CivIV: Beyond the Sword

[Solver]

I think, dear Brit, we'll have to agree to disagree . I stand by my opinion that most of the good things we had with Civ3 were owing to Firaxians such as Soren and Jeff being in touch with the fan community and treating them well.

Don't get me started on the design philosophy, though. Too many mistakes there. Mike Breitkreutz, for example, said something along the lines of "I don't believe in scripting languages because the only power they give the user is the power to create bugs" - an ssertion that seemed very strange back in 2001, and is absolutely ridiculous now...

[Paddy]

civ 3

great concept

too many bugs

game never finished

many many $$$$ earnt

game still unfinished

[DrSpike]

Solver, I think your involvement with Firaxis during the beta process for Civ4 has compromised your objectivity, and would suggest that posters take your comments on Civ3 with a grain of salt.

You may continue to extol the virtues of Civ4.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
civ 3

great concept

too many bugs

game never finished

many many $$$$ earnt

game still unfinished

Yes but none of that is Firaxis's fault apparently.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Solver
Mike Breitkreutz, for example, said something along the lines of "I don't believe in scripting languages because the only power they give the user is the power to create bugs"

ROFLMAO I remember that one!

And I found it ludicrous at the time as I was happily modding CTP1/2 at the time.

Thankfully they brought in the best Civ3 + CTP2 modders to help design the modding aspects of Civ4.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Yes but none of that is Firaxis's fault apparently.

indeed not. they got no $$$ when I bought civ 3, and then civ 3 play the world, and then civ 3 conquests. always nice to meet young innocents in this wonderous world



point - they have the $$$ and we still have an unfinished game and as good as it is that they bring out new games, some of us paid good $$$ again and again for a game....

wish the innocents would stand up and finish what they were paid for several times by many people



they will not be forgotten, and the innocents of firaxis and associated companies will not be respected

[Solver]

Solver, I think your involvement with Firaxis during the beta process for Civ4 has compromised your objectivity, and would suggest that posters take your comments on Civ3 with a grain of salt.

I'll disagree once again. I think you're significantly underestimating my intellectual maturity .

Sure, my opinions on Civ4 are subjective to some degree because of my involvement with it. But that doesn't go for Civ3. Of all the Firaxians who worked on Civ3, Soren is the only one with whom I have had contact during Civ4 development - the other Firaxians were either hired post-Civ3, or maintained a low profile in Civ3 times. People like Jeff and Mike didn't work on Civ4.

I don't think my opinion of Civ3 can be called optimistically biased. I think it is (just because it's a Civ game) better than the average game, but worse than the other Civ games - for very specific reasons that I won't mention now.

But the support from Firaxis was good (although it's better now) - there were 4 or 5 patches for Civ3 vanilla, Firaxians were posting here and listening to fan feedback, and I distinctly remember said feedback affecting patches. Patches couldn't save a game that had flaws at the very core of its design, but the attempts and communication were there.

Maybe I'll have to go dig up some threads that make me say the Firaxis support was good .

And, once again, what I'm saying doesn't apply to Conquests, I have very little idea what was going on at that time...

[yin26]

I recall that we did one of those 'Top 10 Most Wanted Fixes' things, and I believe we got 8 out of 10 or something in a patch that wasn't even scheduled. The problem, though, is a) let's face it, there was a lot to be fixed and b) because of the strained relationship with the gaming community, Firaxis ended up not getting the credit it deserved for trying to turn things around. Even I was disappointed in the public's reaction to that last patch.

By the way, I'd say Solver is a fair person ( with a mature intellect when he's not trying to get me to eat cardboard and such ). If anything, his reviews are extremely fair, to the point of almost too demanding at times, yet he gets around this by offering suggestions for fixes and giving ample air time to what works well.

[Solver]

The problem, though, is a) let's face it, there was a lot to be fixed

I'd put it differently - the things that were really wrong with Civ3 couldn't be fixed by patches, only by a sequel. Definitely, the patches made it a better game - out of box, it had a number of bugs that made it almost unplayable, and the game overall improved significantly with the patches. But the real problems with the game were at the core of its design. For example, the diplomatic system was completely and entirely frakked up. So were elements of the combat system. And those could only theoretically be fixed in a patch, in reality, a sequel was required for it.

[yin26]

Yeah, that's basically what I meant. No sense operating on a dead body, but they tried.

[Solver]

Hey, at least it went from being dead to being, uh, the Frankenstein's monster . For all its flaws, the patches allowed me to enjoy Civ3 for quite a while - and there were many things I loved about the game, it did have more cohesion and concepts working well together than, say, CtP2, at the time...

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot


indeed not. they got no $$$ when I bought civ 3, and then civ 3 play the world, and then civ 3 conquests. always nice to meet young innocents in this wonderous world



point - they have the $$$ and we still have an unfinished game and as good as it is that they bring out new games, some of us paid good $$$ again and again for a game....

wish the innocents would stand up and finish what they were paid for several times by many people



they will not be forgotten, and the innocents of firaxis and associated companies will not be respected

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Solver
Why not? What features are you talking about anyway - Generals and vassals, I assume? These work fine for me in BtS...

Okay, so BtS will include all the civs and features (vassal states, GG's, UB's, etc.) included in Warlords.

[Robert]

I'm sorry, but I have played hundreds, maybe thousands of hours of civ3. It was a fantastic game.

But since Yin started his negative fibe BEFORE the game was being released, the game was doomed to fail on poly. Do you know that on CFC there are many many people who prefer civ3 above civ4? (I can't understand that, civ4 is clearly superior, as is civ2 superior to civ2)

Civilization 3 got everything that civ2 and civ1 had, and more. And it did it in a very well ballanced way. The dishing civ3 just doesn't do it for me.

[Solver]

Civ3 didn't fail on Poly. Arguably, it succeeded here more than on CFC. Yes, the majority of veterans who registered before Civ3 and are still around don't like it much, but we had a huge number of amazing contributors to Civ3. I looked through the archives today - lots of great quality posts, lots of activity. Awesome strategy threads, awesome effort with the AU.

I agree wholeheartedly that Civ3 had all that Civ2 did and more. So I did play Civ3 and not Civ2 at the time - but I still consider Civ3 to be a game with too many flaws at the core of its design, which greatly limit the fun and strategic depth. But I won't go into it now - this is a thread about BtS .