Here's why we complain of things in Civ III that were in Civ II

[Trifna]

Many asked "Why do people complain about things in Civ III that were in Civ II, saying it destroys Civ III, whereas they didn't complained for Civ II?". So here's my interpretation in three steps:

1- I have a little hypothesis about it. Game's concepts and technical development, in the 1980's, weren't of the same quality than now (in a general way). If they were, well we would stil making 2D games, etc. This is because designers and everyone lurned from the past.

2- Look at people in the mid-ages. They were doing things you would say are boring. This is because you have better things to do than at that time. "Boring" is an adjective, and as all adjective, it is a comparison. It can only be "More boring than" and not just "Boring". When you say only "Boring", you implicitely compare it to the average within the context of your sentence.

3- NOW, in gaming, we are able to do more, we lurned of our experience, we know this and that can be ameliorated. So when we see it NOT ameliorated, we compare it to what we think it could have been, and to what we find in other games, which (both together) is forming our average in the present context (what we think it should be).



This text isn't complete and I know it. But it gives the general idea, without considering some factors I did saw, but that were complicating the thing. Or this would be a discussion about factors of happiness, which would be longer and ask me to go on some fields I'm not fixed. But the factors that are giving the reasons in the present context, I think, are here.

Hope those who read this make fun with it and find it interesting

[Libertarian]

Once again, Trifna, you've made an insightful contribution.

One of the things that developers have learned (which I mentioned briefly in another thread) is that an interface ought to be designed in such a way that a user is immersed in his work (or play), and not bothered with leading the software around by the nose.

Being a "power user" used to be a badge of honor. People who knew how to "make software sing" were a hot commodity. Nowadays, software is much more transparent and docucentric. Interfaces are much more encapsulated. Today's power user is the person who can make documents (or games), rather than what's wrapped around them, sing.

Civ3's interface is very 80s.

[cutlerd]

IMO most of the people who have expressed dislike of CIV3 on these forums are the type that like to sit down at the computer, fire up a civ game, and kick unholy arse on the AI. I have heard the same refrain from the critics on these forums over and over again. Many even say it explicitly "I like to sit down at Chieftain level and dominate."

CIV3 has thrown a monkey wrench in their comfortable CIV2 domination fantasies. They can no longer tech blitz. They can no longer blitz through enemy territory with armour and spies. They can no longer build every unit in the game willy nilly with no thought of resources. They can no longer take city after city with nary a garrison in them. They can no longer build the UN and constantly start wars of aggression as Republics or Democracies. They can no longer build massive world spanning empires and not worry one whit about the difficulties of running such a huge sprawling mess.

In other words, they can no longer indulge their megalo-maniacial Napolean-complexed world domination mental masturbations unfettered from the needs of strategic planning.

This bothers them and so they hate the game without giving it much of a chance. In their desire to hate the game so rabidly, they end up eventually complaining about things that were exactly the same in CIV2, but I guess are coloured through the nostalgic glasses of years gone by.

P.S. There are some actual thoughtful people who dislike CIV3 for reasons that, while I don't agree with them, I at least respect them. But for the most part what I've read and heard falls into the characterization above.

Devin

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by cutlerd
*snip*

Ah, that would make for an easy dismissal of most complaints, wouldn't it? The people who play Chieftain aren't nearly as vocal as those who don't, at least on a regular basis. As such they aren't really responsible for a great deal of uproar. The majority of veterans (Of the series) and frequenters who share the opinion that the game is highly flawed attest to playing Monarch or harder.

That card has been played already, and is out of the game. Sorry.

[Ming]

Sure... "some" of the complaints about Civ III are the same things we put up with in Civ II. (note: I still play Civ II MP on a regular basis)... so what. They are still valid complaints.

We were led to believe that Civ III would be the game to end all games. Just take a look at all the hard work and effort put in by Yin and others putting together a list of things we wanted to see for Civ III. We were expecting soooooooooo much more. And what did we get...

