I Think It's Time to Say Goodbye

[number6]

But if you had read my post, you will see that what annoys me is the people who post that they are selling their game or repeatedly posting how much you hate the game. I for one don't care if you are selling your game. You shouldn't care that I enjoy the game. I'm keeping my copy of Civ 3, because I think that it is better than Civ 2.

If you had bothered to read the post that started this thread you would see that entirely one sentence is about selling the game

You'll find my copy on Ebay this week.

And just because you don't care does not mean others who have yet to buy the game who are looking for a bargain don't care. The post had more meat to it than "I'm selling the game". He gave reasons why he was dissatisfied with the game.

The internet is full of noise and to complain about such a small amount in a sea of noise is being nitpicky in my opinion. I suggest that you learn to filter out the garbage from the gold as fits your own tastes. Oops I just added to the noise.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Apparently, you played for many hours before abandoning the game. For $50, that is about all you should expect. You got your money's worth. . ..

You're very easily pleased. I hope YOU earned that $50.

I got my money's worth from Civ II. But Civ 3 is indeed a beta version with us as playtesters.

Even witrh battleships being built in lakes by the AI in Civ II, that game was more enjoyable, more fun, and better developed than Civ 3.

Spaceship victories are Builder-oriented. I finished two Conquer victories which didn't even have a cool victory animation at the end. .

As for cool animations, at least Civ II had one when your spaceship reached Alpha Centauri. In Civ 3 you launch your spaceship and that's it - SEE ya. No landing, no success. It just leaves. Big effin' deal.

[number6]

Originally posted by ACooper

The whole game is more modeled on Civ 1 than on Civ 2. This was an intentional game design choice, not due to "laziness" or just to make the AI more challenging.

I have a problem with this being a design decision. I could see if Civ2 was considered a total mess that going back to a previous version might make sense. Obviously Civ 1 was a less complex game than Civ 2. So to decide to use the less complex, less features, version sounds like a cop out to me. In all software people expect more of the same with added features in new versions. I have never met anyone that said they would prefer Windows ME to run more like Windows 3.1 because they liked single threaded OS's like MSDOS better. It's the same thing with any software, including games. I could see if they added 3D graphics or some new technology, but they didn't really upgrade much in the way of graphics or technology. So I and many others expected a more in depth version of the last iteration and that is not the case.

I like it, you may not. Neither side is wrong, neither is right.

I agree with you there. If you like it as is more power to you. I however feel cheated and if the game was not to your liking in a certain aspect I am sure you would let your feelings about the matter be known. I am just sharing my point of view about the randomness, which many people seem to see as well.

Forgive me then if I don't understand the problem.

So you are saying that you have not experienced truly lopsided results in combat between turns with different units? I see it in every game I play. I have played many computer games and this is the only one where the underlying rules are so blantantly obvious and the game stops being a Turn based strategy game and more of a game of yahtzee or Risk.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by number6

If you had bothered to read the post that started this thread you would see that entirely one sentence is about selling the game

True, there was only one sentence that actually spelled it out. However, that sentence is the climax to a post that reads like a short story. He tells the dramatic story of his betrayal by Firaxis, By Sid, buy game reviewers, and so on. He complains about the injustice and the immorality of it all. Finally he hits us with the big one. "I'm selling my game on E-Bay" It may have been ne sentence, but it as he one that was supposed to be the most meaningful.

He has some valid complaints, and he has every right to post them. However, I'm sick of the melodrama that is behind everything. If you like the game, good. If you don't like it, good. If you have constructive criticism, good. If you have a story that sounds like a 13 year old's temper tantrum, then expect to be questioned. I have no problem with talking about what is right and wrong about this game, I just dislike the way the so-called critics treat their complaints like their opinion is the only valid opinion, resulting in posts like Roy's. As I have said before, this isn't just nitpicking one man's post, its criticising a whole line of posts that I have been reading lately. That is why I brought JT into this. I wanted to give my opinion, because I don't think that it is wrong or that I am a bad person for enjoying Civ 3.

[Ming]

Originally posted by nationalist
That is why I brought JT into this. I wanted to give my opinion, because I don't think that it is wrong or that I am a bad person for enjoying Civ 3.

You didn't just "bring" JT into it... You made personal attacks against him... BIG DIFFERENCE... it's ok to disagree with people, but NOT make personal attacks. I think you owe him an apology

[korn469]

i agree that civ3 was rushed out the door for christmas, and that in the rush to get it out it isn't as polished as it could have been

however, i could never go back to civ2, civ3 completely triumphs over civ2 imo, and while there are a couple cool gameplay features from civ2 i would like to see brough back, like guerrillas civ2 can not substitute for civ3, except for multiplayer and scenarios, two things i didn't really dabble in

also the argument that the civ2 combat system is far superior to the civ3 combat system is false

civ3 units don't have enough hitpoints in the default ruleset, but if you change that the problems with the combat system disappear, and then real comparisons can be made between the two systems, and in that i think the civ3 system will come out on top

SMAC has the best combat rules, but they are all related to units and the unit workshop, additionally copters are so unbalanced that as soon as MMI comes into play the game simply ceases to function in any sort of challenging manner

the argument that the civ3 combat system is inferior to the civ2 because civ3 lacks firepower might be a creadable argument if it was actuallyed used in a creative way, like in starcraft where the different damage types presents interesting combat outcomes; however, civ2 used firepower and hitpoints to make modern units stronger against ancient units, this can easily be duplicated with changes to the attack and defense strengths, traits like 2x horse units (the pikeman), and 2x air units (aegis cruiser) from civ2 add more to the system than firepower, because it creates interesting combat outcomes that encourage combined arms, but units of this nature weren't used enough in civ2 to really give it an edge against civ3 in terms of combat systems

armies, the lack of collateral damage, air missions, and bombard gives civ3 the edge

all the player needs to do is fix hitpoints in the editor, but this is quite easy

EDIT: while civ3 has a number of problems, it is a good game, just not as great as it could have been...so when people say that it is the most flawed game ever all i got to say is try a really flawed game like paintball extreme

[yin26]

Vote with your money, people! Firaxis got ZERO dollars from me for Civ3. I tested it. I found that it sucked. I deleted it.

