c194# CIVILIZATION III, A SHOE TOO BIG?

[Steve Clark]

Sometimes we lose perspective that us hardcore gamers at Apolyton and civfanatics represent, at most, 1% of the customers that have bought Civ3. Maybe because we make the most noise, they are forced to listen to us but Firaxis knows it is in their best interest to keep improving Civ3 (and to release those 12 scenarios!).

[MarkG]

number of logins dont tell the truth

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Sometimes we lose perspective that us hardcore gamers at Apolyton and civfanatics represent, at most, 1% of the customers that have bought Civ3.

last month we had 230,000 visitors. this month so far we had 190,000

[Adrian Hon]

I think a large part of the disappointment dedicated fans have had with the game is simply due to unrealistic expectations, as has been pointed out by many others. Undoubtedly Civ3 does have many faults, some large, but these will matter more to some than others.

For example, two of the most valid complaints that I've seen about the game are lack of multiplayer, and lack of a decent scenario editor. I'm personally disappointed that neither of these made it into the game, but not overly so. Along with the majority of Civ players, I didn't play a single multiplayer game or fan-created scenario and I was never bothered by this, because I was having more than enough fun doing 'vanilla' single player. Incredible though it may seem, Civ's massive success is largely due to the fact that it appeals to a wide cross-section of the public, many of whom don't normally play computer games. These people also don't have the scheduled time for multiplayer and don't particularly care about the scenarios.

When I told my friends about Civ3 - and these are guys who play Red Alert, Max Payne, Counterstrike and the rest - they were quite interested and I suspect they'll get their hands on the game eventually. I added that there would be no multiplayer capacity, expressing my annoyance, especially since it was 'supposed' to be in.

They didn't go, "What, no multiplayer? Damn those lying scum at Firaxis, I'll boycott them forever as obviously a game released today without multiplayer is not worth buying at all, why, they should be ashamed at trying to rip us off, etc etc."

No, they said, "Oh, right."

They said that because they didn't really care that Civ3 wouldn't have multiplayer. They've never experienced Civ, multiplayer-style, and to be honest I don't think they really expected it, even though they play many other multiplayer games.

There's a difference in reaction here. While everyone would be happy if multiplayer was in the game, they would not necessarily be angry if it wasn't. Same for the scenario editor.

Now, to be sure, if there were no improvements over Civ2 then people wouldn't be pleased. But of course there are, and I've repeated enthused to my friends about the incredible experiences I've had playing against the AI.

An interesting comparison can be drawn with my friends' other favourite game, Max Payne. A sequel is currently in the works and you can bet that there are pretty high expectations for it (not quite as much as there were for Civ3, of course). I'm sure that there are people who will be arguing for multiplayer of some kind to be implemented, and I'm also fairly sure that it probably won't make it in since no-one gave a damn that it wasn't in the original game and it sold perfectly well without it, thank you very much. Of course, these people will be disappointed by its lack in the sequel (again, not quite as much as people were for Civ3). But then, most people just won't care.

Having said all of that, I still get annoyed with Civ3. I'm annoyed that I have to see all of the AIs moves between turns, I'm annoyed that their settlers can warp, that my jetfighters can't shoot straight and a few other things. Compared to the rest of the game though, they're a minor inconvenience. Granted, they shouldn't be in the game at all, but then I have long since learned not to expect perfection in the world since I'll have to wait too long for it.

Just to finish, I read about many people saying that they prefer Civ2 to Civ3. Does that mean you prefer ICS, inadequate diplomacy and AI, smaller map sizes, poorer graphics, a non-existent hypertext interface, city-based unit management and no borders, to name but a few problems? People seem reluctant to discuss the real improvements that Civ3 has made over Civ2. Imagine if ICS still existed in Civ3* - I don't want to even think of the reaction to that, but dozens of threads decrying it would probably be an underestimate. Yet do we see a similar number of threads praising the fix? Of course not. Because we expect this from Firaxis.

Well. Firaxis is just another computer games company and while it does have good old Sid, they're only human and they occasionally make mistakes - as will every other computer games company. I'm not going to say 'Live with it,' because in theory there should be multiplayer, there should be a scenario editor and there shouldn't be the bugs. But Firaxis had to be pragmatic, with the release dates and the testing. I don't doubt for a moment that they wanted to create the best game they could, and that they wanted multiplayer in. For various (probably financial) reasons, they couldn't do it. As for the bugs, they'll never all be caught, even with a public beta, which is itself fraught with problems.

