments supporting my opinion (probably the normal):

1) It was a "step-backwards", to steal a phrase of a column writer, from the direction that Alpha Centauri, and apparently Civ I and II from what I have heard/read, was going. The system was simplified, units and techs were removed, fantastic concepts ruled out completely.

2) Replayability is an issue for many, including myself. I personally played Alpha Centauri for years, including at least a year of playing 10 hours a week. I play CivIII about 1-2 hours a week on average, although that tends to be 2-4 hours every two weeks.

3) Many veteran Civ and Alpha Centauri players were severely dissapointed. The reason seems to be primarily 1 & 2 of course, so this point is merely a supporting point, not a point in itself. I take it as a pretty good indication of the failure of CivIII to live up to its potential though. Ask Vel or OO (known to me through AC) what there opinions are of CivIII, or better yet ask them how much they play it or if they even still play it, and you will start to get my point here. It's also kind of hard to deny that most of the articles here at Apolyton have been negative comments about CivIII (which proves to me that Mark isn't too biased )

Arguments against my point (and rebuttals):

1) CivIII has less bugs now than SMAC/X or CivII did, and they patched the few that were game breakers.
1r) I agree, which is the primary reason I play CivIII. Can't deny this one, and their support has gone well so far. This may mean that they can stop supporting the game (like they did SMAC/X) and it will still be very playable.

2) CivIII has sold millions of copies.
2r) You find out about the quality of a product after you buy it. In addition to this, most high selling products are very low quality, designed to be bought, played for a while, then be tossed away when no longer interesting. Does this sound like a quality product to you? Apparently game reviewers are stupid enough to think yes, which is why such games can get high reviews (and continue to sell), despite low quality. Examples include CivIII, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, Duke Nukem, Half-life. Note that every one of those except CivIII is realtime, and that the primary aspect of the game is multi-player.

3) The graphics were improved.
3r) Are you going to be bought off by a graphics designer? And how does this balance out the lower design quality elsewhere?

4) The AI was improved.
4r) This is debatable. First, the AI does not do well in the later game. Second, this comment begs the question was the AI improved or the game dumbed down to the point where it seemed improved?

5) Firaxis was forced to an early release by Infogrames, and has done a wonderful job patching the flaws this caused.
5r) How does an early release in any way indicate a quality product? Even if the bugs are later patched, there are bound to have been dozens or more design improvements left out.

6) Firaxia/Infogrames had to consider mass market appeal to stay in business.
6r) Which certainly explains why the game is dumbed down. This argument is, like #5, an explanation for why CivIII is a failure, not an argument that it is not.

7) If you don't like CivIII why don't you go play something else and get the hell out of this forumn?
7r) Several points here. I don't hate CivIII, I just think it's quality leaves much to be desired, especially considering what it could have been! I prefer playing it SMAC/X currently because I finally got tired of that game, and I wanted to play a game that I will only play a couple of hours a week. With SMAC/X, I can't stop (1 more turn syndrome). CivIII is a passable game, and it doesn't demand commitment. Furthermore, while I am playing it, I would like to discuss certain issues and aspects of the game with other players.

My basic point, overall, is that CivIII severly failed to live up to it's potential, Firaxis sold out quality to mass market appeal (and incidentally sales), and that just because I believe this doesn't mean that I can't play the game, like certain aspects of it, and (hopefully) get along with most of the posters on this forumn.

I'm not a generally a huge whiner. But I know when I see a sell out, and I get very annoyed by those who trumped CivIII as a fantastic game, the pinacle of it's kind, and refuse to accept a different point of view. If you are going to be blind (from my point of view of course) to this, that's your perogative, but please stop belittling those who see it in it's full. Feel free to argue your side, but flaming or complaining about whiners makes you look like a lesser man in many cases.

It was indeed a step backward in terms of realism, gameplay, and in what we had a right to expect having waited over five years for Civ 3 and discussed it at great length on the forums after Civ 2 came out.

I have played Civ 3 a lot, but it can't hold a candle to other games including Civ 2 and SMAC, among others for replayability. So much of Civ 3 is irritating I find myself lookiing for other options. I posted months ago Civ 3 would never have anything close to the "legs" of Civ 2 even if it had scenarios, and it doesn't.

One of the reasons I play Civ 3 less and less is it is immensley slow and tiime-consuming to complete Modern era games, assuming we could even reach that era.

