Firaxis, and Why Civ III is not what we *want* it to be...

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by OneInTen
OK, first up for what it's worth I dislike having my post cut up into little paragraphs and replied to one at a time - as a long time inhabitor of various web forums, newgroups, mailing lists and the like, I know how easy it is to make your side of the story seem much better when you post in that fasion. I've used the tactic myself many a time. Heck, I've done parodies of it. I'm not saying you're intentionally trying to mislead, but I really think the style is appropriate for answering questions and not for general debate, thus I tend to mistrust anyone who uses it in that way.

Well in the same token people who write long paragraphs and huge emails only appear to me in the same fasion. It's like your trying to "enforce" your issue by boring the tears out of them with constant and un-ending rabble. It's as if you believe the "more you write, the more you are RIGHT" So if you don't want your paragraphs sliced and diced make them shorter. And so far my "side of the story" is the only one making any sense, these problems exist and as a result - many disgruntled fans have flocked to the boards to discuss it. Thats why your here to defend and disrupt that movement, or so it appears - to gain amusement. Otherwise who are you to dictate what is fact or opinion. More importantly - do we care?

Anyway, onto more important things:
Why am I here - for entertainment. No other reason. I'm a forum whore, I guess you'd say. I tend to read a few for a bit, eventually get the urge to jump in, post frantically for a period of time, and then move on to the next lot once the "regulars" and I can predict so easily what each other will say that it becomes boring.

Well you definately do that, and I find that you are wasting more time than I on these forums - although I do enjoy alot of it (as you said entertainment). But I at least have a valid reason for being here, I didn't even think of coming here to gripe and complain (and I tried to avoid it) until I played Civ3 and each time I played it the more angry I got and it compelled me to 'make contact'.

I do find it presumptuous to believe that just because of my registration date it means I haven't actually read the earlier posts in the forum. I've certainly kept pretty close track of everything that's gone on since the release of the game. I've seen the too-ing and fro-ing. And I still don't think I've seen anything convincing to prove the things you claim to be facts.

That's because I haven't "attempted" to prove them to you yet, nor do I feel the need to, I know they exist as so does a few hundred other people on this board. But I'm not going to have a pissing contest with you and compare polls or reviews or cheap numeric comparisons "well I know more people that like the game then hate it" sort of thing. It would only bring this discussion to a 5th grade maturity level. But to keep things plain for you, these things do exist, if you call out the gauntlet and deny so then not only are you being ignorant but your also asking for it. And like I said if you keep disagreeing over "fact" or "preference" than your in for a shock, just say the word and promise an open mind and I will be happy to send you a document full of factual problems. Otherwise you can see where this is going - nowhere! But if you think I'm going to 'tire' of replies and rebuttles you've got to be kidding yourself, I'm not going anywhere!

Frankly I don't think it can happen, since it seems that the problems with the game are as much psychological as they are actual. I don't mean that in a bad way, or that people who dislike the game have something wrong with their heads! I mean that given the game carries the civ name, many seem to think it somehow needs to be the game to end all games to justify its existence. I mean, if you look at it logically, even the critics who "only" got 50 hours of gameplay out of the game have done much better than most games, and indeed have gotten better value for money than most forms of entertainment. But the emotional attachment to the game demands something more. I can't argue against that sort of emotion with logic any more than the emotion can sway my logical analysis of it. I guess also I should consider that part of the whole emotional attachment is the feeling of emotional investment in the game, which I will be the first to admit I don't have in civ 3.

SEE THAT FANS - IT'S PSHYCOLOGICAL - NOT REAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WITH A BUGGY PRODUCT - YOUR EMAGINING ALL OF THIS - IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO TELL OUR FRIEND HERE (IN DETAIL) WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS GAME, PLEASE DO SO HE REALLY CLAIMS TO WANT TO LEARN OF THIS!

Again your opinion and only your opinion that the problem bares physcological meaning rather than realistic facts. Obviously your a definite fool if you honestly believe that all these "problems" are some kind of mystical fairy-tale that we all make up to tell stories about. But I still haven't seen you explain or discredit any of the existing problems other than the "stacked movement" which again you are completely wrong, "stacked movement" is the same as having an army, it cuts down the amount of moves and saves that much wanted 0.1 of a second that we all need in late game tedium. Some people enjoy moving hundreds of units around (that could be you) but others (and in this case the majority so far) do not. But thats to name one, there are so many others - why don't you ask me for a smaller list of problems to start with, I would be happy to argue with you. You can't argue the obvious facts, and I won't speak from any other basis. Lets see just how much play-testing and knowledge you really claim to have!

