It's not whiners vs. fanboys it's Sid fans vs. Brian fans

[Be'lial]

Hmm, maybe its just me but these forums seem to be degeneratin into more SMAC forums...

I personally didn't want Civ 3 to be SMAC 2.

Why?

a) The AI in SMAC is dreadful. Its as bad as the CTP2 AI - It was ridiculously easy to beat at the hardest difficulty level, simply because the computer couldn't use any of the advanced features that the player had available.
(And I'm not a Civ genius, can only play Civ 3 on Monarch level)

b) Terraforming - yes, Civ 3 gets dull later on, and I end up switching all my workers onto automated routines, but its nothing compared to the endless terraforming of SMAC.
It took far longer, the graphics were *dreadful*(red, red, and more red), and in the end you end with a planet covered in forests. Hmm.

c) Combat - In all the games I've played of Civ 3, I've only once had a tank loose to a spearman. Every other time, massive combined armies pulverise the defenders with no problems...
Compare that to the SMAC ability of taking 2 aircraft and taking every city on a continent in a couple of turns - combat in SMAC was pointless, given that the human player could always design much better units than the computer and then run them over using them.

d) Storyline - I enjoyed SMAC's storyline, and more personal feel - but thats because its a different game. Civ never had this type of interface, because its much grander in scale - I personally would never want this type of interaction in Civ, because it would lessen the entire concept of a 6000 year old civilisation...

e) Patches - how many did SMAC and SMAX end up with? I remember installing at least 2, both fairly vital to the game...

f) More combat - in SMAC, the AI was useless at making war wamongst themselves. Yes, you could manipulae war amongst all the nations, in a sneaky underhand way - but all it would do would be to take the heat off you slightly. In Civ 3, when I start making military alliances with people, the effects are immediate - the AI is mean!
(Especially Elizabeth 1. I've seen her use forces of more than 80 tanks to take just one city... )

On the plus side, there were several ideas that would have been better implemented in Civ3 :

1) Government Types - I much prefer the pick and mix approach of SMAC, even if it was open to abuse by human players. Civ 3 currently can't represent most Governments in history, due to only having 5 base models...

2) Wonders - Something no one else has mentioned, but SMAC's wonders were powerful all through the game, and even the ones you obtained right near the end of the tech tree were immensely useful. Compare that to Civ 3, where the no. of wonders in the later ages is tiny, and most are completely pointless anyway...

3) UN Victory - in agreement with everyone else, the current model is ridiculous. Unlike everyone else, I *always* win when I hold a UN vote, no matter what else I've done. I've even had AI's that hate me vote for me....
(Mind you, in every game I ever played the AI's went after each other with a bloodlust that amazed me...)

[Steve Clark]

IMO, SMAC was no more than a glorified Civ2 scenario. esp. with its narrowly defined factions. Introducing more of a SMAC-like human-quality AI into a Civ game would only decrease its replayability. Why replay a game when you know what an AI civ will or will not do or act? This would be no different than playing as the Allies against the Axis in a WW2 scenario over and over again and seeing the same AI tactics from the Axis. That was why a majority of those here that were in this forum back in 2000 railed against Civ-specific attributes. What they implemented in Civ3, I think, is a good balance. Going towards a more predictable AI is the wrong direction, imo.

Do that in a scenario where it belongs, not in the regular game.

[scientist]

News Flash!

I have news for all of you. Sid Meier has left the building.

Brian Reynolds was the true driving force behind Civ II and SMAC. I believe Civil War was more of a collaboration between the two of them, but I tend to believe that the fact that Brian's face was on the "battle manual" suggests more of his spirit in the game than Sid's.

I'm not putting Sid down. Pirates, the first Civilization, Colonization, Railroad Tycoon: These are classics. I just think that Sid has chosen to trade in on his fame and take it ieasy and let others do the work. It's sort of Like those "Tom Clancy" books you see that are written by other people. I'm sure Mr. Clancy has final editorial review, and provided the original inspiration, but it is ultimately a derivative work by someone else. the "Sid Meier" name helps sell software, but Sid probably was about as involved in the day to day development of Civ III as he was in CtP.

Civ III is Jeff Morris', Jeff Briggs' and Soren Johnson's game. Sid's name only appears in the credits as a designer of the original Civ.

A very telling proof of Sid's noninvolvement is the interviews with Sid in print. Here is a man who used to love to discuss the intricacies of game design putting forth marketing-friendly inanities. I imagine that in some of the interviews, Mr Meier had a publicity flak write and e-mail back the interviewer's answers.

I believe that Civ III has some real strengths, but the the submersion of Briggs's and Sorenson's spirit under the weight of Mr. Meier's heavy, discarded mantle probably stifled and true innovation.

Let's face it: Civ III is a hack job. A workman-like, enjoyable one, but a hack job nonetheless.

[Moraelin]

Be'lial, I think noone wants the bad parts of SMAC copied verbatim, too. E.g., noone said that Civ 3 should have been all shades of red. I'm sure that it a Civ 3 with the SMAC intricacies would still have had green grasslands and blue oceans.

