To all the Civ3 sucks people (serious thread, not a Civ3 rulz thread)

[Jaguar]

This is mostly in response to Zylka's thread. And I have to say, I completely agree with all of his points. There is no doubt in my mind that there are problems with civ3. Hell, there are thousands. But put it in perspective. Civ3 is about 500 megabytes. That's 500,000 kilobytes. 500,000,000 bytes. So I am not surprised you found seventy problems with it. Does anybody remember the List for firaxis? The goddamn thing was 678 ****ing pages. Yes. I am sure of that number. Civ2 was a greater game? Does anybody remember how goddamn annoying it was in civ3, when you couldn't trade maps unless the AI deemed it an even trade? You couldn't offer 40 gold to go with it! The best you could do was give a gift of 50, and hope they'd trade then. Or do you remember how much it drove you nuts when you set a city on settler before you realized how long it would take, and you had to start all over again because you didn't have the population? Or even little things. Like getting the road to command. It isn't even possible to say that civ2 was better.
So yes, I agree that civ3 was somewhat of a dissapointment considering what we knew we wanted, but give the designers a ****ing break. They did their best. They gave us a great game, far greater than any civ game before. This is one disappointment that isn't going to be uninstalled for more hard disk space.

[da_jaymz]

Heh, I don't even know why Zylka cares about this game so much, best thing for him is that he gets CTP2 and downloads some stuff by modders and enjoys the game.
My Civ 3 is uninstalled till I get a decent scenario-editor, I'm not mad nor disappointed, I'm just waiting for them to add some decent some decent stuff, meanwhile there are other games to play besides Civ.

[BustaMike]

I really don't like civ3, and yet I thinks it's a better game that civ2 was overall. It's just that after playing SMAC and seeing what a TBS game could be in all it's glory, civ3 was a huge let down. Still, with a couple of minor changes (tech devaluation, AI ICS, and corruption) and multiplayer added I might pick it up again in the future.

One good thing about it - I was so annoyed with civ that I picked up an old game of SMAC I hadn't finished. I was trying to blow up the whole world in one turn on a huge map. I fell two planet busters short but whoa it was cool. Sea levels rose 3500 meters over the next few years (that's the max height) and the entire planet sunk, not to mention while it was sinking somewhere in the vicinity of 500-1000 mindworms attacked me. This was the funniest thing I've ever seen in any civ or SMAC game.

[ACooper]

I couldn't agree more. Other things that were worse in Civ 2: Settlers that eat food and take shields from their city. In fact the whole unit support system suck. And when in a democracy and you send a few ships to do some exploring you city had unhappy people in it.


Civ 3 is much better because of these reasons and more.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by BustaMike
I really don't like civ3, and yet I thinks it's a better game that civ2 was overall. It's just that after playing SMAC and seeing what a TBS game could be in all it's glory, civ3 was a huge let down. Still, with a couple of minor changes (tech devaluation, AI ICS, and corruption) and multiplayer added I might pick it up again in the future.

One good thing about it - I was so annoyed with civ that I picked up an old game of SMAC I hadn't finished. I was trying to blow up the whole world in one turn on a huge map. I fell two planet busters short but whoa it was cool. Sea levels rose 3500 meters over the next few years (that's the max height) and the entire planet sunk, not to mention while it was sinking somewhere in the vicinity of 500-1000 mindworms attacked me. This was the funniest thing I've ever seen in any civ or SMAC game.

I agree with you on this. I cant believe that after making SMAC firaxis can produce as lame game as Civ3

[Fake Boris]

Civ2 was released 5 years after Civ, and it was a vast improvement. Civ3 is not bad, but we could have expected a lot more. I guess Brian Reynold's departure and Sid's "disengagement" are mainly responsible for this.

And by the way:
"They did their best. They gave us a great game, far greater than any civ game before. "

Sorry, but who cares if they did their best? What counts is the end result, especially in a commercial world in which we paid for the product.

[Tarquelne]

Re: To all the Civ3 sucks people (serious thread, not a Civ3 rulz thread)

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
This is mostly in response to Zylka's thread. And I have to say, I completely agree with all of his points.

I keep seeing people who say they agree with "all" Z.'s points.... and I do always wonder: Even the one about JoA's cleavage?