(Just for the record, I don't consider emotion to be a bad thing, or logic to be superior to it, I merely think that the two are mutually incompatible when it comes to trying to make sense of an argument since they operate at entirely different levels. Personality type testers show me to favour the emotional over the logical, so I guess it's ironic that I'm on the other side here)

So in other words you fell over, you deny that you tripped, then after realizing how stupid you sounded you only now admit to being clumsy? Sounds like a crock to me. I argue with both logic and emotion, although I debate that often emotion is a horrible basis for stance in any poised situation. It often will get you in trouble, however my emotion (gut) doesn't lie to me, and is rarely wrong.

As for reviews, that bad reviews of products don't get published is rubbish. I can't recall ever seeing an edition of a gaming magazine without at least one really bad review (ie anything under 50% ... usually to score that low the game has to really stink and the reviewer will say so in the text of the article). Of course I don't read that many paper gaming mags. Online reviews also seem to be, on the whole, pretty fair when they come to the treatment of games too. If you want examples of hyped up flops that got the reviews they deserved, look no further than "Daikatana". That must have averaged about 2 out of 10!

Well so your opinion continues. I find reviews very misleading and often over-exagerated, but then again I'm not the "Well it was on TV last night, I saw the whole thing it looked real to me" type of person. It takes alot more to convince me, assuming that any convincing is required to begin with. You keep forgetting we already know through hours apon hours of playtesting that those Civ3 reviews are crap and over-exagerated. And you give me a "game-site" with an honest bad review because I would like to read it, because I haven't seen one bad review of Civ3 yet, and if your saying that that's a result of a really good game - then with the same token your also saying that all the people that are upset with it are mislead or invented in some way. Simply rubbish. If that's your stance, prepare for more argumentation because I'll never agree to that crap. Make some sense.

I ask of you - if all this is "common sense", as you say, then why the heck do I have to say it. I'm only stating it because, as far as I can see, it is not being done. It seems rather silly to me that if you or someone else posts a point, I post a counter point, and then you post that what I've said is something you know. If you know it, why were you contradicting it in the first place?

Because I post a valid issue with common sense, logic and truth based on facts and you come along and correct and cut it down with "your version" of the truth or how you feel it should be. Quite honestly everyone has read your posts, and it's obvious that I'm not making all these things up, how do you explain everyone else or yourself for that matter. I can't save you from looking ridiculous you do it to yourself. You have no factual point, other than to cut my point(s) down. Whether you (and others like you) attempt to stop the movement, you're only going to injure yourself with a sense of futility. I won't tire.

The whole idea is sureal, I feel like I'm trapped in a Woody Allen movie or something. It's almost like you're arguing against me by agreeing with all my points yet saying they're invalid anyway!

I agree with some of your points, not all. And I do admit you are invalid and useless to me or my point(s) half the time you make no sense of the matter, and the rest of the time your obvious. By that I mean the only thing that drives you is to rebuttle everyone and make a point of a point of a point, and whine about whining. And defend where no defense is needed. So we begin to try to reason with why you are here, and what your point really was, but its clear now - your here for "entertainment" and you enjoy arguing with people. Well since emotion is involved don't you think that it could be a peril to your existance in these forums to stick your neck out too far? At least in words anyway, I don't know about you personally.

As for guidance, that's not really how I see it. Perhaps mutual enlightenment. I post a point, you post a point, we may not agree, we may not even really understand what the other is really saying, but who knows. Often I've found 6 months down the track I realise the point someone was trying to make and sometimes I even see that they were right.

No, the real reason why I'm arguing with you is because you "hijacked" me in another forum for stating my opinions on the matters regarding late game tedium or missing game features, and in my opinion that was the worst thing you did. Because not only do I enjoy arguing, but I don't give up so easily. Is that a flaw or fact?

I don't believe in posting "me too" posts. Agreement never really taught anyone anything. It's only through pushing and probing at people's arguments and beliefs that progress is made. I've been told I'm not only a devil's advocate I'm also the devil in the past. I'll probably be told the same again in the future. But doing so makes me think, and it makes other people think too.

