My first impressions@

[AMC]

This game does have a problem. Blind following of "The Sid" just isn't for me. I've been playing Civ games for 10 years, not because I worship Sid, but because they were good games that I spent countless nights playing until the wee hours.

This game, sadly, is a disappointment, and I think that's where our angst arises. We believed it would be so much, we believed it would truly be the next step on from SMAC, which was groundbreaking.

Instead we get a CTP clone, and a bad one at that. Yes, Civ players have a right to be disappointed, and they have a right to have expected more based on the previously proven ability of Firaxis to create very good games. And then there was the hype...for months the Civ III web site has given me a tingly feeling inside.

Without detailing the various technical problems with the game that have been adequately covered, I'll suggest my "feeling" of the game: it's shallow and extremely difficult to really feel a part of. There were times playing Civ II when I truly felt a part of the game, not so with Civ III. CTP all over again.

Sorry, it's a bad game, and Firaxis has toppled from its ivory tower to join the mud-wallowing cretins like Activision, but that's a price you pay for overpriced mediocraty. I'm sad, not angry.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Jason
More wisdom from the Settler Nov 2001 crowd.

More attempts at elitism from the 'Warlord 1999' croud

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do people actually think of this as a CtP III! LMAO! What fools!

[TitanTim]

Thoughts from an oldie(/newbie?)

I just had to post considering my login date is earlier than everyone else except the last two posts (those cheater admin types, hehehe) AND, get this, I'm a Settler too.

I've been playing Civ since it first came out. I consider Civ 1 great but lacking when battleships lose to settlers (due to the win/lose combat it had). Civ 1 was also slick because you could build railroads on water. (Why not be able to build bridge/causeways like we have nowadays?)

I consider CivNet far superior to Civ2-MGE because you could play simultaneous and it's movement resolution wasn't bad. Another incredible benefit to CivNet was its use of multiple windows showing you different "views" of the world.

I found Civ2 to be the most graphically pleasing and playable version of all the Civ's so far. The terrain blended beautifully and you still knew what was what. One of my favourite parts of Civ2 was the unit's sound effects (Fire! bang, bang). It made me feel a part of the game. Lastly, Civ2 worked so well with Windows. My 1600x1200 display allowed me to view practically the whole map is striking detail. Beautiful.

Now Civ3 is another step in the right direction but, I have to say it, lacking in some regards. Everyone knows the problem about corruption. I used to also play Civ2 with the bribery method but I looked to Civ3's lack of bribery as a positive move (though I used bribery in Civ2, I hated how easy it made the game not to mention that it hinged almost completely on the amount of gold your opponent had). I also find that city building by the computer runs rampant and this is due to the fact that the cities grow too quickly (unless you're in the jungle or mountains). Also I find Civ3 is missing many of the nice "tidbits", "niceties", and other statistics that Civ2 had allowing you to properly plan your future moves.

Sorry the message was so long but I have to say one more thing. Many people seemed disappointed with this release and that it was simply a carryover from Civ2 with better graphics, blah, blah, blah. Firaxis marketed and built the game perfectly. Keep the game relatively the same, add new concepts and features but keep it in line with the other Civ games. If it's too "new" then you'll lose people. Lastly, keep the multiplayer feature out thereby releasing the game sooner and allowing you to sell another "version" a year down the road. Blizzard has this way of selling games down to an art.

[General Maximus]

funny, i know who EGod is, and i'm surprised he let you "newbies" off so easy. As far as EGod(=EyesofNight) is concerned, you can whine all you want. As far as i'm concerned, you can whine all you like as well. They will have many patches for CivIII, including a multiplayer patch. BUT, they wanted a pre-christmas release, not an easter release.

the date and rank of apolyton sign-up is humorous, it let's us know who is an idiot still, and who knows what they're typing about.

[Desert Dog]

what is really funny on here!

