Civ3 is great!

[Surgeon]

I think all the people that like the game are out playing it instead of whinging like little bithces in the forums.

If you want people that like the game just go to the strat or stories forums. They tend to ignore the posts done by the whiners when they venture out of the general forum.

[cassembler]

I think the
big question
here is weather or not Civ3 is as much improved over Civ2 as Civ2 was over Civ1.

Civ2 was pretty freakin' good- I think we all agree, yes?

What was improved/ changed over Civ1? Many things, yes, but to sum it up:
1) Axonometric view (as opposed to bird's eye)
2) Better editor (as opposed to shift-12345678) (allowed scenarios)
3) More units, techs, civs, terrain improvements, etc.
4) Different combat system (better or worse is not the topic here)
5) Improved diplomacy
6) SOMEWHAT improved AI
****keep in mind this is a BRIEF summarry****
****please note the word BRIEF****

Ok, what has Civ3 brought to the table over Civ2?
1) Better Graphics (edited or not- the resolutions are, in fact, higher)
2) Editor that has the potential to be better (cross yer fingers)
3) Borders & Culture (over Civ2, keep in mind. NOT SMAC or CTP2)
4) New air unit system
5) MUCH improved AI (How many of y'all quit your very first game?)
6) Resources
7) Better diplomacy (again, over Civ2 only)

Ok, now if we look at these two oversimplified lists, it seems that Civ3 is getting close to the mark. Yeah sure, it's not quite there yet, but
IF
(that's a big IF)
the editor is improved to a full-functionality, I think we'll have a winner. Just not yet.

$.02

[Marquis de Sodaq]

As an additional thought, if people really thought it was so bad, why the heck are they still poking around the forums?

I'd hazard to guess that it is because Civ3 is at least potentially a good game to them. If the editor leads to great scenario creation possibilities, I bet most of the complaining will disappear. If they think it stinks and isn't worth beans, they ought do something better with their time than slow down the Apolyton server.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

As an additional thought, if people really thought it was so bad, why the heck are they still poking around the forums?

I'd hazard to guess that it is because Civ3 is at least potentially a good game to them. If the editor leads to great scenario creation possibilities, I bet most of the complaining will disappear. If they think it stinks and isn't worth beans, they ought do something better with their time than slow down the Apolyton server. [bad analogy] After all, if you hate broccoli, you don't go browsing cooking sites to post about how bad it tastes. You let sleeping dogs lie. [/bad analogy]

[Trifna]

Enjoy what a good game you have instead of complaining about its imperfections

Could you define me "imperfection" please?

Would its definition englobe: useless colonies, cavalry too strong, phalanx beeting tanks, bombarding useless, corruption, no stacking, all what is flying useless, warrior destroying improvements better than a bomber, spying useless even if it is common in world, a poor editor, retrograded tech tree and retrograded government system?

[yin26]

I'd hazard to guess that it is because Civ3 is at least potentially a good game to them.

Yes, I am in this category. I am also fascinated by the gaming industry itself, and I have watched a number of interesting developments regarding Firaxis that I want to see play out past Civ3.

[Smash]

Marquis de Sodaq-I want to post back in...oh..2-4 weeks of playing and tell us your thoughts at that time.

I think it will be most interesting.

[cassembler]

Hey Yin, nice to see you're at least willing to give Firaxis a chance... I have a strong gut instinct that the Civ3 editor will eventually reach a superbly wonderful status... Until then I guess we're all SOL. So what was your response to "the big question?" [Did civ3 add as much to civ2 what civ2 added to civ1?]

[yin26]

Well, you never know. It could well be that Firaxis is really working its tail off to make up for the beta release. One would hope. It is very rare, it seems, that a company works that hard AFTER a release unless money is guranteed to be made. Frankly, I think they kind of sold tomorrow to pay for yesterday. We'll see.

Ah, the Big Question.

I think it's important to put the progress in context. In some ways, Civ3 is a bigger jump than Civ2 was over Civ1. Take pixel counts, for example. Civ3 put a whole lot more pixels on the screen, relatively speaking, I'm sure. And yet, this is a pretty meaningless fact.

