c194# CIVILIZATION III, A SHOE TOO BIG?

[siredgar]

If the game back-tracks from Civ II...

...then it's got problems, right?

When Civ III doesn't even allow you to specify a player starting location like it did in Civ II and hasn't even really updated the city lists (still has "Marseilles" instead of "Marseille"), then it deserves a lot of the complaints it's getting.

It's obvious that the game was not ready for market at release.

[AustralianJeremy]

Ditto.

I was not expecting an unreasonably perfect Civ3.

I was expecting it to be at least as good as SMAC; at least as good as Civ2.

I didn't expect it to take one step forward, two steps back (or even two steps forward, one step back). The omission of standard features that came with SMAC and Civ2 - Multiplayer, scenarios & editor, decent world map, even the cheat menu... these are really unacceptable. They should have waited till they could produce a product of the same quality as Civ2 in its day. Hell, Civ2 and SMAC even came with tech charts - where's Civ3's? Why can't I play a custom Civ and choose the damn picture? (It keeps making me look like Elizabeth or Joan of Arc - and I don't get to choose which custom unit I get).

Oh - for emphasis. WHERE'S THE SMEGGING ACCURATE WORLD MAP? That's one of the things that made us so mad at CTP when it came out. How damn difficult would it be for the damn thing to come with a proper world map? The whole point of Civ is recreating Earth history.

I love the new ideas ... I just think it's obvious they didn't test it properly. I don't know anyone who has played the game who hasn't got irritated by its shortcomings. I frankly do not see why it's so difficult now for them to do the basic things they managed five years ago.

[Just My 2 Cents]

I totally agree with you however this is par for the course these days for videogames, PC games in particular:

it takes 3 years to finish a game like Civ at the end of which the publisher is pressuring them to get the damn game out the door to compete with the other big releases.

What invariably happens is features which were supposed to be included in the game (scenario editor, accurate world map, MULTIPLAYER) get cut because the focus has shifted to JUST finishing the game.

Rest assured most of us will be shelling out some more dough when the expansion pack hits the shelves; while I'm disappointed that I'll have to purchase this add-on to get the complete Civ experience at least we'll finally get it, albeit half a year late... after all, Civ IS a lot of people's favourite games.

But alas, once upon a time a game like this would ship with everything included and the little bugs which are impossible to trace until half the world has played the game got fixed in a patch. Civ 2 set a standard for its time by being such a complete game, having a kick-ass scenario editor INCLUDED as well as several really good historical scenarios. But then the publishers wised up and realized people would pay for these scenarios (while innovative gamers would release their own in the meantime) and now they get bundled in expansion packs. But once again I totally agree with you.

[kittenOFchaos]

Dude with affinity for small change:

Civ2 scenarios only started to excel AFTER fantastic worlds was completed...I'm not disagreeing that there is much to be furious about (though civ3 is my favorite game at the moment, things could have been so much better and easier) I just think that people are going all rosey eyed about what civ2 was (and hell, I played it more than you! if not then )

[Just My 2 Cents]

I played ENOUGH Civ 2 preceded by the original

I never bought any of the expansion packs but I was very happy with the scenarios and even tried some of the user generated ones (purty good if you ask me)

Point is what came out of the box was light-years ahead of the Civ 3 experience... I'm pissed that I have to buy an x-pack but at the same time I'm kind of happy. Most of the stuff that didn't make it into the game on the first cut will probably be included in the second be it scenarios, more civs or my personal hope: another page of techs (I feel that the modern era should NOT be the end of the game, I want to see Mechs!)

[XPav]

Originally posted by Jokka das Trevas
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)

The current governmental systems of Japan and England bear more resemblances to Democracy than they do to Monarchy.

Emperor Akihito? and Queen Elizabeth have no power. Its a constitutional monarchy.