Originally posted by General Maximus
funny, i know who EGod is, and i'm surprised he let you "newbies" off so easy. As far as EGod(=EyesofNight) is concerned, you can whine all you want. As far as i'm concerned, you can whine all you like as well. They will have many patches for CivIII, including a multiplayer patch. BUT, they wanted a pre-christmas release, not an easter release.

the date and rank of apolyton sign-up is humorous, it let's us know who is an idiot still, and who knows what they're typing about.

The humor is how all you guys are trying to be at a different class or level because of your sign in date of this forum. I have been on here since 1997 I now use a different handle does that mean I have more rights?
Look I like Civ 3 it seems fun to play but a sequel it is not. Only has same type of tech tree, spaceship race etc. are the same. A patch is what this game needs and fast! This one has bad problems like SMAC did when it was released. My disappointment is how many things were left behind from civ 2 that should have made it to civ 3. If this was not a sequel it would have great potential.
Again I am playing the game I don't hate it, I am just disappointed. All the hype as usual was not correct. The game is bug ridden to the point that it effects your end game to finish. At least in my game! I am sure good old Sid will fix it up. Just wish they did not leave out all the great things that were in civ2! Peace!

Oh yeah, all you ego Apolyton Geeks save your breath. If you can not accept the thruth about civ3 then let it go. Bashing someone for them giving their opinion is childish, which is what I figured out anyways. This web site is full of little kiddies. I am not a kid and see that I need to find another site where I can met others who are not quite so ridiculous when one posts his thoughts. If this is the number one site for all civ stuff, wow that is sad! There needs to be a place where there is not so many attitudes and little kid actions! Later...again much later!

D. G.

[Fidel]

Re: Nice job putting that to rest!

Originally posted by Desert Dog


Well said, and I am not a newbie! Civ III should be called something like, Call To Power III instead. I do like it much better than CTP2. It is only my opinion which I am entitled too. I figured many more disappointed Civ2 fans would voice there opinions. If it is not broke don't fix it is my motto. Plenty of things in Civ2 were perfect and should have been brought over.

oh methink they should bring back infinite loops for caravans and settlers. also, panzer /paratroop blitz was nice. bribing cities all the way to their capital....cool. those empty AI sea transports, their puny air fleets, that stupid ICS human tactics.
what i liked about ctp II? the fact that nothing happened. the fact that i could beat AI on highest setting in my second game (actually i did not beat it to the end because it was BORING but he had like 5 cities left and the rest were pathetic). AI. AI. AI. It was simply great. imbecile tech tree.
ctp I was also great

this game is beta! it has no editor! it has no earth map! it has no multiplayer!
i certainly need just a good SP for at least 6 months and some sleeping pills. AI is whopping my ass persistently. so much for the 'broken' game

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tani
so far i haven't heard defenses that doesn't effectively put civ3 into the fantasy genre, i really don't see why any features that is less real than civ2 should make it to civ3. why is the direction not toward realism but away?

This is a good example of what is frustrating about apolyton-newbie (as distinguished formn civ newbie) posts that appear here lately. We have been discussing the historical realism issue here for months. While I lean toward historical realism myself, I have become familiar over the months with the opposite school of thought - that realism should NEVER be placed over fun gameplay. While I find that extreme, I realize that Civ is different from a "grognard" war game, that its audience and emphases are different, and that particular issues are created by its 6000 year time scale. How about 1 month turns - that way we could have more realistic movement factors, and still have interesting strategic movements - but then it would be unplayable. Historical realism must be balanced against issues of playability, balance and fun. Saying this makes it a fantasy genre game is just plain silly. There are fantasy games, there are historical dress games like Age of Empires(where most history is in the atmospherics) there are games like Civ, which illustrate large historical themes, but do not simulate historical simulations, and there are historical sims, like "grognard" war games and related history games like EU. But then if you'd been around for a while you'd have seen that, and you wouldnt say silly things. Its alright to say silly things, everyone was a newbie once, after all and we've all said our share of silly things, its just that some people think that there are ALOT of silly things being said lately.

For more on the history issue, see my column on Civ2's Hegelian Tech Tree.

LOTM

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Jason

Can we have a consolidated thread for newbies melodramatically rejecting the false Civ?

Weren't we supposed to stop this newbie flaming?