ok, so is it NOW worth it?

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by David Murray


Well, perhaps because it is a shoddy rip-off of Age of Empires 2 (a true classic).

[aoav160]

Play the Civ board game, there's a challenge.

[Solver]

It's a decent game now, although I wasn't impressed by the PTW expansion too much. I have recently came up with a couple of good reasons as to why CtP2 has better gameplay, but Civ 3 is challenging and good... hope Conquests is good.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by David Murray


Well, perhaps because it is a shoddy rip-off of Age of Empires 2 (a true classic).

Argh, well at least you answered my question about whether or not to try RoN. I absolutely hated AoE, so I guess I probably wouldn't like RoN.

[Arrian]

What Dominae said. If you liked it before (or perhaps were on the brink of liking it, but were annoyed by bugs), then you'll like it now. If not, you won't.

-Arrian

[Solver]

Argh, well at least you answered my question about whether or not to try RoN. I absolutely hated AoE, so I guess I probably wouldn't like RoN.

Can't agree less. I absolutely don't understand people who say RoN is a ripoff of AoE games. I have played a TON of AoE games, and all I can say is, they're not similar with RoN. There's only a little similarity on the surface, but the strategies are different, and the actual gameplay differs too. AoE is military based, focused on quick battles, RoN is economy based. Research plays a huge role in RoN, next to none in AoE.

BTW - I know of AoE people who love RoN, and those who hate it.

[David Murray]

Originally posted by Solver

Argh, well at least you answered my question about whether or not to try RoN. I absolutely hated AoE, so I guess I probably wouldn't like RoN.

Can't agree less. I absolutely don't understand people who say RoN is a ripoff of AoE games. I have played a TON of AoE games, and all I can say is, they're not similar with RoN. There's only a little similarity on the surface, but the strategies are different, and the actual gameplay differs too. AoE is military based, focused on quick battles, RoN is economy based. Research plays a huge role in RoN, next to none in AoE.

BTW - I know of AoE people who love RoN, and those who hate it.

Edit: I just noticed your sig. Obviously you play AoE 2, however ... it seems you've forgotten all about the blacksmith, the trading market, the university, advancing through the ages, the research at the town center, the research at mining and lumber camps, the research and upgrading of troops and ships ... etc etc etc. Military based perhaps, but you won't win any wars without resources and up to date troops ....

Oh, and er, you seem to have forgotten the wonder victory option in AoE 2 ....

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Dominae
There's nothing in the game now that will make it more "worth it" than it was when it was first released. Either you enjoy the way Civ3 turned out, or you do not. I cannot imagine the nay-sayers will find any good reason to pick up Civ3 again; the game is essentially the same as it always was.

Why not just accept that it's a matter of personal preference, and leave it at that? Why is it some sort of crime that Civ3 did not (and does not) appeal to everyone, including fans of Civ2?

When RoN came out, I was seriously unimpressed. I debated for a bit as to why I thought it's a so-so game, but realised this was a pointless exercise. The same is true here.

If there's anything that will compel you, it is this: Civ3 is still a popular game, almost two years after its initial release. The "test of time" argument is the only one that I can think of that has any merit, and even then it should not convince players who simply do not like the game to begin playing it again.


Dominae

You are correct in saying that those who were disappointed with civ3 when it was released will probably still be, but I don't think it is wrong to look for second opinions on the near 2 year anniversary of it's release.

After all, saying that there is nothing new to change nay sayers is your opinion.

I think it is fair to ask players after 2 years whether or not their gameplay concerns have been addressed.

On a game that has such a high level of history and prestige (and alot to live up to) as Civ3, a "satisfaction report" after 2 years and numerous patches is not uncalled for I don't think.

For me, I enjoy the game for the most part. I did not buy PTW and will be debating buying the latest x-pak. (If PTW is required, i'm out).

I'm more interested in gameplay patches, not x-paks that only add more civs since I only play as one civ anyway.

I like the game, I don't love it.

I still enjoy SMAC more.

[WarpStorm]

PTW will not be required and its features will be included.

In the case where you only play as one civ (a little limiting IMHO, but whatever floats your boat) there might be less incentive to get C3C. Your favorite Civ (which is it?) likely will not be in the conquests. The core game has been enhanced.

[vee4473]

now that I think about it, even if you only play a s a favorite civ, the addition of playting against new civs with new traits poses alot of interesting and potential fun.

kinda like smax did...

oh gee whiz, i don't know...

[vee4473]

i play as the americans. are they not in conquests?

[vmxa1]

vee4473, I agree is is fair to ask, but if the one doing the asking does not tell what they did not care for, how can we answer? I mean if it was due to no ZoC, that is one answer. If it was due to the combat, that is another.
Most of the posters that were not happy about the game had a few of the 4 or 5 main complaints. I would say 1 or 2 were improved, the rest not. I of course did not agree with their point of view.
So if we are to take them seriously, they should come in and say I did not like X Y and Z are they still the same? Then they can get a useful response, otherwise they really only want to jerk our chain.

[WarpStorm]

The Americans are still in the main game of Conquests as well as one of the scenarios that has been disclosed. They (for obvious reasons) aren't in most of the new scenarios as they weren't around in the time frame of those scenarios.

[Solver]

Edit: I just noticed your sig. Obviously you play AoE 2, however ... it seems you've forgotten all about the blacksmith, the trading market, the university, advancing through the ages, the research at the town center, the research at mining and lumber camps, the research and upgrading of troops and ships ... etc etc etc. Military based perhaps, but you won't win any wars without resources and up to date troops ....

Oh, and er, you seem to have forgotten the wonder victory option in AoE 2 ....

What level did you play AoE2 on? University was the only "pure research" building, but the only techs researched were Murder Holes, and sometimes Chemistry. Yes, you had to upgrade your military and economy techs, but it was, well, very different. There was no tech-tree like in RoN. RoN still has the AoE-style upgrades at Granary, etc, but AoE had nothing like RoN's library tech tree, too.

Wonder victory, duh. Of several hundred games I've played, I don't think more than ten ended with a Wonder.

Now, in RoN, you have the options about when you want to attack. In AoE2, you must attack in the Feudal Age, preferrably at a time of 13 minutes or so. Fast Castle is the only other option, but only viable if you can do it really fast (under 15)... Feudal players got too good. And, those battles are the key in AoE2. Things like attrition and diplomacy in RoN do really make economy more important than an army, and make playing without any significant army an option.

[Paddy]

Get into it, it is fun, a bit stupid in some things, but still a fun game.

I hope you enjoy it.