Whiners

[yin26]

Clearly you haven't been around the forum long enough to know exactly what I have been up to the past two years here, eh? Care to try again?

[Comrade Tribune]

I just voted for 'Can´t understand the game'.

I can´t understand the game, meaning: I have no idea what they were thinking when they created it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli


Good Gods, are you still here? :Waves Scepter: Out! Out! You Demon of Stupidity! Go find another bridge to Troll under...perhaps one with hapless billy goats.

Effective. I am dissolving... BUT, I shall return.

BTW, can't handle someone who speaks about you and your friends the way you and your friends speak of the designers can you?

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Master Marcus
guys, if you're so disappointed, why are you still lurking here? If you think the game is "broken beyond repair" ( whining quote of the year ), go someplace else .... I dunno, go back to Civ II-CTP -SMAC forums, Empire Earth, EU II, MoO3...

So this board is only for those who think Civ3 is perfect? No constructive criticism allowed? Who said "broken beyond repair"? Care to give the source of that quote? The game isn't beyond salvation, that's why I'm here at least. I wish to give input on parts of this potentially-awesome game that I feel are in need of improvement.

[Aqualung]

I've been playing since Civilization first came out (on the Amiga 500).

YES. It does bother my pride that after a month and a half (having spent years mastering Deity on CivII... 921%?) that I'm still stuck on Regent. No matter, it's a more complex game. I'll master it eventually.

But what I hate about it:

The editor! Need I say more? Who was it at Firaxis who thought that the players on an Earth map wouldn't mind if their Russains started out in Mexico? Idiot! And, at least for me, simply changing a civ's color (I want the French to be light blue) causes a fatal error.

Corruption. Not realistically tied to the size of empire you need for a given map. On a Huge map, 26 cities ISN'T a large empire. And yet, even Courthouses/Police Stations (patched version) do extremely little even in a Democracy. It's rediculously crippling.

Pollution. Takes too long to clean up.

The 1st patch. I've got an empire of 16 cities. Ur has a sheild production of 21 (non-wasted), and it'll take me 120 turns just to move my capital one city away? That's 2520 shields. For an empire that's only 16 cities. On a Huge map... Whoever thought of this formula for calculating the cost of building a palace needs to be severely beaten. And I'm someone who NEVER moves my palace. My capital is MY CAPITAL, and I insist on it being the most important city, #1, with the most wonders, in the game. I never move it. But the whole idea that it would take me 120 turns to move it to the closest city... absolutely idiotic.

The 1st patch, part 2. Who thought it would improve game play to increase research time from 32 to 40 turns?

General buggyness. You know how you get that chiming noise "glinglinklinkegling" when an AI wants to talk with you? And that drum sound when there's an announcement (such as cultural influence expanding "brummbrumm")? I get that all the time, mixed together, except it sounds like a skipping record "gling..gling..k...k...gling..brumm..gling...brumm. ..brumm..k... k..."

CivIII gets a maximum of a C+ grade from me. Great promise, needs serious work. Given what it COULD have been, I would have gladly contented myself with CivII for another year. But the game I now play suggests that Sid wasn't the least bit interested in actual "play-tests".

[Fidel]

too bad i could not check all the choices in the poll

[Deornwulf]

To those who like Civ3

I have a simple challenge for you fanboys, put something besides the rhetoric you accuse the critics of into your posts. All I have seen is whining about the whining. What is it that you specifically like about the game? We critics are getting tired of hearing you merely applaud the game. If I were grading your posts in my class, you would get an "F" for a lack of details. It's not good enough to just say you like the game. Give reasons and be prepared to defend your viewpoint.

Remember that all of the posts represent personal opinions. There is no logic, right or wrong, superior or inferior to them. It is all a matter of personal taste. You may disagree with the opinions offered by don't ever belittle someone for having their own opinion.

I'm tired of being told that Civ3 is the greatest game ever. That statement is not a fact and never will be. That unqualified statement is a hasty generalization based on opinion. It is faulty reasoning. It would be correct for an individual to say "Civ3 is my favorite game" or "I think Civ3 is a great game." Those are both qualified statements that are not presumptious nor based on faulty reasoning [Inspite of what you may think, Yin ].

And as for all of the posting by whiners and fanboys alike, I have been doing some serious thinking about it. Why am I (and others) willing to spend an hour or two reading and responding to posts? The answer was so obvious that it was easy to overlook. Most of us who play computer games lead "solitary" lives. We may be surrounded by friends and family but it is rare to find one that understands our obsession. Try explaining REX or ICS to your spouse or parent and you'll see what I mean. It's only on Forums like this that we find others that share our passion.

