Tweet
Well, I am out of exile. I am here to try in vein to keep many, many good people from spending more on a game than the game deserves. First let me make something clear:
Civ 3 will EVENTUALLY be a great game. Once the first few patches, MP and good mods/scenarios are all in place, Civ3 could well be awesome. But I imagine that won't happen until about May-March of 2002. So the question you should ask yourselves:
Do I want to pay FULL PRICE for a Civ3 in October that has various infuriating bugs, unbalanced gameplay, and lack of MP?
Or would you rather not want to save some bad impressions and irritating waits for patches and promised features, all the while saving money AND sending a message to Infogrames that this kind of release strategy is a horrid one?
I know, I know. Most of us here are game junkies and will buy this thing at the first chance, believing that the problems won't be that bad. I hope you are right, but here are some reasons I think you will be disappointed by Civ 3 out of the box:
Civ3 with live and die by how well it is balanced, debugged and offers a full feature set out of the box. So far, some concerns (notice that most of these center on the 'unique civ' approach, which I think Firaxis found much harder to implement than it ever imagined...they should have consulted Ensemble Studios, but that is another matter):
** Things potentially as influential as GAs are still being radically fiddled with a few weeks before the game goes gold. How can the game AI be properly written to handle these kinds of changes in so short a time?
** Civ attributes are being fiddled with weeks before the game goes gold. How can the game AI be properly written to handle these kinds of changes in so short a time?
** Unique units seem somewhat quirky out ill-chosen. Don't be shocked if we see even THOSE being changed right up to the last minute.
** There will be no demo. (!!!???)
** MP may well come out many months from now and we might have to pay for it. (!!!???)
Now, I realize that all games get tweaked even the minute before the master is sent to duplication (and thus some horrid bugs 'strangely' get left in as well), those things above indicate to me an overall pattern:
Firaxis is pressed for time and has yet to feel really satisified with this entire unique civ concept so is still trying out stuff as we speak. And not releasing a demo and possibly even MP only further argues 1) lack of time and 2) lack of confidence in the game as it stands. I say this with such confidence because the SMAC demo was a huge success for them and because to repeat past MP debacles must come only under the pressure of something decidedly 'not good.'
Yes, customizing could rectify many, many problems. But out of the box, I predict BIG problems. Thus, IF I decide to buy Civ3, it will only be once its price has dropped significantly in March or May and once MP, modding and the first significant patches are in place.
I have been an unpaid beta tester too many times, thank you.
Civ 3 will EVENTUALLY be a great game. Once the first few patches, MP and good mods/scenarios are all in place, Civ3 could well be awesome. But I imagine that won't happen until about May-March of 2002. So the question you should ask yourselves:
Do I want to pay FULL PRICE for a Civ3 in October that has various infuriating bugs, unbalanced gameplay, and lack of MP?
Or would you rather not want to save some bad impressions and irritating waits for patches and promised features, all the while saving money AND sending a message to Infogrames that this kind of release strategy is a horrid one?
I know, I know. Most of us here are game junkies and will buy this thing at the first chance, believing that the problems won't be that bad. I hope you are right, but here are some reasons I think you will be disappointed by Civ 3 out of the box:
Civ3 with live and die by how well it is balanced, debugged and offers a full feature set out of the box. So far, some concerns (notice that most of these center on the 'unique civ' approach, which I think Firaxis found much harder to implement than it ever imagined...they should have consulted Ensemble Studios, but that is another matter):
** Things potentially as influential as GAs are still being radically fiddled with a few weeks before the game goes gold. How can the game AI be properly written to handle these kinds of changes in so short a time?
** Civ attributes are being fiddled with weeks before the game goes gold. How can the game AI be properly written to handle these kinds of changes in so short a time?
** Unique units seem somewhat quirky out ill-chosen. Don't be shocked if we see even THOSE being changed right up to the last minute.
** There will be no demo. (!!!???)
** MP may well come out many months from now and we might have to pay for it. (!!!???)
Now, I realize that all games get tweaked even the minute before the master is sent to duplication (and thus some horrid bugs 'strangely' get left in as well), those things above indicate to me an overall pattern:
Firaxis is pressed for time and has yet to feel really satisified with this entire unique civ concept so is still trying out stuff as we speak. And not releasing a demo and possibly even MP only further argues 1) lack of time and 2) lack of confidence in the game as it stands. I say this with such confidence because the SMAC demo was a huge success for them and because to repeat past MP debacles must come only under the pressure of something decidedly 'not good.'
Yes, customizing could rectify many, many problems. But out of the box, I predict BIG problems. Thus, IF I decide to buy Civ3, it will only be once its price has dropped significantly in March or May and once MP, modding and the first significant patches are in place.
I have been an unpaid beta tester too many times, thank you.
If I don't find a great game to keep me busy during that time (there are a few other games than Civ, so I hear), I'll do what I really should be doing: Perfecting my Korean skills and continuing to teach myself Chinese characters.
Comment