Civ3 is Broken

[Kaak]

Throught the devlopment (and excruciating period of waiting) for Civ3, we were told that the game was being designed to fix and improve aspects of civ2 gameplay, and to make the game more realistic. I feel Firaxis thouroughly failed, and here is why:

1. Culture

Okay, they introduced a culture system. Fine. Great even. However, I feel this system is broken. In my current game, I am destroying the competition culturally, as well as militarily. My culture value accounts for almost half of the histograph. However, I conquered a couple cities, from the french, who at this point have 3 or 4 remaining cities, compared to my 40+. These Particular cities, however, strongly garrisoned though they were, decided they admired the "culture" of the french (whose closest city at this point had fairly vast territory of 2 civs between) and diposed my governor.

2. Corruption and Waste.

In this game, my cities are being plagued with corruption. What are the remedies thereof? Courthouse right? So I build a courthouse. Did that help? Nope. I still have many cities producing only ONE shield, and wasting 10 or more. Next step? Forbidden Palace. Still no help. So, what is left to do? I did the only thing I could think of. I switched to democracy, and was ASTOUNDED to discover my cities still with only one shield production. One city, about 10 or 12 squares from my capital still has a 75% corruption rate!!!

There are several other things that are bothering me, but these are the two most prominent.

[Kaak]

Also, it is frustrating that the AI can simply walk right up to your weakest city, bypassing several others. How do they know which is the weakest? It sucks to play a game when all the other players aren't playing by the same rules...

[Jaybe]

This is not Civ2

Corruption is high relative to Civ2, and the remedies are weak. I have had productive (as in, lots of production but only 1/3 corruption) far across the seas.*

If you don't like the AI being smarter, then ... (no, I am not going to say it).

I understand your ranting to be mainly from shock. Yes, it IS different, and CHALLENGING! Enjoy the game (or not).

*Chieftan level.

[kmj]

See, it's threads like this that piss me off. You have a few gripes which may or may not be reasonable, and you feel the need to claim that the game is "broken". That is flat out false, wrong, silly, and way overreacting... annoying. Right now, at this moment, thousands (more than that I'm sure) of people are playing and enjoying this game tremendously; winning and losing.

It is a different game, old tactics will not work and you will have to *gasp* learn new ones.


1) Yeah, corruption is bad, but you can get past that... for starters, make sure you have we love the king day.

2) Embassies allow you to investigate all your enemy cities; thereby finding the weakest.

This game has so many more facets than Civ2. Many many people find it tremendously fun and addictive. It is not broken, your perspective is broken. You are being foolish and arrogant. Next time reread your post (and title) and be sure it truly represents what you want to say. If you want a game where everything works exactly the way you think it should, write it your damned self.

[CyberGnu]

kmj, it all depends on your perspective. If you want a strategy game and don't care about the surroundings, fine, the game works pretty well I guess.

But if you want a game that is based on history and empirebuilding, there are a few things that are definetely broken. Corruption and cultural reassimilation of conquered cities being two of the most glaring ones.

In my opinion a third one is the lack of diffrentiation between old and new units... Ony of my battleships just got sunk attacking a galleon.

So calm down, please? Currently this is not a game worthy of the name civilization. It might still be a good strategy game, however.

[Zylka]

KMJ, the game is broken. There are many contradictions between the civelopedia, instruction book, and gameplay itself. Since this proves the game is not functioning in its intended purpose, it is by defintion broken.

What should piss you off is the attitude of outright acceptance so prevelant around here. This game was rushed beyond belief, and for some reason you can not accept that. When people point this out in a polite manner, you feel obligated to drop by a thread that "pisses you off" and share your views - "EVRERY1 THOUSANDS OF PEEPS IZ HAVING A GOOD TIME PLAYING IT WHY CANT U???"

Perhaps some individuals can't force themselves to have fun playing a game that has horrendous logistics flaws, let alone does not perform in its intended purpose. They do not see the need to "JUST HAVRE FUN WIT DA GAME", nor do they feel the need to tell others not to enjoy it. They voice their complaints in the hopes of having some impact on an upcoming patch, rather than blindly screaming "I LOVE IT I LOVE IT" in hopes of keeping everything the same.

