Why the Anti-Civ3 Attitude?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Then why do people choose to boycott CivIII? I've seen many messages go like this:

"Civilization 3 sucks and Infogrames sucked us out and betrayed us. I'm never going to play Civ3. At least Civ 2 Multiplayer Community has been revived"

I mean, if something's improved, and you like it more than any other Civ (Including Civilization II) then why express so much negativity? Why pay attention to how many improvements have been made, instead of what the contents are?

I do not boycott Civ3. Some are, because the change in gameplay are just not up to their taste. Others just prefer the previous magic that Civ2 has. Others are nostalgics. Others just feel so betrayed that they don't want to have anything to do with Civ3.
Personnally, I play Civ3 because there has been some improvements that I just can't do without (support system in gold for the whole civ instead of the hideous stupid system of the "home city", graphics upgrades), but I still come back sometimes for a little game of AC.

If I recieve a package in my mailbox and it's in a brown box and then I open it to find a million dollars, I'll be happy. If the next day I recieve a package in a green box, the packaging hasn't improved much. But when I open it, if I see that there is three million dollars, I will be even happier. Moral? Don't pay attention to how much it 'improves', pay attention to what the contents are.

That's a very, very silly comparison. Very.
We're not talking about gifts here, we're talking about products. It's like if you own a 5 years-old Pentium 166 MHz, and you go to buy a new comp. This new comp ends to be a Celeron 333 MHz. It's much better than your previous computer. Still, compared to what is the today's standard (Athlon/P4 at more than 1,5 GHz), it's pretty below.
COMPARATIVELY, your old Pentium fared much better, as the computers at this time were at max at 200 MHz.

I offer a theory. Most of you were exposed to Civilization II before Civilization III. I myself was exposed to Civilization III more than Civilization II. I had no expectations for Civilization III, so therefore I enjoyed it. I had high expectations for Civ2 because of all the praise its getting, but it disappointed me.

I was exposed to Baldur 1 much sooner than Baldur 2. Still, I found Baldur 1 to be a big pile of Sh, while Baldur 2 was one of my favourite all-time games.
I was exposed to Frontier for years before playing First Encounter. I loved both. Still, I prefer First Encounter.
So I don't think that "being exposed first" is a good answer.

I see the same thing happening in the forums, except Civilization III is the one coming after Civilization II. High expectations were set upon Civilization III, as high of expectations as I had for Civilization II.

Yet it failed to meet up to expectations for me, just as Civilization has for you.

Again : you can't compare a 5-years old game to a shiny new one. Civ2 is better than Civ3 RELATIVELY OF THE TIME, not absolutly.
Another example on top of the Pentium one : Duke Nukem 3D could be run in 800x600. It was a pretty high resolution for the time. Diablo 2 can be run in 800x600 too. It's as good as Duke Nukem. Though, the standard now is not 640x480 like it was five years ago. It's now more about 1024x768. So, though they reach the same max resolution, Duke Nukem had a higher resolution in its time than Diablo2 has in its time, so we can say that Duke Nukem has a better resolution than Diablo2.

Hope I was not too hard to understand

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fitz

Because CivIII is not an improvement in more areas that it is an improvement. The AI is improved. The graphics are (IMO) about the same as SMAC, although I can see that having been exposed to them first, I might easily think that.

I agree with you in a sense that the resultion of the units, etc...Is the same. However in Civ III IMO, are much more fresh. I can tell what terrain is what. Which unit is what. I can tell a pikeman from a spearman from a warrior from a Panzer. I personally just don't get that in SMAC.

However, the complexity of the game has been reduced drastically, generally to the detriment of the game, and the help/Civlopedia has definately been dumbed down from SMAC, if slightly more comprehensive.

I disagree that it's simplicity is to the detriment of the game. I enjoy it very much. Yes, there is room for improvement in that area, but I personally do not believe it detracts from the game.

Pac-Man is a very simple game, yet it can be extremly fun at times.

The simplicity may of course be the reason for an improved AI ::shrug:: but the whole of the package is that is is worse. A good stand alone, but worse in comparison, and that's an overall worse, with few standout improvements.