A lot of the bugs have been taken out after three patches, but the huge number of bugs, flaws, and even typos in the initial release was unacceptable for a major corproration's product. Although with corporations these days who knows. . .

Of course it was rushed to market for the Holiday buying season. We all know it now. Some of us said so many months ago. But Firaxis will gloat about the number of copies sold - as if that is an indication of quality. IT ISN'T. It is an indication of Firaxis' marketing slickness.

The AI is does not reflect over five years development beyond Civ 2. It is in fact very irritating, does dumb things that should be programmed out, and is always in-your-face. That includes both military and diplomatic actions.

I said months ago the game was "dumbed down" to appeal to a wider audience. Just look at the number of units, their values, or the truncated tech tree.

If you don't like CivIII why don't you go play something else and get the hell out of this forumn?

I have a better idea - tell Firaxis to GET IT RIGHT.

I know when I see a sell out, and I get very annoyed by those who trumped CivIII as a fantastic game, the pinacle of it's kind, and refuse to accept a different point of view.

And they were doing that in December even before the first patch when the game was highly buggy and messed up.


It is really sad the game didn't live up to its potential.

All we can hope now is that Firaxis does not do Civ 4.

[The Pioneer]

Well, I like the game. That's not to say that it could not be better or this and that couldn't be improved but it is difficult to satisfy everybody especially when we are talking in the hundreds of thousands (think of the divesity of all these players in terms of game experience, age, nationality, etc.)

I have never played SAMC, I played Civ 1 & 2 and Colonization and I am thankfull to Sid and all the people that developed these games for depriving me of my beauty sleep and robbing my precious time .

One fact that I think is very important and should always be taken into consideration is that Firaxis did not forget us. They have done an excellent follow up, they listen to us (which by the way is the single most important reason for me to continue buying their games). They are not obligated to come out with patches every 8-10 weeks, especially after the game has been on the market for well over six months. They could have given us one or two and then forget about it and go on to the next project. Instead they have continued to improve the game, they take part in these Forums which shows that they stand behind the game 100% (which I believe is in the heart of a lot of firaxians). Ok, I know they also do it because $$$ is very important but that's not a negative thing. I love the idea that the game has been improved to the likings of most recommendations/suggestion of these Forums here and others.

For all those complaining how about if the game was nearly perfect (i.e. work on the AI so as to beat the best human players) but in order to cover the costs you would have to pay somewhere btwn $800-$1500 (beacuse of high development costs) and have a top notch computer to run it how many of us would buy it? And anyway what fun would that be!!!

Yes, I have the one more turn syndrome the same as (Civ I & II and Col) and I will buy PTW. Furthermore, I will buy Civ IV and maybe if SMAC 2 comes out I will give it a try. Come to think of it I will probably buy any Firaxis game as long as they have give us the same after sales support.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by dnassman
My belief when it comes to playing games is that I take them out of the box, install them and play them on its merits. The people who are disappointed with Civ3 have built up a HUGE expectancy of what Civ3 should be and have developed those ideas over five years (or since civ2 was released).

Indeed. One can only be disappointed if one has expectations, and since many people had such great expectations for CivIII, the potential to disappoint greatly was similarly large. Nevertheless, I'm not sure it could be called a step backwards. OTOH, it was surely no great leap forward, either. It seems to be more of a lateral shuffle, moving in different directions that amount to neither progress nor failure. The improvements and disappointments are well documented and need not be rehashed again, but I think it’s not entirely fair to call the game a failure. It’s not everything that it could be, but it’s no disaster either.

I can see some of the “dumbing down” of the game many are talking about, but there is a tradeoff between complexity and audience. Generally speaking, the more complex the game, the smaller the potential audience. Face it folks, the majority of people in the world simply aren’t that bright, and expecting them to turn away from Jerry Springer and pro wrestling to take an interest in a deep, complex endeavor is folly. The Lowest Common Denominator rules the market, and money talks. If there’s more money to be made selling PC versions of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” than strategy games, what do you think WalMart will have on its shelves?

At any rate, complex doesn’t always mean better, and popular doesn’t necessarily mean crap. To use a board game example, many more people play Risk than Axis and Allies, and many more play Axis and Allies than World in Flames. Are any of these games objectively better than the others? Hardly. But many millions more people have bought Risk than World in Flames. Does that make Risk better? Does it make it more fun to play? No. These things are ultimately subjective decisions that depend not only on the individual, but also on the surrounding circumstances. Even WiF players may enjoy a more simple A&A game from time to time, and hardcore grognards might like to play Risk with their children (although the truly hardcore teach their kids to play WiF).