Babbled on for longer than I expected. Oh well. Don't hold it against me.

*A very few people claim that ICS is in Civ3. I think I'm accurate in saying that most people disagree.

[pg]

Let's assume for a second that Civilization III is a totally new product on the market. Chances are, it would sell a little less, but it would receive far more positive reviews then negative. Instead of shouting: "What??? NO multiplayer?", we would be saying: "This game will have one of the best diplomacy models ever!"

that is fanatsy, you can't prove anything by saying this. it starts with an illogical premise and builds from there. even discussing this part of article(and the other parts that use this as basis for their reasoning) is hopeless and nothing but a good way to past time. heh.

[zeace]

I'm sure that after a few patches Civ III will be a great game. One to add MP, one to add scenarios (and real scenario editor/events/etc). You can tell from the file formats and interface that these things were planned into the game.

In fact, I bet that a lot of these features were in the code originally, but were taken out to A) reduce the amount of code to test B) leave something for the add-ons. I just hope that we can get MP and scenarios without being forced to buy another expansion pack. I resisted buying Civ II:FW until I saw it in a bargain bin for $4.95.

BTW: Have any of you played Master of Magic with and without the patches. The game crashed every 10 turns or so when they first released it, never mind the unbalanced and broken features... By the final patch it is one of the best TBS games available. Microprose kept fixing the game for nearly two years and never charged for any of the patches... We can hope for the same...

Ze Ace

[The diplomat]

I agree a lot with your article, Shadowstrike. I think many of us are wrongly comparing civ3 to an ideal that cannot be reached. We were expecting some super game that combined all our desires.

Sure, civ3 will require a few patches, but what game doesn't. I think that overall, Firaxis had the right approach to designing the game. They did not try to pack every single feature possible, or give hundreds of exciting units. But rather, they focused on enhancing the game's simple appeal and longlasting fun. I think they succeeded.

The bottom line for me is whether the game is fun to play. I find civ3 to be incredibly fun and addictive to play. I played for hours and had a blast, because the game was so much fun! And that is what really counts!

[Jayis Solis]

Compared to many games, I have noticed that Civ III is pretty reliable and I have not come across any bugs. This is a testament to the work there at Firaxis.

Patches will come out, of course, but this is not a bungled effort on their part.

[Compugasm 2]

Originally posted by Jayis Solis
If the game was everything... then it would not be accessible to the new people learning it.

Not true, and i cited Railroad Tycoon 2 as my example. That had both simple and complex editing features. Although you couldn't add buildings or trains to my knowledge, you could script any event trigger or variable imaginable for the existing objects. Essentially, you could make trains run at any speed, buildings produce as much as you wanted. Or, if "billy the kid" robbed a train, he turns himself in and pays you $5,000. This ability was awesome, sometimes RRT2 was too easy, so you could script events to make things harder.

I would like to make a correction, there is a zoom feature for CivIII and a way to sort information A -> Z or Z -> A on the various screens. If you don't read the manual and just jump right in you would never know that. The things you need to click are regular text, not button like.

[Compugasm 2]

Originally posted by zeace

In fact, I bet that a lot of these features were in the code originally, but were taken out to A) reduce the amount of code to test B) leave something for the add-ons.

I agree, but there is a way to kill two birds with one stone, and still make money with expansion packs. Look at "skinnable" music players. Why is WinAmp so popular? The object is always the same, to play music. But the community at large is responsible for the success of the application. Imagine what a game like Civ would be like if they followed the example of Sonique or Winamp. No-one has a copywrite on the "Musketeer" so why are things like this locked down in the code and uneditable?

The extra expansion pack revenue is generated from the artwork, themes, music, etc.. which would be better than most people could produce. This is the logic to the RollerCoaster Tycoon expansion packs.