I agree that there are good and bad things about every game. I disagree however, that civilization is an "overall worse" when compared to Civ II or even SMAC.

My issues with SMAC are mainly the graphics. My eyes aren't quite as good as they should be, and trying to pick out green dots in a pink infested world can be quite difficult. I usually just build and I got a good spot.
There are also numerous graphical oddities with SMAC that sometimes crash my game. Sometimes I even get a BSoD. But SMAC, in my opinion, is good enough to keep playing. But I personally would never say it's better than Civilization III.

In fact, I hold them at equal regard. I like Civilization III because it's fun. I really can't explain why I like Civilization III, I just do. With SMAC, it allows me to use my imagionation. The storyline is so well thought out, and theres so much fiction to it.

But, that is just how I feel.

[Fitz]

I guess I'm just a complexity freak.

[Swissy]

IMHO we have the negativity because of the forums. I watched as many civers piled thread upon thread and reply upon reply in these forums for well over a year on how this civ community preceived Civ3 should be. Ideas were collected, shifted and collated into lists that were gleefully sent to Firaxis. When the bits of the game were revealed, most civers ignored the warnings that Civ3 wasn't going to be what they expected (wanted?). Those who dared cast doubt on what true form the game would take were flamed and in some cases banned. Then the game was released, it was (shuddder) not what we expected. Add to this the bugs and holes in the game code. I am surprised that there is not more scathing remarks about the game, the designers and publisher.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I do not boycott Civ3. Some are, because the change in gameplay are just not up to their taste. Others just prefer the previous magic that Civ2 has. Others are nostalgics. Others just feel so betrayed that they don't want to have anything to do with Civ3.
Personnally, I play Civ3 because there has been some improvements that I just can't do without (support system in gold for the whole civ instead of the hideous stupid system of the "home city", graphics upgrades), but I still come back sometimes for a little game of AC.

Alright. That's your right. And even I love Alpha Centauri, just look at my avatar.

That's a very, very silly comparison. Very.
We're not talking about gifts here, we're talking about products. It's like if you own a 5 years-old Pentium 166 MHz, and you go to buy a new comp. This new comp ends to be a Celeron 333 MHz. It's much better than your previous computer. Still, compared to what is the today's standard (Athlon/P4 at more than 1,5 GHz), it's pretty below.
COMPARATIVELY, your old Pentium fared much better, as the computers at this time were at max at 200 MHz.

Correct, but that does not change the fact that the Celeron 333 is better. Again, why spend time comparing instead of spending time playing?

I was exposed to Baldur 1 much sooner than Baldur 2. Still, I found Baldur 1 to be a big pile of Sh, while Baldur 2 was one of my favourite all-time games.
I was exposed to Frontier for years before playing First Encounter. I loved both. Still, I prefer First Encounter.
So I don't think that "being exposed first" is a good answer.

If I may quote myself...

I offer a theory. Most of you were exposed to Civilization II before Civilization III.

The operative word being theory. Who knows, this may be the case for the majority of Civilization players, or it may not be. I am simply offering a theory. It's possible, is it not?

Again : you can't compare a 5-years old game to a shiny new one. Civ2 is better than Civ3 RELATIVELY OF THE TIME, not absolutly.

Then do you agree with me that Civ 3 is better than Civ 3 absolutely ?

Another example on top of the Pentium one : Duke Nukem 3D could be run in 800x600. It was a pretty high resolution for the time. Diablo 2 can be run in 800x600 too. It's as good as Duke Nukem. Though, the standard now is not 640x480 like it was five years ago. It's now more about 1024x768. So, though they reach the same max resolution, Duke Nukem had a higher resolution in its time than Diablo2 has in its time, so we can say that Duke Nukem has a better resolution than Diablo2.

Hope I was not too hard to understand

Not at all

Correct, but they both now reach the same resolution. If your computer was frozen on 1024x768, and let's just say for the sake of conversation that that resolution was the only one that Diablo2 could go to...For you personally, will Duke Nukem have a better solution or will Diablo 2 have better resolution?

