Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Alex]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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!

I wholeheartedly agree. It seems that it is impossible to please everyone.

People used to say: "Civ2 AI is sooo weak, I can beat it easily even on the most difficult levels". Then they improved the AI, but streamlined the game in excess. But -- they improved the AI. Suddenly people started to cry again: "hey, this AI is so bad, it hates me and I can't get anything out of it... this has to change!".

What people want is totally subjective. They wanted the game they had designed in their minds, they wanted Civ3 to be the epitome of a perfect gaming experience. They forgot that gaming industry became a huge and profitable industry, and that it would be necessary to attract new players and create a new fan base. They could not see it, because they were so amazed by their own expectations that they blocked any and all negative information out of their minds.

I'm not happy with this. But Civ3 is not a bad game. It does not deserve to be so dissed on these boards. But that is merely my own opinion. Subjective.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer


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.

I'm about the same age that you are. Nobody has accused me of "not getting it". I was far less critical as well, but still this is not a bad game. I'll bet that NO ONE can find a game they thought was perfect.

[Civ Old Timer]

I totally disagree with Alexnm. I think it simplistic to fob people off and say "you didn't get what you wanted so you're upset." I would have been happy with the changes Civ three brought - resources and culture - had they been done thoughtfully. I am quite annoyed at all of the good things that were left out unnecessarily. And the new AI is great in many ways, as many people have said. It's the rules that need the most work. Did anybody test this thing? I wonder about that.

And people here are smart enough to know and resent having a sort of working mess dropped on their doorstep at X-mas. It was Infogrames' way of saying we don't care. We have the name, that's woth $$$. Building on the franchise.... eh, we can make a buck without that.

Play nice, dammit. Or your franchise won't be worth squat.

[Civ Old Timer]

None of the Civ games have been perfect. But they were fun for years... I liked them right out of the box. Not so Civ 3. I dunno who said "it's not perfect so I don't like it." The rebuttal sounds like a straw man argument to me.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
I resent the notion that us oldies don't "get" the new game.

I resent the fact that people who like Civ3 are treated like newbies, even when they might have been playing the games longer than the critics.

[Civ Old Timer]

asleepathewheel -



I didn't intend to imply that everyone who likes the game is new to it, although sometimes my spidey sense does tell something like that.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
asleepathewheel -



I didn't intend to imply that everyone who likes the game is new to it, although sometimes my spidey sense does tell something like that.

You might not feel that way, but that opinion has been expressed on this board before, and often times when it is not expressly stated, it is just beneath the surface of the argument.

[Capt Dizle]

Same old debate, same old choir.

Well, I am no longer mad about it all, but, the game does suck, thats fact not opinion.

Still, maybe its time we all just shut up.

[nato]

Just to get my opinion in ...

I think the thing Civ3 is missing is complexity and a few interesting features, like social engineering and a tech tree with strategic choices in it.

It has been over-simplified.

However I like the game a lot, and it has some great new features like culture. It is very close!

I think if they would add just a couple of complex features, like SE and many more choices in the tech tree, Civ3 would lose the "intellectual lightweight" reputation it has compared to SMAC.

Civ3 is just a couple of complex features away from greatness ... I sure hope they add them in the expansions.

On that note,

FIRAXIS: Even if the wider market prefers simple games and fewer complex features ... ok, they got that with the initial game! Now that they have mastered the basics, even the simpler, less hard core market should be ready, and even eager, for an increase in complexity!

Expansions must significantly expand the game to succede, and the simpler market should be ready for it by now. Doing this will put Civ3 up to SMAC's level, prove the whiners wrong, and ensure Firaxis's reputation.

[nato]

Still, maybe its time we all just shut up.

I think you're going to get some takers on that one...

[Laiquendi]

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!

My comment was not on the skill of the AI, if the AI is too good, I drop a difficulty level, if it's too easy, I up the difficulty. My problem with the civ III AI is HOW it plays, not the overall difficulty of the play. As seen in many threads on this board, the diplomacy system has some major issues (AI trading, wild valuations to techs/luxuries), the AI sees resources that have not yet appeared, the AI settles useless tundra, the AI refuses to respect national boundaries...

This is why I have stopped playing, again.

