Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Cyclotron]

An interesting topic. But one I don't understand.

Where did Civ3 go "wrong?" Well, ignoring the subjectivity of this question, I offer that Civ3 went wrong in the same way that every other game I have ever played has gone wrong. I can give you a list of bugs, problems, stupidities, and omission of features I would have loved in every single game I own and have owned.

Despite that, I find myself still playing many of these games.

There is no reason Civ3 went wrong, if it did indeed. Many seem to be caught up in promises, expectations, and assumptions that lower their own opinion of Civ3. Those who expect a feature to be put in are always dissapointed when it is not. Those who expect constant and total realism are upset when the game designers do not share their frame of mind and sense of hisotry and justice to history. People put their faith in so-called promises made by Firaxis, knowing full well that games change as they are created, and feel cheated when these promises are broken.

I suppose the reason I ontinue to play all my imperfect games is that I find them enjoyable for what they are, not what they could/should/would/ have been. I find it more enjoyable to play the game, not review the game.

[Coracle]

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. 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.

I consider it less than "decent".

This discussion would take pages as I can think of a hundred things bad about the game, and not too many good.

Don't anyone give me this "we expected too much" crap. That is NOT why the game is a disappointment.

1. Not having scenario-building, and a cheat mode, as in Civ 2 was a rip-off.

2. Marketing a BETA game six months at least before it was ready was insulting.

3. Ugly graphics.

4. Slow, slower, slowest. (That with 1.21).

5. Corruption problems.

6. Idiotic Culture Flipping cities and borders. The concept of borders moving by way of culture is flawed; its implemenation is terrible and illogical.

7. Too few units.

8. Too few techs.

9. Braindead military unit values and capabilities. Firaxis' knowledge of military history is pathetic. Leaders that CAN'T airlift? Elephants that can?!? All the values are screwed up, especially the too low values for post-gunpowder units. At least we can Edit that.

10. Resources are WAY too scarce. At least we can Edit that.

11. Inability to use new maps without having to Edit the entire mod.

12. Stupid, stupid foreign advisor and military AI. They have done things so dumb I just felt like quitting thr game; I also felt ripped off.

13. NOTHING left to explore or settle by the time we get even just to caravels!

14. That stinking FLOOD of settlers descending like a plague on every open tile and even marching through your territory.

15. Pathetic use of naval units and naval warfare. We can't even sink transports with freight anymore as in Civ 2. There is no way a navy can effect an enemy's trade except by blockading every one of his ports. Absurd.

16. Too many uselees units. You know the ones I mean.

17. Rampant AI cheating - cheating that Civ 2 did not do; it just gave the AI a better percentage in combat.

18. "Hanging" units that take forever to end their turns, thus slowing the slow game even more.

19. Countless bugs, bugs, bugs, upon release, including even spelling errors in the txt. Need my Spellcheck??

20. Imposible to see some resources on the map (esp. coal) unless we take the trouble to download new images.

21. No spies, diplomats, freight or caravans. It was FUN toi sneak a caravan or spy by see into a distant city, esp. by sea.

22. Espionage is grossly expensive (unless edited) and not very effective - except to get them to declare war on you.

23. No Quick Response option to a nuclear First Strike, making the entire concept of nukes idiotic, except for warmongers who love silly graphics.

24. Razing cities of millions is a pathetically absurd and barbaric option.

And a lot of other stuff I don't feel like writing. . . maybe later.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by 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.

Indeed.

We know we re getting screwed when a game that shouldn't yet even be considered beta it is so flawed, appears on the market just in time for the Christmas buying rush - and does so without a scenario-builder. That was one of the most vital aspects of Civ 2. Infogrames figured out they can sell that separately to the suckers for more cash.

[ACooper]

Re: Re: Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

Originally posted by Coracle
...
Don't anyone give me this "we expected too much" crap
...

Oh, but it is.

[Shadowstrike]

Interesting take Coracle. Its interesting to see that the complaints fall into three main categories.