Now, I'm still playing Civ III, and I find many elements very enjoyable... But I really hope they solve a lot of the late game "issues" and continuing nagging problems with a future patch(s). I hope they don't just walk away from the game!

[cutlerd]

<
That card has been played already, and is out of the game. Sorry.>>

If you interpreted that my point was that all of the complainers only play chieftain, then you missed the point or I was not clear enough.

Let me try again. The majority of complainers seem to be those who enjoyed the megalomaniacal component of the game. Kicking the asses of one's opponents and cutting through their empires like butter. All smash and no subtlety.

In fact, I am willing to bet most of the complainers regularly beat King and Deity on CIV2. After all.....it hardly serves to be conqueror of a whimpy universe....right?

So I suppose I should have divided the complaints into two categories....the casual players who have stated that they just like to set the game to Chieftain and kick ass without any problems, and the hardcore CIV2ers who liked to set the game to Deity and kick ass over and over again using the same tried and true kick-ass formula every time.

I hope it is clearer now.

Devin

[Libertarian]

Clearer, yes. But still randomly arbitrary.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by cutlerd
IMO most of the people who have expressed dislike of CIV3 on these forums are the type that like to sit down at the computer, fire up a civ game, and kick unholy arse on the AI. I have heard the same refrain from the critics on these forums over and over again. Many even say it explicitly "I like to sit down at Chieftain level and dominate."

CIV3 has thrown a monkey wrench in their comfortable CIV2 domination fantasies. They can no longer tech blitz. They can no longer blitz through enemy territory with armour and spies. They can no longer build every unit in the game willy nilly with no thought of resources. They can no longer take city after city with nary a garrison in them. They can no longer build the UN and constantly start wars of aggression as Republics or Democracies. They can no longer build massive world spanning empires and not worry one whit about the difficulties of running such a huge sprawling mess.

In other words, they can no longer indulge their megalo-maniacial Napolean-complexed world domination mental masturbations unfettered from the needs of strategic planning.

This bothers them and so they hate the game without giving it much of a chance. In their desire to hate the game so rabidly, they end up eventually complaining about things that were exactly the same in CIV2, but I guess are coloured through the nostalgic glasses of years gone by.

P.S. There are some actual thoughtful people who dislike CIV3 for reasons that, while I don't agree with them, I at least respect them. But for the most part what I've read and heard falls into the characterization above.

Devin

I played games that were hard (most people not finishing it) and it didn't influenced my opinion. What does influence is if it has resemblance in its own context, the interface, etc. I never even played Civ II at its higher difficulty. I never liked to rule only. And I'm constantly criticizing. Would it be almost perfect, I could stil criticize, except that I would add "It is almost perfect, just a tiny detail...", since I'm reconnaissant of things made. Nothing is perfect, thus we can try to make it better (even if when its realy tiiiny details, we change to something more criticizable since more valuable). Do you think that every litterature, politic, ..., critics are criticizing because they like to be the boss or anything, that they aren't able to criticize by looking at if it is CORRECT instead of looking if it is an advantage to themselves or else? I would guess I'm able to criticize by trying to make it better.

[Trifna]

and it didn't influenced my opinion

Correction. I think it didn't influenced my opinion. I'm not perfect thus I guess I'll make a fault somewhere, but I have the opposit goal.

[Capt Dizle]

well,

I find Trifna's writing more colorful than the game. Civ3 I mean, not that I play anymore. I wrapped it up and gave it away as a Christmas present to a particularly distasteful cousin.

[cutlerd]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Clearer, yes. But still randomly arbitrary.

Isn't that redundant?

And hardly random or arbitrary, since I neither rolled a die nor flipped a coin to formulate my opinion nor did I simply make up my opinion as a flight of fancy or whimsy.

Has your vocabulary sputtered out oh fellow Libertarian?