Now, if all the people here who thought likewise DID likewise, perhaps Firaxis would get a real message. Water under the bridge there. I guess.

But those of you YET to buy the game should think carefully before (IMO) wasting your money.

[number6]

Originally posted by korn469

civ3 units don't have enough hitpoints in the default ruleset, but if you change that the problems with the combat system disappear, and then real comparisons can be made between the two systems, and in that i think the civ3 system will come out on top

If this is true shouldn't the hitpoints be patched instead of using the editor? Why should I have to use the editor everytime I want to play a new game of Civ III. That's not what I payed for. I want to boot up the game and start.

the argument that the civ3 combat system is inferior to the civ2 because civ3 lacks firepower might be a creadable argument if it was actuallyed used in a creative way, like in starcraft where the different damage types presents interesting combat outcomes; however, civ2 used firepower and hitpoints to make modern units stronger against ancient units

Exactly! Give us more not less. Creatively upgrade what you have don't throw it away.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Ming


You didn't just "bring" JT into it... You made personal attacks against him... BIG DIFFERENCE... it's ok to disagree with people, but NOT make personal attacks. I think you owe him an apology

People are always mocking that Encomium guy and no one seems to care

[korn469]

If this is true shouldn't the hitpoints be patched instead of using the editor? Why should I have to use the editor everytime I want to play a new game of Civ III. That's not what I payed for. I want to boot up the game and start

this takes less than a minute, it is simple to do, and it improves the gameplay 100%++

i do not know why firaxis doesn't do this...but what come down on them for not doing it when you won't either?

Exactly! Give us more not less. Creatively upgrade what you have don't throw it away

i completely agree and hope they include these options in the editor in a patch or in an expansion pack

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by yin26
Vote with your money, people! Firaxis got ZERO dollars from me for Civ3. I tested it. I found that it sucked. I deleted it.

Now, if all the people here who thought likewise DID likewise, perhaps Firaxis would get a real message. Water under the bridge there. I guess.

But those of you YET to buy the game should think carefully before (IMO) wasting your money.

Yep, Yin is right...... from now and on i will never buy a game from Firaxis, unless i''ve tried the demo......... i guess i thought Civ 3 would turn out brilliantly as SMAC but it didn't.

[paulmagusnet]

Originally posted by nationalist

. If you have a story that sounds like a 13 year old's temper tantrum, then expect to be questioned. I have no problem with talking about what is right and wrong about this game, I just dislike the way the so-called critics treat their complaints like their opinion is the only valid opinion, resulting in posts like Roy's.

Actually it was a pretty reasonable complaint and valid for him. jimmytrick's posts are more akin to the unreasoning howl of a 13 year old's temper tantrum. I hate to critisize a person but, infantile attack posts are a habbit with jt.

As I have said before, this isn't just nitpicking one man's post, its criticising a whole line of posts that I have been reading lately. That is why I brought JT into this. I wanted to give my opinion, because I don't think that it is wrong or that I am a bad person for enjoying Civ 3.

Well it it nitting, but that's ok. But the fact, which you note, that there are whole lines of posts not simply critisizing minor issues or wanting some tweeks but expressing serious pain about fundamentals of design and execution is very significant. Obviously serious resources were diverted from the game to the nodding heads and 'advisors' which could have been better spent on making the game playable. There ARE good inovations, which are left incomplete or not thought out well. Diplomatic dialoge like 'my bad' and the infintile end screens which can't be avoided are just unbearable, and I have a fairly high pain threshold.

I don't think the problems are just differences in play between II & III, it is that between AI cheating and suicide, a retro combat system and other problems the game fails to meet standards of current game systems and of progress from the previous level.

My criteria for a successful game of this type is that I want to play it again and again and because I can do or learn someting different each time. You don't buy a board game to play once do you?

No one who takes the time to write here does so because they hate CIV, they do so because the love the game and either feel it is fine or find it need improvements or are pained that it has become someting horrible. No one should ever be personally critisized for their opinion about the game or their experience.

There is right and wrong, that is what discorse and debate is to uncover. Childish attacks telling people to go away because you don't like their opinion or arguments is what is unacceptable and it is for that reason I do wish jt would go away, or at least stop frothing at the keyboard, as I at least am beginnig to cringe whenever I see that handle. This is the first and I hope last time I ever have to say that. Even the Neo-Nazi's on the board are better behaved.

When I access this board and threads, I do so to see peoples opinions, especially opposing opinions, not to discourage them.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by yin26
Vote with your money, people! Firaxis got ZERO dollars from me for Civ3. I tested it. I found that it sucked. I deleted it.

Now, if all the people here who thought likewise DID likewise, perhaps Firaxis would get a real message. Water under the bridge there. I guess.

But those of you YET to buy the game should think carefully before (IMO) wasting your money.

What?! No plug for that OTHER game you always seem to bring up?

It does look interesting btw...

[Chronus]

Why should I have to use the editor everytime I want to play a new game of Civ III.

EVERY time you play new game?

I thought all you had to do is set them once. I did this with 8 civs on tiny maps and it seemed to work for me. Isn't this also true with units?

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Chronus


EVERY time you play new game?

I thought all you had to do is set them once. I did this with 8 civs on tiny maps and it seemed to work for me. Isn't this also true with units?

True.

Edit it. save it with a new name. Load it as a scenerio when you start a new game.