For those who say I should quit playing and go away.. the reason I am compelled to whine is that I LOVE CIV! Despite it's problems, civ III is an improvement over civ II and ctp/ctp2. I am angry because firaxis/infogrames are asking me to pay the full price of a new game for a barely improved old game.

[Tiberius]

Re: Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong? Let's see:

MP: It would have been nice to have it from the beginning, but now we know the XP is coming. Having to pay for it is another issue

Scenario-building: in my 5 or 6 years (or more?) of Civ2 I played maybe 5 or 6 scenarios.

Cheat mode: never used it.

Graphics: it could be better IMO too, but compared to what? AoK or Civ1? And does it matter after you are used to it?

Corruption: it was one of the biggest request of civ2 players to make big empires harder to last and give smaller nations an advantage. Now corruption and culture are the problem

Culture and culture flipping: the best addition to civ2 IMO

Espionage: I miss the spies, but wasn't it one of the biggest complains from the Civ2 community to make the spies less powerful?

Caravans: I miss them too, but when it was a discussion about caravans on Apolyton maybe 1 or 2 years ago, there were only a few people didn't want them removed.

Too few units - if we had twice as many units when could we possibly use them or for how long? Two turns then it gets obsolate? No, thank you.

Air combat: I don't like it, but the Stealth fighter was way too powerful.

Goverments: the same as in civ2, except for fundamentalism, which was too powerful

Resourses: make the game more strategic; now you have a reason to go to war or culture-bomb a city or to defend a territory or to trade and so on

Very aggresively expanding AI: I hate this, actually my biggest displeasure about civ3. But again, didn't we ask for a better AI?

Modular units or social engineering like in SMAC? This is not a SF game.

There are a lot more controversial things that some people love while others hate in Civ3. Is it perfect? Certainly not. Neither was Civ2. Is it good? Yes. Could be better? Probably. Can Firaxis please everybody? No.
Do I like it? Yes

Hype? Over-expectation? Nostalgia? Certainly a (big) part of the complains.

[Alexander's Horse]

Where didn't it go wrong?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Laiquendi

My problem with the civ III AI is HOW it plays, not the overall difficulty of the play. As seen in many threads on this board, the diplomacy system has some major issues (AI trading, wild valuations to techs/luxuries), the AI sees resources that have not yet appeared, the AI settles useless tundra, the AI refuses to respect national boundaries

The AI does do irritating things, this is true. About the AI trading: The AI is trying to win, if you are the only civ with a tech, are you going to sell it cheaply? I wouldn't. If it was a tech that was a couple levels down I would, but to another, no way. The aI's goal is to make you lose, or at least prevent you from winnning. I agree it is bad that it can see resources that haven't yet appeared, but you can deal with this as you want, like someone else, NYE perhaps suggested, target oddly placed cities and you can get the resource. About the respecting national boundaries: People complain about this a lot, i've seen, but really, if you send a unit through the AI's territory, what happens if you refuse to move it? They declare war. If they keep bugging you, you should show some force and declare war on them. If you're unwilling to show some backbone, the AI will walk all over you.

Originally posted by Laiquendi
For those who say I should quit playing and go away.. the reason I am compelled to whine is that I LOVE CIV! Despite it's problems, civ III is an improvement over civ II and ctp/ctp2. I am angry because firaxis/infogrames are asking me to pay the full price of a new game for a barely improved old game.

Man, I bet you were even more pissed at Civ2 then, since it was basically just a grapical update of Civ1.

I don't think anyone has told anyone that they should stop playing. I think some people (myself included) are just tired of the way these things are continually presented. Look at the threads on Roads and Rails, the thread on ye old culture flip, firaxis: what's up with the 1/3 move, what do you think of carriers. etc. these were sane discussions about aspects of the game people think could be changed. And, in some cases, the editor can be used to change them.

My point is that, as many others have said before me, constructive criticism of the game is much more likely to be met with a civil conversation than a thread that says "Civ3 sux, firaxis programmers suck, worthless beta, poor programming" etc. If that's all you have to say, then you shouldn't feel offended when people don't respond civilly. (note the above was not specifically to you Laiquendi )

Thanks

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Where didn't it go wrong?

You don't like it. They must be doing something right.