Plans for new XP or Civ5?

[Robert]

Civ 3 wasn't broken
Why do people keep saying that? It's just popular to bash civ3. I've played thousands of hours of civ3, and conquest was a good expansion as well.

Of course, civ4 is better then civ3. But once again, civ3 was better then civ2. The difference between civ4 and civ3 is bigger indeed then between civ3 and civ2. Though the gap between 2 and 3 is bigger again then the gap between 1 and 2.

[Solver]

I've played Civ3 enough, too. Not heaps of it maybe, but I didn't give up on it after one, two or even half a dozen games. And if you wish, I can list a whole host of things that I believe were broken at the very core of Civ3 .

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Solver
I haven't admittedly played Conquests, but my impression is that it wasn't actually bad as an expansion. I understand that it added some nice things and stuff, but the main problem was that the core game, Civ3, was broken. Which was impossible to fix in an expansion. It's impossible to create a good expansion if the base game is broken in several core aspects.

You aren't correct about this. Abstracting from whether or not you like the game (and whether or not it was irretreivable from day 1, which is entirely another argument) the PtW corruption model was functioning ok and about as good as it was going to get (although it transpired over time this was more by luck than judgment as no one at Firaxis had a clue about RCP or the palace rank bug). Also, the rest of the game had been tweaked to about as good as it was going to get without really major changes.

Then, C3C broke the corruption model, (several times actually, which seems impossible but they managed it) and screwed up other stuff as well as introducing a load more bugs that were never fixed.

Really Solver as someone who likes to paint himself as being such a Civ guru you are remarkably uninformed.

[Solver]

Actually, whenever I am making statements that I am not well-informed about, I explicitly note so. This time I also said what my impression was, explicitly noting that I haven't played Conquests .

But I do dread to imagine how the corruption model could be broken even further. It wasn't much good when Civ3 was released, needed editor tweaks and patches for it alone. If Conquests screwed corruption up further, that's indeed quite an achievement.

[DrSpike]

Indeed it was.

[Kuciwalker]

IIRC they changed the model three or four times in various C3C patches. It was absurd. The other things were nice, but I never figured out why they didn't just leave corruption alone.

[Krill]

Wasn't C3C was coded by breakaway, and Firaxis had little input? (please correct me if I'm wrong; this is all from before the time that I joined Apolyton)

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Civ 3 wasn't broken
Why do people keep saying that?

When something works so poorly as to detract from the game's "fun" value, to me that = broken. (e.g. Civ3's corruption feature)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Krill
Wasn't C3C was coded by breakaway, and Firaxis had little input? (please correct me if I'm wrong; this is all from before the time that I joined Apolyton)

First I've heard that, but it doesn't mean you're wrong.

edit: wiki confirms it

[Harrier UK]

The problem with Civ3 was that it used an old game engine as it's base. Can not remember which original game now - may have been something like Gettysburg - but not sure.

So the original code was already about 8 years old before they even started. Of course the original programmers were no longer arround so modifying it was risky to say the least.

Also, remember a lot of people were poached from the company only a few months into the project, thus adding to the problems.

To be fair they did get a game out of the door, and it played reasonably well, in my opinion.

It was just to unstable to make major modifications too - with the expansion packs.

So in that respect Civ3 was broken, but playable.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Harrier UK
The problem with Civ3 was that it used an old game engine as it's base. Can not remember which original game now - may have been something like Gettysburg - but not sure.

It was Alpha Centauri. There was still the odd reference to that game in some of the files.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Willem

It was Alpha Centauri. There was still the odd reference to that game in some of the files.

Now there was a fun game. There are still features from SMAC that diehard civvers want to see make it into a Civ game.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Now there was a fun game. There are still features from SMAC that diehard civvers want to see make it into a Civ game.

Yeah, I didn't give it up until Civ 4 came out. I just couldn't see myself playing with the dumb AI after playing Civ 4. It definitely didn't know how to wage war against me. After I reached a certain tech level, the game became pretty much a cakewalk. But it was fun getting to that level at least.

[alms66]

It's funny. Everyone who hates civ3 says that the corruption model was broken. Those who like civ3 say it was fine.

I am one of those who liked civ3 - especially after the Conquests expansion. It added/changes/fixed so much to the single player game, plus many scenarios for those who like that sort of thing - I don't. But IMO, they fixed the corruption model there. It wasn't very realistic I know (why would a far-flung city be more corrupt that any other?), but what it did to my empire was realistic and I liked that. It kept me from getting too large. Beyond 20 or so cities, it was pointless to get more - again, not realistic, but the effect was, and I liked the fact that there was no plausible reason to conquer the world other than sheer madness.

Civ3 also lacked the modability of civ4 - and that sucked, but it was easy to mod what was available. I never understood the complaints that the editor was hard to use, I just assumed those people weren't computer literate. There were only two really good mods for civ3 but I haven't seen a really good mod for civ4 yet either (The Lopez will probably be the first with his all-inclusive mod he's working on), even with all the extra modding ability (and yes I do realize that's all based on personal preference).

My biggest gripes on civ4 (in no particular order):
1. No Isometric - civ3 still looks better and I feel it's because of the lack of this perspective, plus, besides the fact that you can rotate to any angle, which I could care less about, 3d graphics don't compare to 2d graphics in aesthetic quality. I know I can tilt the view to appear isometric, but playing like that in civ4 isn't worth it due to the other distortions that come with it.

2. Less Civs - I've been waiting for a 48 or 64 civ capable game since CtP made 32 civs possible - What was that, like 10 years ago?!? Civ 4 can barely do 32.

3. City Maint. - This is far more restrictive than corruption ever was, and I don't like restrictions. If I want to do nothing but pump out settlers and defensive units, let me do it damnit! Don't artificially limit me, just make the downside of doing it make it not worth doing it - like a lack of developed culture, science, and defense. Eventually, my empire should get divided up from it's inferiority. And for those who will say it's way better than the corruption model, it's basically the same thing, just instead of the single city being useless, if you build too many cities, your entire empire becomes useless.

_Edit_Opps... forgot the worse offender of all...

4. Specialized Cities - Yes, there are commercial, cultural and political hubs and there always have been cities like this. However, the effect is so grossly - and I mean grossly - exaggerated in civ4, it really makes me want to puke. Enough said.

[Smellycowsquid]

I enjoyed civ 3. Though I played on easy.