A Worthy Successor?

[Psycho Billy]

Fifty or sixty; it’s still quite high for any computer game. Certainly some games now might be raising their prices to that level; when Civilization III first came out, however, it set a lofty price standard.

It did?? When was the last time you bought a new computer game?

[Lord Merciless]

Axis, before you complain more about the game being too hard, try to read this thread first:
Winning early: What do YOU do?

Or this one:
"Must Read" threads for newer players / posters

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Civ3 is a good game, but by no means perfect. There are plenty things I don't like about this game:
- Premature release. The game was virtually unplayable before 1.21 came out.

Well I found it playable. It had some annoyances though. 1.17f took care of the worst ones.

- Removing good concepts already implemented in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Social Engineering is one good example.

Only its not really applicable to Civ.

- Non-functional editor until 1.29.

Its was functional before that but it sure did improve a lot with 1.29f. Then again I don't really care because I don't play mods.

- Poorly implemented air units.

They could be better thats for certain. Most are OK but the helicopter is a complete waste. The first release did have a major flaw in with air units because the Air Supremecy mission was broken. I could live with it though.

- Warmongering seems to be the only effective strategy at higher difficulty levels.

I have played four games on Emperor as a builder. Won two lost one and didn't finish another that I am pretty sure I was going to lose. The first loss was my first game on Emperor and I was stuck on an island by myself. The two wins were hard to get and I had to be very carefull to get them.

I think warmonger would be far easier. I am presently playing a warmonger game on Monarch and its much easier than a builder game was.

- Monotonic AI behavior: always do the REX.

Well unfortunatly if the AI didn't REX and you did it would be dead data just as happened in Civ II. I don't see where Firaxis had a lot of choice in that. The players were going to REX and that is the best way to get a good start. After that there are some behavioural differences between the leaders.

[Lord Merciless]

Well I found it playable. It had some annoyances though. 1.17f took care of the worst ones.

Well, I found it dreadful. The biggest problem was with gameplay balances.

Only its not really applicable to Civ.

But it was surely enjoyable.

Its was functional before that but it sure did improve a lot with 1.29f. Then again I don't really care because I don't play mods.

Using that old editor was a major pain in the butt.

They could be better thats for certain. Most are OK but the helicopter is a complete waste. The first release did have a major flaw in with air units because the Air Supremecy mission was broken. I could live with it though.

I think both their range and damage can be increased.

I have played four games on Emperor as a builder. Won two lost one and didn't finish another that I am pretty sure I was going to lose. The first loss was my first game on Emperor and I was stuck on an island by myself. The two wins were hard to get and I had to be very carefull to get them.

I think warmonger would be far easier. I am presently playing a warmonger game on Monarch and its much easier than a builder game was.

I didn't say warmongering was the only way, just by far the most effective one.

Well unfortunatly if the AI didn't REX and you did it would be dead data just as happened in Civ II. I don't see where Firaxis had a lot of choice in that. The players were going to REX and that is the best way to get a good start. After that there are some behavioural differences between the leaders.

The power of the ICS, yes!


Well, I just like to say again that Civ3 is a good game with lots of potentials, but it's by no mean a perfect game.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Axis Kast
Fifty or sixty; it’s still quite high for any computer game. Certainly some games now might be raising their prices to that level; when Civilization III first came out, however, it set a lofty price standard.

[Abe "grandpa" Simpson voice]

Sixty dollars! Why, in my day, computer games only cost a nickel! Back then, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them; "Gimme five bees for a quarter" we'd say.

[/Abe "grandpa" Simpson voice] [apologies to Matt Groening]

I suppose you're probably all steamed that gasoline costs more than 50 cents a gallon and letters require more than 10 cents postage to go first class as well? I understand your dismay at rising prices, but you'll just have to learn to get over it. It's called inflation. Deal with it. If you don't want to pay the full price, wait a few months and it'll come down.

Anyway, if it makes you feel better, you can say you got ripped off by paying $25 for CivII, since you can now find it in bargain bins now for less than 10 bucks.

Ultimately, the value of a game (or anything, for that matter) isn't the price paid but the enjoyment it brings you. I can't even remember what I paid for CivIII ($50 sounds about right), but it's brought me almost a year of solid entertainment so far and will surely double that once PTW comes out. Would I have paid 100 bucks? Sure. A thousand? Uh, probably not. But I certainly wouldn't sit there in the game store staring at the box saying "if only this cost the same as the previous version of the game that was released a few years ago, I'd buy it right now." It's about priorities, and I think most of the people on this board would put a higher priority on playing a new game than on an extra $15 in their pocket.

[Palaiologos]

The one thing Axis Cast is right about, is the total lack of scenarios.

