Perhaps its our fault the game isn't as it should be!

[The Rusty Gamer]

Did it ever occur to any of you Civ III critics that it is our fault the game isn't as it should be. Let me explain.

With the growth of the internet, and the more direct communication to developers as a result and the increasing flourish of ideas and expectations from the gaming community, it has made it a confusing mess for Firaxis to try to listen and please everyone. Furthermore, their own judgement of what is good for a game may be tarnished as a result. They've listened so much to others expectations that this has put them under some pressure.

Let's get back to the basics:

When the original Civ was created, there was no input from anyone but the developers, they went by their own gut instincts and they were good - its a gift they were born with.

The sequel Civ II was created pretty much in the same way, and the result was a resounding success.

But Civ III - suddenly with the flourish of the internet, everyone is the game-developer wannabe. The problem is I believe, not that Firaxis didn't listen to us enough, but that perhaps they listened too much and tried to imnplement a lot of ideas that sounded good in theory but didn't actually have the fun factor. Pressured by the high expectations of the gaming community, they didn't follow all their usual gaming instincts.

I just wonder perhaps if Firaxis had been left to develop Civ III in the same way as the others in the series, by the seat of their pants going on the good, gifted, gut instinct that they were born with, that it might not have been a much better game.

In a nutshell - just who did we thing we were? Being a game player does not make us a game developer just as watching TV does not make us TV producers.

Please vote on the poll.

Oh, and I'll be hearing your "opinions" on this one, no doubt.

[Kirnwaffen]

All I have to say is that there is simply too much non-productive negative commentary. I'd personally feel at least relatively discouraged if I read as much truly negative commentary as I sometimes find here.

I will say though, that there is also a lot of constructive criticism that I would appreciate.

So I vote for bananas.

K

(I'll vote for anything with bananas in it)

[Darth Sidious]

one thing i disagree

"being game players does not make us game developers"

IMO, the only good game developers are those that immensly love to play games and therefore do so 24/7.

There certainly is a difference between players, but i think there are a lot of people around that do understand what makes a game great or sucky.

[notyoueither]

I can't agree.

Did Yin suggest Culture? Or Lib, or, or, or...

Did the gaming public suggest Firaxis ignore the best aspects of CTP2. Yes, it was a dog as released, but it had some very sound ideas.

I think the brains of the operation did have a lot of influence on the project, but did not pay enough attention to ensure a polished product out of the box (or devote enough resources).

Oh well, Beta project applications anyone? At least they are sticking with it.

Salve

[yin26]

Culture was a major suggestion from The List. Then again, asking for you to actually know what you are talking about it asking far too much, I understand.

[yin26]

As for the topic, an incompetent developer is to blame, not a devoted fan base, for God's sake. Of course, now the fan base ain't so devoted, so we'll see your theory in action in the future, I'm sure.

[Libertarian]

I believe someone in another thread said that it's my fault. I exist simultaneously as a being with an inflated self-importance and an inexplicable omnipotence, unbounded by time and space.

[...shudder...]

[MrWhereItsAt]

And, Rusty Gamer, what about SMAC? The 'Net was fully going before SMAC was released, and that game is (at least in the Civ 3 fora ) critically acclaimed as THE shining example of Civ done right (yes yes yes I hear some of you - what about CTP2? Well, I pretend I never heard of CTP. It eases the pain ). Perhaps someone will prove me wrong, but were the fora chocka full of ideas then too? Surely they were, and if Firaxis used what they saw here, why is it that that game seems to be so loved? Sure ppl don't like it sometimes, but most laud the game, for its' format is done very well. Unless Firaxis didn't listen to us then, and did before Civ 3, why the drop in fortunes?

That is, unless my theory is right - that SMAC was just as lambasted at its' release and it was only after some time that ppl calmed down and adapted to like the game (I believe this will happen with Civ 3, given time and another patch or two. ).

[MrWhereItsAt]

Or perhaps you're just depressed from the weather.

How was it today Rusty Gamer? Did it thunder and pour with rain as much as Wellington, world famous for its' perfect weather?

[Special_Olympic]

Does it even matter what Civ3 could have been or who's fault it is?

To me it's just another game I don't play.

[MrWhereItsAt]

What are you here for then?

[SlowwHand]

They wanted a quick buck, left MP out of it, and rushed to market.
And that's my fault, how?


And no joke on Special_Olympics.
Don't you have someplace to be?
Maybe someplace you actually belong?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is, unless my theory is right - that SMAC was just as lambasted at its' release and it was only after some time that ppl calmed down and adapted to like the game

Actually you are right. There was SOOOO much critism of SMAC that Firaxis actually ended up closing their forums because it turned into a massive flame war between those that hated (and still do) the game, and the few that were supporting it.

Take it from me, I was there... and it was a mess. People were calling for Sid's head back then.

[Grumbold]

Bananas were in Civ 2 and they had absolutely no right to remove them from Civ 3. Without bananas the game was obviously going to suck! How could they not see this? It was so obvious even Apolytoners didn't feel the need to tell them about it twice daily for two years. Just goes to show - we should have had a Do-not-remove-this-feature List too

[Khan Singh]

The problem with Civ 3 is not that Firaxis has screwed it up. On the contrary Firaxis has done an excellent job freshening it up and solving many of the problems that people complained about in Civ2. ICS is no longer a problem, for instance. Nor are empires that span the entire globe. The end game only seems more tedious because, with improved AI and changed rules, you can no longer roll over enemy civs as soon as you develop armor.

The real problem is that Civ 3 is, for all its changes, still Civilization. After 4 different iterations of the same basic game, this design is just played out. We have all played through the same actions so many times that doing it again can now no longer amuse us. I mean how many times do you really want to reinvent the Wheel anyway? One thousand times was enough for me.

I tried to point this out back on the Firaxis forums, but was shouted down by the likes of Yin, who went on to become the chief fanboy for this project, with his endless list, and countless others who insisted that they needed another version of Civ---- and who now do nothing but complain that they are bored with the result.

Civ 3 was a bad idea from the start. It had no original ideas and Firaxis couldn't develop any. If they had it would have changed the game, and then "it wouldn't have been Civilization"----- heavens forfend that anyone should ever build anything new.

But given the restrictions Firaxis had to work under the result is remarkably decent, and even different enough to be slightly interesting. I just don't understand what Yin, et al, are complaining about. This is the game you guys wanted----the game you demanded. It seems a little churlish to complain when someone delivers exactly what you want, after you decide that you didn't really want it after all.