Originally posted by Asher
I really don't know what most of those people are up in arms about.
I really don't know what most of those people are up in arms about.
There are several reasons I see people trashing the game here, thankfully they are a minority. A very vocal one, but still a minority. What's interesting is that the vast majority of them HAVE NOT PLAYED IT YET. I discount them entirely. Their opinions are worthless.
So the others are in two types:
1) People having systems problems/can get it to run/isn't stable.
2) People who complain about the gameplay itself.
And I see them like this.
1) Yeah it sucks if it doesn't work on your system, but again, this is a minority of players. It works fine for most people. You can't blame Firaxis for all the compatability problems, as Asher said. They have admitted a few errors, but most of the ones I've seen reported are the fault of the people's systems and drivers. This is inevitable with any PC software product. Want a console game? Fine, buy them. But when you buy PC games, you'd better realize there will ALWAYS be systems that have trouble with it. My system runs CivIII fine, and it's a AMD 400 Mhx. I've had no trouble running certain games, and I've had trouble with others. I had a helluva time getting Diablo II to run at first. Others had no problems. This is just par for the course with any game.
2) A lot of these guys are the Civ players who were looking for Civ2.1 in terms of gameplay and interface. This is a different game, and you have to play it differently. The Gamepro review was a perfect example. This guy obviously only had cursory experience with Civ2. That's the only way he can call the gameplay changes superficial. The fundamental mechanics of how the game works have been changed. If anything, it is what has been left unchanged that is superficial.
Conquering strategy and expansion--totally different. Try and do it like Civ2, you lose. Diplomacy--very different. Actions have more far-reaching consequences and maintaining a balance between your friends and foes is more complicated. The corruption factor alone makes expansion and city-management a whole different affair. These guys sound to me like people who just aren't strategic enough to develop new strategies. Of COURSE in your first game you're not going to know how to handle different situations--it's a different game, and don't you WANT a challenge? Isn't having to struggle a part of what all civs really had to do in history anyway?
So these guys need to play the game more to figure out that their old hack ways of winning don't apply, and they will need to be more creative. I guess this is where new Civers may have an advantage. Can't teach an old dog new tricks, after all...
BTW, I'm in a terrifically competitive game just on Chieftan level now. I've started to understand the strategies needed to win battles more, etc...things are coming together nicely. I'm in 3rd place, too. That hasn't happened to me in Civ in ages! I love it...
But anyway, Firaxis was in Catch-22 with the civ fans, because they would get roasted no matter what they did. Implement ideas a,b,c and all the people who wanted x, y, z will ***** and moan because they somehow think it's THEIR game to dictate what gets in or not. And then those same moaners, who haven't even played, will harp on people's tech difficulties to further their point, even though these problems are an exception rather than a rule. I talked to Caleb at the Infogrames tech support for a minor sound bug (due to outdated drivers on my machine, btw), and when I asked if they were getting flooded with calls, he said no, tech support volume was fairly slow.
ANYWAY, I'm happy with the game, think it is not only fun but very rich and full of options. The editor is a real gem, even if it is "incomplete." Considering no other strategy game even comes close to including such a robust tool for changing almost ANY rule. I consider it a great perk!
So calm down guys...take the word of people who have played it and know...it's good!
Cheers
Comment