It all comes down to which you prefer. I prefer Civilization III because it has a fun factor for me, where Civlization II has none. For others, its quite the opposite. Civilization III has no fun factor, while Civilization II has it all. Others do not care. Some others like you (assuming that I an understanding you correctly) prefer Civilization II over Civilization III because at the time, it was better. (I am not sure if that came out correctly, I do hope you know what I mean.)

But back to my original question: Why the Anti-Civ3 attitude? For me, it just does not seem logical for someone to prefer Game A over Game B just because it was better at the time, when Game B is overall, superior.

I hope that I made sense

[Ned]

I haven't played a game with the new patch, so what I have to say may change when, eventually, I do. However, I do not like Civ III. I adored Civ, Civ II and SMACx. Each took the series to a higher level. I would play game after game, adicted to the adrenalin. However, I am now so turned off, that I haven't played a game of Civ - any version - for several months. I expect that when I do play a game again, it will be SMACx, not Civ III. SMACx remains the best game in the series, IMHO.

Ned

[Coracle]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I too find it strange that so many whiners make their way onto these forums.

When they whine about it, I often find their complaints somewhat exaggerated. Though I do see problems in the areas they are whining about, I find their negative attitude and anger off-putting. It gets harder to have a decent discussion when a whiner enters the thread.

YOU seem to be doing all the "whining", whining about those who criticize this very flawed beta game.

And I feel the same way about the mindless Firaxis fanboys and their other flacks.

[Coracle]

Re: Why the Anti-Civ3 Attitude?

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
While playing Civilization III today, I realized something. So I go through the Civilization III forums, and I mainly see messages that are slamming, insulting, or are otherwise deragatory messages towards Civilization III. I have to ask the question: Why?

SIMPLE ANSWER:

We do not like getting ripped off by Firaxis with their underdeveloped flawed game, a game missing VITAL basic features such as scenario-building, MP, and cheat mode.

The game as it is even now has so many problems, ranging from idiotic Culture Flipping to braindead AI diplomacy. See other threads for particulars and details.

We expected BETTER than Civ 2 in concept and implementation; a game more involved and developed. Instead, Inforgrames clearly had Firaxis DUMB DOWN the Civilization game to try to make more profits by appealing to a wider (more ignorant) public, and that is why they plan to market a whole load of future disks containing features the original should have had in the first place.

[Tuberski]

Re: Re: Why the Anti-Civ3 Attitude?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Coracle



SIMPLE ANSWER:

We do not like getting ripped off by Firaxis with their underdeveloped flawed game, a game missing VITAL basic features such as scenario-building, MP, and cheat mode.

You had no MP with Civ 2, and crappy scenarios. Why do you feel you NEED cheat mode? Some people don't play MP or Scenarios.

The game as it is even now has so many problems, ranging from idiotic Culture Flipping to braindead AI diplomacy. See other threads for particulars and details.

Many people like culture flipping. Diplomacy is better than Civ 2.

We expected BETTER than Civ 2 in concept and implementation; a game more involved and developed. Instead, Inforgrames clearly had Firaxis DUMB DOWN the Civilization game to try to make more profits by appealing to a wider (more ignorant) public, and that is why they plan to market a whole load of future disks containing features the original should have had in the first place.

You do realize, don't you, that at one time you were a part of that wider (and more ignorant) public. As were we all. You have three arguments that you use over and over, and yet you never support those arguments.

[Jethro83]

Re: Re: Why the Anti-Civ3 Attitude?

Originally posted by Coracle
SIMPLE ANSWER:

We do not like getting ripped off by Firaxis with their underdeveloped flawed game, a game missing VITAL basic features such as scenario-building, MP, and cheat mode.

True. Scenario-building, multiplayer, etc. are deeply missed. Still, no excuse to Satanise Firaxis. If anyone should be Satanised, its Infogrames. They control the funding that goes into publishing this game. They control how and when it is released. Unfortunately, the game was still incomplete around Christmas time. It suffers from Pre-Chrismas Rush Syndrome. However, it is still a decent game considering. It was INFOGRAMES who ripped you off.

