Who is Firaxis:

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Grrr


Well I find Civ3 to be a great improvement over Civ 2 but I still need a fix to the Corruption problem!

Improved? Yes, the core is improved... but balance is so that...

Exemples: Colonies, corruption, combat system, spying, stacking, bombarding, all what flies...others?

It should have been way better.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Trifna
It should have been way better.

Hey, we haven't even seen the second patch yet. I mean, most games need about 5 patches before they are reasonably playable!

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Grrr


Hey, we haven't even seen the second patch yet. I mean, most games need about 5 patches before they are reasonably playable!

All games don't need 16 patches... Civ III is seriously unbalanced. It is not at all "normal, all games are like that". We can wonder how much time it will take to put out a patch that will arrange this (if it does, not all company are making patch til it's ok...). If patches are able to arrange it of course.

[Wittlich]

I for one, and most likely 90% of the rest of the Apolyton members, am waiting for the release of the MP edition of Civ3 (can anyone say Civ3 Gold?!) before I make a firm stance on "if" FIRAXIS as let the gaming community down with the (way to early - IMO) release of the aforementioned Civ3 game.

I guess we will wait and see....

[Capt Dizle]

Yin makes a really good point. The growing pains of a small business can be devastating.

I joined a firm as the fifth employee (two of which were the partners). Success killed us. We grew over 10 years to 35+ employees. In the process we went from a lean and mean state of the art business machine to being a whacked out joke of a bunch of fools.

One partner bought out the other who then was bought out by two new employess. I quit in between along with about everyone else. The upshot is that the new president of the firm is a person who was hired as temp office help three years ago and is not even qualified to do any other work in the company.

The original founding partner is threatening litigation, the other is reportedly recovering from a nervous breakdown. The employees race each other to the bank to see how many paychecks will bounce.

Can you imagine producing quality work under such circumstances.

Basically the falling out between Sid and Brian is behind the problems with Civ3. And you can bet it was over two things...ego and money.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Basically the falling out between Sid and Brian is behind the problems with Civ3. And you can bet it was over two things...ego and money.

What are you saying, it was ment to be "Brian Reynolds Civilization III" . Ego and Money are powerful things, and can be a gravity between objects, or the expulsion of space between them.

PS, if Civ3 is so bad, then why don't we make our own copy, I mean, it can't be that hard, with a bit of computer training, we have all the ideas in THE LIST, and the about 10000 apolyton minds to help.

[Zanzin]

Originally posted by Grrr

PS, if Civ3 is so bad, then why don't we make our own copy, I mean, it can't be that hard, with a bit of computer training, we have all the ideas in THE LIST, and the about 10000 apolyton minds to help.

Have you seen all those hosted sites Apolyton has, the "aternate" civ project, or freeciv? These projects have been in production for years, and (sorry for being pesimistic) aren't going anywhere quickly. a project completed by members soley via the internet just doesn't seem to work. So, you could try and make your own civ3, and good luck in doing so, really....but I think you'd be stuffed before you'd even begun.

Now the talk of patches is all well and good to modify the balance of the game - but patches can only do so much. They can't change the core mechanics of the game like combat and spying and culture (the core areas listed in an earlier post amoung others). So, no matter how much balencing, civ3 will still be basically civ3...and it just doesn't have that special feeling that civ1 and 2 had.

[Trifna]

I just edited to add something important to my post: What we Do know is that something DID changed.

It's not a detail, it changes all since it's the problem...

[MrWhereItsAt]

It WOULD be good if the fans could make a Civ-like game, but the ones that are happening at the mo' are unlikely to ever rival the, er, finished look of, the existing Civs. This is not through lack of attempt or effort, but because most ppl doing this are working or studying fulltime at the same time, and the proj is slotted in as a "hobby". It would take some serious dedication from a fair number of ppl for a very long time for a top quality Civ game to be finished by these groups. And all would have to have frequent contact with each other and decent programming or art design skills also!

Sadly, I think the idea that these projects will succeed overwhelmingly is just that - an idea. BUT, I think that now Firaxis seems to want some fans to basically be consultants for them on Civ3 and, very likely, future games - this is an excellent sign and the very best way to try and remedy the current level of unhappiness. At the risk of being TOO optimistic, I am expecting some major improvements from now, if not in Civ3, in the next Firaxis TBS...

Perhaps as is being discussed Firaxis has lost some vision (or gained too much!) or has had internal probs to blame for the dissatisfaction with Civ 3. Whatever Firaxis WAS and DID, perhaps it has just figured out how to become BETTER.

Unlike our bloody cricket team.

[Libertarian]

Who is Firaxis?

I'm sure we each have a different perspective. To me, presently, Firaxis is a corrupt and perfidious wealth-whore whom I had mistaken for the sweet and charming girl next door. It's almost like kissing a girl at a bar, and just as you begin to grope each other, you discover a brain-jarring surprise: oh, hell, excuse me, sir!

[MrWhereItsAt]

Very graphic Lib...
Either you got that from a sitcom or you have a story you want to tell.

[Libertarian]

Well, there was that time in Chapel Hill... Nah, forget it!

[MarkG]

i'm everyone here wanted to get such an image reading this thread, lib. thanks

[campmajor!]

Personally I don't think civ3 is as bad as many people on Apolyton claim. Sure, it could have been better. But it will never be perfect. Because the opinions of the civ fans about what a perfect civ is, are far too different!

There are people who say civ2 was bad.
There are people who say smac was bad.
There are people who say civ1 was bad.
There are people who say ctp(2) was good.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by campmajor!
Personally I don't think civ3 is as bad as many people on Apolyton claim. Sure, it could have been better. But it will never be perfect. Because the opinions of the civ fans about what a perfect civ is, are far too different!

There are people who say civ2 was bad.
There are people who say smac was bad.
There are people who say civ1 was bad.
There are people who say ctp(2) was good.

Well Civ III is the first that's like that: 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.
Comments to compare to others?...