My Thoughts on Civ 3 (a newbie's rant)

[Daveraver]

Hi, long time lurker, new poster:

All of my problems with Civ 3 are probably related directly to the evil corporate incarnate that is infogrames. Having dealt with them during my time at an advertisement company, I know exactly the many ways that they sacrifice quality for an early release date. I'm serious, man, they've got like ****ing video game storm troopers over there.

This game was released four months too soon. Why else would the modern era be such a weak part of the game? Because it was never finished that's why. I wouldn't be surprised if the patch that we're all waiting for simply fixes the bugs, but the new techs and units we're all waiting for don't come until Q2 of 2002 as an "Expansion Pack."

What is Civ 3 other than a graphical face lift? Sure the AI and resource system are cool, but where are all the new units? New Technologies? What I expect from a sequel is progression. Civ 3 basically rehashed what we liked from Civ 1 and 2 and blended it together.

We're still using a tile system? Come on. This is my ONLY complaint that may be Sid's fault. But don't you think its time to move out of 2-d?

This may be sacrilige... but if they were just going to mix up one and two and spit out a game four months early, the least they could have done was add in the good stuff from Call to Power and Alpha Centauri. I mean, C2P stole stuff from Sid, why can't he take it back? I want some ****ing water cities man.

My Wish List:

Terrain Improvements:
Improved mines
Highways (I haven't ridden a train since I was three)
Farmland (Where the **** did this go? If I have to look at that slop they call irrigation one more turn... at least Sn00py did something about that)
TERRAFORMING (i HATE deserts... and yes, we can bring down mountains)

Units:
-Could bombard actually DO something? What a waste of time that is... oh yeah, cannons are GREAT... oooh I damaged the spearman!

-Since when can a bowman stop a tank? Unless these dudes have watched Rambo, I highly doubt it.

-Armys, yep, another USELESS idea under its current application. Armys fight together, maybe if they fought together in the game....

New Units:
Air Transports (I assume we are currently using the New York City bus system to move our troops to afghanistan)
ACTUAL MODERN WAR UNITS
Commandos
I don't know, just more... I am getting really sick of having just Modern Armor and Mech Inf at the the end of the game... that is just ****ing BORING.

New Techs: MORE!!!!!
Computing, Networking, etc, cloning... the fact that the modern era has about four techs is a little unsettling.
How about we have each technology actually DO something... there's nothing more annoying than spending twelve turns on Steel, then realizing that the innovation that helped spur America's Industrial Revolution does NOTHING in the game.

Wonders: MORE
Make some UP for Chrissake. Statue of Liberty? Where did that one go huh?Cure for Cancer gives you one happy citizen? Oh thank the mother of god, by that time, all of my major cities are like size 30 anyway and haven't revolted since the middle ages.


Phew... happy to get that out.

But let me just say this: I had a great time playing this game.. it was highly nostalgic, and I think the general praise that it has received in the public's view has been because of that. How could you NOT like a civ title? Come on, that's like the Pope coming out and saying he likes sodomy after mass.

But nostalgia was all it was... I want Civ 3, not Civ 2 1/2.

[TCO]

1. Do we need an individual rant thread from EACH poster here? I'm not even irked. It's getting funny, now.

2. Most of your points were brought up in several threads (as recent as a couple days ago) which talked about what elements of SMAC and CTP should have been combined into the game.

3. (Not a flame) We need to get an active moderator in here who locks some more of these clutter threads. DAnQ and MarkG did a good job today, but they should be working on higher level stuff.

[Daveraver]

No doubt, I agree it probably should be merged... I don't know... I just think a lot of us have been let down and we just need to get it off our chests in a public arena where people will actually listen to and understand it.

I mean... I told my girlfriend my problems with the game and she laughed at me, called me video game dork and asked me why we haven't been out as much since the game has been out.

Point taken.

[TCO]

Fair enough. I feel your pain. Tell the girlfriend that if she's a little mre sympathetic you'll take her to dinner.

When I first got Civ2, my girlfriend got so pissed off she went and got a Civ2 to put on ther computer so I'd at least play it at her place.

[Simpleton]

Re: My Thoughts on Civ 3 (a newbie's rant)

Originally posted by Daveraver



I want some ****ing water cities man.

F()ck that! I hated water cities. I turned them off in SMAC.

Farmland (Where the **** did this go?

Yah I liked having farmland too.

New Units:
Air Transports (I assume we are currently using the New York City bus system to move our troops to afghanistan)
ACTUAL MODERN WAR UNITS
Commandos
I don't know, just more... I am getting really sick of having just Modern Armor and Mech Inf at the the end of the game... that is just ****ing BORING.

New Techs: MORE!!!!!
Computing, Networking, etc, cloning... the fact that the modern era has about four techs is a little unsettling.
How about we have each technology actually DO something... there's nothing more annoying than spending twelve turns on Steel, then realizing that the innovation that helped spur America's Industrial Revolution does NOTHING in the game.

Wonders: MORE
Make some UP for Chrissake. Statue of Liberty? Where did that one go huh?Cure for Cancer gives you one happy citizen? Oh thank the mother of god, by that time, all of my major cities are like size 30 anyway and haven't revolted since the middle ages.

More is not necessarily better! Look at CTP and CTP2. They had more of everything but everything was so badly implimented that those games sucked. I'd rather have less of everything but have what's included balanced and well implimented. I want good gameplay not just the ablility to build more stuff.

I want Civ 3, not Civ 2 1/2.