Devin (long time Libertarian)

[cutlerd]

Originally posted by Trifna



I played games that were hard (most people not finishing it) and it didn't influenced my opinion. What does influence is if it has resemblance in its own context, the interface, etc. I never even played Civ II at its higher difficulty. I never liked to rule only. And I'm constantly criticizing. Would it be almost perfect, I could stil criticize, except that I would add "It is almost perfect, just a tiny detail...", since I'm reconnaissant of things made. Nothing is perfect, thus we can try to make it better (even if when its realy tiiiny details, we change to something more criticizable since more valuable). Do you think that every litterature, politic, ..., critics are criticizing because they like to be the boss or anything, that they aren't able to criticize by looking at if it is CORRECT instead of looking if it is an advantage to themselves or else? I would guess I'm able to criticize by trying to make it better.

Heh. I knew when I put the P.S. to my post that some people would ignore it and then tell me how my characterization does not apply specifically to them.

If you are not one of the megalomaniacal CIV2 whiners then great...you fall under the few, the proud, the ones mentioned in my P.S. who actually make legitimate gripes about CIV3. As such I heartily congratulate you (insert handshake here).

But the Megalos far outnumber the thoughtful critics.

And no, of course every piece of literature and art is not criticized because the critics are megalomaniacs. That term is specifically reserved for CIV2 whiners who enjoyed the world domination aspect of CIV and are complaining because it has been made more difficult and de-emphasized in CIV3.

Devin

[Trifna]

Originally posted by cutlerd


Heh. I knew when I put the P.S. to my post that some people would ignore it and then tell me how my characterization does not apply specifically to them.

If you are not one of the megalomaniacal CIV2 whiners then great...you fall under the few, the proud, the ones mentioned in my P.S. who actually make legitimate gripes about CIV3. As such I heartily congratulate you (insert handshake here).

But the Megalos far outnumber the thoughtful critics.

And no, of course every piece of literature and art is not criticized because the critics are megalomaniacs. That term is specifically reserved for CIV2 whiners who enjoyed the world domination aspect of CIV and are complaining because it has been made more difficult and de-emphasized in CIV3.

Devin

Oh I see... Yup, in fact I read too fast and it seems I past through the PS as if it wasn't there. Sorry. But about if it's the majority or not, I don't know... Maybe they aren't perfectly rational and impartial, but I think that a good part of them sense that something isn,t going right and they try to find solutions, which are correspondant to what frustrated them. Thus, it tends to go in the sense of what they like. Not all are warmonger types.

But what I DO feel as beeing from the majority is that most comments are aready said or useless because without any argument. It's quite harassing when it's in a post that is demanding some to find a solution. So the same things are reapeated again and again. I guess that this was the use of The List. Maximum concentration of useful stuff. Or Firaxis people just don't have time to read 10 000 pages of forums.

PS: I did tried to insert my hand, for hand shake, but got problems with that silly screen...

[ACooper]

Civ3's interface is very 80s.

Alright, we have agreed to be nice to each other but this is ludicrous. Civ 1 was released in 1990. Are you saying that the Civ3 interface is worse or just that it doesn't meet your needs?


BTW, IMHO the CIV3 interface is the best by far in the series.

[yin26]

cutlerd:

You talk about the 'majority' of complainers, which I don't see how you could know. But unless you feel I'm the exception, here's why I don't like the game:

1) It's too easy. Yes, even on the higher levels and even with these supposed 'wonderful new strategies' that a gamer supposedly should use. Show me one. The simple fact of the matter is that Civ3 took the 'build cities until you puke' formula and not only DIDN'T fix it but actually made it worse. So, contrary to your idea on this one, I find the game too easy because it's a no-brainer to have Settler Diarrhea.

2) The late age in the game is God-awful boring. Sad and pathetic, actually. From the units to the techs available. Picking gum off my old sneakers provides more entertainment.

3) Nail in the coffin: Tedium. Gut wrenching, Satan-spawned tedium. Take 200+ units and move them one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one

Christ man. That's a strategy game? The only strategy involved in that is how to stay awake long enough to click 'end turn.' Well, I found a great strategy that ends all turns very fast: Uninstall.