Are you little kids never satisfied ? Go crying to your mother but don't bother us !

[n.c.]

Re: Are you little kids never satisfied ? Go crying to your mother but don't bother us !

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm really getting pretty mad about all those whining settlers around here !

Well I'm getting sick of ironically arrogant Kings.

The game bites, IMO (just returned it today). If you are satified, good for you. Those of us with higher standards will move on.

Originally posted by Earthling7
apart from that, Civ3 is SMAC on Earth.

That is quite an insult (to SMAC of course).

Originally posted by Tani
there's no excuse to make the combat system away from the level of realism achieved in civ2. it should be towards realism, not away.

Add many other factors to "combat system" and "SMAC" to "civ2" and I agree.

[splangy]

Wow, this poor guy needs SOMEONE to agree with him, and I, at the risk of being flamed, DO!

Atleast I agrre that way too many people are angry becouse of

A: you cant use the rails to do a 1 turn blitz
B: units dont fall like dominos if there out-classed
C: the AI is strangly smart

All this adds up to is humans now having to fight long wars and cant just EXPLODE, taking everything in the path with them. Also, older strats simply dont work. And in the end this adds up to having to think more. One of the major shortcomings of civ2 was it was sooooo easy. This, however, led to the big egos and the ability to say "I won this game so easy, I must be a true master!"

However annoying it is not being able to take land as long as it took for troops to be built, it was never fun once you owned 50% of the world or so. You continued to play until victory but it was never as sweet as actually progressing, fighting, and having to think. For example-

In civ2 you simply pumped out the latest units and overan a opponent, war meant nothing, trade was basically "me, me, me!", science was "you discovered Flight!" *a turn later* "My lord, the zulus just discovered Warrior code...", Borders were non-existant, as was culture. In the end though you always got that feeling of superiority, like it was so easy, often saying things like " did they have any doubt I was god?" and " Another game, another overwhelming victory". But during the game the thought always occured when you were about to complete a improvement or wonder, or conquest , etc, that this was just overkill. You couldn't lose. you knew it.

In civ3 you have to secure resources to produce the latest troops, war is very real and in your face, trade is very even, science is often a struggle, borders/culture is always a consideration. When you finish a game (that you won) you get that releif feeling, the one you get when you finish a great project. During the game you have to push, HARD, to win. But isn't it all the more sweeter in the end...?

My $0.02

[splangy]

Re: Re: Are you little kids never satisfied ? Go crying to your mother but don't bother us !

Originally posted by n.c.
Well I'm getting sick of ironically arrogant Kings.

There was NOTHING arrogent in his post, that I could see.

The game bites, IMO (just returned it today). If you are satified, good for you. Those of us with higher standards will move on.

WOW! You returned it, your kidding! You must be so Cool (to quote a 11 year old, someone at his grade level )
That sounds pretty damn arrogent to me, but I guess im not up to your "Standard"

That is quite an insult (to SMAC of course).

Smac was a peice of $hit (IMO), Civ3 is WAY better (again, IMO)

[Steve Clark]

splangy: You have to excuse n.c. He's not a kid but an arrogrant ***** who thinks the world should revolve around him and his standards (as evidence in many of his OT posts).



(Must be something in the air today.)

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Pembelton: Here's an idea. How about working on making your non-gaming life less hellish and perhaps then you will see that Civ3 is truly a game of fun?

Huh? Who says I haven't been doing that? And at many times desperately trying at that?

When did I ever say that Civ3 wasn't a game of fun?

I don't need your condescending attitude about what has gone on in my life. So **** off and go back to your happy happy world.

[n.c.]

Re: Re: Re: Are you little kids never satisfied ? Go crying to your mother but don't bother us !

Originally posted by splangy
There was NOTHING arrogent in his post, that I could see.

Here are some of the highlights:

-You're a bunch of never satisfied kids !
-no reason to cry !
-Are we listening to the spoiled generation ?
-The generation of kids that always got what they wanted
-You can't beat the AI !
-You're too stupid to beat the AI.
-you can't beat it, thus you cry that the game is broken.
-you just can't find the cheat codes.
-now you have to THINK !
-I spit on you negative whiners !
-Go to your mother and ask a cookie.

-"That sounds pretty damn arrogent to me"
Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word. Let me know if you need any help.

-"I guess im not up to your 'Standard'"
Not yet.

splangy- There have been some improvements. Many of us simply expected much more (anf to break what was fine).

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
thinks the world should revolve around him and his standards

One of the most important being the thought in your signature.

Anything substantive to add, or would you like to just lob me softballs like that one?