If you love the game the way it is, fine. Do not download the future patch which will hopefully tend to the complaints we air. By then, you will have hopefully moved on to the next flavor of the month cash-cow. As for us - we will stay on, to play a game we hope to become timeless.

Did that clarify things a bit?

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
kmj, it all depends on your perspective. If you want a strategy game and don't care about the surroundings, fine, the game works pretty well I guess.

You're right, it's all about perspective, but the point of the game is to challenge you. Many of the things people complain about are there just for that reason.

But if you want a game that is based on history and empirebuilding, there are a few things that are definetely broken. Corruption and cultural reassimilation of conquered cities being two of the most glaring ones.

Again, this is part of the challenge.

In my opinion a third one is the lack of diffrentiation between old and new units... Ony of my battleships just got sunk attacking a galleon.

I actually agree with you here. Though I don't think it's as big a problem as everyone says.

So calm down, please? Currently this is not a game worthy of the name civilization. It might still be a good strategy game, however.

He seemed quite calm to me, and I think that civ3 definitely deserves the civilization name. It may not be as innovative as the original, but that's not the point of civ3. If you don't like the game, you don't have to play it.

[kmj]

Zylka -


KMJ, the game is broken. There are many contradictions between the civelopedia, instruction book, and gameplay itself. Since this proves the game is not functioning in its intended purpose, it is by defintion broken.


I haven't noticed any contradictions between the civilopedia and the game. The manual, yes, but these I can attribute to the fact that changes were made during beta tested that could not be fixed in the manual. It happens; anyway, documentation issues do not detract from the game. People who expected a fun, addictive, challenging game got exactly what they wanted, which was the intended purpose of the game designers. Therefore, by my judgement, your statement is wrong and the game is not broken.

Was the game rushed? Yes. Does that anger me? Yes. But face it, that's a product of the current "software culture", if you will. Microsoft taught software makers alot. That does suck. Then again, by my judgement, most games and companies' attitudes suck; in this case, I don't think they do.


What should piss you off is the attitude of outright acceptance so prevelant around here. This game was rushed beyond belief, and for some reason you can not accept that. When people point this out in a polite manner, you feel obligated to drop by a thread that "pisses you off" and share your views -

The fact is some people are not being polite. I have not responded in disagreement with anyone who politely states the issues they have with the game. I have done that. Making a blanket statement: "the game is broken", stating an opinion as a fact, is not a polite statement.


"EVRERY1 THOUSANDS OF PEEPS IZ HAVING A GOOD TIME PLAYING IT WHY CANT U???"


Oh, very intelligent. You'll win a noble peace prize for that one, dipsh!t. I don't care if you or anyone else enjoys the game. I don't care if you take your CivIII CD and microwave it in homage to the Lobster God T'Chuktliutc. If you actually read what I said, I was using it as evidence of the fact I stated above: the game was created for entertainment and it is entertaining people. Therefore it is not broken. QEfsckin'D, jerky. So please don't misrepresent my words and treat me like some stupid aoler. If you want to have an intelligent argument, that's fine; but insults will only prove your own incapabilities.


Perhaps some individuals can't force themselves to have fun playing a game that has horrendous logistics flaws, let alone does not perform in its intended purpose. They do not see the need to "JUST HAVRE FUN WIT DA GAME", nor do they feel the need to tell others not to enjoy it. They voice their complaints in the hopes of having some impact on an upcoming patch, rather than blindly screaming "I LOVE IT I LOVE IT" in hopes of keeping everything the same.


Again, I don't give a flying fart whether you have fun. If you don't like it, bring it back. It's still not broken. There's a difference between voicing your complaints, and selfrighteously stating that your opinions dictate what is correct. I've mentioned in some threads what I thought was wrong with the game.


