Have you gotten your money's worth?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by NOHonor


In what universe? There are around 9 acitve threads in the Civ3 creation forum and 4 in CTP2 creation! What is that a 100% increase from 2?

Yes, what's your problem with that?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Well, I put it in because I'm interested in how many people pirate games. Hard core gamers have a reputaion as pirates and I was curious. Personally, I got the game as a gift, but answered as if I had paid.

The numbers are about what I expected. While the whiners are a sizable and vocal minority, they're still a minority. Why they feel the need to be here at all is still a mystery of human behavior worthy of a battery of psychiatrists.

?
If we count only the ones who are completely satisfied about the game, we come down to a small 40 %.
That is 60 % of "whiners", as you fanboys call them.
It's now the fanboys who are a sizable and vocal minority, but still a minority.
Why this minority feel the need to be here at all rather than play the game it loves so much is still a mystery of humain behavior worthy of a battery of psychiatrists.

(before any flaming answers, just check the word "sarcasm" and think twice about your own post)

[Ironikinit]

A whiner, IMO, would only answer that they got cheated, even if they got it for free.

A fanboy, of course, is going to say that they're pleased beyond price.

The people who said they got their money's worth although it was flawed are neither, same with those people who are willing to wait and see.

Just rules of thumb.

I didn't say that fanboys are a majority. But at least their presence on a fan forum makes sense.

I hope I've been clear. Now, since you feel free to call somebody a fanboy, why did you put the word whiner in quotes? Whining is what whiners do, and it's the common term for the small, vocal, unexplained minority making a nuisance of themselves on this fan forum.

[yin26]

Sucks to be you, I guess, 'cause the whiners sure ain't going anywhere for a while. Care to whine some more about that?

[Laertes]

I voted Not Yet, because most of my problems are down to being crap at the game. However, the corruption and unprovoked war declarations are a bit sucky, and I think the ZoC concept should have been kept throughout.

I am hoping to master Civ3 (without resorting to blatant copying of all tips on Apolyton) on my own, so there are many hours ahead!

[Roy H Smith]

Just finished reading a thousand messages on errors/problems people have with the game. Personally I've had to reinstall twice and I have 10+years of computer and gaming experiance and NEVER had to endure this.

There are so many problems and unused ideas from Civ 2 and SMAC that the game just screams rush job. It has so many problems I think we're all beta-testers and frankly I expect a complete game when I shell out $50.

The game makers seriously screwed their fans, and they know it. They've already got my $ so I don't expect Corruption or a dozen other issues to EVER be addressed.

Needless to say I'm stunned at the good reviews.

I will never trust Firaxis again.

[Mikael]

There are just soo many small unpolished details, you can't ignore them. Mind you I'm not talking about the big screw-ups like corruption, governments (or lack of), diplomacy (or lack of) just small stuff that doesn't impede gameplay but shows you the game isn't complete.

Like the science advisor *always* saying "We lack the funds to keep up blabla bla please increase funds blabla" with a sad face, even when I'm discovering stuff every 3 turns. Or when you get the message "Mr. X has recently completed his great book: World's Wealthiest Nations" and you only get 8 spots even with 16 civilizations. Or the foreign advisor screen where once again you only get 8 spots, no matter what number of civs you play with. Small details that tell the story.

[Grrr]

Wheres the "I didn't pay for it because I got a pirate copy" option.

[ColdWizard]

isn't that what the "Who pays for this stuff?" option is for?

[notyoueither]

Thank you Fergus Horkan for that refreshing blast of a here-to-fore ignored point of view.

I have to shake my head. The fans can't stand a critic and the critics can't stand that others like it. Makes you think that peace in the Middle East might be easy to arrange compared to some other places.

May I summarize the results of the poll? Thank-you.

At 58 to 26, those who are at least partially positive about the game outnumber the nay-sayers by 2 to 1. Not bad, especailly given the merits of the various criticisms.

On the other hand, 25% of the people feel they have got a very short end of the stick. Not good for any community. Not only that, but I'll bet they ain't going to take their fate quietly.

Solution?

Everybody have a beer and relax. Things could be worse. We could be stuck with CTP2 and the the Civ3 editor. Not a pretty sight folks.