No, your no devil, or his advocate, more like his puppet and a poor one at that. First rule of agrumentation, have a driven basis derived from some form of fact (not opinion) then use realistic commentation and raise valid points without expanding your paragraphs and arming yourself with a dictionary thinking that the bigger words you use the more right you will be. In reality you've proven nothing but that you're little existince is only to amuse yourself in here, and not produce results, at least not that I have seen. Sorry.

Maybe you're not one of the people who I make think. That's ok, at the end of the day I'm posting for my thinking benefit not yours.

Well then your like that little boy who wants to learn and keeps coming to the screen door with food on his shirt and a dull blank look on his face. But the least I could do is ablige you.

I really don't know what else I can say to you ... you post about problems, I offer suggestions as to why those problems exist. Why? Because I generally find that if you understand the hows and why's of the problem, it's generally easier to accept. But your response to me doing so has been, well, not particuarly positive really.

Well although I appear rude or blunt, possibly even outspoken I do have a basis for all of this and in the end I don't mean anything personally. But there really isn't anything you could have said to me that would teach or explain to me anything more than I already know. You claim to offer knowledge, but in my hunger you offer me sour-rotted fruit. And I find you most un-intellectual when you argue that I state preference/opinion as opposed to facts, when clearly if you bare any intelligence to me you would be agreeing with me because these things are facts, but the real question is - how can I prove it to someone who already has made up their mind solely based on an easily pleased customer of the sort with (IMO) an overly-optomistic utopian of "nothing bothers me, so it doesn't exist" attitude. Why don't you stop fumbling over yourself and inquire about the facts that I stand behind so firmly - I would be happy to explain them if I thought it woud do some good here. However I still feel I have nothing to prove to you, however debate is garanteed!

It just reminds me of what my mum used to say if she offered help but I refused it - "I try to help you but all you want to do is poo in my face".

You can't help me, there is nothing you can tell me that I don't already know about this situation and this product. My problem(s) and issues are with the company now, as for the futility of the postings in these forums, well thats just to vent steam.

I mean, I can't change the way civ 3 is. You can't change the way it is. Surely the only thing we can do is to try to figure out the hows, whys, whos, whats, wheres and whens of it all. But that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is what you're saying you'd rather people didn't do.

Well I don't mind discussing difference of opinion, it's often accompanied by some degree of entertainment. But I do not enjoy explaining myself over and over to a "late arrival" or "fanboy" who's only one objective is to discredit my opinions and add little or no improvement to the discussion or matter. In other words your not trying to figure out my problems - your trying to discedit them by passing them off as "preferable opinion" which is very insulting. I've been playing this game since the beginning which is over a decade ago, I'm pretty confident within the realm of common sense that I can by now - identify and distinguish the two apart! And we all can change the game, it's just going to take time and global effort, obviously Firaxis will only listen to a majority audience not the random snipings of fans. But it's the collective posts and combined negativity that will create the "hassle" for them. I already know it's affecting sales, I have a friend who manages an EB outlet and I get all the gossip.

So if my motives irk you, or seem patronising, or whatever your objection is, just don't think about them. I'm just another argument on the forum. I'd really prefer that if you respond that you responded with why you disagree with what I'm saying than how you feel it's unnecessary for me to state it. It think it'd be more constructive and lead to less of these sorts of threads that really, at the end of the day, cover the same ground that I've covered with other people, and I'm sure you've probably had the same sorts of meta-discussions with other people too.

The only one of us that keeps rehashing the same crap over and over is you, although I digress my opinion and state of mind is un-wavering also. But as you said before, you "jump in" every now and then to correct someone's point. And not only is it severely annoying and 'irking' but you're only aiming for one result - total retalitory debate among mixed emotions, I certainly don't approve of you or anyone else playing on the emotional strings of the pissed off hardcore fans solely becuase you find it entertaining or merely amusing. But don't worry, you've got my attention and I'll give you all the amusement and debate your little heart desires.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by copcartman
Charles, I believe you're taking this all too serious. This discussion is concerning a computer game!

(feel free to respond with 5 pages of thrashing because I don't agree with you)

Are you serious?

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
And all without the troublesome problem of actually having evidence.