As for the AI, I'm not even sure it's THAT much of an improvement in and by itself. As someone said already, Civ 3 is just proof that you can dumb the rules down to give the AI a chance. I've already posted in several places the hideously long list of stuff that the Civ 3 AI does awfully wrong, so I won't repeat it here. Most of the challenge in going for a conquest game is from the weird game model, corruption and combat being just two of the issues, than actually from the AI.

As for the patches, Civ 3 has already had one patch, and it looks like it put in worse bugs than it has solved. I'd expect a second, too. I wouldn't be that surprised if they go over the 3 patches that I think SMAC had.

Scientist, actually I've been reading somewhere that Colonization too, has been at least partially Brian's game. Which would explain the richness of options, choices and possibilities. Among other things, Colonization pioneered the civ traits long before SMAC.

But again, until recently I never even knew who the heck is he. (Serves him right for not puting his name on the box in big letters, too) So I could be wrong. It's just what I've read.

Steve Clark, I think you're the first one I hear saying that making a game more complex makes it less replayable. I seem to remember having loads of fun replaying SMAC. IMHO that predictability could have easily been solved. For example, a cheap way could be to just throw in twice the civilizations. Then it would be rather unpredictable which of them you'll get in a game.

[Moraelin]

Be'lial, I think noone wants the bad parts of SMAC copied verbatim, too. E.g., noone said that Civ 3 should have been all shades of red. I'm sure that it a Civ 3 with the SMAC intricacies would still have had green grasslands and blue oceans.

As for the AI, I'm not even sure it's THAT much of an improvement in and by itself. As someone said already, Civ 3 is just proof that you can dumb the rules down to give the AI a chance. I've already posted in several places the hideously long list of stuff that the Civ 3 AI does awfully wrong, so I won't repeat it here. Most of the challenge in going for a conquest game is from the weird game model, corruption and combat being just two of the issues, than actually from the AI.

As for the patches, Civ 3 has already had one patch, and it looks like it put in worse bugs than it has solved. I'd expect a second, too. I wouldn't be that surprised if they go over the 3 patches that I think SMAC had.

Scientist, actually I've been reading somewhere that Colonization too, has been at least partially Brian's game. Which would explain the richness of options, choices and possibilities. Among other things, Colonization pioneered the civ traits long before SMAC.

But again, until recently I never even knew who the heck is he. (Serves him right for not puting his name on the box in big letters, too) So I could be wrong. It's just what I've read.

Steve Clark, I think you're the first one I hear saying that making a game more complex makes it less replayable. I seem to remember having loads of fun replaying SMAC. IMHO that predictability could have easily been solved. For example, a cheap way could be to just throw in twice the civilizations. Then it would be rather unpredictable which of them you'll get in a game. E.g., already with the number of opponents in Civ 3, when I'm playing against 7 people out of 15 possible, not once I've had the exact same 7 in two games.

[Redstar]

not true..and here is the proof.

I love Sid Meier games because of games like railroad tycoon, civilization.

I absolutely loved microprose. I bought almost all of their games.

I bought civ2 cause it said Sid Meier's... (so that marketing worked)

anyways, i have issues with civ3. I also have the patience to wait now that those issues have been expressed by many-fold.


So there are not just 2 camps. I'm betting the camp i'm in is the real majority too. )

The camp that wants a great game no matter who is behind it.
(well except maybe one from osama)

[Blisterz]

Colonization! Don't get me wrong I love Civ3, buts its going to take a hell of a game to take Colonization's top spot in my books. So I guess that means I am in the Brian camp. Cool that you pointed it out this way, never really thought like that.

[Ozymandous]

Hmm, interesting thread.

I am curious about one thing:

How many people who bash Civ3 liked Civ2 more than SMAC/SMAX?

The reason I ask is that after following the majority of the people who don't like Civ3 around I eventually discover that they loved SMAC(X).

I personally didn't like SMAC(X). The game was *too* red and most of the scientific discoveries were too fictional (this coming from a Sci-Fi/Fantasy nerd).

The game was needlessly complex. Unless you played SMAC(X) multi-player (and even if you did) the game was too predictable in that everyone did the exact same things most of the time (air-units mainly with a few planet-busters thrown in).

Now I LOVED Civ1 (at least till MOO1 came out then I played it for longer than I did Civ1), but Civ2 to me was a simple rehash of the first game with better graphics and a few game balance tweaks.

What do I like about Civ3?
-Resources.
-Diplomacy where you can actually DO stuff.
-Civ specific traits and units.
-Bombard function.
-Culture and it's effects (borders, cities swapping control).
-Vastly improved AI which doesn't all gang up on the Human player constantly.

What do I not like about Civ3?
-No peaceful great leaders.
-Less units & improvements to build (a lot of time spent on wealth).
-You MUST fight at times (at least it seems so) even if you're playing a peaceful game.
-No stack movement.
-No Terraforming (although this is realistic, which is good.)

What did I like about SMAC?
-Ability to build custom units, although this could be abused and/or tedious.
-Storyline (you expected less from a confessed Sci-Fi lover?)
-Wonders
-Ability to design governments.
-Lots of fun things to build, units and improvements.
-Floating cities.

