What are your beefs with Civ3?

[ColdWizard]

possible lack of multiplayer

[Christantine The Great]

Firstly I think this is a rather rascist. firaxis is forcing themselves to choose traits for various cultures, many of which don't exist anymore, but some which do.

Uh, actually it was the natural evolution of the point system from SMAC. And it is not racist. Ask any historian about the Romans and they will tell you they were militaristic. Anyone on the street can see that. What is racist is saying "The Romans are militaristic because all they did was rape and destroy all the things the Greeks and other cultures did"

If you plan to just turn off this feature as soon as you start your first game then you are insulting Firaxis by saying "This feature seems stupid so I won't give it a chance."

redoing history not REplay history

Then why even choose a civilization to start off as? Then why even spend time to make a leader animation of a civ? Then why not name each civ Generic Communion of People Number 1, Generic Communion of People Number 2, etc.? You are redoing history by replaying the civs that made history.

[Sarxis]

I guess since I haven't seen the game yet, I don't have any legitimate problems with it.

I have none, and mostly because I trust the Firaxis team to do a kick a$$ job.

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I guess since I haven't seen the game yet, I don't have any legitimate problems with it.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing but it slipped my mind. Right on!

[FuFu15]

Re: Re: What are your beefs with Civ3?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


1. As with any sequel that has expectations, it is IMPOSSIBLE to put in everything every fan wants. Firaxis has been AMAZING when it comes to responding to the fans, and I think we are going to get the best product they can come up with. If you want an example of a crappy sequel where fan input was ignored, all I need say is Origin's Ultima IX. Blech.

has been amazing?

THE GAME DOESNT HAVE MULTIPLAYER

[ixnay]

I don't have any problems with the game - the more I see, the more I want it.

[KrazyHorse]

Is MSU in Helena, Kyller? They were trying to recruit me last year. How do you find the school? What are you in, etc.?

[ixnay]

MSU is in Bozeman, which is south of Helena. I'm a freshman in mechanical engineering - MSU has an excellent engineering school. I believe they are the second largest supplier of engineers for Boeing in the country. The country around here is really nice (when it isn't obscured by smoke), with mountains and skiing real close by. I've been here for about a month, and I definitely like it.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Kyller
I believe they are the second largest supplier of engineers for Boeing in the country...

You make it sound like Boeing goes through engineers pretty quick. What do they do with them? Test pilots? lol

Just kidding man.

[Bleyn]

Re: Re: Re: What are your beefs with Civ3?

Originally posted by FuFu15


has been amazing?

THE GAME DOESNT HAVE MULTIPLAYER

*Sigh* *Yawn*

Yes. We know. We've all heard about that issue. Frankly, I'm getting sick of it.

I know I am not alone in saying I personally don't care that Civ3 may be coming out SP-only first, with MP delayed for some months. Thats not how I plan on playing the game anyway.

In fact, if I think about the delay in MP at all, what comes to my mind is that when they do say something about it at all they are saying they want the MP element to be the best they can possibly make it. To me, their choice to delay MP shows me two things:

1. They have some ideas about how to make MP in Civ3 better than in CivNet, Civ2MPG, or SMAC. If they didn't have at least one idea along those lines, they probably could have easily slapped in the MP code from SMAC, banged on it until it worked and called it good. That is apparently not what they are doing. And you know, if they did that just because MP "has to be there from the start" the same people that are whining about it not being there now, would be whining about how its no different than previous games.

2. A lot of the people complaining about MP seem to forget that it takes a LOT more effort to make a great SP game than it does to make MP work. Their choice to delay MP shows that not only do they want MP to be the best it can be, they want the SP to be really good as well. There are trade-offs that have to occur in the development of a computer game and as things go, I don't think this is all that bad of one.

As for the subject of the thread, my only complaint is it isn't Oct. 30th yet, and we don't all have our grubby little hands on it.

[yin26]

All I'm going to say on this topic anymore is that it seems like an awfully good idea to WAIT to buy this game until it is actually completed and patched a few times. Perhaps at that point it will be an outstanding game.

[Gandalf The Grey]

1. No multiplayer...this is a big mistake...but after trudging through 6-8 turns of MPGE it doesn't seem that bad....I would like to have seem some nice innovation with the MP system but i guess they will try and pump some more money from us with the "Super big expansion" that will consist of the MP aspect and a few lame scenerios that will not even come close to the ones that will be on Apolyton.

2. Too many irrelevant UUs. 1/1/2 for the aztec UU? I dunno about the rest of you but it isn't long before i get bronze working i normally only make 1 warrior in civ2 and thats to scout with...some of the units look like they will be good but for the most part many seem a little to weak.

3. No use of enemy roads? WTF is this? No use of railroads is understandable but not just plain roads, theres is no historical support for this.

4. No new government forms infact they took out fundementalism...this is my biggest disapointment...I would like to have seen a few new ones like in CTP.

5. No hp/fp for units anymore? What the hell is that? I better not see my battle ship lose to a phalanx in this game as happens in civ 1 far to often.

6. I like the new diplomatic model but is there a way to restructure existing treaties? I hope so. It would be a shame if you could'nt alter a deal without breaking the treaty and getting bad PR...

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by yin26
All I'm going to say on this topic anymore is that it seems like an awfully good idea to WAIT to buy this game until it is actually completed and patched a few times. Perhaps at that point it will be an outstanding game.

But, Yin, why does that seem like a goog idea. Are you that inconfident in Firaxis abilities to do a great game. Or do you think that Infogrames are going to F*ck everything up. Or is it the old MP thing?? Please explain!!

Asmodean

[yin26]

There are a number of indications that Civ3 is being held to a pre-Christmas deadline. The lack of a wider beta effort...apparant lack of MP out of the box...only 16 civs through using the editor...etc., seem to indicate that Firaxis is having to 'focus' the game to meet the shipping deadline.'

So what I think will happen is the game will ship with various bugs, most of which not too serious but a few that are. We'll have to wait for MP. The AI will need some major tweaking, etc.

In the end, all of that will be fixed, I'm sure. Perhaps by May of next year. Thus, I think it's a good idea to wait IF you don't want to handle those issues. But if you are a patient kind of person and don't mind being an unpaid beta tester (and a lot of people will be happy to help Firaxis patch the game, so this is not such a problem), then by all means buy the game.

I'm just saying I'd rather buy it once it is more polished and complete a few months from now.

[Usually Insane]

well...

Originally posted by Gandalf The Grey

2. Too many irrelevant UUs. 1/1/2 for the aztec UU? I dunno about the rest of you but it isn't long before i get bronze working i normally only make 1 warrior in civ2 and thats to scout with...some of the units look like they will be good but for the most part many seem a little to weak.

agree with you on that one, some of those seem a bit pointless.

3. No use of enemy roads? WTF is this? No use of railroads is understandable but not just plain roads, theres is no historical support for this.

My idea would that roads and railroads gives a 1/2 as opposed to 1/3 an idefinateble move rates, except im mountanious regions where the won't confer any bonus at all (except maybe to nonhostile units (explorer)