The point is that CivIII is, despite its problems and shortcomings, still entertaining to play. It could have been better, but it’s worth playing. I have to question anyone who says it’s so hopelessly screwed up it’s unplayable. Frankly, I think they either lack the hardware the game demands (not requires, but demands), the patience to try something new or the wisdom to take another look at something that they might not have liked at first glance. Of course, they could also just take some measure of pleasure out of simply tossing stones at things, and even the most casual glance around any industrial area will reveal there is no shortage of such people in the world.

[Tamerlin]

Is Civilization 3 a quality product ?

Though I have been sorely disappointed my answer is : definitely yes.

In my own opinion, the graphics have been really improved, the interface is rather fun to use, the new concepts add depht to the game (though some could have been better implemented of course) and the AI is a tough opponent.

The game was bugged but we all know any PC game is shortly followed by a patch almost the same day (and sometimes even before) it is released. So I don't think it has something to do about the quality of the product.

By now you should ask yourself why I have been disappointed. The merits and flaws have already been discussed extensively elsewhere and I won't talk about them again.

As dnassman I like to play a game out of the box, I generally play the tutorial, and make my opinion after having played for a while. In a way, a PC game is like a tabletop wargame or boardgame, you like the topic, the rules and the way it simulates a given situation or not. The rules are what they are but you can't say the said rules are wrong, you can only say they doesn't simulate a "reality" the way you would have liked them to or the way you think they should have.

In every Simulation game the designers have to make some choices and this is where I can disagree. My main complain is addressed to the AI. We all know most of the AI are cheating and I have no problem about this, but I really don't like the way the AI civs are cheating in Civ3.
I have no fun playing against the computer in Civ3 because the tactics used by the AI civs are almost entirely buildt around crude cheats and because I will have to use the same strategy over and over again to counter the AI in the first part of the game (this is one of the reasons why I'am not playing any Real Time Strategy Game).
I have also been very disappointed by the inability of the AI Civs to negociate properly through diplomacy, the disappointment is as strong as the possibilities offered seemed varied and interesting. As far as diplomacy is concerned, the attitude of the AI Civs is strongly unpleasant and too predictable.

My expectations were high (perhaps too high) and I'am very disappointed, nevertheless I still think Civ 3 is a great game which quality I won't deny.

As a conclusion, I can only say the choices made by the designers don't appeal to me.

[Tamerlin]

Something I forgot :

Would the AI diplomatic behaviour and the AI strategy be modded and I would more than happily give another chance to Civ3.

[jglidewell]

Fitz,

I agree with your basic sentiments, there were so many strategic mistakes that I thought were made in adding and removing aspects that 'could of been' and shouldn't of been'. Which is exactly how I feel as well. My expectations were well beyond what was finally published.

As to quality though, I think that Firaxis did do quality work but made some strategic game design errors.


1. They programmed to a slow, low end PC. I think this was a mistake.
2. Others may disagree but, despite what people say I think they wanted more micromanement. (I read this as control and freedom of choices, not tedious clickity click.)
3. Cities should have been openned up. Not contiuning as an abstract entity or unit.
4. Borders as implemented with culture sucks. Borders are totally a diplomatic/war function.
5. An emphasis on war on the game. How many civiliam units are there? How many military?

There are quite a few more but then we get what we got. It is to be seen if this or another title get the crown of CIV III. The game was rushed. Evidence is that you choose more than 8 civs but only 8 civs appears on the diplomatic advisor screen.

[Fitz]

I think Arrian probably got my feeling down the best. I never played Civ before CivIII. The only other Firaxis game I had played was SMAC/X. As an aside in a chain of logic, complex is better to me, as would be indicated that I never play Chess or Risk anymore (in fact stop playing before the game is over), but will play Axis & Allies or Go. Back to the chain of logic, Smac/x was wonderfully complex and deep in stratagy, so I adored it. I open up CivIII, heard middling good stuff about it, boot it up, and start a game. Note at this point, my only expectations would be that it would be relatively complex and deep, and that it would be so to at least the degree that SMAC/X was, and that it would eventually contain less bugs .

I was overjoyed by the beautiful graphics. I fell in love with the diplomacy interaction screens, and my jaw dropped at how cool culture was. I had randomly selected a civ & continent, and got islands/China.