If you love the game the way it is, fine. Do not download the future patch which will hopefully tend to the complaints we air. By then, you will have hopefully moved on to the next flavor of the month cash-cow. As for us - we will stay on, to play a game we hope to become timeless.


FYI this is the only game I've bought in the past two years. I've been playing CivII as long as anyone else. This game, CivII, and rollercoaster tycoon are the only games I play generally because most games just aren't worth my time.



Did that clarify things a bit?


Yeah; thanks. Now I know what an @ss you are.

CyberGnu -
Oh look, a rational post that wasn't complete flamebait! You could learn something Zylka...


kmj, it all depends on your perspective. If you want a strategy game and don't care about the surroundings, fine, the game works pretty well I guess. But if you want a game that is based on history and empirebuilding, there are a few things that are definetely broken. Corruption and cultural reassimilation of conquered cities being two of the most glaring ones.


In my experience with the game, the improved ai and emphasis on diplomacy, the addition of culture, etc. this game is more historically realistic than CivII. CivII was basically you against the rest of the world in a battle of military might from the get-go. Compared to Civ3, CivII was just a glorified wargame. Corruption is hard to quantify. Does it seem excessive in Civ3? Yes, and I wouldn't mind seeing it fixed. Also, I would like to see the factors that determine cultural reassimilation. Some people seem to feel that they have this under control. Do some wierd things happen that maybe shouldn't? Yes. Does that break the game? I really don't think so.

[b]
In my opinion a third one is the lack of diffrentiation between old and new units... Ony of my battleships just got sunk attacking a galleon.
[b]

I agree that this is wierd... I think there should be a chance, but some things may still have too much of a chance...
Sadly, Xerxes314's combat calculator doesn't include naval units.



So calm down, please?


I was until I was treated like some little ignorant 'netkiddie by Zylka.


Currently this is not a game worthy of the name civilization. It might still be a good strategy game, however.


I disagree. I think game is just as worthy of the name civilazition as 1 or 2. It has added many new and intriguing facets, which make it more about a civilization and less about extended warfare. There would be no way to create a perfectly accurate history "recreation" simulator, and I think Civ3 comes as close as any other game of the genre does.


There are people who have real complaints. There are real bugs that should be patched, and possible gameplay issues that, being fixed, will make it a better game. There are issues brought up by multiplayer people, in advance, hoping they'll be fixed before multiplayer civ3 comes out. The scenario community obviously has real and important issues that they feel need to be fixed. They presented these issues via this forum with a tactful open letter. They didn't say (in true Zylka spirit) "YUTR GAME EIS BROOKEN!!!!".

[aderen]

I totally agree with Zylka. The game was rushed and even though it doesn't seem to have any bugs it lack the polishness of other civ games that I've played.
I was annoyed by so many aspects of the game that I just gave up at almost the end of the the game. I hope future patch will fix things up, as it is really common in game industry now: just release the game as soon as possible, let people beta test the game and we'll give them the patch so make them happy and they will thank us for the patch.
Probably if there was a demo version to be downloaded, many people wouldn't buy the game after trying it. I'm sure I wouldn't. That's probably why fireaxis is not releasing it for now.

[Kaak]

"...and the award for the most self-contradicting statements in a single post goes to...KMJ!!!"

That post was a spectacular representation of the intelligence you claim to have.

Oh, very intelligent. You'll win a noble peace prize for that one, dipsh!t...insults will only prove your own incapabilities.
...Yeah; thanks. Now I know what an @ss you are.

People who expected a fun, addictive, challenging game got exactly what they wanted, which was the intended purpose of the game designers.

Is that all you expected from civ3? It isn't at all what I expected from civ3. I think if we took a poll, we would find that most other people expected more too. What I expected was this: An improvement on civ2. Did I want it to be more of a challenge? Yes. Did I want it to be more realistic? Yes! Did I want to be able to BELIEVE what the civlopedia told me? YES! But what did I get? A game that is more challenging, but only because it was changed in a poorly thought out way. The AI is much much better, and I am thankful for that, but the corruption is rediculous. Riding a bicycle with a bent wheel is harder, but that doesn't make it better, or any less broken.

