Gamespot says: "Just about the only disappointing thing about Civilization III is..."

[Stretch]

Multi-player will appear someday.

I look at it like this: By the time it comes out I will know the game well enough to kick the snot out of some friend I just introduced the game to. That will help balance out all the beatings I will take at the hands of experieced palyers like the lot of you all.

It's a gentle balance for the ego

[Stuie]

The only reason Multiplayer is seen as so "crucial" to a game is because the gaming press and a very small and extremely vocal online community have convin.........

Oh..... wait, this thread is about MP isn't it? Damn, I swore I'd stay away from those.

Sorry, go about your pissing.

[yin26]

IMO the point of the post was to point out that reviewers do care about MP (as some had predicted).

Precisely. As a number of the non-MP pissers around us hinted or claimed that MP was no big deal and hardly anybody would miss it, I felt it interesting to point out that 'about the only disappointing thing' being said at this early point is about MP.

'Vocal minority?' Hmmm, convenient to say that, I suppose.

[Zanzin]

I agree with yin, I'd like to hear about the AI's capabilities. Maybe in tomorows 3rd and final day of Gamespots civ3 preview there'll be some info on it. Like I've said before, as long as the AI knows how to kick my arse with a huge army attacking from multiple points, I'll be happy.

[yin26]

as long as the AI knows how to kick my arse with a huge army attacking from multiple points, I'll be happy.

Yes, that would be the Holy Grail. Let's wait and see.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Zanzin
I agree with yin, I'd like to hear about the AI's capabilities. Maybe in tomorows 3rd and final day of Gamespots civ3 preview there'll be some info on it. Like I've said before, as long as the AI knows how to kick my arse with a huge army attacking from multiple points, I'll be happy.

Yah, that's what I'm hoping for the most. A good AI. Hopefully, they'll talk about it but who knows how much they can know considering when they got the game... Does anyone know when they got the game?

[Zanzin]

only a few days ago I guess

[Barshy]

My breath stopped when I read "the only negative thing..." but then I breathed a sigh of relief when they only mentioned multiplayer.

That is because like many gamers (enough that will buy Civ3 to make it profitable), I don't care about multiplayer.

I just hope the AI is good.

[old timer]

I'm one of those who's really going to have a hard time resisting buying this game right off the bat, but at the same time I'm almost certain I'll be disappointed. Pretty stupid, hah?

I have this very strong feeling that after Civ3's been out for a little while, what we're going to be hearing is "Just about the only disappointing thing about Civ3 is that there is no multiplayer, the AI sucks and there's no way to improve the AI either - otherwise, it's a great game." Now wouldn't that be great?

I really don't believe the AI is going to be very good and with no MP and no way to improve the AI, how long can anyone possibly have fun with it? Well, apparently for quite some time, considering how long some have been playing Civ2. That just amazes me. I guess that's what Firaxis is counting on - many people apparently don't need a good AI opponent to have fun and don't care about MP.

BTW, I'm not uninformed about AI programming, and that's why I'm pessimistic about the AI. I've been studying AI programming and I've written large AI scripts for both AOK and Sub Titans and I can tell you that it's extremely difficult to make a good AI for a game that's fairly complex, and this game is not just fairly complex, it's VERY complex. IMHO, they really blew it by not allowing us to be able to modify the AI. For at least some of us, the AI won't be much challenge for more than a game or two. Of that I'm nearly certain. I just hope I can find the strength to resist the temptation to buy this game.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The fact that no one at Firaxis has beaten it at the deity level tells us nothing much about the AI, except that it probably cheats like mad at that level. I'll bet that on Prince where there's no cheating (I think?), it'll prove to be quite easy after a game or two. And how fun will it be knowing that the only reason the AI is challenging you is because it's cheating like crazy? That's not my idea of fun.

[TechWins]

I really don't believe the AI is going to be very good and with no MP and no way to improve the AI, how long can anyone possibly have fun with it?

If your belief that the AI will not be very good, I think many people will still enjoy the game, considering the fact that many people were able to suffice with Civ1&2 for quite awhile before their respective MPs came out.

