Why the Anti-Civ3 Attitude?

[ACooper]

Originally posted by zulu9812
I think what pisses people off is the fact that we were promised so much (multi-player, being able to see some Wonders on the map, e.g. Great Wall), expected so much (scenario editor, decent map editor with mini-map, no. of units & resources hard-coded until after 3 patches), and didn't get it.

Personally, I love Civ3 and enjoy it's user-friendliness (for a civ game anyway).

This is why members of the Firaxis team say "No comment" in all discussion of future patches and the XP. They don't want to promise too much again.

People must remember that situations change and "breaking" a promise is not the same as a lie.

I would have liked to see some of these people when they found out about santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

[Tre976]

Originally posted by ACooper



This is why members of the Firaxis team say "No comment" in all discussion of future patches and the XP. They don't want to promise too much again.

People must remember that situations change and "breaking" a promise is not the same as a lie.

I would have liked to see some of these people when they found out about santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

umm i Hope yer not attempting to mislead us by saying there is no such thing as Santa Claus or Easter Bunny!!!

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Tre976


umm i Hope yer not attempting to mislead us by saying there is no such thing as Santa Claus or Easter Bunny!!!

No comment

[Akka]

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.
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.

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.

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

[jabroni154]

My guess would be a lot of the negative pub also came from the game being rushed/buggy. Civ3 sat idle for quite a bit of time but now with 1.21f I can postively say the fun is back (in fact, a little bit too much fun so I try to push off starting a new game as much as possible).

For me, I had mixed feelings on the game when I played it under the initial release version. When I went on-line, I basically found a ton of people echoing the various issues that I had seen. I just took a wait and see as it looked like Firaxis was actively trying to patch and work with the community which I really must commend. They appear to be honestly taking suggestions/patches and I think more of that is needed which is why I stuck with Civ3 and didn't write it off at the beginning. I've never done the whole MP bit so I never got in on that bit.

Thank goodness though that MOO3 is not coming out until fall. I am hoping for a December release (after my dissertation is finished) as I don't think I could battle both the forces of Civ3 and MOO3.

[Franses]

I played History line (do you even know it?), CIV I, II, III, SMAC and CTP (I know, I am getting old).

I do like CIV III a lot but I must admit that it is not what I expected it to be. This may be the reason why many of us are whining so much. We expected a completely new experience and it is not. At the very least I expected it to contain all the good stuff from all its predecessors. In fact that appeared not to be the case. Some things are even less attractive in CIV III than in some of its predecessors.

My conclusions:
1. It appears to be very difficult to design and implement a far better CIV game than we are used to.
2. I do like CIV III, have spent hundreds of hours playing it and therefore it was worth its price for me to the last euro.
3. I will have even more fun when MP comes around. As a CTP MP player I am 100% sure of that.
4. I switched from CTP to CIV III because Activision stopped CTP II support only weeks after it hit the shelves (fortunately I did not buy it). Firaxis does not do that. It is still patching the game. They are listening to us (not everything of course) and take part in the forums now and then. That is great and perhaps it will result in a better game than any of its predecessors after all.
5. I do understand the whining but the way Firaxis is blamed is often not fair in my opinion and I do hope that our community will get back to more positive criticism. As far as I am concerned whining may stop now. It has been enough. :-)

[monkspider]

Extremely well put Tassadar5000, you have articulated the arguement against the case for Civ 3 extremely well.

[homegrown]

I do like CIV III a lot but I must admit that it is not what I expected it to be.

Something you learn in 12-step programs is that "Expectations are nothing more than pre-paid resentments." I have to agree that I think 99% of the whining is because it didn't live up to people's expectations, for whatever reason. Those people need to get over it and move on, my god it's JUST A GAME.

For me, I had mixed feelings on the game when I played it under the initial release version. When I went on-line, I basically found a ton of people echoing the various issues that I had seen. I just took a wait and see as it looked like Firaxis was actively trying to patch and work with the community which I really must commend. They appear to be honestly taking suggestions/patches and I think more of that is needed which is why I stuck with Civ3 and didn't write it off at the beginning. I've never done the whole MP bit so I never got in on that bit.

Ditto ! Civ III was my first, and even though the game had problems (which have now for the most part been fixed or put in the editor so I can fix them myself) it was incredibly engaging and for a whole new generation of gamers, new. With 1.21 I'm even having fun.

Should a game require three patches before it's fun? Probably not, but three patches in 6 months is almost unheard of and is a real testament to the dedication of Firaxis to the Civ franchise.

