A Slice of Civ3 Feedback From The Official MOO3 Forum

[Master Marcus]

I too, like yin , zealot and others, consider SMAC & MoO2 as better TBS games when comes the time to enjoy the sole strategy gameplay compound. I've already said a few months ago how MoO3 has the best chances to revolutionize the genre next to Civ III, and I'm more confident than before - just to see how Quicksilver is dealing with the fans is the right thing ( what Firaxis never did ).

BUT where I must dissent is that... I still consider Civ III as a solid game with minor flaws as soon as I accept the lack of complexity. And it has a huge improvement over the named classics: much less over balancing at the advantage of the player in the ending part of the game. It's still somewhat tedious, but next to SMAC where Fusion Power+choppers+Transcend specialists gives an incredible exponential over power to the player, in Civ III we must stay alert with the lack of easy advantages to use.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Bilas
Heh.... Mark you know you were talking about him... as well as others... you quoted him for christ sake!

quoting someone doesnt mean that you disagree with him...

[The Andy-Man]

the reason ppl are so pissed with civ3 is not because it is so bad (though it is a meagre attempt at a stratagy game when compared to Europa Universalis). The reason we are all pissed is because it got our hopes up about being the modern version of Civ2, designed with the new comuter tech capabilities we didnt have in 1995, with better interation with the fan through the net. Civ3 by another name would have been accepted - never a classic. but for what we expect from a Civilization game, civ3 is very poor.

[ShuShu]

I especially liked the one...

... That recommended going back to the classic MOO II! Talk about a sequel that blasted on the web. I had to stop surfing because the vitriol was so bad it was actually interfering with my ability to actually enjoy the game.

And the reviewers were obviously not payed enough when it was released. To this day I believe it would universally win the 'worst strategy sequel of all time award.'

I liked it, though I play more games of MOO than MOOII these days.

I also like the fact that Yin is quoting people who will be sure to blast MOOIII as soon as its released.

[jackshot]

Originally posted by MarkG
why do some people feel cheated though even if they played the game for a month?

In your opinion, I would get my value from a book merely by being able to read it? In other words, all books are equal, provided all the pages are there.

[OneInTen]

In your opinion, I would get my value from a book merely by being able to read it? In other words, all books are equal, provided all the pages are there.

Yes, you would get value from it. If you buy something, and it does what it says it will (in the case of a book, have words on the pages for you to read), then you've gotten value for your money - you haven't been cheated.

Of course, this doesn't mean all books are equal, some are better value than others.

[kittenOFchaos]

How is this thread different from all those other threads in the same vein? Repeated crits of the same points again and again and again...how worthwhile...

[yin26]

Contrary to how I am often pigeon-holed, I actually think that Civ3 can still be made into quite a good game. First will come the x-pack, which I won't buy because I refuse to buy the basic game. Then will come what will finally be considered the complete game with the Gold Edition.

My contention is that if the folks at Firaxis don't stare at the fluffy, b.s. reviews and comments by people who don't even understand the game and, instead, take the admittedly much more difficult route of seeking criticism: Then we might well see a Civ3 worth playing for a good long time to come.

However, to this point, Firaxis has showed very little interest in criticism. Therefore, I generally feel that even the Gold Edition will be a pile of garbage.

Too bad all you Yin-haters out there will have to wait for the Gold Edition before I decide whether to move on or not.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by OneInTen


Yes, you would get value from it. If you buy something, and it does what it says it will (in the case of a book, have words on the pages for you to read), then you've gotten value for your money - you haven't been cheated.

Of course, this doesn't mean all books are equal, some are better value than others.

If only there were more consumers like you. I'd go into business because it would be so damn easy!

[jackshot]

Originally posted by OneInTen


Yes, you would get value from it. If you buy something, and it does what it says it will (in the case of a book, have words on the pages for you to read), then you've gotten value for your money - you haven't been cheated.

Of course, this doesn't mean all books are equal, some are better value than others.

As you admit yourself in your last statement, there are, so to speak, returns on the investment of your entertainment dollar. And, keeping with the analogy, aggregate returns imply a standard expected return in the industry. So you may not be cheated in the sense of calling for restitution, but cheated in the sense of not receiving expected returns. Right?

[OneInTen]

If only there were more consumers like you. I'd go into business because it would be so damn easy!

Hardly. I don't buy many things, mainly because I decide before spending my money whether I believe something will be worthwhile. If you spent your money on civ 3, it did what it said it was going to do, and you're still unsatisfied, I say cry me a river.

Geez, pirate the game first to see if it's worthwhile if you have to! Just don't whinge after you made a purchasing decision if that purchasing decision is in retrospect one you regret, not because the goods were defective, but your decision was defective.

So you may not be cheated in the sense of calling for restitution, but cheated in the sense of not receiving expected returns. Right?

My expected return when buying a game is that it works as described. Therefore, if it works as desribed, I have not been cheated at all.

I don't buy games unless I have reasonable grounds to believe I'm going to like them. Apparently I'm alone in this.

And FWIW, I hardly think a months gameplay from a game is poor value. Even playing just 1 hour a night, that's 30 hours or so, which works out to be around $1.60US per hour. Much better value than going to the movies for example.

Games are disposable items, most people buy them, play them, and move on. Civ 3 fits that role nicely, why is that such a bad thing?

[yin26]

Well, in my case, I didn't buy the game and *still* feel disappointed. Any ideas? (...no, I didn't steal the game...I played it and returned it). On the financial side of things, though, I have nothing to complain about, of course, because I knew the game would bomb and didn't put my money into it.

[Velociryx]

As one of the people who started off singing the praises of Civ3 and later uninstalled it, I felt....almost compelled to respond here.

I would totally agree (and have said before) that it was worth the money spent, and, patches and re-work permitting, it has the ability to become a much better game than it currently is, BUT....

The fact is that the Civ-series was never about being a "disposable" type of computer game that "just" gave you your money's worth and a month or so of entertainment before you dropped it for the next cool thing to hit the shelves.

Were that the case, Civ2 and SMAC would have faded into obscurity a long time ago.

They have not because of the sheer replayability and the INSANE addictiveness of both titles.

Civ3 just doesn't have that. The conscious decision was made to turn it into a "light" version of the series, and in doing so, they took one of the longest-running, most popular, most often played series of computer games and turned it into a "flavor of the month" type game.

Nothing wrong with that per se....it's their game to do with what they will, and I'm sure they're laughing all the way to the bank, cos the fact is, it's sold a LOT of copies....It's just sad, in my eyes, to see such an outstanding line of games weakened so.



-=Vel=-

[yin26]

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is all she wrote.

(...Vel: Any hope that the Gold Edition might be good?)

[Velociryx]

I always have hope, Brother Yin...always.

And, I can honestly say that despite my disappointment, I will line up to buy the Gold Edition when it's released (dropping another 40-50 bucks, or whatever it winds up being).

Among other things, I'm hoping that by the time the Gold Edition rolls around, the Editor will work at least as well as advertised on the LE box I have in front of me, some of the tedium will be gone from the mid- and late-game, and their (generally quite excellent) new game concepts are fleshed out and given the attention they truly deserve.

Oh, and I'm hoping that someone will teach the French-speaking folk of Infogreed that "Designer's Notes" and "A Note from the Designer" is not the same thing.

And....if it's not as good as I hope, I feel sure I'll get my money's worth out of the Gold Edition as well, and will work that much harder to ensure that my own tiny game company, and the product we produce, is the kind of game everyone here keeps looking for, but has not found yet....

-=Vel=-
PS: As to that! We've finished the design doc and architecture for the game and are beginning to piece together the first playable prototype! WhoooHoooo!