I consider Sid's WWII scenario as one of the best of all time despite its lack of new graphics and sounds.

Was it so hard to have one in civ3 as well?

Before 1.29 came out you could not even make a scenario with pre-planted cities and units.Just maps.

[TheStinger]

Where's Coracle, I think a comment on culture flipping is appropriate

[Lord Merciless]

How about: Axis Kast = Coracle.

[Tiberius]

Where's Coracle, I think a comment on culture flipping is appropriate

How about: Axis Kast = Coracle.

Nah. He hasn't said anything about culture flipping, plus he answered the posts that were directed to him. Not the Coracle style.

[Arrian]

Axis Cast, you are clealry someone who doesn't know much about the game, isn't all that good at it, and has been frustrated by your inability to succeed. Therefore, you decided the game sucked.

Hey, it's fine if that's how you feel. Many here have expressed disappointment with the game for one reason or another (such as the previously mentioned Coracle and his hatred of "culture flipping").

I, along with many others, have enjoyed it from day one (when I purchased it for $49.99), and have enjoyed it more and more as it has been patched. I was a veteran of CivII who consistently won on Deity. I started up CivIII on chieftain, and I'm glad I did, because it is a VERY different game. It took a while to adjust my gameplay to succeed. I'm now happily playing on Monarch, with the occasional foray up to Emperor.

To each his or her own. If you feel you've given the game a fair trial and still don't like it, take it back and get a different game. That's what I did with CtP.

-Arrian

p.s. The starting positions sometimes are terrible, but that's true for the AI as well. I've seen some truely horrendous AI start spots. Anyway, I decided early on that I'm not the "ironman" type who takes what I'm given every time. I restart until I find a spot I like. No sense in torturing myself, I figure. Just call me the anti-Aeson (not that Axis Kast will get that reference to SVC).

[Willem]

Originally posted by Axis Kast

I wasn’t aware that strategic resources depleted. In fact, one of the individuals I spoke to about this article voiced that specific concern. I merely amplified it as I didn’t have the experience to conflict or deny, nor any cause to suspect it as an error. The same is true of the coastal fortress.

If you aren''t aware of a basic feature like depleting resources, then obviously you don't know a thing about the game. So stop wasting people's time with diatribes, and learn a few things before you start spouting off. You obviusly aren't credible enough to make any sort of judgement, at least none that any of us can consider with a straight face.

And stop comparing it to CIV II. They may share the name, but in many ways it's a whole new game.

Civilization II was also a product much cheaper in the long term; I paid $25.00 for a copy of that game, not $60.00, and for it’s time, Civilization II was a fantastical success story.

Have you ever heard of the term "inflation"? And your numbers aren't even accurate. I paid $50 CAN for my copy, and a Canadian dollar is only worth 60% US. So that would put the price at about $30-40, I'm guessing.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ethelred
"It was a Dark and Stormy Night when Sid butchered Civilization Three" said the Axis Cast as he buttoned up his bronze and brass buttoned black Scheutstaffle uniform with the nice silver and gold trim and the leather boots that had been tanned from the hide of Firaxis programmers

Originally posted by Barchan
[Abe "grandpa" Simpson voice]

Sixty dollars! Why, in my day, computer games only cost a nickel! Back then, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them; "Gimme five bees for a quarter" we'd say.

[/Abe "grandpa" Simpson voice] [apologies to Matt Groening]

Originally posted by Axis Kast
The AI is good. Too good. I enjoy a fair battle if you will, not a massacre.

Ironically, other ranters complain that the AI is an idiot and easily exploitable.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Axis Kast


" A Worthy Successor? "

Yes and actually better than either. Not as good as they were in their time, but better now. CivII was too easy once you figured it out. One unit could hold off the world. I won't go on, understand I had Civ2 in my top two games, until now.

It wasn’t just the lack of a multiplayer mode or even second-rate scenario editor that have spawn the widespread malcontent evidenced by fans the world over which robbed Firaxis’ latest creation of greatness."

As I recall no MP was in Civ2, need a special addon or Gold version.

"Not only was the finished product prohibitively expensive (a problem when compared with its over-abundance of flaws), but it also clearly lacked in options, flavor, and diversity. All had been so expected of a game too long in coming; the letdown was significant. In essence, Civilization III was an over-priced shadow of what it might have been."

The price was not way out of line, see Warcraft III.


"From the first time one loads Civilization III, irritation and speculation are constant companions. Why is the Artificial Intelligence so trying? How is it that most other civilizations seem to have clear access to resources not even available to the player after centuries of diplomacy and development? Where is the justification for agonizingly slow “processing” times between turn on computers that digital image fanatics would kill for? These troubles, however, represent only the tip of a far larger iceberg."

