Review of Civ3 by Yin

[siredgar]

The scientific approach.

I liked the way you did your review. I got 0 or -1 and I think your accompanying description is quite good. Good job!

[yin26]

Steve: Well, I was burned out on the forumula to begin with ... the other issues just were the straw to break the back, I suppose. Still, I'll see what the patches come up with.

siredgar: Thanks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

+10.... you surprised?

And Yin, I'm shocked! This review was rushed!

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
On a related note. The Civ3-General forum has degraded into a complete waste of time.

Yeah, too much info are no info for me. The forum is filled with thread I can't read quick enough (well, I'm a pretty quick reader in italian, but english slow down me a lot) and sometime aren't worth enough the effort.

About burnout, well, it can be half fault of a very intense couple of years spent waiting and suggesting about the Civ of our dream, and half a fault of a game not ready enough to keep to the (really high) advertising from Firaxis and community expectation.

I have more faith in the game support and the positive effects of the first couple of patches than in the dust settling down "per se".

I'll try to survive and be around here to see this second trial and its effects

[Steve Clark]

Adm., I look forward to that time as well, and to your valued contributions.

I think the scores on the Yin Test could corrolate directly with expectation levels. That's why, I believe, all of the controversal posts during pre-release between the pessimists, optimists and realists factions. I still say that having a realistic expectation is the proper way to go, esp in not feeling the contrived anguish that many here seem to be going through. Just my .01

[yin26]

Yes, that's why I finally decided to call it: Yin's Civ3 Expectation Scale!.

I realized that so much of the arguments going on around here center on expectation levels. So it only makes sense to give advice to people thinking about buying the game by asking them what they expect.

My expectations weren't entirely met, but I'm still in the hopeful category. Fair enough, I say. Firaxis still has a lot of time to add in all the polish and balance here. I just hope that is their plan.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Can you say "burnout"? Yin (and perhaps many others) are exhibiting the classic symptom of over indulgence. It's like diving into a vat of chocolate and gorging yourself until you are sick of it. Too much of a good thing (like the one-more-turn feeling which yin admitted to) can turn anyone against it.

my gf was away for 2 days. she came back and was shocked. i had a 3 day beard, thick smoke was hanging around our flat, beer cans everywhere and i had a lunatic's glow in my eyes (big black circles under them, of course). i just won

she said i looked like a wreck.

[Sikander]

#1) I wanted the game to revolutionize the genre, but would have been satisfied with a game that showed 1/2 of the innovation that SMAC had. < - 1.5 >

#2) Multiplayer / Editor. I don't care much about either of these, though I do appreciate the value added when they are there. < +1 >

#3) I expect bugs, but there is no reason why major gameplay elements like interception should not work. None. The game was not ready. The scale here is flawed, I don't think that it's unrealistic to have a game that has been properly tested. < -1 >

#4) If I want mystery, I'll play Myst. < -1 >

#5) I like variable AI personalities. < 0 >

#6) I like realistic effects, like over 50 years with nuclear weapons and only two used so far. None of these categories fit that, so I give myself a < 0 >

#7) Servicible, and preferably not annoying. < +2 >

#8) A good manual, like SMACs for example, is great. It allows you to study up on some concepts where you can't be playing the game, like the bathroom. < -1 >

#9) The interface should be very good, because it will save you thousands of discreet actions over time. This interface is not good by the way, I prefer both SMAC and Civ 2. < -1 >

#10) I don't know of any way around the long turns at the end problem, other than allowing a builder type player to build in peace without playing on a larger type map. < + 2 >

Total = <-2.5>

I am already bored by Civ 3 to tell the truth, and fired SMAX back up today. Perhaps I will give Civ 3 another chance after the patches come out, but if anyone wants to buy the game from me for half price let me know. I seriously doubt that the game will really be 'fixed' enough for me to enjoy it over the long run. I won't be buying anything else with the Civ name on it. The concepts are old and played out for the most part. There will always be good new empire games coming out, but Civ has become such a franchise that apparantly it must be conservative to the point of being dull. It's too bad really, because Fireaxis is obviously capable of building really innovative games. I'm waiting for MOO 3 and praying for MOM 2.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by mattcj
Interesting review... I came out a +3. I have the game although have not had time to play it, yet. I tell you though, Yin... you'd never make it in the software industry. As a developer myself, I can safely say that the pressure from above to release something on time can be quite taxing. At my company, I have a director of marketing that was ready to release my stuff with no testing at all just because when he watched a demo, it didn't crash at all!! Luckily, somebody talked some sense into him.
You stated So let me get this straight... you want them to develop a perfect game, a perfect multiplayer game, keep the world well informed of their progress, etc. In the software world, it don't work that way. The day you see that is the day the world grinds to a halt.

He didn't say he wanted a perfect game and perfect multiplayer in addition to being kept informed he said he wanted to be kept informed and to have a game that doesn't have major flaws/bugs.