What counts is the end result, especially in a commercial world in which we paid for the product.

$50 gets you Civ3, not whatever you expected or wanted. A lot of people seem to act like Firaxis was _obliged_ to make Civ3 the game they wanted/expected, not the game Firaxis wanted to make (or, at least, "the game Firaxis ended up with.").

[ColdWizard]

Re: To all the Civ3 sucks people (serious thread, not a Civ3 rulz thread)

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
It isn't even possible to say that civ2 was better.

Civ2 is better. it's got scenarios and MP

[Elucidus]

Well, civ2 has it strong points. I miss hitpoints and firepower still, but ultimately I enjoy Civ3 more. I am still anxious to get a better editor, but in the meantime I do what I can to make things better.

[Ethelred]

Re: Re: To all the Civ3 sucks people (serious thread, not a Civ3 rulz thread)

Originally posted by ColdWizard

Civ2 is better. it's got scenarios and MP

Not when I bought it. It did have a two whole scenarious but NO MP.

[ColdWizard]

so? i'm not discussing the past, only the now

[Ethelred]

You are comparing a recently released game with a highly enhanced version of Civ II that didn't exist till LONG after it came out. Anyone can improve a game after its released. Well anyone that is allowed to and so far Civ III is being improved.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
so? i'm not discussing the past, only the now

Coolmage does have a point - As a "sequal" to Civ2 I think it's perfectly reasonable to be very disappointed that Civ3 lacks two of the previous game's major features.

If you wanted Civ3 for new and better MP or scenarios you're out of luck. Firaxis has made noise about adding them later. Ar that point some of the "Civ3 sucks" people can become "Civ3 sucked" people.

The trick to not hating Civ3 seems to be in not thinking "It should be Civ2 or SMAC but better." People are putting way too much emphasis on thier own expectations and a name.

Ooo, ooo, one more (really long) thing: "Civ3 is very disappointing, because it can't do so much that Civ2/SMAC can." should not lead directly and inevitably to "Civ3 is a poor game."

I was pretty disappionted with my first few civ3 games, too. But, maybe just because I was having a good day otherwise, I put aside my disappointments and tried to see what sort of gameplay civ3 actually had to offer. Approached it with a very open mind. I now think it's pretty rough, and it doesn't give me anything like the _kind_ of gameplay experience Civ2 did (it may seem odd, but it reminds me of Imperialism II), and I think the serious gamer really needs to try to "work with" Civ3 to get a good experience

For example:
I play on Emperor or Diety, but despite that I quit quite a few games very early because my inital position is too good. So: Frequent restarts.
I rarely ever play a game untill the victory screen pops up - it gets tedious very quickly after I'm sure I've won. So: Late game tedium (if you don't do something.) Or, possibly - You'll get borerd if you can't judge when you've won.
I've made some pretty hefty modifications to the game using the editor. So: Some assembly required.

I have to do all those things to keep Civ3 from, ah, "getting up my nose."
And I think the above is necessary for a "hardcore gamer" - at least one like me - to enjoy Civ3. Finally, I think that many aren't.... thus the dissatisfaction being aired here. I'm not saying you should have to "jump through hoops" to enjoy a game. Just that you _do_ have to with this one.

In addition:
I don't care much about MP or scenarios.
I'm completely comfortable with the fact that Civ3 is neither a wargame or a simulation.

So that's another two huge sources of disatitsfaction that don't apply to me.

Hmm... a point? Throw out your preconceptions and explore Civ3 as Civ3, not "The sequal to Civ2" before you toss it. Approach Civ3 as the game it is, not the game you think it should have been. It still has problems, but not nearly so many, and they aren't nearly as acute.

Unless you want MP or scenarios of course - if so, then for the time being, and possibly untill Civ4, you're screwed.

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You are comparing a recently released game with a highly enhanced version of Civ II that didn't exist till LONG after it came out. Anyone can improve a game after its released. Well anyone that is allowed to and so far Civ III is being improved.

i'm comparing what's available now to what's available now, theoretical comparisons are fine and dandy, but theory can't be played.

Originally posted by Tarquelne
Unless you want MP or scenarios of course - if so, then for the time being, and possibly untill Civ4, you're screwed.

except for Civ2 of course

[Jawa Jocky]

I agree with Ethelred.