Firaxis: why is there NO OIL in my game?

[number6]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Jimmy you are a classic.

A classic ******. What kind cheese goes best with you.

The game is not fubared for many. It simply isn't the game you wanted. Go play Civ II. It will be much easier for everbody and you can go back to playing on deity instead of chieftan.

(astericks in place of actual word due to Greek censorship, a vile a perniscious habit).

It may not be "fubared", but the game is seriously flawed. Civ III is not worthy of the Civ name and that is what makes a lot of people upset with the product being marketed as the third iteration of a great game series. I doubt Civ 3 is the game that anyone was expecting. Why do people staunchly defend a game that is so flawed?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by number6


It may not be "fubared", but the game is seriously flawed. Civ III is not worthy of the Civ name and that is what makes a lot of people upset with the product being marketed as the third iteration of a great game series. I doubt Civ 3 is the game that anyone was expecting. Why do people staunchly defend a game that is so flawed?

I see that God has given you the awesome responsibility to inform all of the lesser humans what their opinions should be. Good luck.

[Flight]

most oil comes from dead sea things, hence the off shore rigs - pity they couldnt think of a way to include that.
and wheres the natural gas in civ3

who cares if the random map maker has ****ed up once, its made millions upon millions of maps that have plenty of oil in them, just start a new game or play with what the game throws at you
i was, however, under the impression that the map maker could'nt give you a map with resources missing completely, so that should be looked at.

In the mean time, stop complaining; its hardly stopping you from playing another game.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by number6
Why do people staunchly defend a game that is so flawed?

Because they are playing Civ III and enjoying it instead of complaining that it isn't:

CII THE SECOND COMING OF BRIAN REYNOLDS GOD KING OF TBS GAMES.

Its a different game. Civ II had enormous flaws but was more flexible. Those that are only interested in the flexibility prefer it. Those that are interested in the single player game mostly prefer Civ III.

[number6]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


I see that God has given you the awesome responsibility to inform all of the lesser humans what their opinions should be. Good luck.

I am sorry if you read into my post that I was pushing my opinion. I was simply stating my opinion like others do here. I was not aware that this forum is fact based only. Get off your high horse already and take my post for what it is worth. "Good luck" yourself.

[number6]

Because they are playing Civ III and enjoying it instead of complaining that it isn't:

CII THE SECOND COMING OF BRIAN REYNOLDS GOD KING OF TBS GAMES.

Its a different game. Civ II had enormous flaws but was more flexible. Those that are only interested in the flexibility prefer it. Those that are interested in the single player game mostly prefer Civ III.

I could also say that a majority of the people who did not like the game simply stopped playing and are not bothering to voice their dissatisfaction in the direction that the franchise has taken.

If they wanted to make a "new' type of game with less options then they should have made a new series and said something like "from the developers who brought you Civ I and II". I still play the game, I just find it very dissapointing. I find Civ III moderately enjoyable, but nowhere near as fun as Civ II. Maybe it did have something to do with Brian Reynolds. I really don't care to speculate why the game is so blah to me. It's just not as good as its predecessors In my opinion (bolded for asleepathewheel).

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by number6



I am sorry if you read into my post that I was pushing my opinion. I was simply stating my opinion like others do here. I was not aware that this forum is fact based only. Get off your high horse already and take my post for what it is worth. "Good luck" yourself.

Ok, I will take your post for what its worth: another whinefest "why can't it be like civ2" blah. get off your high horse. You say that you are not pushing your opinion, but you call the game seriously flawed, etc and question why people would like game. Get over yourself.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by number6

In my opinion (bolded for asleepathewheel).

Thanks for that, the subtleties of the English language have always evaded me.

[number6]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Thanks for that, the subtleties of the English language have always evaded me.

You of course never complain about anything do you? You are so above being critical. I am simply here pointing out that the game is flawed and people have a legitimate reason to voice their complaints. That is a fact not whining. So instead of you flaming me about every little thing that pops into your infantile brain why don't you play your precious Civ III that you love so much. If you doubt that this game is flawed I suggest you go back and read the topic of this thread.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by number6


You of course never complain about anything do you? You are so above being critical. I am simply here pointing out that the game is flawed and people have a legitimate reason to voice their complaints. That is a fact not whining. So instead of you flaming me about every little thing that pops into your infantile brain why don't you play your precious Civ III that you love so much. If you doubt that this game is flawed I suggest you go back and read the topic of this thread.

I don't see what my infantile brain has to do with this. did i ever say that people can't complain? no. And you said that the game was seriously flawed, not that it merely has flaws. I would say that there is quite a difference there. Everygame has flaws, nothing is perfect. Does Civ3 have flaws, sure. Are there things that irritate me about the game? sure. You said there were "serious flaws" and that is really what I take issue with. Especially, since those serious flaws are probably preference based. Is the lack of oil in a game a bug? Perhaps. it is called a "random map", that's pretty random, wouldn't you say?

[Grumbold]

None of this faction fighting has anything to do with the oil problem. Can we get back on topic please?

[Inverse Icarus]

on topic: firaxis fawked up. no more to be said. FLAME ON!

[notyoueither]

Actually... This probably only happened due to the Wet and Warm combo. And even then would be incredibly rare.

I myself use Warm. Cuts down on Tundra, but I've never seen none.

I assume Wet eliminated the desert. Wanting more fertile land is understandable. However, you also give up many of the resources that are found in desert.

Lesson is, don't play Wet and Warm unless you just love the Ancient and Medieval units.

[Denday]

Re: Firaxis: why is there NO OIL in my game?

Originally posted by heidlejohn
I am playing my first 1.21f version of Civ3 with a standard random map. I am in the industrial age having researched refining and now motorized transport. BUT there is NO OIL anywhere in the
world! NONE AT ALL! I can see the entire map (no black spots) due to my getting maps or exploring (I conquered the Great Lighthouse). I have scanned several times with the map revealed.

I myself think coal is the most important resourse ( getting railroads) and I had none on a normal map ( eg Pang, temp nor, temperate not wet or dry and 4 billion years)
and still there was no coal.
and in real life coal is a very common resourse eg we have a couple of large mines which were used to power our own trains and export a little bit.

and i think simalar of oil having quite alot around the world so.

it just seems silly not having resouces because it ruins the game.

[Grrr]

There should be work arounds for resourseless worlds.