Announcement

**MarkG** · December 9, 2001, 07:21

ralf, have you included the ones dan posted about yesterday?

**Ralf** · December 9, 2001, 07:32

Yes, more or less - I added most of them at the bottom of above list. Here is a disgruntled one, as well:

Voice Gamers reviewscore: 3.5/5

**Herder** · December 9, 2001, 10:14

Interesting downward trend.

**Libertarian** · December 9, 2001, 10:24

More evidence that Peano's fifth axiom might be baloney.

Suppose F(x) is a statement about natural number x. Then F(0) and (for all x in N, F(x) ==> F(s(x))) ==> (F(x) for any x in N)

**David Murray** · December 9, 2001, 10:45

Hmm, posting review scores doesn't really prove much.

It's all a matter of opinion, and just because it appears in a magazine doesn't mean it's a "better" opinion.

That said, still a good game though.

**Ralf** · December 10, 2001, 15:29

Originally posted by David Murray
Hmm, posting review scores doesn't really prove much.

It's all a matter of opinion, and just because it appears in a magazine doesn't mean it's a "better" opinion.

Seen from a personal discontented viewpoint, thats true. But it sure put things into perspective also, doesnt it.

Then the current batch of gamebox-packaging are used up, Infogrames are bound to order new ones, with lots of impressive scores, quotes & rewards all over them. And thats gonna convince many of average spontaneous bying gamers, as well. This in return, gonna boost sales even further, and therefore justify additional patches + an upcoming meaty commercial expansion-package.

In respons to Why is Civ-3 getting such good reviews?

The pointless and contraproductive thing about many whiningly negative "reviews" from so called "Civ-fans", is that they dont say something like;

"Hey - this game (or feature) could be much better, and here is my idea of what could be adjusted, replaced and added, realistically within the realms of future Civ-3 pathes and expansion-packages".

Instead many just whine along, in a depressive glass-half-empty kind of way, without contributing positively with realistic and practical ideas of their own.

**Ralf** · December 15, 2001, 07:43

A bumb-reply, just to tease Venger, Yin26 and their likes, for their non-constructive "Civ-3 is crap" type of replies. Just check out above review-list. Pretty impressive, if you ask me.

Below has been added to the review-list in the initial reply:

FiringSquad revewscore: 96%
Strategy informer reviewscore: 9.3/10
Playzone reviewscore: 9.0/10
Electric playground reviewscore: 70% (visitor response: 83%)
The mushroom reviewscore: 7/10

Computer Games gave it a 5/5 star score, but you must buy the magazine in order to read it.
Computer Gaming World gave it a 5/5 star score, but you must buy the magazine in order to read it.

**MarkG** · December 15, 2001, 08:08

check the news ralf!

**yin26** · December 15, 2001, 08:37

I'm saving my final judgement for the Gold Edition, if sales warrant one, of course. In general, I don't stamp my final score on a beta.

**Venger** · December 15, 2001, 13:22

Originally posted by Ralf
A bumb-reply, just to tease Venger, Yin26 and their likes, for their non-constructive "Civ-3 is crap" type of replies.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's all I post is "Civ-3 is crap", and leave it at that. That's as accurate as stating all Ralf posts is "I KHANT TALCK WUTH SIDS WEENUR EN MY MOUF".

Jerk.

The proof of this review folly is in the numbers - if Civ3 gets a 5 out of 5, what would they have given it if it had stacked movement, fixed air superiority, proper armies, non buggy diplomacy... all the things that need to be fixed?

Save a perfect score for perfect things. Giving this game a perfect score indicates they didn't examine it any deeper than an hour of gameplay.

Venger

**Ralf** · December 15, 2001, 19:18

Originally posted by Venger
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's all I post is "Civ-3 is crap", and leave it at that. That's as accurate as stating all Ralf posts is "I KHANT TALCK WUTH SIDS WEENUR EN MY MOUF".

Jerk.

I think above rather self-revealing quote speaks for itself.

As for your contributions here at apolyton; heres some figures and another quote to chew on, by the way. I have done a simple search on how many replies you have contributed with under this Generel Civ-3 section for the last 6 months. The first one was a reply about propaganda, and it was posted 19-10-2001 - four days after the official Civ-3 release.

About 53 days and 143 topics, with Venger-responses later (that was 11-12-2001 - only 6 days ago) I stumbled across this quote from the Registering my disgust... topic:

I STILL have not finished my very first game. Large map, 8 Civs... I have about 8 turns left before I conquer the earth - the map is in some other threads...

Sorry Venger, I couldnt help emphasizing above with bold letters.

That said, I'm likely posting my final thoughts on the game

I dont think that Firaxis, or any game-company gives a rats ass about your "final thoughts". Not with above kind of official review-scores behind their back. Why should they?

(my game is ending, and the patch doesn't address the core problems with the game)

CORE problems?
It seems to me that you wish for some kind of game-withdrawal, with a complete redesign of the whole damn game.

and will sell it or shelve it until patch number 5 comes out. Culture killed the cat...city defection is still bad, the game is anathema to conquest.

Just use the CivMod-editor, for crying out load. I mean - how hard could that be?