Whether or not we like Civ3 is really irrelevant. Whether or not we even currently play Civ3 or Civ2 is irrelevant. We are here because Turn-Based Strategy games are our passion. We want to share our ideas with others, talk about great games, gripe about pet peeves, and even argue about minor points.

With every post, it matters not that you agree. With every post, it matters not if you like me. With every post, it only matters that you understand............

[Code Monkey]

Re: To those who like Civ3

Originally posted by Deornwulf
I have a simple challenge for you fanboys, put something besides the rhetoric you accuse the critics of into your posts. All I have seen is whining about the whining. What is it that you specifically like about the game? We critics are getting tired of hearing you merely applaud the game. If I were grading your posts in my class, you would get an "F" for a lack of details. It's not good enough to just say you like the game. Give reasons and be prepared to defend your viewpoint.

There really should be no need to justify why you like something. It's perfectly reasonable that a whole lot of people aren't going to like a particular thing. Even they shouldn't need to justify their opinion unless they, for some unfathomable reason, make a hobby of attacking people who like the game and are trying to discuss it because the game obviously sucks and/or is so flawed beyond belief they can't possibly see how anyone could like it and dammit they're going to show these idiots the bitter light of truth.

But, since you asked:

I like that the rules of the game have been streamlined to make for better AI - all the choices in the world didn't help SMAC when the AI was incapable of utilising any of them effectively. I'm a single player with TBS games, for mp I'll go play FPS or even occasionally RTS. In this case, less complexity actually does make for a better, more challenging game.

I like the much improved AI over Civ2 or SMAC.

I like the flux in the civ strengths that strategic resources and luxuries impose on the game.

I like the strategic challenges imposed by the corruption model used.

I like the fact that simplified combat makes for more strategic and tactical battles. It's very important to time attacks, to use terrain to your benefit, to consider where the defenders can come from for counter attacks, and so on. It's not perfect, but it's much better than anything that's come before in the series.

I like the addition of worker animations and the generally well done "volumetric" sprites for units.

I like that the game remains a challenge for most of the timeline instead of just the first 1/4 of the game before I rise to 20X greater in power than anyone else but still have to play for another 18 hours to win. I have won and lost games of Civ3 by mere turns, that never happened in Civ2 or SMAC.

Last, I like that I have fun playing the game, does there really need to be a better reason for saying you like a game?

I want to see the AI tweaked, I want to see the interface improved, but I like the underlying game that they gave me. I don't see the need to dislike something for things that aren't there if what is there is good enough for me to have fun playing it.

[Libertarian]

Speaking as an empire builder, I agree that the game is fun. Up until somewhere around the late industrial age. After that, playing Civ3 is akin to eating your peas one at a time — with a heavy weight tied to your wrist.

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
Who said "broken beyond repair"? Care to give the source of that quote?

You can perform the search yourself and find the threads related to ( first weeks after release in Civ III- General forum ).

Oh yes, I'm a fanboy, but with a review of 87%, you'll find that I'm well below the average enthusiast reviewer. Read the review section, and I can tell you how Civ III is not a perfect game. Want more details? Play the game or go away.

Think I'm whining about the whiners? OK, perhaps I'll agree on this , for now I'm leaving this thread and everything related to whining. If you think I don't want constructive criticism, you understand nothing. I'm lurking regularly threads such as bugs list, v1.16f issues, etc...

Happy Christmas

[Cookie Monster]

"Care for some cheese with your whine?"


The whining has gotten so far out of hand that I don't pay attention to them anymore. Most of them are just a waste of bandwidth.

Just play the game.


"What?"

Just play the game.

"What?"

"Just bring it!"

[Heliodorus]

On the whiners:
I'm generally bothered by negativity in the world. It's easy to look at a thing and find it's faults. That only requires you to conceptualize the ideal and point out where reality diverges from it. That's TOO EASY. I personally believe that it's better for us as individuals to find things to be happy about. Finding ways to be satisfied requires us to rein in our fantasitic desires, imposed expectations, and address our personal shortcomings. I'm this way about politics, employment, and Civ3.

The WORST game I ever bought was MAX2. It sucked on toast, and one of the scenarios was designed such that it was impossible to succeed in it due to movement times and a scenario time limit (talk about lack of QA and playtesting). My solution was to stop playing it. I stopped going to message boards, I stopped trying to learn different approaches, I just stopped playing it (actually, I'm overlooking the post I put on a message board in which I berated the designers, saying something along the lines that I hoped they died of an diarhea - a low point in my personal development which led me to my current position).