You may have a point here. Although the resouce delepetion is a contrivance for the easy of play. I mean yes oil wells go dry and we find others, do I need to be bothered in the game with that every few turns (no). It is a rare occurence and that is fine.

" The game lacks first and foremost the range offered by even Civilization I, where the customization of one’s own empire was permissible. Although a hastily prepared, low-budget package might get away with the claim that initial creation of each individual civilization was in itself a massive undertaking, Civilization III, with its terrific budget and lengthy developmental period can take no such defense. Certainly, allowances should have been made for additional civilizations (the Inca, Carthage, the Netherlands, or Mongols for instance) even if customization was not an option. Somebody should have had the foresight to include a “pool” of images, special units, and technologies for the creation of a player’s own unique civilization, however – again because the game was so anticipated. "

Again you have point.

"A dirth of units, attack options, and resources then becomes the next issue. Peltasts, phalanx, slingers, and horse archers are woefully absent. While it is true that combat in Civilization is essentially a beautified imitation of ‘Risk’ – there is no true use for anything more than basic counters -, eye candy is expected. The existence of a literally massive network dedicated to special unit creation should have tipped off Firaxis of the need for many nation-, area-, or era-specific units at the least. The designers might also have attempted to deliver more than one unique unit per civilization."

I would not have minded that either, but the is a limit as to what can be done.

" Units stacked nearby could gain minor advantages in movement or combat effectiveness; losing such an important unit could dictate unrest, revolution, or even combat ineffectiveness elsewhere in the Kingdom. As for attack or movement options, coastal cities should be able to fire on passing vessels from harbor defenses, as was the case with Forts and Fortresses in Sid Meier’s first classic, Colonization. Contact not only with barbarians, but also possibly with Native tribes not open to human play would have been interesting as well. "

Same as before, would be nice. You go ont to make some fair points. I am not here to attack you as I appreciate your post. I would only say that I got my monies worth and have had months of fun and yes grieve. I will say it is a shame that some of the bugs were allow to get past QA.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
The one thing Axis Cast is right about, is the total lack of scenarios.

I consider Sid's WWII scenario as one of the best of all time despite its lack of new graphics and sounds.

That surprises me... I could have made that scenario myself in a few days.

[Oerdin]

The consenus opinion amoung most people is Civ3 is a mediocure game that, though amusing, is not a worthy seccessor to either Civ1 or Civ2. Still it is fun to mess around with once in a while.

[Tuberski]

What consensus was that? When was this poll done?
I do however agree.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The consenus opinion amoung most people is Civ3 is a mediocure game that, though amusing, is not a worthy seccessor to either Civ1 or Civ2. Still it is fun to mess around with once in a while.

That is very strange as one of the big computer mags picks it as the strat game of the year. It made it high up on the sales list, so I would question that statement. In any event, I doubt that many would call it mediocre. Flawed yes.

Don't mean to attack you, but since you are an American, I should point out you misspelled two of your most important words.

[Cyclotron]

Oerdin, who the hell are you to spout off about consensus? Most people? Please, come back when you have aome idea what you are talking about.

[Ethelred]

Some people think THEY are a consensus all by themselves. Perhaps that is what he is thinking.

Maybe a Consensus consists of Coracle and one other person. That would explain it. Or there is another possibility; (People)= entities that think Civ III is a mediocre game.

Now I understand it. I am not part of the class (People). I am part of some other set (undefined). Maybe even ().

[vmxa1]

Just for the fun of it I went to Avault to check their review and it was very positive four stars. Ok went to GoneGold and it was rated platinum. Looked at the Gold Guide for civ3 to see what the other reviews said nearly all (1 I never heard of gave it a poor) known sites had it at very very high marks even 10/10. So I think that slays that dragon. If someone wants to knock it, that is fine, but no more claims of a confluence of the masses.

[SpencerH]

Just thought I'd put in a quick comment about something in an earlier post. For my money, CIV is the best of the lot. I wonder whether I would have become hooked on this series if civ3 was the first I played.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Just thought I'd put in a quick comment about something in an earlier post. For my money, CIV is the best of the lot. I wonder whether I would have become hooked on this series if civ3 was the first I played.

That question can not be answered, but I would say yes. A better question is would Civ1 be accepted today by people that have not played any civ games? I suspect not and maybe not by some that have played Civ2/3. That is why I said Civ2 was a great game at that time.

[WarpStorm]

Off topic, vmxa1, where is your avatar from? It looks real familiar, but I just can't place it. A board game maybe?

[vmxa1]

It is a Klackon from Master Of Orion. My favorite race in that game.

I pulled it from the pdf of the manual.

[WarpStorm]

Doh! I should have known that. I guess I'm used to seeing it in game and not the manual.