The proof of this review folly is in the numbers - if Civ3 gets a 5 out of 5, what would they have given it if it had stacked movement, fixed air superiority, proper armies, non buggy diplomacy... all the things that need to be fixed?

A review should concentrate on graphics, AI, gameplay and such things. I dont mind if the reviewer add a few lines about "stability" and "bugginess" though. On the contrary. But since that is patch-fixable and therefore temporary, it shouldnt dominate the whole review. Besides, just compare with another cult-game; "Europa Universalis". They had to release at least 5-6 patches before it was considered fully polished.

Giving this game a perfect score indicates they didn't examine it any deeper than an hour of gameplay.

Yea - like sharing your ranting insights & viewpoints in over 140 tropics - then admitting that you havent played one single fully completed game yet.

**Venger** · December 15, 2001, 19:35

Originally posted by Ralf
I think above rather self-revealing quote speaks for itself.

Yep, that you have way too much of a fragile personal ego tied up in this cracked egg of a game.

As for your contributions here at apolyton; heres some figures and another quote to chew on, by the way. I have done a simple search

It would have HAD to be simple...

on how many replies you have contributed with under this Generel Civ-3 section for the last 6 months. The first one was a reply about propaganda, and it was posted 19-10-2001 - four days after the official Civ-3 release.

Obsess much? Rather than try and defeat any arguement or point offered, you skulk around and try to impugn the poster, as if that by association you would no longer have to defend your viewpoint. You cannot destroy a valid message by attacking the messenger.

I dont think that Firaxis, or any game-company gives a rats ass about your "final thoughts".

You think I give a rats ass about what Firaxis thinks? My thoughts are just than, MINE, shared here among others who have played the Civ series, for their consumption. If Firaxis want's to take some cash to the five and dime and buy a clue and actually LISTEN to the fanbase, so much the better.

Not with above kind of official review-scores behind their back. Why should they?

Sure, they've got their money, why bother actually finishing the game?

Core problems? It seems to me that you widh some kind of game-withdrawal, with a complete redesign of the whole game.

If you listened to the posts of people here instead of contanstly ejaculating the fawning company line, you'd not need to wonder about the "core problems?" because you'd know they were there.

Just use the CivMod-editor, for crying out load. I mean - how hard could that be?

God Forbid they release a product that didn't require a mod.

A review should concentrate on graphics, AI, gameplay and such things. I dont mind if the reviewer add a few lines about "stability" and "bugginess" though.

Asinine in the extreme. "Great game" for 2 pages, then a "Oh it doesn't run right" at the end.

Yea - like sharing your ranting insights & viewpoints in over 140 tropics - then admitting that you havent played one single compleded game yet.

My single near-completed game involves nearly 50 hours of gameplay. I would settle if you could complete a post with a nearly-completed thought.

Jerk.

Venger
P.S. FEEL FREE TO POST ABOUT THE GAME, bootlooking feminine shill.

**yin26** · December 15, 2001, 19:52

Ralf: I know you did this to troll. Are you bored? Black and White got nearly perfect scores from all over the place, too. It was called 'highly polished' despite that it barely worked half of the time.

And I'm sure Firaxis doesn't care what I think. Just like I don't care what you think or what those reviewers think. We all come to our own conclusions, and I'm saving my final conclusions for when Civ3 is finally finished.

**Chronus** · December 16, 2001, 00:34

I'm sort of in the same camp as you are, Ralf, though not as vocal.

Yes, there are people with GOOD suggestions on how to improve this game and I enjoy reading their comments. That stacked movement thread by AH is one such example (well, I haven't visited it tonight so hopefully it hasn't digressed to something lower than mud). There's also a number of interesting threads regarding the weird combat results, even though they rarely occur in my games. Many other good suggestions and constructive critisisms have been presented as well.

Unfortunately, I've noticed a growing number of arguments that appear to have little substance. I say "appear" because maybe I missed something. These are paraphrases, not actual quotes, so I'm open to correction: "The game is broken . . . I keep bombarding that spearman but it never dies!" (um, didn't you even read the civilopedia about bombarding?) "The resource concept doesn't work, I don't have the resources I need to build my units" (why even bother having a resource concept if you can always build what you want? This is intended and makes the game much more fun and challenging) . . . and my favorite, "The tech progression is all wrong, it's taking me 32 turns to discover The Republic." (32 turns to make a discovery??! This should only be happening at the beginning of the game. Are you making roads, libraries and such???) Now, when someone DISAGREES with a game concept, then fine. Present your case and let's progress. However, some people resort to saying "it's a bug" and then off they go trying to prove that the AI cheats, or that the resources are rigged to favor weaker civs, or whatever other adventure they want to get themselves into. I've found that things that appeared impossible suddenly become possible several turns or games later when I fully understand it. I don't know . . . even if they did prove their points . . . I suspect I wouldn't find it all that important. I simply love playing this game and will continue to do so. The civ critics may be right about their arguments, or maybe deep down inside they're just tired of the civ genre and can't bear to face this reality

. Perhaps it's time for them to move on.

Anyway, Ralf, check out the "stories" forum if you haven't already done so. There's some cool stuff going on there . . . I may even take a crack at it myself!

Announcement

Some nice Civ-3 reviewscores

Some nice Civ-3 reviewscores

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment