CivIII was designed to look good at first sight

[Be'lial]

Deonwulf

My problem isn't with people trying to make the game better, or at least get it altered to how they want it.

Its with people like Yin26, who appear in almost *every* single thread, make some pathetic, highly insulting comment about people who can't respond, and expect everyone else to agree with them.

When they do post a complaint more than "Firaxis are a bunch of mediocre clowns", its imply to re-iterate their protest against fundamental issues in the game - i.e. resources, etc.

If they hate the game so much, why do they spend all their time here screaming about it - certainly nothing Yin26 has posted will ever be noticed by the Firaxis team, given that they ignore anyone who starts insulting like he does.

(Sorry Yin26, I've seen several people say you provided a lot of ideas before the game was released. but for entire time I've been here, I've yet to see one decent comment from you that wasn't a put down or insult).

Graphics wise - as always, its personal preference. Civ games are never going to have good graphics, I don't ever expect to be impressed graphically by them.
I do however like the redesigned screen layout - its nice to see so much on screen at once, and have all the buttons easily accesable.

Finally, the governments - the original speaker wasn't talking about CTP2 or SMAC, which I've already agreed elsewhere have far superior govermental systems, but to Civ 2 - and the main difference there is that the unbelieveably overpowered Fundamentalism has been removed.
Other than that, the same 5 government concepts have always been part of the civ series. If you don't like them, then its not Civ 3 you have a problem with, its the whole series.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Be'lial
The same government types and concepts have been in all 3 civ games - how come suddenly their clownish and childish?

They have never been so exaggerated. In the real world, Democracies don´t have infinite War Weariness -instead, they have mighty media that combat War Weariness perhaps better than an authoritarian regime could. Nor are they that efficient. On the other hand, not even a Despotism has *that* much Corruption. Yet again, even a despotic regime can´t sacrifice half of the population to build up the economy with the speed of lightning. I simply hate those gaudy over-exaggerations.

And it´s not governments only: Everything in CivIII is painted with an extremely broad brush. As if the philosophy was 'Let´s not incorporate anything that an 8 year old can´t understand.'

They took CivII, broke it, stole a few good ideas from other games -civ-specific traits and units from AoK, strategic resources from ImperialismII-, added a few bad ideas of their own -Pop Rush, unkillable Fast Units, idiotic faces, psychedelic colours-, and mixed it all up to create an unplayable eyesore.

[EnochF]

Sounds about right to me, Comrade ^_^

Anyway, I'm done posting for today. I'll take Surgeon's advice for now.

[MrWhereItsAt]

CivIII was designed to look good at first sight ... and it certainly did take in the reviewers...

But surely not all reviewers are as shallow as you suggest. I think that after that sheer number of games, of course they're not often going to find something they consider exceptional (either good or bad), thus most ganes get a reasonable sort of 85% or so, plus they won't have the time to spend weeks on the game. BUT, nonetheless they are doing this for a living - and the strategy reviewers surely can be said to be experienced in all the sorts of games people on this forum are comparing Civ3 to. And the fact that so many reviews give outstanding scores surely is at least worth a thought.

Are we getting so caught up in our discussions and evidences-for-the-contrary that we cannot see the game for how it really is? Have the hardcore Civers "lost the dream" due to harsh criticisms, gotten out of control? Perhaps it is just me, but I think that we are no longer able to give a fair interpretation to the game - we are often so involved in defending our own opinions that we cannot take another viewpoint.

Hey, that's fandom. I expect that the most vehement of attackers of Civ3 will eventually either quit the game on principle that they "hate" it or will return after a period of disillusionment, when they realize that they might have just have to deal with some issues. And maybe those who will not hear a word against the game will admit some annoyances. And we'll all basically agree, and can get set down to maximizing our game enjoyment.

C'est vrai, non?

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

They have never been so exaggerated. In the real world, Democracies don´t have infinite War Weariness -instead, they have mighty media that combat War Weariness perhaps better than an authoritarian regime could. Nor are they that efficient. On the other hand, not even a Despotism has *that* much Corruption. Yet again, even a despotic regime can´t sacrifice half of the population to build up the economy with the speed of lightning. I simply hate those gaudy over-exaggerations.

CIV3 governements are more exaggerated? You've got your blinders on Comrade. How about NO UNHAPPINESS for fundamentalism in civ2, plus huge amounts of free units.
How about ZERO corruption for democracy?
The differences were much more exaggerated in CIV2.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
But surely not all reviewers are as shallow as you suggest. I think that after that sheer number of games, of course they're not often going to find something they consider exceptional (either good or bad), thus most ganes get a reasonable sort of 85% or so, plus they won't have the time to spend weeks on the game.

If it´s not exceptional (either good or bad), it should get 50%, not 85. If it´s exceptionally bad, it should get zero. Why do all ratings have to be inflationary?

Frankly, I can´t think of a game that really deserves a 90% rating. I can think of a few 80s, but CivIII is certainly not one of them.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by HalfLotus
CIV3 governements are more exaggerated? You've got your blinders on Comrade. How about NO UNHAPPINESS for fundamentalism in civ2, plus huge amounts of free units.
How about ZERO corruption for democracy?
The differences were much more exaggerated in CIV2.

I agree about Fundamentalism, but I was talking about those governments that actually reappeared in CivIII.

I disagree about Democracy. Corruption in CivII wasn´t so much of an issue, neither was the fact that Democracy didn´t have it. And I think you don´t understand that I don´t say Democracy is too strong. I say all of its characteristics -good and bad- are exaggerated. The same is true for Despotism/Communism.

[Comrade Tribune]

Time to *BUMP* this one.

[Grrr]

While I agree that Civ3 is one step forward, and two steps back. I must say that when patching and moding is complete, and all expansion packs recieved it should be a good game. I mean, how many games are shoddy to start with and need 10 patches.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by yin26
I'm proud to say that it only took me 4 days to reach this conclusion. Would have been 1 day except damn work and life got in the way.

LOL

Saw that
Personnally, I took 2 or 3 days almost non-stop, but I've read alot before.

[cutlerd]

As I spend more and more time on these boards, it becomes clearer and clearer to me at least that a great deal of the bitterness about CIV3, especially from longtime forum contributors, is that there appears to have been a long round of pre-design interaction between the game designers and residents of the Apolyton boards.

Because of this interaction, in effect the residents of these boards were led to believe or led themselves to believe that, in essence, they were going to be designing CIV3.

As it turned out, this was not the case. While I was not active on the boards during that stretch of time and therefore cannot evaluate exactly how much forum-fed ideas actually made it into the game, it is pretty obvious that by no means did the game designers intend to take every single design suggestion from every single longtime forum resident and plop it directly into the game.

No doubt, being led to believe one is essentially acting as a defacto game designer and then seeing one's pet ideas NOT incorporated into the game is sure to cause a great deal of resentment and bitterness.

Throughout the postings of chronic complainers like YIN emerges the thread of expectations and suggestions not being listened to. Some of the posts of these people have the tone of jilted lovers...people who had some sort of stake invested into the design of CIV3 and were rebuked.

The comparison of governments is amazingly silly.

CIV2 had a Communism that is basically on par with CIV3. It is a modern government that disperses corruption.

Democracy in CIV2 was a joke. Plain and simple. With the help of the UN you could start wars at will for no reason and have them last as long as you like, with a slight chance that your Senate would tell you to simmer down. There was no public opinion. There was no real evaluation of whether a war was one of aggression or defense.

Democracy in CIV3 is hardly cartoonish, as compared with CIV2. It is the most efficient society for producing goods (a nod to Capitalism more than Democracy), but has a hard time supporting grandiose wars of aggression.

Governments should be very distinct. It is up to the players to provide the subtler shades of policy within those broad government categories. If you want a Democracy government type that allows you to fight longer wars, the answer is not some half-arsed government hybrid between Democracy and Communism. The answer is to run your Democracy in such a way that the effects of war weariness are ameliorated.

Frankly, it was FAR too easy to change government in SMAC. Pay a few credits and WHAM! You can suddenly, in the course of a single turn, change your government's outlook 360 degrees and none of your citizens bats an eyelash. Yeah...that's really realistic! But for whatever reason, SMAC encouraged people, with its low change cost and Social Engineering, to constantly fine tune and fiddle with government until it became almost another strategy vehicle in and of itself.

Civ 3 rightfully IMO does not need that. In history, grand social upheavals are generally required to change governments. Most nations keep their form of government for many many years or even decades or centuries before changing, and rarely does it revert once changed.

Russia went from Despotism for thousands of years to Monarchy through 1917 then to Communism for 75 years and now to arguably Republic.

The US has gone essentially from Monarchy in the 1500's to Democracy in 1783 and that's it.

Look at Rome, England, France, Germany, and any of the other civs presented in CIV3. There is no real-life basis for the type of fine tuning governments that SMAC has.

Devin

[ACooper]

Why should any dissatisfied person piss off? If a majority of the posters are "whining" about the game and can't seem to stop wouldn't that mean that would mean you are in the minority and should be the person to leave.

Actually. The it not a majority of posters who are whining. It's the same minority over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over .............

How dare you ask anyone who plays the game to leave?!?

[number6]

Well it's been over 2 months since the initial release of the game and with one insignificant patch the game is still not much more than fun. I find it funny when people say "The game has great potential, wait until it is fully patched ...". My question is, how long should I have to wait before the game is as engrossing as I remember Civ 1 & 2 being? Civ III is definitely all fluff and no real substance. I remember when I first started playing Civ III and how much I enjoyed the new graphics. I enjoyed learning some new rules, but once my modern tanks were decimated by an ancient knight I started to wonder. This game was obviously rushed and I see no sense of urgency from firaxis to address some pretty obvious issues. I really don't understand why people are so defensive of a game like this. I too find the game "fun". However, when a game has Sid Meier's name attached to it I expect something more than merely fun. I expect in depth gameplay, countless hours of game time and utter amazement at superb game design. The game media is partly to blame for my high expectations, they have deifyed Mr. Meier. I had Firaxis on so high a pedestal that I guess this game was ultimately doomed no matter what they produced. Civ III definitely falls short of my lowest expectations for a worthy successor to the Civ franchise. I know some fanboy is going to say something like "If you are unhappy, then leave". Well I would probably leave if I had not spent $50 on a game that falls way short of my expectations and I was way passed the deadline to get a refund. I am stuck with this game you see. Auctioning on ebay is not an option, because I will take a loss. I have a vested interest and I anxiously await a patch to see if the game will get any better. All of the reviews for this game have been very high, but I have to wonder did the reviewers play the same game as me? If you disagree with me, please give reasons why my arguments are wrong instead of attacking me as a whiner. I will not respond to childish attacks.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Surgeon


well find a game you like and PISS OFF.

Ok its rude but seriously this board is FULL of people that just cant stop whining. It's sick! If you dont like it, if its no fun just STOP. Some stores where I live even have a 7 day 'return it if you dont like it' policy.

Phew. I know I'm one of the rare people on these boards that like the game but seriously sometimes things just arent what you expect. GET OVER IT!

Actually the argument here is that the game was specifically designed to hold the buyers' attention for at least 7 days. All fluff and no content designed to decieve even the most serious gamer. Now a lot of people are getting pissed because they are coming to realize that they have been tricked. In fact, the only people that I've seen 'whine' here are serious gamers.

[Akka]

Originally posted by ****gyRA


Actually. The it not a majority of posters who are whining. It's the same minority over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over .............

And the same whiners that whine about whiners over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...