1. Features that were in previous Civ games and got pulled. Stuff like diplomats, caravans, espionage, etc. I guess we expected these to be in since they were classic Civ, but were shocked to see they weren't.

2. AI and game bugs. Stuff like the ICSing AI, and poor game stability. Perhaps a few more months of betas might have sorted this out.

3. New features that were good ideas implemented poorly. Culture for example was a cool idea but the implementation was far from perfect. 3D graphics also probably fall here too. Civ3 graphics were awful, but they could have been better.

So if Civ III had been delayed say, six months, and a less buggy product with better AI, all the features of the older Civ games and better implementation of new concepts, how would Civ III have fared?

(Fitz! Long time no see...)

[Alex]

Coracle, do you still play the game? Just out of curiosity.

[Laiquendi]

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.

The problem is not that the designers went a direction that I didn't like or expect.. the problem is that the designers did not go ANYWHERE AT ALL!

What innovative features shipped with civ III?
- Culture. (I like it, it needs some more tweaking, but it's a good idea.)
- New format for trading and espionage. (course espionage is near-useless, and due to bad ai design, trading is almost the same.)
- small wonders (good idea, but hardly a brilliant innovation)
- resources (excellent idea, still needs tweaking)

They're cool, but they are hardly stupendous, and they all need more work.

I would easily give all of those features for a solid AI, or for a faster game. Even the slow gameplay I can get around, I have a good computer but the AI issues piss me off. To date I have finished two games of Civ III, one right after I bought the game (the day it came out), and one after the 1.21 patch came out. After the first game, I shelved it because the AI pissed me off. Hoping that the patch had fixed things, I played again, and have re-shelved the game because the AI is still not fixed.

To those who enjoy demeaning other people's skills and adaptive ability: it took me a few starter games to get into the swing of things, but both games that I finished were at the same level of play as my (many) Civ II games (regent/prince, space race victory). Look down on that if you will, but I have no interest in spending the extra time that an increaced difficulty level would demand.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
So if Civ III had been delayed say, six months, and a less buggy product with better AI, all the features of the older Civ games and better implementation of new concepts, how would Civ III have fared?

If they had waited 6 months to initially release the game, the fans would be up in arms as much if not more as they are today.

besides, speaking for myself, I am glad they released the game when they did. hey, I got 6 months out of a game that I really enjoyed. I'll trade that anyday for a few bugs and annoyances. Maybe you won't, thats your prerogative, but I will be playing the game while the same arguments about the flaws are posted ad naseum. Who is the winner here? Me who has a game that he likes to play on a regular basis, or you (not you in particular shadowstrike) who continually complain about the game not living up to your expectations.

Has a game ever completely lived up to my expectations? Probably not. I suppose if I knew anything about designing games or could afford to have a game tailored to my desires I would be absolutely satisfied. Well, that is not reality. There are going to be problems with all games, there are problems with Civ3. There were problems with Civ2 problems with SMAX, problems with Civ1. To think otherwise, that these previous games were perfect or bug-free would be foolhardy. Indeed, these other games (except for civ1) received similar critisicms in their birthing stage.

I think the current critisisms of civ3 are primarily nostalgia based. I remember the joy I had when I played Civ1. The joy I had when I played civ2 (ignoring SMAX which I found to be oftentimes dull). Just like everything else about that time in my life, everything seems simpler and better. Is this true? Of course not. If i think hard enough, I can remember bad parts of my life then as well as bad parts of the civ games. I don't know what games some of you have been playing, Civ2 and SMAX, but the versions I was playing were as flawed with annoyances and bugs as civ3, if not more so. IMO, I think that Civ3 (for all its flaws) is a massive improvement in the series. Is it as great as I thought it would be? Of course not. My imagination is far superior to anything yet possible in a game, and I suspect that most people's are as well. As stated before, that may be the hangup. After 6 years of Civ2, surely the formula could be perfected? Well, that's just not the way life works. The mousetrap has been improved, but can never be perfected as long as there are millions of different perceptions of what the best mousetrap should be.