This is not impossible or even unreasonable. You doubt me? Go to moo3.quicksilver.com and check that site out and tell me again how "it don't work that way."

My biggest question is this:

If Moo3 is a certified smash, then what other EXCUSE will game companies have for NOT keeping their customers informed during the development cycle?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


He didn't say he wanted a perfect game and perfect multiplayer in addition to being kept informed he said he wanted to be kept informed and to have a game that doesn't have major flaws/bugs.

This is not impossible or even unreasonable. You doubt me? Go to moo3.quicksilver.com and check that site out and tell me again how "it don't work that way."

My biggest question is this:

If Moo3 is a certified smash, then what other EXCUSE will game companies have for NOT keeping their customers informed during the development cycle?

we will see about moo3. dont believe the hype

[Ozymandous]

Hmm, -2 on the scale.

Pretty accurate. After being disgusted by the "facelift" only changes between Civ1 & Civ2 I was hesitant to get Civ3 even after hearing about all the supposed changes.

I bought it anyway.

Game play is a lot of fun and is different enough, with culture and resources, to bring back the fun factor of Civ1.

Problems I have with the game...

1. Not enough tech's and/or VERY slow discovery of tech's.

Thirty-two turns between discoveries? That's a tad long. How about adding MORE tech's and cutting down the time factor?? With so few advances there are to many "tech's" they try to cram into one advance.

2. Not enough construction options.

I went to war at least twice in the game sinply because I had 50-100 turns where I could build nothing of import other than "wealth". This from a player who doesn't normally go to war until either late in the game or early to get enough room to grow.

Going to war because it's more productive to build military units instead of commerce (ala the WEAK "wealth" component) doesn't seem to bode well with the idea of winning via any other means than conquest.

3. Minor other things covered by other folks.

Including:

AI building small cities on useless terrain (discovered all resources, there was nothing near these cities).

AI ignoring borders to send settlers/units across my terrain, borders should MEAN something other than for culture.

Resource "clumping". I am playing in a game now on small continents. Four civilizations had smallish "island" size continente and the rest of us are on the large land mass. There are 10 patches of oil in the game (huge, 16 civ's). Five patches of oil on the main land mass, one in my territory and 4 in the other main Civ's territory. We both control maybe 60% of the total area on the large continent. The other 5 patches of oil you wonder? They are ALL on one of the smallish "island" territories controlled by a Civ that isn't even out of the medival(sp?) age yet. I thought resources (from what I heard) are supposed to be more random/scattered than this???

Pollution causing land degredation. Has anyone actually studied the "greenhouse" theories lately? Try this on for size...

1. Global temperature goes up a fraction of a degree (which is has done for thousands of years anyway, it's a cycle, not entirely man-made).

2. Ice caps melt a little.

3. Oceans rise and more humidity goes into the air due to increased water and increased temperature.

4. More rain/snow falls due to higher humidity and increased water coverage.

4. More rain equals MORE fertile areas which in turn EQUALS more trees, bushes, etc. NOT LESS. More snow equals MORE ice in the polar regions, NOT less.

5. The cycle repeats until we start to enter another ice age (which we're still recovering from BTW).

Now then, with this simple logic in play how is it that global warming, in less than 150 game years since anyone discovered how to build factories do we have grassland already turning into plains???

I realize there should be some negative aspect to pollution but make a certain amount of citizens unhappy (that can't be mollified due to luxuries, luxury rate, city improvements or entertainers, but STOP the stupid "global warming theory"!

Anyhow, good game, as addictive as the first yet still leaves me with HUGE blocks of time where I can build nothing and am simply waiting to ge the next tech advance. Hopefully when the editor comes out we can add more advances and/or more city improvements to spread units and city improvements out to balance things a little more. After all who wouldn't mind having more units of buildings to play with? Maybe not as many as the CtP series had but a few more than this at least.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by LaRusso


we will see about moo3. dont believe the hype

I am not believing the hype, simply following what the developers actually TELL us and following along with their design notes.

It's nice to see a company actually realizing that fans can have ideas to suggest that might make the game better and not acting as if they were working on the A-bomb during WWII.

Oh, and for the record, I hope Moo3 is as DIFFERENT from Moo2 as Civ2 was NOT different from Civ1.

Hopefully this will be a true lesson on how you can take the general game concepts and make them much more indepth and better instead of the same tired old formula.

If people don't like change, tough, the concept is called innovation and it's what has us using nifty things like PC's and the Internet as oposed to living in caves and fighting for simple survival.

[Analyst Redux]

Originally posted by yin26
Yes, that's why I finally decided to call it: Yin's Civ3 Expectation Scale!.

I realized that so much of the arguments going on around here center on expectation levels. So it only makes sense to give advice to people thinking about buying the game by asking them what they expect.

