Civ3, major disappointment. It's "ordinary".

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Maybe it's not this place that's a disgrace, maybe the disgrace is that Firaxis didn't make a new game, but just made us pay for a re-release.

Civ3 is a very new game compared to the other civs. Civ2 was virtually a copy of Civ1. Sure a few more units, techs and wonders but really no new innovations. However, it was/is a great game. The thing that threw me when I first played Civ3 was that it was so different from any Civ experience I had had. Civ3 certainly expands on the series in many ways.

Yes, it has some "new" stuff, but guess what? It's insignifficant. It doesn't matter if it's 2 new things, or 10 new things, as long as half of them are _minor_ tweaks to what existed already in Alpha Centauri, and the other half are just broken.

This is exactly what I am sick and tired of. Don't just complain but say what's wrong and how you would fix it otherwise your point is just whining not constructive critisicm. And this board can do with less whining.

They can get Call To Power 2 instead.

CTP1 or 2 don't deserve a response!

[Libertarian]

And this board can do with less whining.

That's an understatement.

[Wiglaf]

the zealots are back in force

It isn't whining, it's stating the obvious. You've got people who want civ4, you've got review sites divided, and the strong majority of complaints are being tossed out the window as 'immature' or whatever. People paid the $60, they can voice their opinions. IMO, they're accurate. Civ3 could've been much more.

But hey, it's all what you make of it. But don't call it whining, it's constructive and has a lot of merit. Argue it first.

This is exactly what I am sick and tired of. Don't just complain but say what's wrong and how you would fix it otherwise your point is just whining not constructive critisicm. And this board can do with less whining.

?!!?

It was a valid point to me.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
the zealots are back in force

It isn't whining, it's stating the obvious. You've got people who want civ4, you've got review sites divided, and the strong majority of complaints are being tossed out the window as 'immature' or whatever. People paid the $60, they can voice their opinions. IMO, they're accurate. Civ3 could've been much more.

But hey, it's all what you make of it. But don't call it whining, it's constructive and has a lot of merit. Argue it first.



?!!?

It was a valid point to me.

1) Whining is: I hate this. This sucks!!
2) Constructive Criticism: I think Airpower sucks. Here's what I think should be done and here's how to do it (insert intelligent argument here).
I could do with a little less 1 and little more 2.

[Trifna]

I agree on about all you said...

Civ III is a beta. And it has serious flaws that needs serious tweekenings. Atomic bombs doing strictly nothing for exemple...

[Libertarian]

Nonsense.

I launched an ICBM on the Iroquois capital after pushing them off the continent. When I arrived there two turns later with my workers and armor, the city was deserted. Not even a defender. I just marched an armor unit in and eliminated them. The one pop remaining didn't even resist.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Nonsense.

I launched an ICBM on the Iroquois capital after pushing them off the continent. When I arrived there two turns later with my workers and armor, the city was deserted. Not even a defender. I just marched an armor unit in and eliminated them. The one pop remaining didn't even resist.

If there is one pop left after a nuke, it means that the pop was 2 before the nuke. You know what ? This 2-pop city was probably as deserted before the nuke as after. Ok, perhaps one or two defenders less. I don't think this example is a good one if you plan to prove that nukes are powerful.

[Libertarian]

I planned only to do what I did, namely, contradict the notion of "Atomic bombs doing strictly nothing ". In addition to what I've already stated, there were two defenders standing outside the city. Both were destroyed.

The reduction of a city surrounded by defenders to an undefended pushover is not "strictly nothing".