Civ3 is great!

[Marquis de Sodaq]

So many posts about how disappointed people are about Civ3, it really surprizes me.

This is a really cool game! The addition of culture is awesome, in my opinion. More civs at once, woo hoo! People whined all the time about the limit of 7 in CivII. Now you get 16, and it's still not enough. The graphics are good. The changes to improve governments are good. Elements of CivII that were too easy for the player are now harder. The AI is a bit smarter.

Of course it has flaws, almost every game does - that's why patches are made, and the game is updated. Many elements of it are far superior to the previous versions. Sure, people want the editor for scenarios (I agree whole-heartedly on this), multiplayer, etc. Those will come. Some whine that it should be perfect at release. Well, the realities of software companies prevents that from happening. Deal with it.

Some whine that it has bugs or problems, most of which turn out to simply be user error - trying to play CivII while Civ3 is running on the PC. It's a different game! You need to adjust!

If what you want is a virtual reality machine, you will be sorely disappointed, as will the next few generations of your descendants. Enjoy what a good game you have instead of complaining about its imperfections.

[ACooper]

Amen

[cassembler]

I agree, there are many MANY good things to be said about the game. The fact that people (including myself) want a better editor just goes to show you how good the skeleton programming is.

[Ecthy]

I disagree.

I's quite OK a game. Maybe above average, just so you guys don't come over and kill me. but it's not great.

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.

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.

And the combat system of Civ2 is handled in better ways than that of Civ3. 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

[BanastreTa]

Yes, but you have to understand, Civ 3 had big shoes to fill.

If this were a new game produced by some startup software development team, I don't think you'd hear as many complaints.

Unfortunately, that's not the reality. In order to be truly successful, Civ 3 had to top Civ 2, although that's almost an unfair burden. I don't mean "it has to be a better game in an absolute sense"--I think many people, myself included, recognize that Civ 3 is at least an incremental improvement over 2. The burden it needed to meet, though, is that it had to be as good or better better, in the context of the present day, as Civ 2 was in the context of the day it was released. Substantial numbers agree that it fails this burden, regardless of how good it is on its own merits.

To employ a sports metaphor--for most Nebraska Cornhuskers fans, this was a bad season, despite the teams appearance in the BCS championship game. This is because the 'Huskers, through their success, have come to see anything short of a national championship as a failure. 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.

Civ 3 is a fun game, I agree, but I think nagging details add up to diminish the immersiveness. As it is, it is a disappointment for people who wanted it to live up to Civ 2.

Furthermore, the Civilization "community" has always been quick to offer modifications. It is no different now--although the current editor frustrates the efforts of some of the more radical reformers.

Finally, I'll tie these two strands together--Civ 3, to be successful, had to top Civ 2. Some people think that with modificiations, it can top Civ 2. That's why you hear the complaints. Sometimes the complaints aren't the most civil, sometimes they aren't the most productive, but that's why, in most cases.

BT

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Civ3 is great!

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq Civ3 is great!

At What?



If you mean it´s great at showing what a TBS should not be like, I agree all the way.

It is less complex, subtle and multifacetted than even an RTS game like AoK, and that says it all.

Apart from being unbalanced, and having some ouitstandingly ugly graphics, of course.

It´s one of the most uninspired strategy games I have ever played; so, yes, it´s great, in a negative way.

[Dis]

I actually like the graphics. much better than civ2. I can't go back to civ2. but other than that...

[Comrade Tribune]

That´s why I said some graphics. The unit animations are OK (but still a waste of programmer time). The leaders and advisors are .

[Deornwulf]

If Civ 3 were great......

I have played a lot of computer games. TBS games are my favorite. I started in my youth with Star Fleet Command and Empire and went on from there to master Orion and magic, Imperialize and Conquer the New World; I answered the Call to Power; I have negotiated Royal Marriages with every country (except the Papal States). I even own a copy of Star Wars Rebellion.

The reason I name these games is that even now I am willing to sit down and play any of them. Whether the game was released in 1990 or 2002, there is something about each one of them that draws me back to play.

Not so with Civ 3.

Before I left for Christmas, I had Civ 3 installed on my god-awful 433mz Celeron HP. For Christmas, my father-in-law gave me a P4 1.2gz machine that can practically tap-dance. It is the perfect machine for playing games.

I have yet to install Civ 3. I don't know if I ever will.

I tried my best to enjoy playing the game. I liked the concept of luxuries and resources. I never read about ICS or any other strategies so I didn't miss them in my games. I don't like to see any civilization wiped out of the game so I'm glad the quick conquest is gone. I can remember having revolting cities join my civ back in Civ 2 so I really like the concept of culture.

So why don't I like Civ 3?

I have always been more in the play of a game than its conclusion. I do play to win but I have been known to stretch out a game for as long as possible before achieving victory. In computer personality terms, I would be a perfectionist.

There are more things that I either don't like about Civ 3 or feel were poorly implemented than there are things that I like. I would have liked to see government directly give bonuses or penalties to production and science. (Corruption and waste should have been separate factors) The number of resources you control should have more of an effect on production.

I have to sign-off for a server shutdown so I must cut this short.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

At this point, I think CivII is a better overall game than Civ3. But I don't find that disappointing, as many posters apparently do. The new elements in 3 make it different enough to be interesting. Maybe in eight months I'll yawn at the thought of another Civ3 campaign, but for now it's good. CivII is a classic I'll probably always keep around, but even it got terribly dull for spells.

Comrade Tribune, our tastes differ. Games like AoK bore me. To each his own. You seem to think Civ3 is worthless, while I like it.

[Libertarian]

Gah. I opened a thread like this, and it was removed.

[zorbop]

i don't think it's really that good as is...
but it COULD be really good
if they just fixed 2, ONLY 2 things( corruption and lack of stacks)
that would make it more fun

[Ironikinit]

I think that much of the problem is perceptional. I was actually disappointed with SMAC when I bought it, I thought it ugly and I didn't really like the concept. I deleted it and went to other games. (Note: I did NOT hang around SMAC forums griping.)

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.

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.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Comrade Tribune, our tastes differ. Games like AoK bore me. To each his own. You seem to think Civ3 is worthless, while I like it.

Heh. You should notice my wording: 'Even AoK.' I am lukewarm about AoK, but even AoK I find to be a better game than CivIII. And it´s certainly much better designed. (Interface, Balance,...)

[yin26]

"User error" That one always cracks me up!