[annoyed]

what is missing is the are the variations of representative govt. while using different econ systems to add further variety. The U.S. started out as a free market representative republic, and if the electoral college is ever done away with will become almost identical with the socialist democracies that now populate Europe.
What disapoints me is that the game does not portray the drive towards egalitarianism that has constantly plagued(in my opinion) the modern world, and the animus between representative govts. and totalitarian states(be they communist or just plain dictatorships). There is no reason for war in the game except land grabs, while in the modern world wars are often fought for much more complex reasons(hell, that goes for the crusades also-would not rivalries based on competing religions be a consideration).
Maybe I was expecting to much out of the game, but something that titles itself "Civililzation" should attempt something more than a 5th grade level of historical concepts.Back to EU.

[Dominous]

I disagree. I believe civ 3 isn’t what we want it to be because the development team was hindered by pushy publishers deadlines. It’s as simple as that. It is all too common that we receive unfinished products because a company uses a publisher to save money. While I can understand that they are here to make money, but I cannot understand why they can’t make money and produce a quality game at the same time…. I would of waited another year if I had the choice of a better game.

Though I do agree with the statement that diplomacy is the best a civ game has ever seen. Yes indeed it is. Regardless of it’s other short comings I believe the diplomacy engine is the best yet. That’s not to say that it couldn’t get better.

[Compugasm 2]

Star Wars Battlegrounds, now that is a complete game. If you haven't played, its the engine for Age of Empires. I love being the Galactic Empire and commanding the AT-AT's. I've been playing for 2 days now until 6am, literally had 4hrs sleep in 2 days. Its an excellent game, has all the features of AOE, plus some improvements.

There are 6 senarios with text background story, audio comments, in-game voices from "Qui-Gon"... Just wonderfull. I haven't made my own senarios yet, but i did make a few for AOE and their editor is good as i recall. So i assume that SWBG uses the same editor.

The only thing i can think of that is missing is when attacking a Jedi, instead of giving them more hitpoints, they should be able to deflect back a percentage of attack with the saber.

[Akka]

Civ 3 is a very good game, no doubt. I can praise Fireaxis for putting things, concepts and new stuff that add whole levels of complexity/possibilities. Culture is really a great idea, and at least the nationality means something. Ressources make the game much more active, and bring whole war just for this piece of blasted land which contain oil. Just like in real

BUT, while I enjoy all the new things, I just can't understand how a game could be allowed to DRAW BACK from its predecessors, especially when it's the same team that has done the job.
Farmland, highways, terraformation were present in Civ2 and not here. I can understand that they removed terraformation for balance issues, but the others ?? Now it's back to the days of Civ1 when railroad was everything (never saw a train helping agriculture). A good idea wasted.
Much more important : many of the excellent advance in Alpha Centauri were removed. Diplomacy, alliance, planetary counsil, were just great idea and most of the time greatly included. Just compare the diplomatic victory from AC and from Civ3, and see the difference.
Same for the interface, the cheat mode and the editor. Same for the muc more sophisticated system of social engineering which would alter the efficiency/military/police/ecology/etc... in a subtle way and let you micromanage it, rather than having just to choose between arbitrary types of government (though I must say the new system of warweariness is just plain great).
Sure, they had AT LAST get rid of the stupid concept of "home city", they has at last found that the cost of an army is more money than buildpower. But if they advanced in many cases, they just removed what they were able to do before.
And THAT is something I just can't understand. Nor I accept.

[Compugasm 2]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
...never saw a train helping agriculture...

I still shudder at the memory of the "cabbage train". In real life, alot of agriculture is moved by rail. But i understand what you mean in the context of CivIII.

[Just My 2 Cents]

I agree with most of the SMAC comparisons but just a thought:

Publishers these days are more worried about the "casual" gamer than the "hardcore" crowd. Although SMAC received excellent reviews and is supported by a fairly large fanbase I don't think we should use ourselves as a model for the casual gamer. A lot of us are freaks and enjoyed the rules layered upon rules of SMAC and SMACX (after all Civ is simply the greatest boardgame of all time if you look at it objectively).

