I smell a conspiracy

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Needing a mod community to make the thing work well does not a good game make.

I beg to differ - the bottom line is where the Modded game stands now, not where it was a year ago. After all, if the Modding community has succeded in making CTP2 into a good game, what's stopping people from playing - It is cheap now...

And before somebody blasts away that they cannot possibly support Activison because of their lack of support for CTP2, I will remind them that Firaxis is going to charge players for features that they had promoted as part of the original civ3 release.

Pay a total of $70-80 for civ3 or now pay $10-15 for CTP2, and also have a vibrant Modding community in place that actively listens to you? Seems to be an easy choice, but I am somewhat biased (check out the CTP Mod threads though).

Originally posted by notyoueither
That doesn't take away from the efforts of the modders. In the case of CTP2, any distinction for making a good game belongs almost entirely to you guys.

We'll take the credit for where the game stands now, but Activison did us all a favor by releasing a very Modifiable game - maybe someday civ3 can say the same.

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by hexagonian
We'll take the credit for where the game stands now, but Activison did us all a favor by releasing a very Modifiable game - maybe someday civ3 can say the same.

After about another $150 and 5 expansion packs.

[hexagonian]

Darth,

I NEVER thought I would hear you saying anything nice about CTP2, yet here you are in these forums in several threads actually doing that.

What has happened with this world...?

Gotta lay down!

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by zulu9812
A few points:

1. Multi-player was supposed to ship with the game. Then as a patch, due in March. Now we have to pay an extra £20 for it. Uh huh.

2. Despite Call To Power II not bearing the Civ moniker, it is a damn sight better than civ3. A fantastic diplomacy model (although not as good as Imperium Galactica 2), lots more units and more eras make this more interesting than civ3, which lacks the imagination to go beyond modern day techs. The only plus points for civ3 are the graphics and a more user-friendly interface.

3. I bet the scenario editor in Play The World doesn't have a mini-map. God dammit.


Don't get me wrong - civ3 is my favourite game (that and Ghost Recon). I just feel as though my strings are being pulled by commercial ****ers, and I don't like it.

here here zulu, i raise my glass to you.

it's not that civ3 isnt a good game. it's a GREAT game, and i play it often, but i honestly didnt get what i was promised. now i'll get flamed for whining, but ebworld.com (where i ordered civ3 from) had the bullet "Full Multiplayer Support" until a WEEK before the release. it was basically a lie, and some "leaked" email by some (probably ex-) PR person (Kelly or something) threw it all to hell.

i like civ3, i like sid's games / concepts, but i f*cking HATE getting jerked around and getting squeezed for $80-$90 for a game.

if firaxis was SMART, which they're not, they'd offer a MP patch w/o the stupid 8 other civs that no one really needs at all. why should i shell out $30-$40 for 8 civs when i'm perfectly happy with the 16 i have already? ALL I WANT IS MP. i don't need the scenario editor, i don't make them. i dont need more civs, i'll make due with what i got. i just want MP, but firaxis is goign to squeeze me dry.

[Capt Dizle]

I think Civ3 sucks.

[da_jaymz]

LOL@Jimmytrick

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think Civ3 sucks.

same here

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think Civ3 sucks.

Profound.

[notyoueither]

jimmy be as jimmy do.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think Civ3 sucks.

Wow! The most intelligent thing I've read on these forums!

Seriously, I enjoyed Civ III. True, that it isn't as good as previous titles like SMAC, and even Civ II had some advantages over it, but I still enjoyed playing it, and I come on these forums to discuss concepts of the game.

When whiners let out hot air about how much they hate the game, how much they hate Firaxis, how much they hate Sid, etc. it becomes a problem. I don't care about how much anyone hates the above things. I acknowledge that the game isn't perfect, but to deface a Sid picture to make him look Satanic and put it up on a dartboard is probably a better way to vent any anger you have against him than to fill these forums with about how much you hate the game and anything to do with it. I'm fine with civil discussions about how Firaxis can improve the game, and where certain mistakes were made. I just get sick of people using Apolyton as a channel to release their anger. Go punch a wall, go punch a punching bag, try meditating, learn to RELAX!!!