None required, anyone with half a brain or common sense could deduct real logic from this and come up with the answer. I don't need to tap phone lines or hide cameras to know that Firaxis used a well known marketing ploy known as "game hype" before release. But I do admit freely that so far I haven't posted any evidence supporting my claims, but what you think isn't important, it's what I think that matters. I'm not here to prove something to another anonymous fanboy with an itchy finger to argue because he has nothing better to do with his personal time. I'm here because I have real issue with Firaxis and I'm really choked at them right now. However, continue to bark like a dog, I'm listening - really I am!

Charles.

[Libertarian]

I'm wondering whether Chihuahua might be a more apt term than fanboy, Charles. You know how the little boogers constantly yap and nip at your ankles while you're trying to carry on intelligent conversation with the other adults?

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I'm wondering whether Chihuahua might be a more apt term than fanboy, Charles. You know how the little boogers constantly yap and nip at your ankles while you're trying to carry on intelligent conversation with the other adults?

Have you ever had an intelligant conversation.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I'm wondering whether Chihuahua might be a more apt term than fanboy, Charles. You know how the little boogers constantly yap and nip at your ankles while you're trying to carry on intelligent conversation with the other adults?

How about the ShgRaFlea? That one burrows into the skin and never comes out, I guess that would explain the irritation on my ass.

Charles.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley


How about the ShgRaFlea? That one burrows into the skin and never comes out, I guess that would explain the irritation on my ass.

Charles.

Nah! that just means your diaper needs to be changed.

[Ironikinit]

Don't make fun of Charles. Apparently it's like mocking Jerry's Kids around here.

Yes, Charles, I believe you that you have proof. Honest injun, cross my heart. You're so smart.

(See, it's easy, once you vomit.)

Yes, Charles, you and Lib are very clever. And funny too! Ha ha.

[OneInTen]

Libertarian, you entertain me greatly. Not for any of the witty replies you post that. Rather, for the irony of you posting under the nick of Libertarian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Libertarian theory, isn't consumer pressure a force that's supposed to keep companies in line? Yet your beef seems to be that despite the pressure being brought to bear here Firaxis are able to continue on apparently unaffected by it.

Charles, if replying to one of your posts constitutes "hijacking", then yes, I'm guilty.

But surely just as you exercise your right to post negative things about the game, others can exercise their right to be positive. It cuts both ways. If you want to give the game bad word of mouth, then in fairness others can equally give it good word of mouth.

You've continuously eluded to having "facts" about why the game is bad. I say post them and show us. You're the one making the accusation. You're the one saying the game sucks. The burden of proof is on you, the accuser, to show us why this is so. It's something that's regarded as a pretty fundamental principle of logic. No matter how much I may or may not want to agree with you, I have no choice (from a logical perspective) but to be sceptical until you provide me with evidence to support your claims.

As for the psychological comment, there's no need to get all worked up about it. I didn't say that the problems being psychological made them any less valid a concern for that person.

I'm not saying anyone is inventing problems. I appreciate that for some people these are real issues. But the way I look at it, is liek this: I don't like penut butter. Should I go around complaining about how horrible penut butter is, and how it's a fact that the manufacturers have done a horrible job of making the product? Or should I instead just settle on the fact that many people do like penut butter and instead eat foods I know I do like?

The first patch fixed a number of bugs and tweaked a number of things based on user feedback (the corruption values, for instance). I expect future changes will be similar - fixing and changing what they can in response to feedback. Many of the suggestions though are major changes to the game. Those sorts of things aren't going to happen at this point. The game's going to be tweaked, not majorly rewritten!

The people who want those drastic changes are just going to have to accept that civ 3 isn't ever going to be that way, and they'll have to move on to another game (like I don't eat penut butter).

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all. The game can't be all things to all people. Some people are asking for WWII scenarios, for example. I question why civ 3 needs to do this - there are many games out there that focus solely or primarily on WWII. If you want to play a WWII scenario, you'd be far better off purchasing such a game! Let civ focus on its strengths and other games focus on theirs.

One last time, just to make it abundantly clear: I'm not saying that everyone loves the game. I'm not saying everyone should love the game. I'm not saying that there are no problems with the game. I am, however, irked by people who make claims without offering any support for their claims. Especially those who take the very self centered view of "I don't like the way it works so Firaxis should patch it now!"

[OneInTen]

Forgot to cover this in my previous post:

As for reviews, I can give you bad reviews of a number of games (no I don't have any URLs off hand, but I'm confident within 5 minutes of searching your average gaming site I'll find them).