Thanks

[MOHonor]

Re: Re: Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

Originally posted by Coracle
1. Not having scenario-building, and a cheat mode, as in Civ 2 was a rip-off.

Hey Coracle. You always seem so irritated at no scenario support. Could you point me to any scenario you've created for any game ever? You know since it's so important to you there must be at least one map or scenario or something you've released somewhere? Right? Otherwise well you'd be kinda talking out your ass.

[ACooper]

Re: Re: Re: Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

Originally posted by MOHonor


Hey Coracle. You always seem so irritated at no scenario support. Could you point me to any scenario you've created for any game ever? You know since it's so important to you there must be at least one map or scenario or something you've released somewhere? Right? Otherwise well you'd be kinda talking out your ass.

That's why it smells so bad in here!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Laiquendi
The problem is not that the designers went a direction that I didn't like or expect.. the problem is that the designers did not go ANYWHERE AT ALL!

-- Snip

I would easily give all of those features for a solid AI, or for a faster game. Even the slow gameplay I can get around, I have a good computer but the AI issues piss me off. To date I have finished two games of Civ III, one right after I bought the game (the day it came out), and one after the 1.21 patch came out. After the first game, I shelved it because the AI pissed me off. Hoping that the patch had fixed things, I played again, and have re-shelved the game because the AI is still not fixed.

They went simpler. Many people hate that.

As for AI... The Civ3 AI has given me more challenges than Civ, Civ2 or SMAC ever did, combined. I don't see it every game, and it is easy to learn what it will do, but given roughly equal odds in a modern war it will give any player a run for his or her money. Not if the player prepares traps based on predictable behaviour, but just go into a war from a peace time stance with a couple hundred units per side and you will see some things to set you back in all probability.

And on the topic of AI, why is that when the AI acted 'human' and used the 'best' strat of always getting what ever it could from all other civs for tech... too many people snarled and yelled and screamed until the designers put a break on that behaviour???

This makes no sense to me. Give us better AI you t*rds. NO. Not that GOOD!

[Wittlich]

Where did Civ3 go wrong? Hmm, let me see if I can name a few items that I think effected the enjoyment of Civ3 for me:

1. No Wonder Movies.

2. Advisors. I really miss the mini-movies of the advsors in Civ2 (where they bicker amongst themselves).

3. Multiplayer support - enough said (even though I'm estatic that it will be included in the expansion).

These are the only major deletions from Civ3 that I really miss when I play the game. Because of this lack of "feel" in Civ3, I myself have not played the game in the past few months...my roommate and I have since returned to playing Civ2 and CTP2 (modded, of course).

Well, for what ever it's worth, that's my two cents on the subject.

[Samuel Johnson]

I have some gripes but it would have been good if they allowed you to trade, buy or sell units to the other civs. GIven the MPPs, why can't we beef up some other civ, let them take the eventual fall a la the Cold War.

[Shadowstrike]

What about the fact that Civ III was the first game to take away from what was in previous Civs? Sure Civ II and SMAC cut a few things, but they were mostly filler, but they both focused more on adding. How does Apolyton feel about that?

[Civ Old Timer]

I think Corale gets it right - Civ 3 was rushed. It was buggy. It has interesting ideas but they were done poorly. Maybe it will turn into a decent game with time, I dunno. It leaves me with a real sour taste at times and I've lost a lot of respect for Sid over it. It used to be that his name was a sign of quality play. I also really liked what Brian Reynolds brought to the game his two turns at bat. I can't say the same for the current team. I will admit the AI is in many ways better and I love that, but... In other areas the new game rules make that AI just as lost as I am - I'm thinking of espionage here, what a wasted effort that was. And not having iron, etc. Too many good things left out - wonder movies, the social engineering from SMAC, I loved that. It goes on. You know the drill.

I resent the notion that us oldies don't "get" the new game. Perhaps we're best positioned to see what's lacking. I know that when I was younger I was far less critical than I am now. BTW, I'm not geriatric or anything like that. I'm in my early 30s and I'm probably not the only one here in that range.