Is the game more realistic? Nope. Battleship loosing to galleon. Here also, the game is not an improvement.

As for the civlopedia. Read what it says under Democracy about corruption. it says it is MINIMAL. under democracy, one of my cities had 95% waste and even higher corruption. Is that minimal? What does it say about Court Houses? They reduce corruption. I built courthouses, and it did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Are these not contradictions between gameplay and the cp?

*regent level...

and as far as:

The fact is some people are not being polite. I have not responded in disagreement with anyone who politely states the issues they have with the game. I have done that. Making a blanket statement: "the game is broken", stating an opinion as a fact, is not a polite statement.

I'm not sure how that statement was impolite. I'm also not sure why you would take it as anything other than me stating my opinion. Reality check: that's what forums are for. And the first person to be impolite or crude in this thread was you.


The simple fact is, we did not get what we were promised; a better game than civ2. The AI is better, kudos. The graphics are better. woohoo! But some aspects of the gameplay poison its vitality and worthiness of the civ name. Do i like this game? Yes. Have I been playing it a lot? yes. HOWEVER, I think it could have been done Better, and I don't feel like i got what I paid for.

[Leonid]

Why is it if you don't like certain aspects of the game you just say it was "rushed"? Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon here. Maybe these things are by design and intent of the developers?

Always looking for the quick and easy way out. I think peeps want it to be like civ 2 where you expand like mad with no consequences, have nuclear weapons by 1 AD, and your moving about the map with Stealth bombers and mech infantry fighting spearmen? You know maybe they want to make the game more interesting by making it a little more challanging.

[Daetrin]

Originally posted by kmj
1) Yeah, corruption is bad, but you can get past that... for starters, make sure you have we love the king day.

Okay, the corruption is a multi-faceted issue, but that's just a dumb statement. WLTK is not a solution.

In Chieftan level, i have a city with a population of 6, they are about 20-30 tiles away from my capital, it is a city i founded, not a captured one, it has a courthouse, it has a temple, it's connected by railroads to the rest of my empire, four out of the six people are happy and it's been in WLTK mode for hundreds of years. After corruption it produces one shield and one commerce.

As far as I can tell, WLTK day does nothing for corruption.

[Kaak]

Leonid: firaxis has admitted rushing the game a bit, even to sloppy coding...

[Kaak]

the simple FACT is, there is no solution for corruption. courthouses, democracy, policestations, WTLK days...nothing works. Not too bad on chieftan? try regent or emp! The game isn't hard to win, it's just that the corruption aspect is a little rediculous as it is...

[aderen]

Why is it if you don't like certain aspects of the game you just say it was "rushed"? Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon here. Maybe these things are by design and intent of the developers?

there are several reason why i don't like some aspects of the game. Please note that I said some. I still enjoyed playing the game for 3 days (and even going to sleep at 5AM on saturday monrning, a day after I bought the game)

Firstly, I had a pact with 2 civs to let them pass thru my land and what that did was an endless movement of units thru my territory where I had to sit for 5 minutes and watch the units move (with animations turned off). My computer is Athlon 1.4GH with 512MB ram and GForceIII card, so it couldn't be my computer. There were hundreds of units moving and there was no way to turn that off so that I don't have to watch that. Plus I had over 100 workers, which actions I had to watch as the screen moved from one to another, and of course no option to turn that off either. My email about this to fireaxis is still unanswered.
My only solution was to break the agreement with those 2 civs (I spent more time watching the screen move around than playing) and 2 turns after that they declared war on me and took about 5 of my cities where I had very little army stationed and in the middle of my country. As I struggled to take them back moving ONE unit at the time not able to group them and loosing my 20th century units againts 12th century units, and taking couple cities from computer players, there was nothing I could do to make those citizens happy so I lost most cities I got.
Another annoying aspect is that computer expends so fast and in locations so close and in between my land that it's really annoying. I had few cities right in the middle of mine. Of course my culture took them, but they had about 6 usable cells and it was all desert and there is no option to disband a city.