I lost. Of course.

Restarted, random China, lost but only just. Restarted, random, end up with pangea & Aztecs, slaughtered everyone. By this time (my first win & third game), I'm already starting to get a feel for everything.

Three games later I was bored. It took me a while to figure it out. I finally realized that every game was playing out identically, at least in terms of the metagame. So I decided two things.

1) I needed to play less. CivIII was obviously far less complex. There was probably some depth, but I could burn out on finding fast if I let myself get too bored with the game.
2) I needed to start hunting for depth to the game already. So I started some culture warfare games, since that was closest to my heart. I needed to find the metastrats fast.

I'm still working on the culture win style of play. I got lots more metagame strats to go, but the mere fact that I was forced to start looking for them after six games was what irked me. My ire knew no bounds. I raised my arms and beseeched the power above to illuminate me, crying out "What is this piece of cr@p that Firaxis has unloaded on me?" I contemplated my favorite sport for terrible video game products, which is using the CD to play frisbee golf.

After I game to my senses, I managed to avoid becoming a Firaxis hater, and have found a few aspects of the game that will enable me to enjoy playing it for quite a while, albiet at my own rate. However, I am solid in my opinion that it is a good game, but not a great game. And furthermore that Firaxis let themselves be sold out (not unusual for Video Game designers).

Either that, or the bugs of SMAC/X made them realize that they had gotten too complex too fast, and they decided to step back to something simple, try a few new ideas, and get it right first before making it more complicated. I can hope that this is the case, but I won't believe it until (as I said before) I've played it, gotten good reviews from others, and let some time pass, then maybe I'll buy it.

*Goes back to avoiding work and trying to figure out a cool character to make for NWN multiplayer*

[Martinet]

Some comments from a lurker brought out of the woodwork by this thread:

I have been playing Civilization since the very day I bought my first color machine, so I have some history with the game. IMO, the original Civilization, despite being totally primitive compared to current gaming standards , screamed "quality product." The only loud noise coming from Civ III is in the advertising blurbs promising the customer a game of "epic proportions."

However uncomfortable it is to admit it, I think Fitz' assesment is correct. My impression about whether Civ III is quality is based on both the core game and the peripheral things about the Civ III package.

I still have the Civilization I manual sitting on my bookshelf. Even though I don't play the original, the manual is still a good read. Why? There is an entire chapter on "the dynamics of civilization." No gameplay is discussed directly in this chapter; instead it is an intellectual discussion that suggests how the game should be played. Also, every minute detail of the original game (and often, its historical background) is adequately explained. I would have bought the game whether or not a printed manual was included, but the surplus of effort put into the manual made me appreciate the game that much more.

The Civ III manual became useless before the game even shipped. While the manual correctly explains the basic gameplay, it contains so many errors that it is reduced to a sales brochure on "cool new features." The manual's primary use is to make the ornate Civ III box feel heavier.

I won't delve into the gameplay since we've heard it all before...

The original Civilization was a bold new experiment, and depended on being a finely crafted piece for its success. Sid Meier thought his project was worth doing, and the final game showed that committment. Civ III doesn't reflect any great love from its creators, and so elicits none from me.

[nato]

I'm kind of in the middle myself.

I think there are many quality things about Civ3. There are enough that I'm still interested in it, and I'm never going back to Civ2.

However after a while of playing it I got the creeping feeling that something was missing. At the time I experienced this as a growing suspicion that Yin and Venger might be right. Its just not a deep strategy rich game. The optimal moves are too omnipresent.

Like I've said before, I think the main problem is the over simplification. Dumbing down can only hurt the more intense players, like people who read forums about it. Unfortunately it works so well with the masses!

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Martinet
The Civ III manual became useless before the game even shipped. While the manual correctly explains the basic gameplay, it contains so many errors that it is reduced to a sales brochure on "cool new features." The manual's primary use is to make the ornate Civ III box feel heavier.

I think the manual's primary purpose was to ensure brisk sales of the strategy guide, curiously released concurrently with the game itself. The manual is, as you point our, utter crap. It is filled with errors and typos and generally adds little else that isn't already covered in the civilopedia anyway. The "strategy guide" is almost just as worthless, covering precious little strategy and instead focusing more on the data and tables that should have been in the manual. The fact that in most places these two items were bundled together does cause one of my eyebrows to involuntarily rise....