Not Fair and Just Not Fun Anymore

[Zanzin]

Man, if you're in 1950 and still in the industrial age techs...I've gotta be honest, the problem is with you, not the game.

Wasn't one of the biggest complaints about civ2 that the AI wasn't hard enough? That winning the game was for gone conclusion?

And now, Civ3 rolls around, and now winning ISN'T a for gone conclusion, and all these people come out of their holes to have a whinge about it. Well, sorry if the game is a challenge for you. But isn't that what life is about? Challenges?

If you're already playing on chieftan, I guess the answer would be to go into the editor and really dumb things down a bit - increase resource distribution, decrease chance of resource disapearing, change the stats of units so that all the good ones are available to your civ and your civ alone, start off with 10,000 gold etc etc. Would that be easy enough for you? I'd call it boring, personally.

[number6]

The game should be easy to win at Chieftain level, since it is the easiest difficulty level. I had a hard time winning at the easiest level because of the resource allocation and I think it makes the game less fun to the casual player. It's the casual player that easy level should cater to, not the game experts. I have not played a game of Civ 3 in weeks now, because I find the game very frustrating. Like someone said in this thread, I guess I will count my losses on this one. I will be more wary of any Firaxis games from now on.

[Zanzin]

Alright, admiteddly, the game should be a no brainer on chieftan. But the resources usually get allocated so there is at least one of everything per civ (in terms of strategic resources anyway).

But if you're having such un unlucky time with the resources, spend 5 minutes in the editor increasing the values of the likeliness of occourance, and you'll probably end up having a much more enjoyable game.

[drmofe]

Odd that you mention eBay

Originally posted by The Eliminator
You obviously are not cut out to play Civ3, so if you are not up to discovering and testing new strategies, then cut your losses and sell the game on eBay.

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&query=Civilization+III

Tum ti tum..."Civilization III (Paperweight)"...sums it up.
DRM

[yin26]

My advice to you guys who don't think you should have to fix things that should have been working properly in the first place: Return your Civ3 / sell your Civ3 on E-bay. Then, about a year from now, check back on these boards regarding the Gold Edition.

By then, a few things will have happened (assuming Civ3 was making enough money in the first place to continue its development): 1) Things like the allocation of resources, etc., will have been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. 2) The editor will actually be worth something, which will allow the community here to make some great mods and fix / alter a great number of things. 3) Multiplayer will be included.

As you can see, Civ3 as it stands is a beta product, and not everybody has the patience and desire to be an unpaid beta tester. Check back when the full product is available.

[Bilo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Fair and Just Not Fun Anymore

Originally posted by Moraelin


Which is yet another counter-intuitive thing, and not properly documented either. (And, yes, I've actually read the manual.) Common sense and this universe's physics say that Coal and Oil are fossilized organic sediments. All else being equal, a 5 billion years world should have a lot MORE coal and oil than a 3 billion year world.

Now you and I can think purely in terms of game tiles, common sense and laws of physics be damned. Probably on account of having played too much games But for someone who didn't... It's just going to be a nasty surprise. Can't really blame them if they'll be upset when that kind of surprise bites them.

Well, I can play the devil's advocate, and argue that this is actually realistic. A 5 billion year world would be much more geologically stable than a 3 billion year world. Therefore organic material is less likely to be trapped in layers of rock in an older planet.
However humid->jungle(coal), arid->desert(oil) does not make any sense at all.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by yin26
My advice to you guys who don't think you should have to fix things that should have been working properly in the first place: Return your Civ3 / sell your Civ3 on E-bay. Then, about a year from now, check back on these boards regarding the Gold Edition.

As you can see, Civ3 as it stands is a beta product, and not everybody has the patience and desire to be an unpaid beta tester. Check back when the full product is available.

I really hope resources aren't revamped, and I doubt they will be since you can edit them. As others have said, lack and excesses of resources help mold the shape of each game. These are tied to the geography, loosely. I don't want a game like civ 2 where I know I can conquer the ai every single time unless barbarians kill my first city.

Anyway, you're right, civ 3 does have some rough edges, like swordsmen and other ancient units that don't become obselete, but oh what bliss to PAY to be a beta-tester.

[The Eliminator]

Hey, I'm the first one to admit that Civ3 is kind of a rip off, I mean, I bought the LE the morning it was released, and I skipped classes, raced home, and threw in the video cd, and after watching the 13 minutes of self promotion; I was kinda like "Thats it?"

But hey, just like all of the other LE threads and whiners out there, yes it was a gyp. Do I regret buying the LE? You bet, I wish I bought the regular one, and saved myself 20 clams.

However, the game flat out rocks. It took a bit longer to get used to than Civ2 did, but after playing it, there is no comparison.

I'm not out to troll, or insult people, I'm just saying that Civ, and most importantly, Civ3, is a thinking man's game. The people who are complaining all complain about the same thing! If all of the resources were evenly distributed, the game would suck. No challenge.

More often than not, I know that the next game I'm gonna have is gonna be a challenge, unlike Civ2. This guy, and most other complainers, are mad that they have to change their strats, adapt, etc. Well, thats why it's called a STRATEGY GAME! Dig out your old Doom or AOE if you want a no-brain game.

My final point about Civ3 whiners is that they gotta settle down a bit. I mean, the people in these forums represent probably 1% of the people who buy the game. They released the patch in fairly quick fashion, the game is top notch, and believe me, even less than the 1% care about scenarios or MP.

Civ2's ability to be altered to your liking was amazing, and I have no idea why they changed it, but they did. I hope they fix it, but if they don't; it won't make the game any less fun.

