Sigh.... Still no word on another patch.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


If by "latest" you mean "last" I quote this for truth.

In dutch there's no difference between 'latest' and 'last'. But I will not hide behind excuses....

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Kind of sad in a way, I realy love civ4. I think it is has surpassed all of its predecesors in every way.


We honestly could not say that for civ3.

QFT.

Culture was neat, and the great leaders, and the Golden Ages... But it was really sad how Civ III took steps backwards from SMAC (going back to the old universal government system instead of taking the social engineering screen....)

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by jkp1187


QFT.
SMAC (going back to the old universal government system instead of taking the social engineering screen....)

QFT

Civ 4 realy did get a lot from SMAC.

I want SMAC 2.

[Ming]

Civ 3 was so bad... that many of us continued to play Civ 2 instead. That's REALLY bad

[Robert]

I really enjoyed civ3.
It was defenitely better then civ2.
It's obviously not to be compared to civ4, but the anti-civ3 sentiment is just way over the top.

[EternalSpark]

Originally posted by jkp1187
But it was really sad how Civ III took steps backwards from SMAC (going back to the old universal government system instead of taking the social engineering screen....)

While I agree, I can sort of understand why. If I remember correctly, SMAC was made because Civ III couldn't be made, for some reason.

Since it wasn't Civ III proper, it was (for lack of a better term) an excuse to do a lot of things that Civ didn't do before. So when Civ III was finally made, a lot of SMAC-based things didn't immediately pop into the developer's radar.

It was only until Civ III proper came out that they realized people liked a lot of the things from SMAC, and thus most of them were reintroduced in Civ IV.

[Ming]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I really enjoyed civ3.
It was defenitely better then civ2.
It's obviously not to be compared to civ4, but the anti-civ3 sentiment is just way over the top.

Civ 3 was awful. Whenever an earlier version of the game is prefered by many people over the new version, I don't think it's way over the top at all. There were a few nice things to Civ 3, but too many things that just ruined the game. And it was a terrible MP game... assuming you could even get it to play MP.

Civ 4 is light years ahead of it... and has been truly a great game.

[Robert]

civ3 MP was a disaster indeed.
But I still believe that many people hated civ3 and never gave it a good change because they heard everybody saying how bad it was.

It all started with Yin's pessimistic club, based on nothing he concluded that the game was going to suck. On Apolyton the game has never recovered from that negative image.

I'm a die-hard civ player, and I've really enjoyed playing civIII. It had it's problem, but playing civ2 after civ3 came out for any other purpose then MP or nostalgia is just weird.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Ming
Civ 3 was awful. Whenever an earlier version of the game is prefered by many people over the new version, I don't think it's way over the top at all.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Ming != many people.

More seriously, you are confusing MP play with overall quality. While the first was pretty bad in Civ3, the second was much better than previous Civ versions.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Civ 3 was an excellent game, so was 2 but 3 was a definite improvement over it.

Multiplayer ? PBEM worked fine.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Modo44

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Ming != many people.

More seriously, you are confusing MP play with overall quality. While the first was pretty bad in Civ3, the second was much better than previous Civ versions.

Yes... the live MP audience was a lot of people and just not me. The game wasn't really playable in that mode.
I know the live MP audience is a small minority compared to the SP or other MP crowd, but it's not that small of a group

And yes, Civ 3 had some nice features, but many people didn't like it for SP either. I got bored with the game quickly, as many other people did.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

There were also a lot who did not get bored with it.

Funny that we strayed from topic Mr Moderater

[Heraclitus]

Pssshhh, you don't want to end up in Mingapulco.

[Ming]

I only ban people who deserve it

Everybody is welcome to their opinion of Civ 3.
But again, I'm a live MP player, and the game simply sucked. Many of us were expecting so much more, and the game wasn't even playable for live MP.

I do play SP... and I played years worth of SP games with Civ 2. And I've done the same with Civ IV, Warlords, and BTS. Civ 3 couldn't compare in terms of time I spent with them.

Hopefully, we will get the FINAL patch for BtS that will solve all the minor problems that still exist. They can take all the time they want as long as they get it right.
If it comes out, and there are still problems, that would really suck.

[Harovan]

For SP Civ3 was way better than Civ2, for MP it's vice versa, so I don't really see what the fuss is about. Civ4 outshines both of them in both categories by a long shot.

And I agree, the time they work on the patch and the lack of any information is becoming ridiculous. I have heard the "we're working on it" thing before, that was back in C3C times. With the known outcome.

I will not buy Civ5 if Civ4 does not get a final patch.