I'm getting the impression this game is not a worthy successor to civ I and II

[n.c.]

The following are not "actual arguments" according to Apolyton management:

1) fix all the bugs and
2) gameplay imbalances
3) no mp
4) air/naval units are pointless
5) governments are done crapilly
6) civ3edit cant make scenerios
7) there no historicle starting places on ma
8) only "in-house" testing
9) serious bugs -- like the airpower-SAM thing in particular
10) corruption bug and
11) air unit bugs
12) This single player version is really no better than a beta you pay for.

Markos, it's okay to admit that some decisions are personal.

[MarkG]

well, you copied other people's posts, but what the hell, i'll yell happily:

YIPPIE! finally a thread where the thread starter actually posts some arguments to begin the discussion!


carry on

[Alexander's Horse]

[Cougz]

don't 9, 10, and 11 all fit under 1

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Cougz
don't 9, 10, and 11 all fit under 1

12 is a bigger number than 9

[monkspider]

A game with a tiny handful of miniscule, virtually unnoticeable bugs with MILLIONS, yes, MILLIONS of good points!
What a game!
What a time to be alive!

[n.c.]

The point of the thread, for me at least, is that the other should not have been closed. Those interested in the points above please carry on (I have made my views all too clear already).

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm with monkspider .

But, maybe not that strongly, perhaps.

[cassembler]

I agree that Civ3, IN IT'S CURRENT STATE, is not "worthy."

That's not to say that it could never be- there's LOTS of potential. I just hate being a beta tester, granted it still kinda fun...

Once ALL of the bugs are fixed (read: at least a year from now), this game will be magnificent.

[Kautilya]

Well for me Civ 2 and SMAC ended up being somewhat frustrating with the crappy AI and the micromanagement. From the little I played of it Civ 3 is definitely a significant improvement over Civ 2.

What's frustrating about it is that they got some big things right like improving the combat AI but then screwed up on some of the easy but convenient features. For instance the manual is not nearly as good as SMAC and the lack of a tech poster is annoying.

Above all they have done much less than they could have done to reduce the tedium factor which ultimately soured me on both SMAC and Civ2. Not being able to move stacked units together is a chore. So is being forced to watch the AI move its units back and forth for ages.

I have returned the LE but I will wait for the patches before deciding whether to buy the regular version. Civ 3 can easily become a great game but only if Firaxis/Infrogames commit to a series of patches.

BTW we shouldn't foget the whole Brian Reynolds saga when judging the game. That must have cost Firaxis several months in terms of the disruption. Without that they might have finished the game by now without rushing it..

[TCO]

I'm getting sick of the blame Brian excuse. Firaxis said they would be able to carry on the project without him...so it's a little late for this spin. and anyway, who cares. I judgge them the same either way. Based on the game delivered...

[Seeker]

I hold out great hopes for the Expansion/'Gold Edition'

I will feel like a whore, but I WILL buy it

I have bought every single Civ game and expansion since Civ 1.

[techumseh]

Me too, but I don't feel like a whore. A little naughty, perhaps.

[Kautilya]

GP,
It's not so much a matter of "blame" or "excuse" so much as cause and effect. The departure of so many senior programmers almost certainly meant a loss of a few months. This needn't have mattered if Infrogames was prepared to delay the release by that much but they weren't. Both factors contributed to the rushed product.

Let's not forget that that the product even as it is is good enough for lots of people to enjoy. The first patch should clean the serious bugs like the air superiority problem and hopefully the later patches will clear some of the tedium issues and other general gameplay problems . The manual and tech tree deficiencies are already being compensated for by the community. So in a couple of months we could still have a very fine game.

[Urban Ranger]

That's a problem though.

With all due respect to Sid I don't think any consumers should pay to be a beta tester. I feel that Sid could have more backbones by standing up to Infogrames. If there's any designer out there who can stand up to the marketing department he's one of a handful - if not the only one.

Some of the "bugs" - such as corruption - may not be a bug but a design decision. You may not like the change, but that doesn't seem like a bug.