Civ3 is great!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Brutus66
It seems that to Libertarian, the glass is not only half-empty, but the damn glass is defective as well, and the glass manufacturer should be investigated.

That´s a wonderful description! (Of the CivIII/Firaxis situation, not Libertarian.)

[SIZE=1]
As for Marquis, I suspect that he is heavily dosed on Prozac. Somebody get this guy a lifetime membership to the optimist's society, please! He reminds me of the kid who got a ton of horse manure for Christmas and was dancing for joy, 'cause there had to be a pony in there somewhere.

But in the game, horses and salpeter (can be extracted from dung, I believe) are everything, and gold is worthless. So, if this is their worldview , it is understandable why they gave us lots of horse****, and no gold!

[Brutus66]

Comrade, you need to go easier on the caffeine and share some of Marquis' Prozac.

The folks that hate this game seem so intense. I guess the lesson to learn here is that it is better to shoot their best friend and run over their dog than sell them a disappointing game.

Sid Meier, you're starting to look like Reginald Denny to me...you better check into the witness protection program!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Comrade, you need to go easier on the caffeine...
[/SIZE]

You found out about my addiction.

[SIZE=1]
Sid Meier, you're starting to look like Reginald Denny to me...you better check into the witness protection program!

Nah, it would be enough, if he stops to produce games that are created by the Ugnaughts. Sid, pleeease, put them back into the cellar!!!

[Vercingettyrex]

CIV III is a good game but not great.

Its got some good ideas.

I get the feeling when playing it that there's two games there. One is trully execellent and is trying to break free. The other is trying to strangle its brother in micro-management hell.

I love CIv2 and CIV1. But I have a horrible feeling that its that half thats holding the game back.

[Brutus66]

Hey Verci, judging by your handle I'll bet you don't play as the Romans much, do you?

[Comrade Tribune]

[SpartanKing]

I will never have any high expectations of a game ever again since I played CIV3....They released an unfinished and hastily put together product.
Is there a conspiracy with all the gaming sites giving CIV 3 a high rating. Must be the Firaxis's PR at work...

[Dobian02]

In my so far limite experience with Civ 3 (I'm just starting my second game), I can understand the criticisms, and some of the problems jumped right out at me in the first game (the limited governments...ugh). However, this game is built on a solid foundation, and can (and I am certain, will) be made much better, whether through patches, a 'gold' edition, an expansion, player mods, or some combination. Just a couple of modifications will move this game up several notches (more city improvements, additional ways to deal with corruption, unit transfers between allies). I like this game. SMAC is better, but Civ 3 has plenty going for it.

[Brutus66]

You mentioned the limited governments- right on. I can't believe they left out Spain but put in some of those other civs.

I don't particularly care for Spain, but they are one of my civ's (England's) traditional enemies and I miss battling them. Oh well, at least I have the French...

[Dobian02]

Actually, I was talking about government types (and the lack of different types of economic models). But yes, it would have been nice to see Spain in there.

[Vercingettyrex]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Hey Verci, judging by your handle I'll bet you don't play as the Romans much, do you?

Hail Brutus66

Nope. Don't like the colisseum much.

[OneInTen]

In my opinion, the reason why Civ 3 got high reviews from games sites isn't a conspiracy, but something much more simple.

If you're not a huge civ/civ2 fan, then ou're likely to find civ 3 to be a pretty good game. If you're a big civ/civ2 fan, you're likely to be disappointed. At least that's my observation from what I've been hearing (from a variety of places).

Now most game reviewers aren't huge civ/civ2 fans (as game reviewers they tend to play lots of games, rather than one game lots). Hence they're far more likely to like civ 3.

I agree civ 3 is not a great game, just a good game. But then again, I happen to think civ 2 isn't a great game, merely an enjoyable game (ie one notch below civ 3).

Of course, if for whatever reason you thought civ 2 was the best game ever, then of course civ 3 is likely to be a letdown. I know how that feels (being a huge doom fan, listening to the pre-game hype about quake, and seeing the the final product of course didn't match the ridiculously perfect game I'd imagined in my head).

I also tend to think we judge games more harshly anyway as time goes on. We become more cynical, and it seems to win our approval each new game not only needs to perfectly polish the features of all the existing games, but add equally well polished new features that we've never seen before. And there's just not as much new ground to break as there used to be ...

[Ironikinit]

Oddly, I liked Civ 1 and 2 a lot, but still like Civ 3 too dang much, really. But you're a sensible sounding person, OneInTen.

I agree with you about Quake. I really liked Doom a lot, and didn't get into Quake. I think I was just played out on FPS.

[Raion]

And I think where I saw that you can add government type in the editor. Want Fundamentilism, add it to the game.

[Comrade Tribune]

Hey Brutus, judging by your handle I'll bet you don't play as Monarchy much, do you?