[miike]

I was really blown away by some of the posts here. I find it odd, that I really don't like CIV3 becacause of the IMHO easily corrected flaws and bugs. I am really disappointed when I hear about some magazine or some website that give the game a 9/10, 4/5 stars or some high rating like that. Then I come to the conclusion that to really understand the flaws of the game you have to play it alot, and you have to have played civ/civ2/smac. Of course, CIV3 all by itself is a good game. But when you put it up against people who have been following the series from day 1 and have high expectations, CIV3 does not really cut the mustard. Of course you can say that I have high expectations, but I really think that SMAC was better in some respects to CIV3. Also, the bugs that were in CIV3. You would think that the same folks that brought us SMAC, would not have made some obvious mistakes. How many times can you make the same video game and have flaws and bugs? It is the same game, different graphics, slight tweaks and improvements, but it is the same thing.

[Nubclear]

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.
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.

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?

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.

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 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.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by miike
Then I come to the conclusion that to really understand the flaws of the game you have to play it alot, and you have to have played civ/civ2/smac. Of course, CIV3 all by itself is a good game. But when you put it up against people who have been following the series from day 1 and have high expectations, CIV3 does not really cut the mustard.

I've played civ/civ2/smac, having played civ on a 386 pc back in the day,so I think I have some cred. I would also say that I have high expectations from this game series. I have bought just awful games before and I know what I want in a game. I think that this game is great, based on my own expectations and the history I've had with the game series. Did it have some bugs when it came out? of course. 3 patches later, I think that the game is where it should be. Of course, I can over look minor flaws if I am enjoying the big picture, perhaps you are different, or just perceive the bugs to be major. So this person, who has been following the series since about day 1, does believe that Civ3 cuts the mustard.

Originally posted by miike
Also, the bugs that were in CIV3. You would think that the same folks that brought us SMAC, would not have made some obvious mistakes.

its the same company, but not the same people. When BR left, he took people with him and they had to scrap much of the system in place and start over.

Originally posted by miike
easily corrected flaws and bugs

How would you know if the "flaws and bugs" are easily corrected. I haven't seen the code, so I wouldn't know. And, I would bet that some of the "flaws" are really design decisions that you do not like.

Originally posted by miike
How many times can you make the same video game and have flaws and bugs? It is the same game, different graphics, slight tweaks and improvements, but it is the same thing.

These aren't the same games though. Sure, there are pieces of code that are the same, but they are quite different, they are just based on the common ideas. If they were the same game with a bit added in here and there, wouldn't Civ3 have been released sooner that it was? Its taken what, 4 years between games? if they were inherently the same, wouldn't the publisher pump out a new one every 2 or 3 years?

Of course, my opinion is biased, as I like the game. I just find it annoying that some people claim that the only people who like it are newbies to the series. I am not a newbie, indeed I would wager that I have been around the series longer than some of the people saying this, and I love the game.

[trickey]

Civ 3 is a great game. No doubt 'bout that. but it just lacks something that civ 2 had. Don't ask me what because i don't know.

[ChaotikVisions]

Sir, the evil anti-civ3rs have declared war on us, didn't I tell you they were evil?

Heh, just joking, but seriosuly. I don't understand the people who are constantly anti-civ3, and still come here. Thats one thing that really annoys me, since this forum is(I assume) for those who like civ3 more then they dislike it. Civ3 does have a few problems, but so did the other civ games. I played Civ2 long before I played Civ3, enjoyed it and the expansions quite thoroughly(especially Test of Time), then when Civ3 game out I tryed it and loved it also.

Infact, I can't go back and play Civ2 now, its not the graphics, or something like that, its what Civ3 has done to go beyond Civ2. The culture borders, military units costing upkeep rather then shields(a verrrry nice feature), the new style of air combat, the civ specific abilitys, the MUCH better AI, and countless other things. But as others have said, its all a matter of personal preference in the end. I like SMAC, SMACX, and Civ2, but I still consider Civ3 the latest and greatest of them. Theres some features that could have been carried over, and theres others the previous games are lacking as well.

I'd just be happy if all the folks who liked Civ2/SMAC/SMACX/CtP2/etc... more then Civ3 could just go to those forums, and not tell us how bad Civ3 is on the Civ3 forums. :P

[Kilroy_Alpha]

There are many people that are upset that NONE of the improvements and innovations the CTP series brought to table had any noticable influence on Civ3. Sure, it's a different game made by a different developer and publisher, but that doesn't mean you can't borrow some of the ideas or at least put them in a different context. Oh well.

[Fitz]

Tass, as most people have stated, most of the resentment and whining/complaining come from either disapointment in the end result or expectations that were not met. BTW, most of my comments will be from the perspective/lens of having played Alphas Centauri (SMAC) first.

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
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?

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. 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. 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.

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.

It's like getting 3 million in the first package and 10,000 in the second. Yes, I'm still happy, but the level of happiness is much lower, especially once you account for the expectation factor.