The game as it is even now has so many problems, ranging from idiotic Culture Flipping to braindead AI diplomacy. See other threads for particulars and details.

Again, Pre-Christmas Rush Syndrome. The powers that be (Infogrames) forced its release. Firaxis would've done a better job if given more time to do it. But considering they didn't have that time, these problems are minor. And all the whining I see of them is exaggerated.

We expected BETTER than Civ 2 in concept and implementation; a game more involved and developed. Instead, Inforgrames clearly had Firaxis DUMB DOWN the Civilization game to try to make more profits by appealing to a wider (more ignorant) public,

The mindless minions of capitalist society are unfortunately, the majority of the western world. Infogrames knows this, and as such steers Firaxis into the direction that will appeal to them.

and that is why they plan to market a whole load of future disks containing features the original should have had in the first place.

Firaxis probably DID want to initially implement these features. But again, THEY WEREN'T GIVEN ENOUGH TIME BY INFOGRAMES TO DO SO!!! We're lucky Firaxis are dedicated enough to fix the errors. And we're even luckier that Infogrames is going to support them in doing so.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Contrary to other people, I won't praise Tassadar for his post.
What you are doing, Tassadar, is comparing a game from 1996 to a game from 2001. It's nothing but normal that things evolves during this time. When you talk about the value and the greatness of something, it's always relatively to things that are on the same scale.

No, it isn't. Which is the better tank to have in a fight today: the T-34, a very innovative design for its time, or the M1 Abrams, the current MBT of the US Army? You can pick the T-34 if you like, but I'll take the Abrams. You'd be dead before you even knew there was a fight.

What makes so many people say that Civ2 is better than Civ3 is that Civ2 was much better in its time than Civ3 is. Civ3 has not improved enough according to improvements of the time.

So what? He wasn't talking about whether Civ3 had met some sort of "expected rate of evolution" standard. He was talking about what he liked today.

If I hear that a motorbike in 1930 was reaching 200 Km/H, I will be pretty impressed. I will say that this should have been a rocket in this time.
Though, if I buy a sportive motorbike today, I will expect it to have discal breaks, to be able to reach at least 240-250 Km/h and at least 100-120 horsepower. And I can still feel it's not that much a powerful machine.

But if you needed a bike to actually ride today, which would you pick? The new one of course.

Because the standards have changed. It always comes back to common standards.

What is wrong with comparing a game from 1996 to one from 2001? He is talking about which game he would rather play TODAY, now, in 2002. He has two CDs in his hands: CivII and CivIII, and the question is, which one would he rather play? His conclusion is he would rather play CivIII. Which is a perfectly valid conclusion.

[MOHonor]

It's been said before a million times but it's worth repeating. There is only one thing more loathsome devoid of merit and ultimately wrong than being stuck with a purchase you don't like. And that is expending more and more energy on that thing you can't stand. The people who haunt these forums assaulting those who enjoy this game are really pretty confused. I can't think of anybody anywhere who would invest hours days weeks months and for some years of their lives wallowing in something they detest. Yet for some of the rocket scientists on this forum that's exactly what they do. Christ even yin26 eventually figured it out even though it took him 3 years or so. Don't give of so much your time will and effort to a product you don't like. Unless you enjoy being victimized which to be honest a few of you obviously dig. At least the fanboys have an excuse. They're talking about a game they like. What's yours?

[Jethro83]

MOHonor, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

What a waste of time whining about what one doesn't like, as opposed to actually doing something they do like.

Just because there are those of us who enjoy playing Civ III, that doesn't give whiners the right, duty, or privilege to flame away at them. Let us enjoy Civ III in peace.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Echinda
No, it isn't. Which is the better tank to have in a fight today: the T-34, a very innovative design for its time, or the M1 Abrams, the current MBT of the US Army? You can pick the T-34 if you like, but I'll take the Abrams. You'd be dead before you even knew there was a fight.

Which would you rather have when attacked, a dream tank with all the bells and whistles that may never be built, or a real tank?


Civ3 is the best available strategy game imho.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Civ3 is the best available strategy game imho.

I agree wholeheartedly. And I exercise my right to agree whether the whiners like it or not.