Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Shadowstrike]

A year ago, Civilization III (which we did not have yet) was perhaps the biggest expectation everyone on this forum was waiting for. Today, the general attitude towards Civ3 is that its a decent game, but it probably won't become a legend anytime soon. My question to the community is, where did Civ3 go wrong?

Was it the lack of multiplayer support which killed Civ3? Scenario capability? Graphics? Hype? Over-expectation? Gameplay?

Discuss.

[Stuie]

Re: Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
A year ago, Civilization III (which we did not have yet) was perhaps the biggest expectation everyone on this forum was waiting for.

And there's the problem. People were expecting too much; they had pre-conceived notions as to what Civ3 would be, and then blamed Firaxis for not designing to their specifications.

[Unspeakable Horror]

For me it would be Scenario Capabilities and Gameplay, I prefer more complex things.

[Harovan]

If you ask me, hype and over-expectation and the fact that it was rushed to the market in the beta stadium. Civ2 is hard to beat if it comes to addictive games, and it also came along without MP and scenario creation. But I see Civ3 as a good game though.

[simwiz2]

It was rushed, that was a major problem. And it was simplified for the mass-market. I prefer more options, not a dumbed-down version, so this kinda wrecks the game for me. MP would be nice, but the problems in civ3 unfortunately cannot be fixed by MP and a scenario editor. They are problems deeply rooted in the gameplay that will be difficult, if not impossible, to fix at this stage.

[miike]

There were some mistakes that should not have been made. Trading/AI/lack of features that were advertised or promised. Alot of that stuff adds up. I think in some ways Alpha Centauri is much better.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
If you ask me, hype and over-expectation and the fact that it was rushed to the market in the beta stadium. Civ2 is hard to beat if it comes to addictive games, and it also came along without MP and scenario creation. But I see Civ3 as a good game though.

And if you do a search on usenet, Civ2 was just as reviled by a very vocal minority when it was released. Actually, it's pretty funny how similiar the comments from 1996 are compared to now, especially the whining about having to *pay* for multiplayer.

Some will argue that the makers of the game didn't learn anything. I would argue that we as consumers are the ones that should look at the track record of the people making the game and manage our expectations accordingly.



Edit - grammatical error.

[zulu9812]

I think the biggest thing was that the tech tree only goes up to present day: it displays a certain lack of imagination after Civ2 and SMAC.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by miike
There were some mistakes that should not have been made. Trading/AI/lack of features that were advertised or promised. Alot of that stuff adds up. I think in some ways Alpha Centauri is much better.

SMAC - there's another game that got slammed mightily when it was released. Now we hold it up as a shining example of what they should have done. Go figure.

Also, I have yet to see examples of advertisements or "promises" made by Firaxis regarding Civ3 that were not met. I think people have deluded themselves into thinking MP was promised out of the box; it wasn't.

[Fitz]

Stuie, I was introduced to "Sid Meier" games by Alpha Centauri, and despite a mass of flaws that went through 4 patches, some of which were game breakers, I loved it. 2-3 years later, and 1 expansion which I happily payed for later, I still enjoy playing, albiet mostly multi-player. The single player variation is just now starting to wear off on me, but I'm still willing to play a game now and then SP.

I finally purchased CivIII right before the v1.16f patch, and enjoyed it greatly, for about one month. Then the novelty wore off, and I gave it a break, mostly because of a lack of time to play. I got back into it when they released v1.21f, and enjoy the game, if not as much as when I first bought it. CivIII is a pretty good game, if already starting to pall.

But compared to SMAC, CivIII SUCKS (IMNSHO). Overly simplified to a huge degree, lack of in-game variation, about equal graphics (IMO), no MP (yet), it has none of the "super-chess" feel that SMAC did. The only thing it has going for it is a vastly improved AI. And the AI is improved, but that doesn't make up for the over-simplification of the game. I have already decided not to bother buying the XP, firstly because I will never be able to persuade my normal SMAC LAN partners that it is an improvement, and secondly because I can already tell I will probably be bored with CivIII by the time they release it.