I don't think I've seen a negative review of civ 3, and I doubt there are any. I'm talking about reviews in general. It seems kind of strange if the reviewers have all been bought off to love civ 3 like you claim, that other games don't enjoy similar status.

Given that there are unfavourable reviews of some games, but not of civ 3, I'm forced to conclude that the reason civ 3 has gotten good reviews is because the reviewers feel it deserves it. Not saying it does or doesn't deserve the reviews, merely that the most likely reason for them is the reviewers think it does.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by SaggyRA


Nah! that just means your diaper needs to be changed.

Could be.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by OneInTen
Libertarian, you entertain me greatly. Not for any of the witty replies you post that. Rather, for the irony of you posting under the nick of Libertarian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Libertarian theory, isn't consumer pressure a force that's supposed to keep companies in line? Yet your beef seems to be that despite the pressure being brought to bear here Firaxis are able to continue on apparently unaffected by it.

I don't know about that, my retailer tells me that sales are dropping world wide due to unpopular demand. When Civ3 first hit the stores it was about $60 Can, and now its down to $40 Can. You don't need to be a genius to figure that one out.

Charles, if replying to one of your posts constitutes "hijacking", then yes, I'm guilty.

No, it doesn't and you know what 'hi-jacking' a post means, the playing innocent doesn't suit you.

But surely just as you exercise your right to post negative things about the game, others can exercise their right to be positive. It cuts both ways. If you want to give the game bad word of mouth, then in fairness others can equally give it good word of mouth.

Well then we're all doomed to a fate of ridiculous and childish 'round round we go' debate. Obviously if two groups of people have two different points of interested they can't possibly have a common ground, we are criticising due to anger and frustration and in the end with a little hope to improve the game. All your trying to do is blanket us with appraisel in the attempt to snipe off critics because they offend you. So learn from this, obviously we are two different categories of people with two different opinions on the matter, what possible constructive improvement can come from this? Seems to me "fanboys" and the like should be talking to people with common interest not to people who have absolutley nothing in common. Unless you take enjoyement out of pissing people off.

You've continuously eluded to having "facts" about why the game is bad. I say post them and show us. You're the one making the accusation. You're the one saying the game sucks. The burden of proof is on you, the accuser, to show us why this is so. It's something that's regarded as a pretty fundamental principle of logic. No matter how much I may or may not want to agree with you, I have no choice (from a logical perspective) but to be sceptical until you provide me with evidence to support your claims.

First and foremost who are you that I should take notice? Are you someone of importance? Are you the leading man when it comes to Firaxis PR? Can you possibly add anything at all to the very things we don't like about Civ3 that would turn this around? I don't think so, so to "prove" anything to you would be a waste of time, not that you would listen because you already have your mind made up. But I'll endulge you simply to test your responses and your IQ to see if you really are interested in our problems, or if your a biased detractor/troll.

* No zoom levels in map editor (how do you see what your drawing?)

* No "start locations" available (you can create a scenario if you dont mind the USA starting in Africa)

* Bugs and Corruption still exist even with the newest patch installed.

* Only 8 leaders available in foreign advisor menu, where are the other 8 in 16-player game? And how would you access them?

* Bombardment issues with modern units

* Air Superiority missions deemed recently "useless" and non-functional.

* AI is always "kill kill kill kill kill" with lack of realistic alliances and treaties on any difficulty level. AI will always break treaties regardless of merit.

* AI bugs and micromanagement flaws

* Game tedium way too slow and high due to coding and performance problems; poor graphic engine; poor micromanagement - AI. Etc. Game takes 2-6 mins/turn on PII's and PIII's on a large map/diety level 16 civs.

* As noted above, unit movement boggles AI MM and creates lengthy turns resulting in a loss of a appeal or interactivity.

* Game becomes unstable with little or no paramaters preventing editorial damage, simply don't change editor values and your fine. (What's the editor for again?)

* Unrealistic/generic artwork and poor representation of a decade old game acredited for its glory and historical splendor - now washed away and meant for a more youthful audience.

* Limited to two zoom levels with little or no point to the "zoomed out" feature, multiple zooms allow the player to observe more advantageous angles (Civ2 for reference).

* Unrealistic and poorly modelled trade negotiation, often losing more to the bargaining table with little or no gain, but a pissed off AI.