My expectations weren't entirely met, but I'm still in the hopeful category. Fair enough, I say. Firaxis still has a lot of time to add in all the polish and balance here. I just hope that is their plan.

Hello, Yin. I wonder if you remember me from the SMAC boards? I recognize your name, and I recognize Imran still displaying his "love it or leave it" bumper-sticker WRT all Civ-related products, but I don't recognize many other names. Are any of my old buddies from the TICHQ around? Do you even remember what TICHQ stands for? LOL

I wanted to add my praise to others for your incisive expectation-based review and analysis of the latest product from this team. I think you've done an excellent job of focusing on some very salient points. One's reaction to an updated Civ game is, indeed, something driven powerfully by expectations.

Having been twice burned by rushing out to buy the initially released and, substantially unfinished, versions of Civ 2 and SMAC, I thought that I'd drop by the Apolyton forums *before* buying this time. I'm happy I did. Same bad habits, different release, it seems to me, based on what I'm reading from the more analytical sources on this board.

This time, I'm going to wait. Wait until it appears that the patches have run their course. Wait to see if, just as they did the last two times, they make substantial adjustment to game rules based on early-adopter/unwitting-beta-tester feedback. Wait to see if multiplayer is going to be free or a $20 add-on (those of you who are confident it will be a fully and properly implemented freebie are willfully ignoring the history of this franchise). Wait, IOW, until the game is actually a finished product.

Twice bitten, thrice shy here.

I will buy it eventually, and I'm sure I'll enjoy playing. It's worth some amount of money just to upgrade the game, experience a new look and feel, and explore some new game rules. It seems to me that the rules changes in this release might just finally drive a stake through the heart of over-simplistic rush conquest and ICS strategies, which is a good thing.

As you may remeber, though, my primary focus is on the challenge the AI brings to solitaire play. WRT my pet issue, I'm deeply skeptical about claims of big advancements in the AI. What I've read so far in player reactions that it's harder to do well is more explainable from the rules changes eliminating simplistic winning formulas than an advancement in AI.

Example: The programmers already managed to "teach" the AI to mass units for attack in SMAC. If, in SMAC, you chose to play passively and build (I say "chose" because one never really had to be passive in SMAC), the AI would, eventually, bring a big, mixed load of units to an attack point, though it really took a long time for the AI to manage it. I see two rules changes in Civ3 that make it more likely you'll see such massed attacks by the AI more frequently: (i) the difficulty in pacifying conquered cities that make sustained agressive campaigns an impossiblity, requiring human players to spend less game time in agressive military postures, conversely allowing the AI to build up its mass attacks; and (ii) the freeing of military units from sheild support, which was always something that got the AI into big trouble in terms of building an army of sufficient strength for one of its massed attacks. The same old AI will perform better absent these restrictions.

And on the flip side of this example are all the same complaints about AI behavior that I remember from before. Horrid city placement, insanely agressive behavior when cut off from further overland expansion opportunities, substandard city management and development. I strongly suspect that the new challenges of Civ3 have a lot more to do with rules changes than they do with a more competent AI.

So, I'll ovserve now, as I did on the release of SMAC (which I did run out and buy on Day 1), that if you aren't going to have multiplayer in the release, your claims of challenging AI to play solitaire against better be more than smoke. Until I'm convinced that it is, me and my $50 will stay on the sideline and waste time in the ways I've already become accustomed to, hehe.

Once again, Yin, nice job. You've said everything this old Civ vet needs to know to make his purchasing decision.

[yin26]

If you are indeed "the" Analyst from those days, I most certainly remember you! You were one of the poster who, as above, seemed to be able to cut through the garbage and get to the heart of things. If you are the same guy, I really hope you hang around.

Assuming I'm still around when you buy the game, perhaps MP will be functioning by then. I won't take much shame in being beaten by a guy with the name Analyst, after all.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Resource "clumping". I thought resources (from what I heard) are supposed to be more random/scattered than this???

AFAIK, no. The whole concept of resources distribution has been added to force people to trade or conquer valuable resources.

Something as real life limits in large oil fields availablity (hence Middle East crises et all).

It has been debated if some quite common resources (as coal and maybe iron) should be more evenly distributed around.

Pollution causing land degredation. Has anyone actually studied the "greenhouse" theories lately? Try this on for size...

Sorry, I must disagree. Greenhouse effects and the hole in ozone part of atmosphere are quite well studied in its general model.
The "pendolum" effect you mention seems definitely out of control when you add to the natural warming and freezing of the planet the large production of industrial and automotive gas, not to mention powerplants all around the industrialized area of the world.

Meantime we suffer lots of bad effects on weather, hence on natural disaster, food production, etc.

That's why so many countries try to share and sign the Kyoto agreement. Too bad industries are trying to milk their revenue as high as possible today, never mind of the future effects