Civ3 is way different than Civ2. Just like Civ2 you have to play it more than a few times to get to the meat of the game. After my first game I thought Civ3 was perhaps not as good as Civ2 but now after 4 I wouldn't want to go back to Civ2.

[Daveraver]

to GM lmao

I email myself the save games and play it at her place! I think this begs a new thread... or at least a poll delving into the gender of Civ Players... in my experience... it has been one of the most gender-diverse titles in video game history...

[Daveraver]

Re: Re: My Thoughts on Civ 3 (a newbie's rant)

Originally posted by Simpleton
F()ck that! I hated water cities. I turned them off in SMAC.

Well, not exactly water cities... what I'm trying to get hint at is the INCREDIBLY weak modern age... I'd like for it to extend a bit into the future.

Yah I liked having farmland too.

Dude... it was so pretty... so pretty.

More is not necessarily better! Look at CTP and CTP2. They had more of everything but everything was so badly implimented that those games sucked. I'd rather have less of everything but have what's included balanced and well implimented. I want good gameplay not just the ablility to build more stuff.

But you can't deny that planes are pretty useless, paratroopers and marines are too, helicopters are stupid... and well... if you want to be effective you have to use modern armor vs mech inf, and well... I'd like more options in the modern age is all.

Civ3 is way different than Civ2. Just like Civ2 you have to play it more than a few times to get to the meat of the game. After my first game I thought Civ3 was perhaps not as good as Civ2 but now after 4 I wouldn't want to go back to Civ2.

I wouldn't want to go back either... I think I should restate why I'm angry here: Because Infogrames made Firaxis put out a game waaaay before it was the finished. I think that the insipid modern age and bug ridden game is proof of that.

[yin26]

Just keep in mind: Firaxis didn't have a gun to its head when it signed the contract. And, to my knowledge, Firaxis was never sent an e-mail weeks before release saying: "Surprise! We're moving up the release date on you by 6 months!"

Yes, the loss of Brian Reynolds no doubt hurt them. But what did they do? Hire people to make a golf game and in the mean time cut out MAJOR features and planning for Civ3.

That was a Firaxis decision and I hold them accountable.

[Daveraver]

Originally posted by yin26
Just keep in mind: Firaxis didn't have a gun to its head when it signed the contract. And, to my knowledge, Firaxis was never sent an e-mail weeks before release saying: "Surprise! We're moving up the release date on you by 6 months!"

Yes, the loss of Brian Reynolds no doubt hurt them. But what did they do? Hire people to make a golf game and in the mean time cut out MAJOR features and planning for Civ3.

That was a Firaxis decision and I hold them accountable.

I guess I'm just hanging onto whatever scrap of brand loyalty Sid Meier has instilled in this now dissillusioned young man. But I do know that Infogrames is the closest thing we have to a dictatorship in the video game industry...

[yin26]

Well, I suspect Sim Golf will be pretty good (for its genre) precisely because Sid paid a lot of attention to it. He did not, as far as any of us can see, take a leading role with Civ3. There's your difference. And you'll also notice that Sim Golf *somehow* managed to havt ITS release date pushed back so that more work could be done on it.

Hmmmm...

[ravagon]

Originally posted by yin26

Yes, the loss of Brian Reynolds no doubt hurt them. But what did they do? Hire people to make a golf game and in the mean time cut out MAJOR features and planning for Civ3.

That was a Firaxis decision and I hold them accountable.

Not all personell decisions/changes are mutable or avoidable. You're assuming that the people tasked to the golf game could have been put on civ3?
Personally I think I'm glad they weren't (And that was a very funny thread of yours on civ3 golf a while ago btw )

[Alexander's Horse]

It definitely has the feel of an unfinished product, and not just because the multiplayer wasn't included. Things like corruption and the cultural defection of cities look to me like they weren't fully tested/thought out. I think with more testing they would have set corruption much lower and city defection would have been made much less frequent.

[yin26]

No, what I mean is that Civ3 should have been top priority and Sim Golf put on the back burner. Of course, it might well be that this 'sim' craze will net Firaxis more money than Civ3 could, so it's hard to blame Sid's decision to basically ignore Civ3.

Naaaw, it ain't THAT hard to blame him! LOL!

[TCO]

Originally posted by ravagon


Not all personell decisions/changes are mutable or avoidable. You're assuming that the people tasked to the golf game could have been put on civ3?
Personally I think I'm glad they weren't (And that was a very funny thread of yours on civ3 golf a while ago btw )

It is so simple. Only Firaxis can be held responsible for the depature of Reynolds. (and here I consider Reynolds part of Firaxis...he was one of the 3 owners.) Infogrames can't be expected to clean stable instead an independent house. I don't care wether Sid had any options to move people frpom Golf* or not. The problem came with the departure of most of the civ3 team. The bottom line is Firaxis didn't have the horses when they needed them. Firaxis is responsible.

*Who knows...maybe Golf is a better bet...I REALLY doubt it...but who knows

[ravagon]

Originally posted by GP

The problem came with the departure of most of the civ3 team. The bottom line is Firaxis didn't have the horses when they needed them. Firaxis is responsible.

I think the operative phrase there is "most of the civ3 team" (true or not - I don't remember exactly how many left?). Whether it was preventable or not I don't know either (I assume "not" given the fact that they left) and I have no information on which to base an assessment, but losing such a large fraction compromised them in ways they couldn't compensate for in the time remaining until release.

I think Infogrames should have at least given them more leeway in the matter. Another month or so and it would've still been before Xmas right? True they also had commitments to distributors etc, but these have always been "looser" (In many publishers cases anyway) when its been necessary to allocate additional time to properly finish a project...