[Just My 2 Cents]

Hey guys I've been playing the civilization series for 10 years now much like most of you. I was totally addicted to SMACX and of course I've read Velocrix's guide

I hear a lot of people *****ing about "it's just the same" or "where's the multiplayer". In response to the first point I say "you haven't played much of either game if you think it's just the same". In response to the second point I ask you guys have you really thought about whether Civilization is suited for multiplayer?

Have any of you played Alpha Centauri MP? My friends and I found the only way to really play the game was with the "Simultaneous Turn" option on (everyone moves at the same time and after the last player has moved the turn ends). While this is very playable at the beginning of the game we still found the end of the game was "SLOW" as in if you think it's bad for single player it's pretty much unplayable as a multiplayer game and we had the benefit of all being on the same LAN.

The other option was having a timer keep you honest on your turn but this really ruins the game for me IMHO, especially in the late game when you probably have tons of cities and want to make sure each are doing what you want them to.

First post, sorry for the long-windedness and I know Firaxis is working on some "really cool ideas for multiplayer" but I question whether it's even that kind of game... remember if you're looking for kick-ass real-time strategy in a historical context there's two games out that will satisfy your craving: Age of Empires II and Empire Earth.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Just My 2 Cents
...I know Firaxis is working on some "really cool ideas for multiplayer" but I question whether it's even that kind of game... remember if you're looking for kick-ass real-time strategy in a historical context there's two games out that will satisfy your craving: Age of Empires II and Empire Earth.

Civ has more in common with traditional boardgames than RTS. People are still prepared to meet for weeks or weekends to play massive boardgames where turns can take much longer. The art of filling the downtime is much easier when you are face to face but that is why it is essential that MP Civ permit other products to run alongside like ICQ. While one player fumbles their units the rest can be making secret deals or discussing the football.

[Just My 2 Cents]

Good point but I how many people will be prepared to meet for a weekend? This isn't the typical multiplayer game where you can have a game up and running fairly quickly (which is the allure of most MP games at this point).

CONSIDER: Age of Empires is at one end of the MP extreme i.e. it is considered a long, high-commitment game with the typical game ranging from half an hour to an hour. I've seen many games online where players (winning or losing) would quit without warning because the game was taking to long.

I'm sure there's hundreds of fanatics on this forum who would like nothing more than to spend a weekend playing MP Civilization but the average player will be hard pressed to find such devotion among his circle of friends... most of my friends are avid game players and I can only think of two that would even consider giving up that much time to play this game.

The point is this isn't really a game you can play over the internet; while it is most certainly PLAYABLE the time involved in a game will make it harder to find players for pick up games. I'm sure when I've got the Civ jones I'll be able to find willing participants here but good luck integrating this with something like Gamespy (and having good/commited players show up).

[Dinner]

I know I'm in the minority but I really liked CTP2 presisely because it had a multiplayer function. Playing another human will always be better then playing the AI; not only because humans reason more effectively but also because we can chat and joke amoungst ourselves when it's not our turn.
Finding players was never an issue since all play occured on the internet you can always find SOMEONE who wanted to play. Plus I've both seen and taken part in games which lasted for 12+ hours but if one player had to leave it was not problem. You simply saved the game and continued at a later time.

[CDN_Harbinger]

Originally posted by Jen Dragon
P.S. I bought CivII 3 times... CivII ...CivIIMPG..... ToT...+ one of the 2 scenario packs befor ToT..... I will not ...will not .....repeat that process.... even though I can afford it now.

I agree with you 100%! I bought Civ, then CivNet, then CivII, then CivIIMPG, but then, and worst of all, I remember my purchase of ToT and I still get angry. I too refuse, REFUSE, to do so again. I waited and purchased the SMAC/X combo (original and expansion) for $40(CDN) just last year. I'll wait it out again - and if no deal comes around, I just won't bother... If that means I'm not a hardcore Civ'er - so be it.

[Jokka das Trevas]

Well, I'm not THAT mad about the game anymore, but it still let me down.

Why the experience factor of military units from SMAC were unpratical? You know, a elite unit that gets a better chance at combat is really more useful than a elite one that only has slightly more hp but can still be beaten normally by a conscript lesser unit just because it is on a montain...

Why a better interface was unpractical? Civ2 and SMAC got great interfaces, and Civ3 not only got a lousy interface but the manual have pictures of the OLD interface! That means that the manual doesn't explain the interface very well.