* Workers become "dumb" through various settings and circumstances, when all units should have a perpose at all times with a proper engine this could have been achieved.

* Editor only good for altering existing rules and values, but not able to create/invent new ones as per traditional civ history and standards.

* No control over the ambient sounds and music, ancient war drums still beat in a modern aged scenario, if it can be called that.

* Bombers cannot be shot down by fighters on air-to-air missions like in reality, which adds to the un-realistic behavour of this new game.

That's just to name a few from my list, if your discontent with that, than I'll surely provide more, but as you can see with a certain degree of common sense that those are "design flaws" and obviously facts. And sure you can rattle through them (and I'm sure you will) and pick them apart with useless commentary or an un-productive form of criticism. But if you won't accept that list, then you won't accept the truth and you only reveal yourself in denial of such truths. Simply play the game and check it out for yourself than get back to me otherwise I don't want to hear it.

As for the psychological comment, there's no need to get all worked up about it. I didn't say that the problems being psychological made them any less valid a concern for that person.

No but it did make you look stupid.

I'm not saying anyone is inventing problems. I appreciate that for some people these are real issues. But the way I look at it, is liek this: I don't like penut butter. Should I go around complaining about how horrible penut butter is, and how it's a fact that the manufacturers have done a horrible job of making the product? Or should I instead just settle on the fact that many people do like penut butter and instead eat foods I know I do like?

Do you feel that the more you twist and refine lies they will eventually become truths? To use your analagy, the peanut butter "brand-x" has a history of good quality, now it's being shipped stale and developes a horrid odor when a customer opens the lid! Not preference, product issues.

The first patch fixed a number of bugs and tweaked a number of things based on user feedback (the corruption values, for instance). I expect future changes will be similar - fixing and changing what they can in response to feedback. Many of the suggestions though are major changes to the game. Those sorts of things aren't going to happen at this point. The game's going to be tweaked, not majorly rewritten!

Perhaps your right, 'hard work' and a major overhaul to the coding to make a better game is a ridiculous idea! We wouldn't want them to sell more copies and add a longer life span to this game! What were they thinking!

The people who want those drastic changes are just going to have to accept that civ 3 isn't ever going to be that way, and they'll have to move on to another game (like I don't eat penut butter).

Yes, that won't happen I agree - Firaxis doesn't provide customer satisfaction anymore. And yes we've already moved on to our various many other games, I refunded Civ3 a long time ago. And for the last time, the peanut butter was STALE.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all. The game can't be all things to all people. Some people are asking for WWII scenarios, for example. I question why civ 3 needs to do this - there are many games out there that focus solely or primarily on WWII. If you want to play a WWII scenario, you'd be far better off purchasing such a game! Let civ focus on its strengths and other games focus on theirs.

Are you kidding me? World War II scenarios in a "Civilization-Earth-Historical" game?! That's ludicrous! Not to mention that it's prior version had those attrocious features, I'm surprised we survived that one! We can't have WWII scenarios or any scenarios in this game for that matter, it would increase appeal and more people would get into it, especially the creative types. God forbid that ever happens!

One last time, just to make it abundantly clear: I'm not saying that everyone loves the game. I'm not saying everyone should love the game. I'm not saying that there are no problems with the game. I am, however, irked by people who make claims without offering any support for their claims. Especially those who take the very self centered view of "I don't like the way it works so Firaxis should patch it now!"

Well just because you like the game, doesn't mean joe blow next door will. Fact is if a customer is 'irked' about a product he/she has the right to recieve support or tribute for that product. "Customer is always right". When a customer buys a VCR or DVD player and it malfunctions shortly after purchase (say two months) then there is definately a wide colorful range of things a customer can do, but the most obvious is "replace or fix this DVD player!" in this sense the game please some not all, and the ones that aren't pleased at least deserve proper PR and product support - meaning a refund/exchange or patch/upgrade to fix the problem(s). As I said before had this game been designed with an "open ended limitless editor" then a good 95% of the consumers of this game would be pleased, because they can customize the game to their fitting. Simple. Obviously it's far from pleasing everyone, and that's the point.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by OneInTen
Forgot to cover this in my previous post:

As for reviews, I can give you bad reviews of a number of games (no I don't have any URLs off hand, but I'm confident within 5 minutes of searching your average gaming site I'll find them).

