Are you satisfied?

[PatLasch]

In the same spirit as the multiplayer poll. Are you satisfied with Civ3? Simple choices of yes, no, or yes but I wish there was more to it.

Yes, but I wish there was more to it would mean that you are satisfied with it, but still want more. Which would be coming in an expansion pack or patch.

Thanks for voting.

[kailhun]

I voted 'yes, but I wish there was more.' Although satisfied isn't entirely correct. It's more I don't feel ripped off. But civ3 is far below par in my opinion.
I've played it since it came out and enjoy it. But less and less. Although the aggressive tech trading accounts for the latest dip in enjoyment.
What disappoints me most is that Civ 3 could so easily have been so much better. It is a wasted opportunity to evolve the civ-line. A pity, a great pity.

Robert

[delfino]

in fact I wish there was a lot more. more units, more buildings, more wonders, more resources, more civs, more techs, more options, more terraforming. And even, this may come as a surprise: more turns.

[PatLasch]

So far only 21% are not satisfied. Firaxis is a busines and so far it looks like they have left people wanting more, Isn't that what they should be doing? They haven't abandoned the game, and we all know that more is planned. They're doing their best.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by delfino
in fact I wish there was a lot more. more units, more buildings, more wonders, more resources, more civs, more techs, more options, more terraforming. And even, this may come as a surprise: more turns.

So did you ever tried modded CTP2, it offers all this stuff? And more governments, more tile improvements, more terrains, more features.

And if This is not enough add some more buildings, wonders, terrains, orders, goods, governments, buildings, units, tile improvements, techs, AI strategies, turns, city styles, ages. And if you find this is just some boring rhule tweaking than add some new features, if you ever wanted to enslave the whole population of a city when you conquer it - no problem thanks to the scripting language slic. Or what about prisioners of war or refugies, re-adding the element of guerillas known from Civ2. A pop-boom when a certain advance is discovered...

-Martin

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

I've just met Zylka's avatar.

So yeah,

I'm satisfied now

AJ

[Wittlich]

Are you satisfied?

Is Civ3 a good game with a lot of potential? - Yes.

Am I satisfied with the game as it stands right now? - No.

The main reason I originally bought 2 copies of Civ3 (Limited Edition no less) was for the possibility of multiplay. For the most part, I only play civilization with multiplay (my roommate and I play over our household LAN). So IMO, I will not be satified until there is the eventual release of Civ3 MGE (for lack of a better name).

Oh, and yes Martin, while we await the release of Civ3 MP, my roommate and I continue play the modded CTP2 over our LAN. There are still a few minor resync problems, but overall - It's great!

[ixnay]

I'm satisfied. I'm sure there will be more eventually, but as it stands now I enjoy the game and have fun with it.

[DrSpike]

I voted yes, but.....

I have played civ3 more than any other game I've bought for a while, but the simplified nature of the gameplay as regards civ2 or SMAC is disappointing. I think a lot will depend on whether the game can be succesfully adapted for MP, a prospect that to me looks unlikely.

[Coracle]

Not a chance.

Civ III is likely the most irritating disappointing game I've ever played. Not the worst game, just the most disappointing.

At fifty dollars a pop I expected more than a flawed beta game that needed at least another six months of development.

[Ninot]

In the immortal words of Shakespeare

"I am satisfied" -Antony, in Antony and Cleopatra

just a note... i dont believe in being satisfied and wanting more...


thats like having a true or false question, and answering all of the above.

[PatLasch]

I included the wanting more choice to give an option for those who really want multiplayer or scenarios but are satisfied with the game as it is.

[Andrew Cory]

I have wasted more time with this game than I care to think about. On a pure entertainment/US$ scale, I have gotten my money's worth and more...

I do have a few minor quibbles with the game, and things that I would have done differently had I been the designer. Having said that, on its own terms, Civ3 is _great_...

For instance, Culture is a _wonderfull_ idea. I don't know how much it actualy mirrors real life, but that is almost beside the point; I can now steal a city based on how cool my empire is! Do I need to secure my border? Build a cathedral...

Bombardment is an awesome idea, and one that I am deligted to see. It needs a bit of fine tuneing (immagine if they had horses pulling those cannon, giving them a movement of 2, or if you could set the %-to-hit for any bombardment unit.), but this is a welcomed addition to the game...

Leaders are an interesting addition, one that adds a bit to the overall stratagy and complexity. Do I go to war for a leader? Do I build an Army (an army being a powerfull unit), or do I rush a wonder, generating more culture? Or do I stay at peace? Decisions, decisions...

Resources. Gods, this is an idea whose time is well past. Why go to war if not for resources? I wish they were incremental instead of one size fits all, but that might add too much complexity to the game. Having said that, this idea makes trade all that more importaint...

Corruption. Ok, I admit, I add a few more forbidon pali to the game. But with corruption being a factor, I have a whole new layer of decisions to make, and these decisions will effect my entire game. Republics may be more corruption prone, but they also don't get war weary as fast. Which is more neccisary? More layers the better...

Come one, I have heard each and every one of these factors being *****ed about, and yet I have to shake my head. Yes, there are imperfections in the execution, (that's why I voted "yes but I wish there was more to it. "), but I can see what they are going for, and I like it. Moreover, I can see what they have achived, and I like that as well...

[Inverse Icarus]

not satisfied.

[N. Machiavelli]

Satisfied? No.
Content? Kinda.

I'm none too concerned with multiplayer, but my beef with Civ3 is that is seemed to be designed around the AI, rather than the AI designed around the game. Many concepts were tweaked/removed because they made the revelation that a $50 AI is less sophisticated than the human brain. As a result they confine the game into a scope within the understanding of the AI, and not the potential of the player.

Take a look at the 100000000 gold/turn exploit in the game's release. It was, indeed, a flaw and was 'corrected'. You can no longer ask the AI for 100000000 gold/ turn. Then again, you can no longer ask for 1 gold/ turn either.
How about another exploit involving capturing a city, selling it back to the AI for a ridiculous amount of money, then recapture and repeat. Well again they 'fixed' it. I can now no longer sell a city. I can give hundreds of thousands of my citizens away for free, but can no longer sell a city I captured on another continent to an ally on the same continent.

They heard the horror stories of evil humans crushing their pathetic AI in Civs gone past and adopted the policy of shaping the game around the limits of the AI when they discovered that expanding the AI around the ni-limitless possibilities of the game was too much work. Then, when exploits were discovered around their limitations, they removed the concepts outright rather than attempting to adapt the system around it. It's akin to amputating an arm because of a hangnail.

Civ3, if taken by itself without considering the prequels or releases made by other companies, is ok. After all, this isn't "SMAC2". But an evolutionary progression should never have even been an issue. Instead, we have a de-evolutionary step. They took out the great concepts in SMAC and Civ2 and gave us bobbing, animated, cartoon leaderheads. Customizible units were traded for 'resources' (the system were saltpeter is considered so widely spread that I can build Riflemen without it and yet still need it for Cavelry). "Please call off your war against my friend, XXXX." gave way to "Give them 100,000 gold in exchange for 1 gold? They'll never accept such a deal!". Terraforming? Farming? We cant have players attempting to turn a 50% defense bonus hill into a 10% defense bonus(huh?) grassland tile? If we did that, the Tank might have realistic odds against the Pikeman in an open field.

This kinda just turned into a semi-rant. I apologise for that. Those who do not already have me on their 'Ignore' list, feel free to do it now. I'm probably going to go back to my 1-City Diety game now.