As to this thread, it may look to some as a negative post since it is the lead off statement in the first post.

No, the reason why this thread is taken as negative is because misinterpretation. This misinterpretation comes from the fact that Yin posted this. As many feel that Yin is 'Lord Pessimist'. Jumping to conclusions come from people who are so blind to see the other side of the spectrum. It's really just a matter of people needing to realize the whole picture and not stay so in tuned with their opinions/feelings that they shut out others' opinions/feelings. Even if this was a critical thread towards Civ3 it would still be compliant with my enjoyment. For that there needs to some criticism, otherwise this forum would turn into a Mr. Rogers atmosphere.

IMHO, the AI will be competent, but not as intelligent as one would dream for. Which in all reality is all you can ask for, as Old Timer pointed out that AI programming is not an easy task. My outlook for the Civ3 AI is that it will be much improved upon the Civ2 AI, but how much improvement it will have over the SMAC AI is up in the air, so to speak.

[MarkG]

actually, what this shows is that the gamespot people havent spent the amount of time needed to find any actual problems

i would be surprised if they have played more than two full games

given that, and given that of course firaxis has done a carefull job (as always) it's hard to find something to write in the "cons column".

so, in order to appear as "fair", what's left for the previewer? lack of multiplayer


if i was undecided on whether to buy civ3, i would rather wait for the comments from players on the first month(and not just the first two weeks) and then decide

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by MarkG
..if i was undecided on whether to buy civ3, i would rather wait for the comments from players on the first month(and not just the first two weeks) and then decide

Unfortunately, a lot of casual gamers don't wait around for peachy reviews and player comments after they have given their first look into a game. And, especially at this time of year where the market is Noah's Ark flooded with products to choose from, a potential buyer might be carried away from CivIII by, what in their eyes, is a better game.

Also, a lot of casual strategy gamers are into online play, due mostly to the RTS multiplayer trends these days. So something like "No MP in CivIII" might just turn some prospective CIV noobs away.

I wish Gamespot had said that "Firaxogrames is working on MP, and it should be available in early 2002".

[Firaxis is working on MP, right? ]

[Jack_www]

I would like to ask all the sp players out there a question. Do you guys ever get tried of playing the computer? I know I do. Once I figure out how to beat the AI I move on to mp. Something that really gets me mad is how it seems that all you sp only players are hostile to mp players. You think when we complain about no mp in Civ III that we have really nothing to complain about. How would you feel if there was no sp and only mp? Really the only complaint I have with Civ III is the lack of mp, everything else I am happy with. I also think that there is more than half of all who play Civ play mp sometime.

[Jack_www]

I would like to ask all the sp players out there a question. Do you guys ever get tried of playing the computer? I know I do. Once I figure out how to beat the AI I move on to mp. Something that really gets me mad is how it seems that all you sp only players are hostile to mp players. You think when we complain about no mp in Civ III that we have really nothing to complain about. How would you feel if there was no sp and only mp? Really the only complaint I have with Civ III is the lack of mp, everything else I am happy with. I also think that there is more than half of all who play Civ play mp sometime.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by MarkG
actually, what this shows is that the gamespot people havent spent the amount of time needed to find any actual problems

if i was undecided on whether to buy civ3, i would rather wait for the comments from players on the first month(and not just the first two weeks) and then decide

MarkG, I really appreciate your well "balanced" post. It should (but probably without any chance of success) moderate some posters.

I like you stepped in to explain (from some first hand experience) to many of us of things works in preview world.

About AI, I must confess I usually try to avoid to spoil AI weak points: it remove my suspension of disbelieve, the "game immersion".
Sometime I do, of course, because the AI in games not so "restricted" in scope, boards, alternative moves as Chess, Reversi, Backgammon, simply can't cope with the task.

The only way for it is cheating, but if developers abuse of cheating that is frustrating for gamers. Multiplayer was introduced also as a simple workaround to AI limits: put human brains to both side of the game board and you have no more limits. (At least not for programmers fault ).

Now Firaxis is in a Catch22: IF the AI will be sub-par they can't rely on MP to manage the lack of interest for the game!

The AI developers have really an hard task, don't have?