Graphic jumps just mean less to us now than they did 5 years ago. Or, I should say, to achieve that same wow-factor Civ2 have us 5 years ago would take vastly more effort than it did then.

Thus it's a problem of exponential progress and expectations. MAJOR progress in the industry has been made in those 5 years, and MAJOR expectations were built up for Civ3. While I don't blame Firaxis for not meeting that enomous challenge very well, I do blame them for not even seeming to have understood what lay before them very well.

So, perhaps this statement will make sense: "Same jump of improvment between the games but drastically undercut by an even greater jump in what the industry CAN do and what we hoped Firaxis WOULD do."

And I should just toss in here: I would have taken Civ2's graphics but with near-genius gameplay improvements any day, so I do not put a premium on graphics and such when I talk about my expectations.

[notyoueither]

Marquis de Sodaq:
*Now, most schools would love the chance to even appear in the championship game. Not so with Nebraska. The same general truth controls the Civilization franchise*

How true.


Ironikinit:
*Eventually, I got bored with the other games I was playing, and idly, I re-installed SMAC. Hey, presto, I gave it a chance and it wasn't so bad. I even got into the idea of micromanaging my units, deleting old types, customizing new units, and upgrading. Pretty soon I was hooked.

Exactly my experience with SMAC.


*I think that adding to the perception problem is that there apparently was a lot of hype associated with the new release. While I had high expectations for Civ 3, my expectations didn't include a great editor or multiplayer system, because I don't play that way. Those expecting great things in those areas rightly, IMO, feel cheated. All I expected was a fun, addictive, one player game, and that's what I got.*

More than how true. Just don't disable Space or Diplomatic victories!

Surgeon
*I think all the people that like the game are out playing it instead of whinging like little bithces in the forums*

OK. Your choice of words is bound to lead to a fruitful exchange of ideas, I'm sure. But I'm also sure you're right.

Salve

[David Murray]

Did Firaxis really improve governments? All they did was cut one of the best Civ2 governments out. As it stands now, you only have one real choice in the modern area--democracy. How many great empires were forged from the idealism of democracy?

[David Murray]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq The changes to improve governments are good.

Did Firaxis really improve governments? All they did was cut one of the best Civ2 governments out. As it stands now, you only have one real choice in the modern area--democracy. How many great empires were forged from the idealism of democracy?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Murray
As it stands now, you only have one real choice in the modern area--democracy. How many great empires were forged from the idealism of democracy?

Dunno, I'm doin pretty good with Communism.

Oh my gosh, did he say THAT word?!!!! Where's McCarthy when you need him?!

Salve

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
SMAC is a lot mor ewell-balanced, has more innovations etc., so does the Call to Power series just their games are too isolationistic in diplomacy.

CtP2 was once my favorite. I didn't even start it since Civ3 is out.

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I don't think it outdoes Civ2 that much, especially since a game Civ2 is a lot easier to overview than Civ3, and Civ3 just doesn't offer that many innovations.

But it offers a much better game concept. The strategic resources, the cultural borders and the improved diplomacy rule. I agree, it's not perfect, but I give it 9 points of 10.

Originally posted by Ecthelion
And the combat system of Civ2 is handled in better ways than that of Civ3.

Don't make me laugh! I beat one phalanx (of 10) and killed the whole gang? And that is better? again... But it's not perfect in Civ3, that's true, the admit, the CtP2 combat system is better.

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Modern units just die too early in the latter, even you can arrange soem nice overruns with the right tactics. Air units are too weak in Civ3 as well

Agreed. They at least should be allowed to kill units or sink ships.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Don't make me laugh! I beat one phalanx (of 10) and killed the whole gang? And that is better? again... But it's not perfect in Civ3, that's true, the admit, the CtP2 combat system is better.

That's true, this "kill one unit, kill all units" was a pure absurdity that I suppose NOBODY miss, and it's even astounding that it was still in Civ2.
Though, the FP/HP from Civ2 was hugely better than the plain A/D from Civ3, and the stupid "it was too complicated" reason that Firaxis gave as a poor excuse to get rid of it just does not stand.
That's one of the worst trouble with Civ3 : it take back with one hand what it gave with another.