Salve

[Akka]

Everybody have a beer and relax. Things could be worse. We could be stuck with CTP2 and the the Civ3 editor. Not a pretty sight folks.

[TacticalGrace]

It's all relative

There are loads of things which could be much better in civ3. But it DOES work (once patched) and does include loads of cool ideas that people asked for.

Compared to something like CTP1 or CTP2 is does deliver: people complained that the AI in CTP was hopeless (which it was) and that AI was the most important thing that needed to be a good game.

Well in Civ 3 the AI is pretty good (better than civ2, much much better than CTP). It's given me enough of a challenge to have been playing Civ3 so much that it's probably unhealthy. So therefore I have surely got my moneys worth.

That doesn't mean I can't see the shortcomings of the game but really what game doesn't have shortcomings? civ2? I think not...

To the "Whiners":
Complaints like "if you like it so much why are you here rather than playing" is frankly childish. Are you implying that people have voted "value for money" just to spite you? As it happens many people go on the forums when they are away from their civ3-installed-machined but have internet access.

[GodKing]

Did I get my $55 worth? Yes.
Did I play it often? Yes.
I still do play it.
But there are lots of small "bugs".

IMO Firaxis made a stratigic error. They rushed the game out because of the demand. But now that same demand is pointing out all the small things.

The good news is that they are SMALL problems for the most part. If Firaxis is using its time wisely they are putting together a second patch and a second disk (Free or discounted to those who registered their copy??? ) with some scenarios and some good mod pack design tools. If Firaxis bails on us, I might change my mind and pull out Civ 2 from the shelf. Although I liked CTP ideas (lookout towers, railroads that didn't let you start in Paris, fight in Hong Kong, and get back to Paris for a night in the town, etc.) the AI was so..... that it just wasn't up to par. This AI has so far kept me down to less than 50/50 on monarch.... Gotta love it.

Thanks all. Peace.

[Alkis]

Ironikinit really read my mind with his,
"Yeah, but just barely, and it's got a bunch of flaws."

However I was not dissappointed because I knew what to expect from Firaxis. I even saw a pirated version of the game before buying my own copy. In other words I knew about all the shift +C, shift +R etc. Or ctrl +shift + you name it. It's the many fingers syndrome. Or that in order to open the city screen you have to double click (sometimes unfortyfing your garrison unit), or right click and choose from a menu (which you don't see if you have many units in the city ). Why not single click, btw. Not to mention corruption, that never goes away, or pollution, that never goes away... or weird combat results etc etc.

Well, anyway the game is good, even as it is and on deity level is challenging. I recommend it to all fans of the genre.

It's only that I am not blind and maybe I love the game more than those who made it and I feel badly comparing it with what it could have been.

[scientist]

It's not about the money...

For me, the cost of the game is really not that important. What matters to me is the time I spend. I don't buy that many computer games because I know that to really get a good impression of them, I'll need to spend dozens of hours immersing myself in them. Let's face it, the $50 you spend on a game is definitely worth less to you than all the time you spend playing it, unless you are particularly cash-poor.

I've been playing EU II lately, and even though it has its bugs and flaws, it has a feeling of new ideas to me. It is not as polished as Civ III, but it is much fresher. The designers of Civ III can't be so much blamed for this: after a while, sequels tend to become hopelessly derivative and dull, in comparison to the original. Look at the "Rocky" movies , for instance. The later ones were much more professionally produced, but lacked the vitality of the first.

I also suspect part of it is not so much Civ III, but myself. When I first played Civ, I was about 22 years old and less aware of the complexities of life. As I get older, its harder for a computer game to be as thrilling for me.

A good computer game isn't about graphics or features, ultimately it is about ideas. Sadly, Civ III is lacking in new ideas.

Maybe $50 for the game was a worthwhile investment, in that it showed me something, along with discussing Civ III here, about the value and quality of ideas and art and computers. But in terms of the game itself, I was disappointed. I loved Civ and Civ II and SMAC so much that it was probably inevitable that I would have to make up my mind myself about Civ III. And it has been an educational, but unsatisfying experience.

P.S. I definitely got ripped off paying an extra $10 for the Limited Edition, an issue which has never been adequately addressed by Infogrames or Firaxis and which is definitely sticking in my craw. They did swindle me with false promises and undelivered goods there.