What did I not like about SMAC?
-Ability to build custom units (was a pain in the butt to have to reconfigure each unit every time a new discovery was made).
-Hard-coded AI "personalities". They never adapted or evolved, extremely predictable.
-Ability to design governments. Too clunky for the AI to use well.
-Fungus.
-Terraforming land. If you didn't get those domes built before someone lowered your land you were screwed.
-Too MANY things you *had* to build.
-Not enough new land. There was always a "Garland Crater" each game, for example, not as much diversity or randomness in the game.

There is my short list. I liked CIv1, thought Civ2 was a copy of the original and thought SMAC, while good in concept, was lacking in AI and overall strategy, as you were forced to get certain tech's or path's or else you were toast.

All 4 games are good, just come appeal to different people. I do wish that the SMAC(X) folks would realize this is NOT nor will it be SMAC(X)2, and eithe rtake the game back or deal with it however.

Oh well.

[old dog]

I was reading through all this and getting ready to respond, until I read Ozymandous's statement and realized he'd pretty much stated my reaction.

I really think that a lot of unhappy people were looking for SMAC 2, not Civ 3, and, for the many reasons given by Ozymandous and Steve Clark, I was looking for Civ 3.

Personally, I love the resource aspect of the game and would only like to see still more of that. (I can imagine a system where HOW MUCH of a resource you controlled impacted the cost of building different things, with zero resource meaning prohibitively high costs.)

The game has its imperfections to be sure (starting with scenerio creation) but I sure wouldn't like it better if it were more like SMAC!

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Moraelin
3) Colonization's customizing your own civilization over time. As your empire grew, you could choose in which direction you want it to evolve. You could become friendlier towards the natives, for example, so they'd be less hostile. Or you could become more commercial instead and make more money. Or some other things. Basically instead of just starting with some civ traits like Industrious, Commercial, Expansionis, whatever, you could evolve in one or more of those directions as your empire grew.

The powers in Colonizations had different abilities.

I can't take position, as I like both Sid's and Brian's games (especially Civ1 from Sid, and Colonization from Brian)

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: It's not whiners vs. fanboys it's Sid fans vs. Brian fans

Originally posted by korn469
there are two civ camps the civ1 keep it simple and elegent camp and the the civ2/SMAC we like our bells and whistles camp

Korn, this is an interesting thought, but I disagree. I have finally come to the conclusion that CivIII is the worst of both worlds. To be elegant it would have to be very finely balanced and extremely well polished. It isn´t, and will never be, because some of the basic concepts (Forced Labour Super Economy/Undead Fast Units) are so bad they can´t be repaired.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: News Flash!

Originally posted by scientist
I'm not putting Sid down. Pirates, the first Civilization, Colonization, Railroad Tycoon: These are classics.

Of course. But Sid Meier´s creative genius has run dry, and the other current Firaxians never had one in the first place.

Which means, I have absolutely no hopes for CivIV; at least not if it´s made by Firaxis.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Gramphos
The powers in Colonizations had different abilities.

Well, ok, you DID start with some unique ability, but you could build from there in whatever direction your liked. Sure, you'd keep that initial ability on top of everything, but for example you could make your Spanish more native-friendly too (which initially was only France), or you could make them even more militaristic than they start, or you could build their trade abilities to rival the Dutch.

I've said this before, but I would have liked the cultural values of my people to evolve in Civ 3 too. Either by giving me some control over it, or just by noticing what I do the most. Like if I fight lots, my people would become more militaristic minded, if I build lots of libraries they'd start valuing science more, while if I build lots of temples they might start thinking more about the afterlife.

Off topic: I've reinstalled Colonization today. Butt-ugly low res graphics, by today's standards, and my SB Audigy no longer emulates the old Sound Blaster in DOS, so I don't have sound either. But looks like it's still a great game nevertheless. I have a feeling that I'll be wasting too many days with it again.

[korn469]

Is Civ3's greatest flaw also one of its greatest strengths? did making game design choices simple enough for the AI ruin the fun? if that is not it then what is civ3's greatest design flaw? this reminds me of be careful what you ask for you just might get it

everyone wished and wished for an ai that wouldn't get its a$$ handed to to it every single game, and here it is...except now we are all complaining because the game becomes tedius and that there aren't enough choices to make

hehe i think even if brian had of stayed and added in a ton of new features that everyone would have complained because the AI was so overwhelmed by decisions that it couldn't do anything at all...so either way people were going to be unhappy

and this is to all of the civers who despise the SciFi aspect to SMAC, that is just a facade, the game is really just a/d/m etc. anyways (at least to me) then i say i wish for SMAC 2, i don't mean the setting i mean the options, and i don't mean a rehash, i mean going above and beyond the game in every category

civ3 takes two steps forward and one step back, and i just wish it had taken four steps forward and no steps back

[Special_Olympic]

I've never liked a sid game before Civ3, but he must have a really big ego to put his name on everything like that.

Thr graphics are so bad in civ2 I can't stand to play it.