Why do I have to double click on that star on my capitol to build a embassy? Couldn't that be done in a intuitive menu in the foreign advisor screen?

Why is unpratical to make spies sabotage city improvements, if this has been done in both Civ2 and SMAC?

Why is unpratical to you to view other civ's cities by just clicking in them providing that an embassy is in order? I live in Brazil, but if you want me to give any information you want about Paris I can return it to you in some days - they are available in the French embassies and even the internet, and I'll pay nothing for it.

Ok, military contingent can't be discovered this way (not in details), but you can hide ONLY THIS (the military instalations of a city not including the barracks, wich is of public knlowledge) and maybe financial data, so you could get those by missions.
But really: pay 150 gold just to see what a city have and what it is building? You gotta be mad, I never did this and never regreted not doing this...

At the very least to keep this shame, these prices at least should be way lower.

And why it IS pratical to make democracy immune to propaganda?I gotta say, this is the worst idea I've ever seen for game balance!
If they had to have a "propaganda-immune" gov, it got to be communism (Iron Curtain, anyone?), BUT is would STILL be unbalanced.

The catch is simple: since democracy gives liberty of information, you can't garrison rebellions and can't forbid ideologies, in truth democracy would be MORE suscetible to propaganda, even more if the city is in civil disorder.

But this is just "mental masturbation", fact is that propaganda-immunity (or suscetibility - sic) is unbalanced. It is crap, there's no point in cities that are simply discontent or revolt like mad but won't turn to propaganda just because of democracy, that's BS.

Alas, while the diplomacy in this game is great, the espionage issue is the worst of the civ games.

- You don't need to steal techs, because if you got enough money to pay a 'steal tech' mission, you most certainly can BUY it from another Civ (and without chances of failure once you paid).

- The price to peek in other cities is unbearable to any voyeur.

- You can sabotage production. So what? You have to pay the sabotage mission PLUS the "city peek" mission, as I stated above. Anyone ever wanted pay all that? I don't. Didn't miss anything, except the fun that would be involved with this.

- Steal map: same big deal as tech - if you can afford the money, you can afford the map. If you're in war with the other civ no big deal, I myself keep exchanging maps every 15 turns or so, so I'm up to date.

- Plant disease: removed from the game.

- Expose spy: spying is SO lame and expensive that even the AI never bothered to do it with me.

- Initiate propaganda: the ONLY useful mission, shame about democracy that spoiled all the fun - since almost all civs later in the game turn to democracy.

Governments are another pain in the ass. All in all, in the end it comes only to "democracy peaceloving civ" and "communism evil baby-eaters", since republic is an "alpha version" of demo and monarchy is a good-for-nothing gov that you need only in the early game. In this aspect I think Sid thought more of his personal convictions (wich I don't agree at all, England and Japan for example are Monarchies and are very efficient) than of making a fun government system (again, I don't need to mention the absolute dumbness of a propaganda-immune gov other than promoting what he thinks)


Whew... yeah, I know, I write a lot.
I can enjoy playing Civ3 now, but I can assure you that by the end of the month or so I won't be playing it anymore - while Civ, Civ2 and SMAC/X I've played (each one) from 1 to 2 years (!).

So yeah, Sid this time messed things up IMNSHO. Maybe he's getting old... maybe he's getting pop... maybe he can even be getting cocky... I dunno. But SMACX > Civ2 > Civ > Civ3
(not really in this order, but Civ3 being the last one either way)

Why?

Okay, Civ3 REALLY have more features than civ1, but you need to take consideration of the time of release of both games... A game that many years ago kept someone (like me) playing for 1 year or more is a classic, while a technically superior game of nowadays that keep me playing a month or so is not so good.

That's why Pac-man and Mario Bros. are considered to be classics while TA: Kingdoms isn't, despite the last being technically superior to those too (way) earlier ones.

That's my problem with Civ3. Hadn't I played SMACX all the ways I could during two years or so, I would be playing it now instead of Civ3. Since I've played fairly enough, I'll play Civ3 a bit, just out of curiosity about the game, before I trash it on my closet and move to the next game.

A patch? I don't think that a patch would fix/add all the things I miss about the game, I doubt they'll even touch democracy's unbalance factors.