[Steve Clark]

Awww, come one guys, lighten up. Everyone is getting way too serious about the pros and cons of this GAME and about each other's obnoxious opinions.

[CyberGnu]

Umm, exactly who is complaining about the AI being too smart? I've read a lot of the negative posts here (I've written my share too), and I've yet to see someone say 'the AI is too smart'.

And while I in my first game or two thought to myself 'wow, they've finally got the AI reasonably smart', I eventually realized that I was a tad hasty...

Have you ever tried waging a war in the expansion phase? The AI can't deal with that. I the last game I played before I returned the game I started out on the same island as the Romans, only eight or so tiles away from where I built my capital. Knowing that I can never compete with the expansion rate of the computer (since he produces like one settler per turn) I immediately attacked him.

He happily went ahead expanding. I took city after city from him, and he kept churning out settlers. After a while I realized that this was actually the only chance I had to keeping up with the other AI's... I left one city be, waited until he produced another settler, followed it and as soon as it settled, I would take over the old city. In record time I had the entire island.

Not once did he try to defend himself from me. Building three spearmen instead of two in each city would propably have saved him... Or go on the offensive. If he had built three archers I would have ben toast...

What the AI CAN do are two things which it couldn't do before: Conduct warfare in the modern/industrial age with a reasonable chance of success, and handle diplomacy. But that's it. In many respects, the AI is still the same piece of crap we're used to... The only real difference between deity in Civ II and III is the level of AI cheating.

So, with that part of the initial rant dispelled, what is left? Oh, yes, protection of the status quo... I don't really understand your argument here. First off 'as long as things are the same as civ II I'm happy to pay $50 for it'. Doesn't make any sense, does it? Second, some parts are seriously WORSE than civ II, combat being one of them.

So, in closing: I'm going back to a game that is consistenly amusing, where I have a decent chance of failing on deity, but one that I can assured of a good struggle regardless... Master of Orion I. Sad to think that this is still the best game out there...

[CyberGnu]

And while it has been said already in this thread, I think it bears repeating: Why I and so many others spend time and effort complaining about the game have two reasons.

1) We were expecting too much. I read the civ3.com site every day in October. I was in Boston on the launch date, and actually felt emotion over the fact that I would miss out on buying the game the first day. Obviously, I was expecting something with more impact than any other run-of-the-mill strategy game... I was, in short, expecting Civilization III. Instead I got Civilization 2: The Graphics Update. (Come to think of it... Civilization III is kind of what I expected TOT to be... Also a disappointment).

2) We're hoping that either this game be fixed, or that in the future other civilization games are playtested before release. If Firaxis has adopted the policy of rushing games for instant profit Activision style, maybe Firaxis should stop making strategy games. If Firaxis doesn't make them, there is obviously more space for companies who does care about the finished product, such as Blizzard. But we should not silently accept that companies release crap that sells on the basis of name alone.

So, Shy, how about some apologies to the people you've offended?

[Libertarian]

Firaxis is not even the publisher. You owe their hard working developers an apology.

God, the hubris.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should he apologize?

Some of you people need to be offended. I'm sorry if you don't like perhaps the best game game made in years, but you don't have to go hog wild making silly threads saying the Game is too hard (and yes there have been MANY threads saying that).

I was, in short, expecting Civilization III. Instead I got Civilization 2: The Graphics Update.

Obviously you haven't played the game enough. Culture and Resources drastically change the way the game is played. More diplomatic relations are needed to keep your might going strong. A smarter and more personalized AI makes the game much more fun and harder to win.

[Steve Clark]

Imran, you're wasting your breath.

[Jason]

Ditto Imran, ditto Cybershy. Please consolidate all the "I'm a newb, I hate civ3, luv me!" "This game is too hard" and "Arise ye civers and revolt" threads into one "Pretentious BS" thread that normal users can easily ignore.

I mean, nationally based army support, being able to move units around in representative governments, rushing production with population, luxury resource trading, borders, culture, no more senate, era-based tech tree, a river-crossing combat modifer, no 50 percent shield penalty for switching from improvemenst to units... These are things you encounter in normal playing that make the experience different from Civ2 by a considerable margin. You can dislike them, but dismissing them as insignificant is just lazy.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I was, in short, expecting Civilization III. Instead I got Civilization 2: The Graphics Update.

One of the few things that don't feel new in this game are the graphics. This game is not as bad as people are convincing themselves and others.

What is new:
Culture
Leaders (armies)
Bombardment (not new, but you said Civ2)
AI and Diplomacy

You know the rest. I can't be bothered with this. Play openminded and you'll see