[Capt Dizle]

I am not angry nor do I throw darts. I was on these forums before Civ3 and I will be here long after Civ3 is forgotten (unless exiled, hehe).

I come to this forum to discuss Civ3 game concepts. I happen to think they are very poor, as is almost all aspects of Civ3 design and implementation, IMHO.

My position is just as valid and usful as that of a person who says, hey, I like the game and think its fine.

If there were no negative feedback on products then how who people have a clue?

Most of the negatives of the product have been discussed in detail. I don't see the need to spell it all out each time I post, but, and this is important, since Firaxis has not addressed the issues then it is and by God will continue to be fair game. So, if you don't like it, ignore me, or try to get Mark to ban me.

Ten Reasons the Game needs to be criticized off the top of my head

1. Runs too slow.
2. No new buildings.
3. Civs are too generic.
4. Lousy movement options.
5. Lack of development of the culture concept.
6. Too few units, units blah.
7. Poor trading system.
8. Poor diplomacy system.
9. Poor espinague system.
10. Boring, linear gameplay.

When a game series like Civ is struck by such a stunning and unprecendented failure as this, it is very important that people who cherish the series continue to speak truthfully about their opinion of the product.

That is all I am doing. I am doing it for the sake of the future of TBS gaming and the future of Civ.

Have a good day.

ps. did I mention that charging for multiplayer is unethical corporate behavior?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
1. Runs too slow.
2. No new buildings.
3. Civs are too generic.
4. Lousy movement options.
5. Lack of development of the culture concept.
6. Too few units, units blah.
7. Poor trading system.
8. Poor diplomacy system.
9. Poor espinague system.
10. Boring, linear gameplay.

ps. did I mention that charging for multiplayer is unethical corporate behavior?

1. Get a real computer.

2. Small Wonders. What are they?

3. Too generic? Compared to the Romans building Phalanx of yester-year I suppose.

4. Huh?

5. Culture nearly rules the game. Would you like it to be the only aspect?

6. Actually, I find the ages go by too fast and I don't get a chance to use the units that are in it as is.

7. Trading? You can trade just about everything, but your daughters. Units? No. I guess you're po'ed by that.

8. Diplomacy is reported as poor by many who don't have a clue how to use it.

9. Espionage? Yes, well. There had to be something I have to give you. However, the bribe your way through an AI empire is gone.

10. How much have you played it Jimmy? How many hours?

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Ten Reasons the Game needs to be criticized off the top of my head

1. Runs too slow.
2. No new buildings.
3. Civs are too generic.
4. Lousy movement options.
5. Lack of development of the culture concept.
6. Too few units, units blah.
7. Poor trading system.
8. Poor diplomacy system.
9. Poor espinague system.
10. Boring, linear gameplay.

Sorry, I need to take issue with a couple of points. I love Civ3; I just deplore the lack of imagination put into it.

1. There are options under Preferences which allow you turn off various automatic moves, speed ing up the game no end. It could also be your computer. Being able to run Civ2 isn't the same as running a modern game requiring DirectX.

2. Fair 'nuff. Can't argue with that. Although not too manybuildings; CTP2 had far too many, you were forever upgrading cities.

3. The civs do get Unique Units, as well special abilites - more than Civ2 had. I don't think Alpha Centauri had UUs either.

4. Yep, agree with you.

5. Yep, agree with you - what about religion?

6, 7 & 8. Damn right.

9. I'd much rather this than having lots of spies running about the place. It's much more convenient.

10. Linear? You can pretty much do whatever you want. I mean, tech advancement could be more flexible but you can change this in the editor.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

That is all I am doing. I am doing it for the sake of the future of TBS gaming and the future of Civ.

How noble of you, jt. Liked the post, were you sedated while typing?

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Have a good day.

Right back atcha big guy.

Originally posted by jimmytrick
ps. did I mention that charging for multiplayer is unethical corporate behavior?

no you didn't mention it. I think it may be unethical to release it just as a patch. Unfortunately, the bottom line is satisfying the shareholders. That wouldn't happen with a free patch.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Wittlich


But admit it Dietrich, you will, in all likelyhood, still end up buying the expansion...you might not like it, but like all of us, you are still a civer at heart.

Well ok Wittlich............You're right, but shh.....don't tell Firaxis that I'm gonna get the XP