I don't think I've seen a negative review of civ 3, and I doubt there are any. I'm talking about reviews in general. It seems kind of strange if the reviewers have all been bought off to love civ 3 like you claim, that other games don't enjoy similar status.

Given that there are unfavourable reviews of some games, but not of civ 3, I'm forced to conclude that the reason civ 3 has gotten good reviews is because the reviewers feel it deserves it. Not saying it does or doesn't deserve the reviews, merely that the most likely reason for them is the reviewers think it does.

Simple - bad reviews are a threat to sales period. Game companies simply won't stand for it because it will indirectly affect their sales, and the review panels are fans and sale promoters - paid or not. I'm not suggesting that these bad reviews don't exist at all, but the gaming market burries them deep so that they are rarely and seldomly found, this is done so that the un-trained eye or careless casual consumer walks on buy reads the obvious reviews (in this case only "good") and buys the game - it's a brilliant marketing ploy, and I'm sure it generates revenue for them. However to finished this "review argument" with you go to www.eb.com (electronics botique) and if you dig deep enough you'll find the "10 reasons not to buy Civ3" review panel and thats from people all over the world posting in one forum poll. If thats not enough for you, there are more! But to stay on topic: The obvious and flashy reviews which mysteriously always seem to be leaning towards the posative side of things, are hyped to promote game sales to the casual gamer who undeniably doesn't care or have the time to research the game, and thats what every marketeer in the gaming industry relies on. Got it now?

Charles.

[OneInTen]

Bad reviews heavily burried? Lets see:

www.gamespot.com - Click on reviews, and I found this review was linked from the front page:

Mortal Kombat Advance: Rating 2.9, and the pretty damning "MKA plays little to nothing like the game it's based on and should be avoided."

Hmm, lets try some other reviews site and see what they have ...

www.firingsquad.com - it's a hybrid game/hardware site, but click on games, the list a review of Doom GBA. 74%, although with the less than glowing comments "While it’s great to be able to play an old-fashioned shooter on the Gameboy Advance, it’s hard to give an exceedingly high score to a nine-year-old game." and "But if you prefer newer experiences, you’re better off spending your money on other titles."

www.happypuppy.com - click on windows, and one of the reviews is for Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare. It gets a 6.5 with the comment "Clunky controls and dated gameplay mar what could have been a stunning comeback."

www.gamesdomain.com - click on windows, then on Supercar Street Challenge. 2.5 stars out of 5. "An impressive array of techno songs is a nice addition, but in the end, Supercar is a flashy, nicely rendered arcade-style game that lacks re-playability and a compelling reason to keep racing."

I could go on, but these are the first 4 gaming sites that came to mind, and each and every one of them had a critical review within a couple of clicks of the main page. I didn't have to go hunting, they were presented right where I would expect to find them.

Care to explain how this can happen given your view that bad reviews if given at all are always hidden away?

[yin26]

I personally hold the view that Civ3 is pretty great fun for the first 3 or 4 games, after which point all the "issues" become really clear. Now, most reviewers simply don't have the time to play 3 or 4 games of Civ3. If they complete 2 complete games before writing a review, I'd be surprised.

This seems especially obvious for the reviews that come out within moments of the game's release. Now contrast that with the Wargamer review that took much longer to come out: REVIEW. While he ends it on an upbeat, he also says:

Unfortunately, the out of the box experience is entertaining and at times engrossing, but it also has the feel of a game released a bit too early. This isn't to say it isn't a worthy addition to most gamers' libraries, because it remains one of the best strategy titles currently released, but at times it falls short of becoming a wholly addicting gaming experience.

While he probably should have mentioned that the list of 'currently released' strategy titles is slim to begin with, I think that Civ3's failing at times to be a wholly addicting gaming experience is pretty much on the money. And he goes on to mention several issues with Civ3.

Problem here is that in order to get at such a balanced review, we had to wait a good long while (in gamer days, that is). Most sparkling reviews of Civ3, I'm convinced, were written by people who hardly gave it enough playing time--which probably includes 95% of the reviewers out there.

Then again, a strategy gamer would know this sort of thing and not believe those fluff reviews to begin with. This is why I borrowed a copy of Civ3 and deleted it 4 games later. I still have my $50 waiting for the Gold Edition if Firaxis makes it worth my time.