I buy bad games once in a while. It's mostly my fault, though. Unfortunately, a lot of people fail to realize that there is a horde of CRAP released in this consumer market simply because, as Will Rogers said, "Nobody Ever Went Broke Underestimating the Good Taste of the American Public." If one wants to avoid buying bad games, one has to exercise some measure of foresightedness, patience, and intelligence.

Lots of you guys waited and waited for Civ3, and pre-ordered it only to learn it didn't meet your expectations once it was being played on your PC at home. That's YOUR fault, not Firaxis'. It's YOUR fault because you didn't wait for reviews, and you didn't go to boards such as this where people who can honestly criticize could dissuade you from buying this product. If you had decided not to purchase Civ3 "sight unseen" then you could have exercised patience, foresightedness, and intelligence in determining whether the product would suit your interests.

Whether or not Firaxis released a crappy product is NOT relevant. YOU BOUGHT IT, and you are responsible for what you buy and why. You bought a game based on Sid Meier's noteable past - well, Neville Chaimberlain signed a few treaties with Adolf Hitler thinking his reputation was good. Worse can happen than getting a bad game when you believe in reputations. Bad movies are made on the names of great reputations.

You bought a game based on a noteworthy and interesting preview? Your fault. You were gullible to the hype of the writer and the developer, and you were oblivious to the fact that what goes on in the design room doesn't necessarily make it into the game. By now, you understand my point in this. Accept personal responsibility for how you ended up buying a product that would ultimately dissatisfy you. Learn from the process through which you came to have an unfulfilling product in your possession and your money in Infogrames' possession. Try not to repeat the process.

On an ironic note, I waited for Civ3's release rather excitedly. I read the gamespot review, then I read pages of READER reviews of Civ3. In reading the reader reviews, especially the low scores, I decided NOT to purchase Civ3.

A few weeks later I bought a game at Media Play, took it home and tried to install it, and the CD was bad, so no install. I took it back, and on a whim, I decided that rather than rebuy the same game (which didn't look all that intriguing once I got it out of the box and read the rules), I would take a chance on Civ3 - thinking the bad CD of the first game was an ill omen. I have loved Civ3 ever since. So all of the negative reviews I read were misinforming me to the fun I'd have with Civ3.d

Now Deornwulf has asked me to say what I do like, and at the risk of going on and on and on in this post, I shall.

I LIKE how diplomacy works. It makes little alliances pay off over short periods, and it makes sharing technology worth doing.

I LIKE the way combat works. The AI can stay in the game a lot longer with the simplified combat system (I wish to god the AI upgraded units, though).

I LIKE the insanely expanding AI because I have to pay close attention to what I'm doing to keep the AI early lead from destroying my chance at victory.

I like the Civ traits and UUs exceedingly well (some are more useful than others, obviously, but great concept).

I like strat resources.

I won't go into what could have been (or may still yet be) improved, with this one exception:
STACKED MOVEMENT DAMN YOU! STACKED MOVEMENT!

People don't like to feel that they did something dumb or foolish. Rather than admit to personal mistakes (and dealing with the notion of being disappointed with one's self) and directing energies toward more rewarding behaviors in the future, they take their frustration with themself and project it onto another object, and blame it as the source of their negative experience. This is often done unconsciously.

Flame away if you care to prove my point

[Libertarian]

Flame away if you care to prove my point

Care to explain why that's not a complex question fallacy?

[Deornwulf]

Heliodorus & Code Monkey

I appreciate your responses to my challenge. You both have brought up some good reasons for liking the game. I agree with the interesting twists that strategic resources have added to the game. It throws in a certain element of chance that leave victory in doubt. At least for those unwilling to brutally take what they need.

This has given me a idea for a new thread. It's just crazy enough that it might work. Look for the Good and the bad thread and if you are game repost what you wrote here.

[Zealot]

I find it really amazing that the majority of whiners about whining are just newbies!
Just because there are some people who are unsatisfied with Civ 3 doesn't mean that they are kids, or just don't have anything else to do, or anything of what that stupid poll is pointing out!
In fact, the majority of these newbies are in fact under 18!!! (at least from the small sample I made, they were under 18! )
But what's really annoying, is to see those kids starting threads like this whining about others pointing out what they dislike in a game that the "elder" at Apolyton dedicated their time to feedback Firaxis about what should be cool in Civ 3!
IMO, guys like Yin have all the legitimacy to rant all they want, because they tried to help Firaxis to make the best Civ ever! And what has the outcome been? YOU don't know because you're just a bunch of newbies whining about some members who have been here and know how Civ 3 should have evolved!

Cut the crap, and stop creating threads like these! If there are rude people attacking Firaxis, do what I do: don't read them!

MM, I hope you know that I respect your oppinions, but I don't think how may you help on this subject by joining these newbies.