[francoImpaler]

I agree with the frustration about resources and I agree with those that see it as a challenge. It depends on what you want out of the game.

I will admit that what I want is to be able to kick ass every time on the easiest level. If I want a challenge I go to the higher levels

However I see no reason to complain since you can use the editor to load the map with resources or increase their probability (of course you must have the terrain). If you don't want your modern units losing to bowmen, jack up the power levels and kick the bowmans ass.

Frankly I would have tired of the game quick without the editor. I enjoy the games where I have tweaked the units. I made a roman conquerer bic where the legionary is a 6-6. I also like for warriors to clear jungle.

I am sure some purists will think this is dumb but since there is no mp it is no big deal.

[felder]

Originally posted by Venger
Ah yes, someone points out the emperor has no clothes, and here come the sycophants with invisible thread and needles to try and weave one.

He is correct that resources as currently done render the game either unplayably easy or unplayably hard. If the AI doesn't have a resource, it's screwed. If you don't, you're often screwed. Oil, Coal, Iron are three things found on EVERY continent. Just not in this game. The implementation is poor.

Oh and yes, he wants to be ABLE to win every time. So do I. Nobody likes predestination. I've had my share of bad starts, but to not have ANY chance to overcome the game mechanics means you are walking into a wall.

Venger

Whether or not the resource system makes it unbearably hard or unbearably easy is an opinion. One, I don't happen to agree with.

I think the resources add an interesting dynamic to the game. There wouldn't be much point to the resource system if everyone had them. Also, note that in his post he indicated that there was coal and iron on his continent. It was just that someone else had the coal, and the AI took his iron. I do agree that most if not all the resources should be located on every continent, but I imagine that this would be difficult to implement. What if you play with islands and not continents? Also, often when playing you get stuck in a crappy location like a small island, while one of the AIs has a huge land mass all to itself. These things, along with the resource issue happen. Part of the game is dealing with it.

I can understand where people find lack of resources frustrating, but I rather enjoy sometimes having a game where I'm handicapped. In these situations, a diplomatic victory or a culture victory can be very satisfying. Likewise, I find it fun sometimes to have all the resources and stick it to the AI. There are enough ways to win in Civ3, where lack of resources won't cost you the win.

BTW - It's not that I think Firaxis can do no wrong. The game does have many issues I'd like to see changed. I just don't agree with the original poster on this issue. This doesn't make me a sycophant thank you very much.

[Green Giant]

Damn Firaxis for creating an AI that tries to win, damn them all to heck!

You crybabies just need something to whine about. Your just mad that a piece of programming code is mopping the floor with you. You do realize that you can change how many resources show up in the editor, don't you? You can do that to prop up your complete lack of skills.

Go play Duck Hunt so you can put the gun to the screen and win every time.

[Moraelin]

Green Giant, ever wondered why there are difficulty levels in the first place? Why not have a game with Deity as the only choice? Right, because as was already pointed out, there are a helluva lot of people who don't have the mad skillz. And their money is just as good as yours. Or who prefer a more relaxed game than the mad rushes and fine tweaking every single production or trade, that become needed on the higher levels. (See the "How to sell a Luxury in 80 steps" for the kind of compulsive behaviour needed to win on Deity.) And their money is good, too.

That's why difficulty levels are needed, and that's why most games nowadays have built-in cheats, and that's why on the consoles there's a very prosperous market for cheat add-ons.

And sometimes some game companies forget about that, and get way too lost in the idea of making the game challenging, so they lose sight of the sunday gamer market. E.g., even Chieftain isn't as easy as it was in previous games. Then comes such a random twist that throws difficulty through the roof for the already overwhelmed sunday gamer. And it's about as much fun for him as a kick in the crotch. If he wanted a challenge that takes real skill, he'd be playing on Deity instead of Chieftain in the first place.

IMHO Chieftain should have been just short of having a "push here" to win button. Take a hint from Tropico. There they offer what can only be described as a built in trainer, as the lowest difficulty settings. The lowest economic difficulty setting there means infinite money, and the lowest political difficulty setting means the people will love you no matter what. You only get a 1% as a score multiplier if you use either of those, but wth, it beats downloading a third party trainer. THAT is what lowest difficulty should mean in any game: something you can't really lose even if you're drunk and senile and have a goldfish-like attention span to boot.

Again, if only people with mad skillz bought games, and the rest buggered off, then all y'all Deity players would be looking at less games per year, lower budgets, and likely at paying 100 bucks per game instead of 30.

[Dis]

You newbies are not man enough to play Civ3. Good riddance.

[D4everman]

Although its frustrating at times I like the resource system.In my last game I had to do something I don't like doing....pick a fight/ start a war with India to get my hands on the rubber resources that were just out of my reach. I also had to give tech to other civs in order to sway them to my side in my war (because if I didn't the Indians would surely have gotten them to join in against me)

What happened is a long war that ended when I realized that I couldn't really conquer the indians and maintain a tech lead at the same time. The War Weariness was takiing a toll, but I had whittled them down to a thrid of their empire. Great fun, and all for two measley rubber resources!

And I'm not going to win, either...at least not by 2050. The war slowed down my research enough to make sure of that. Oh well...I still had fun.

[waasabi]

The difficulty levels in Civ3 work and work very well. Chieftan is such a joke to play. It is very easy to out-produce, out-tech, out-culture AND out-military the AI _all in the same game_. There is realistically no way to dumb the game down even further then chieftain without, say, giving the human a leader every 20 turns or something.

I really don't understand the complaint about the "sunday gamer". Sounds more like the self-described "sunday gamer" player type would be more satisfied by watching a movie.