Comparing SMAC to CivIII is like comparing a Chess to Tic-Tac-Toe. SMAC has rich complexity and lots of variations. CivIII has simplicity and every game is similar.

Notice that I'm not demanding my money back or anything.

I do wish they had included formulas for Corruption/Waste etc like they did for SMAC though. ::sigh::

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Fitz


But compared to SMAC, CivIII SUCKS. Overly simplified to a huge degree, lack of in-game variation, about equal graphics (IMO), no MP (yet), it has none of the "super-chess" feel that SMAC did. The only thing it has going for it is a vastly improved AI. And the AI is improved, but that doesn't make up for the over-simplification of the game. I have already decided not to bother buying the XP, firstly because I will never be able to persuade my normal SMAC LAN partners that it is an improvement, and secondly because I can already tell I will probably be bored with CivIII by the time they release it.

Comparing SMAC to CivIII is like comparing a Chess to Tic-Tac-Toe. SMAC has rich complexity and lots of variations. CivIII has simplicity and every game is similar.

Notice that I'm not demanding my money back or anything.

I do wish they had included formulas for Corruption/Waste etc like they did for SMAC though. ::sigh::

Civ3 sucks in comparison to SMAC to you. But that is just opnion, I never cared that much for SMAC. I never saw the complexity that everyone says is in the game. Fungus was annoying. You build forrests everywhere you can. You go to the same social engineering choices, time and time again. You build the same units the same way every time.

I was introduced to "Sid Meier" games with Civ I, none of the others have really compared to that first experience. doesn't mean I don't like the other games, but the experience isn't unique like it was for me with Civ and you with SMAC.

[Fitz]

Alright Tubs, I edited the post to reflect that the suckiness of Civ in comparison to SMAC was a very in-humble opion of mine. Happy?

All I can say about your experience is that you went for the simplest way to win. That was not my style in SMAC, and certainly isn't mine in CivIII either. But the option to use things such as Social Engineering, the Design Workshop, many more terraforming improvements were what made the game fantastic. You didn't have to use them if all you wanted to do was play the game 10 times then quit in boredom, as CivIII seems to be set up to do.

I will admit that fungus is annoying.

Given the disappointment you had in SMAC, that "You go to the same social engineering choices, time and time again. You build the same units the same way every time." I fail to understand why you "care for" CivIII. To reiterate your complaints, you go to the same governments, time and time again, and you absolutely build the same units the same way every time, because you don't have any choice in the matter.

[notyoueither]

Well. Number one, the fat lady would be premature in tuning up at this point. The thing ain't done. There's at least 1 XP coming, maybe 2 or 3.

Then, all the arguments of 'I love it' or 'I hate it' are largely subjective. That means that the designers probably didn't 'go wrong' so much as they changed directions in a way that many Civ2 / SMAC fanatics do not like. If total units sold is the measure, I think the designers will have 'gone right' by the time the thing is done. But that's just my guess.

Check back in a few years. You'll probably find a large and happy community pounding out the 'Ultimate Mod' along with the 'Massively Orgasmic Scenario Series' and gleefully pounding each other on the way up some MP ladder of sorts. I imagine the designers will have 'done right' by that crowd.

The funniest thing is that some of those who are here now enjoying Civ3 for what it is may well be Yinning away about Civ4 approximately 5 years from now on some board somewhere.

Think happy thoughts.

[Fitz]

*happy thoughts, happy thoughts*

I reiterate that my stance is not CivIII sucks, just I don't enjoy it as much (and why). Just thought I should make that clear before the anti-whiners really chime in.

[Swissy]

Where did Civ3 go wrong?

It happened to belong to a publisher, Hasbro Interactive, the parent company of which, Hasbro, did not want to remain in the software publishing business. Got sold to a publisher, Infogrammes, a company which is only concerned with the timely output of profitable games. A company who knows how to tailor their product for maximum profit, takeing a game design and breaking it into a game and an XP.