My point is maybe they tried to incorporate some of the features of SMAC in Civ 3 while still making it accessible to the casual crowd. While most of the regulars in this forum would be all for an expanded combat system and I for one miss the economic/govermental flexibility (free market in a police state or planned economics in a democracy) I think they were too worried about alienating Joe Average.

[Deathwalker]

I agree, Sid should never have allowed a beta game to be relleased. I know they some times give us reasons for what they did, e.g. Ships not being sunk by air power because of game balance. But that is crap it should allow planes to sink ships, did they learn nothing for Civ 2

[Dominous]

Originally posted by Compugasm 2
Star Wars Battlegrounds, now that is a complete game. If you haven't played, its the engine for Age of Empires. I love being the Galactic Empire and commanding the AT-AT's. I've been playing for 2 days now until 6am, literally had 4hrs sleep in 2 days. Its an excellent game, has all the features of AOE, plus some improvements.

There are 6 senarios with text background story, audio comments, in-game voices from "Qui-Gon"... Just wonderfull. I haven't made my own senarios yet, but i did make a few for AOE and their editor is good as i recall. So i assume that SWBG uses the same editor.

The only thing i can think of that is missing is when attacking a Jedi, instead of giving them more hitpoints, they should be able to deflect back a percentage of attack with the saber.

lol...if u had more sleep maybe u would realize this is not a star wars battlegrounds RTS forum. This is a civ 3 forum.

[Strollen]

A few thoughts before heading of to Turkey day dinner.

MP as other have noted Civ3 is a just not a well suited for MP play. There is a big market for MP fantasy games (Everquest, Asheron Call, Diabolo etc) and for MP RTS games, but for MP turned based strategy games (ok maybe Chess over the net:-) I am hard to press to name a single big seller.
Civ3 games are taking me 20 hours to play, now persumably the time will come down as I get experienced. But, I still bet it will easily take 20+ hours for two people to finish the game. That is a huge time commitment, that most people won't be willing to make. For me an even bigger factor is that starting positioning in Civ3 will really matter. If I play an MP game, and my opponent has no easy access to coal, iron, and oil and I do, what does it really prove if I beat him, cause if the positions were reversed he'd probably beat me. Bad starting positions were discouraging to me in CivNet but in this game they are killers and you don't even know how bad your position is until well into the game.


Removing features. More is not always better, I thing CTP proves that. I'll admit that I liked many of the features in SMAC, although many of the things in Civ2 (farms, superhighways I could live without.) Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of adding or subtracting X. However, what is undeniable is that programming the AI to use a feature is hard. The only strategy game where the AI can consistently beat good players without cheating is computer chess. The primary reason this is true is because of the minimal number of rules and possible moves. I liked the design workshop in SMAC, because it was fun, but it also gave me a big leg up on the AI who designed a bunch of sub-optimal units. The thing I really like about Civ3 so far is the AI is still competitive through the industrial ages. This is a far different than SMAC or Civ2, where if I survived to be able to build Sistine Chapel, the game was pretty much won. If I built Leonardo, and Hoover the game was history. In SMAC, If I beat the AI to Fusion reactor I was always the winner. A simpler game makes the AI better and we all want improved AI .


Now that said. Obviously the game has some really bugs that have to be fixed. I hoped for a patch this week, and I absolutely expect one next week, and will be very disappointed if we don't have one.

I all always be a bit dissapointed that some of the fun things in SMAC and CIV2 are missing (entertaining advisors, Wonder movies etc.)

I also think that Firaxis would be well serve to explain the rational behind many of their design decisions.
1. Why is corruption so high? (personally I really like how corruption is handled but I am in the minority)
2. Why was the combat system changed?
3. Democracy seems to be the optimal government doesn't this violated Sid's rule about always forcing the player to make tradeoffs?
4. Why is esponiage so expensive (they spent some time implementing features which basically nobody uses AI or human)
5. Why is the modern age bland? not many wonders, new options, or new technologies