Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Stuie
In all the comparisons being done between Civs 2 & 3, it suddenly strikes me that the Civ2 everyone goes on and on about took two expansion packs and a gold edition to finally get it right. I'm sure Civ3 (which I am thoroughly enjoying since 1.21f came out) will continue to improve, and then you can all whine your faces off when Civ4 sucks upon release.

Well, not quite. Civ2 was enjoyable even without the xp´s and Gold Edition. They did however enhance a good game to be even better.

[ahenobarb]

The fundamental problem with Civ 3 is that we grew up and Civ didn't. It's a kids game and we aren't kids anymore.

Most people who have played from Civ I's initial release were impressed with the quatum leap of Civ 2. We expected with the increase in computer power to have another quantum leap in civ development. Instead, its one step forward, two steps back.

The game lacks the complexity and depth necessary to hold your attention. Oh, and the renaissance "click festival", where there is nothing to build and nothing to do, but war for the next 4-500 years. Try this on a huge map and learn what boredom is.

What it lacks in complexity, it makes up for in simplicity in all its forms. The game is tailored to the 8-16 market segment. Even though they don't have the $$$, their parents will get it for them. Infogrames (never trust a company with a typo in its name) will get its dough and the kids will be none the wiser.

Civ3 = Civ 1.5

the "Old Schools" were hoping for a Better School, instead we got Kindergarden. Pray you learned to program over the years because you're gonna have to write your own game.

[Strollen]

Biggest single reason that Civ3 is only a very good game and not a classic is that Sid didn't work on. Soren did a terrific job on the AI but the rest of the game was only ok cause there nobody in Firaxis with the same skill as Sid or Brian Reynolds

Sid spent most of his timing designing and programming SimGolf.
SimGolf is a lot of fun and had all the magically elements you'd expect in a Sid game, Civ3 had very few. I still play Civ3 because building and conquouring the world is far more interesting to me than building a Golf course...

I also think that Satisfaction = Reality - Expectation and expectations for this game were so high that some people couldn't possibly be satisfied.

[Coracle]

I would hardly describe Civ 3 as "very good". Very DISAPPOINTING, in reality.

[Strollen]

Well Coracle the average reviews for the game are between 8 and 9 out of 10. According to most game site review systems that corresponds to a very good game.

You may disagree, just like I disagree with most of your criticism about the game, but the vast majority of people would disagree with your characterization as the game as worse than decent.

[Alkis]

More on what went wrong.

I already mentioned the lack of opportunities but I will give an example. Suppose you play the world map in Civ2. Suppose you start somewhere in America or Asia. You could build a tririme with one diplomat and one settler and discover Australia. You could buy barbarian units which would not need support because they would be marked as "none". In the end you could colonize Australia and build more cities there. These cities would have a lot of corruption/waste but with Democracy or Fundamentalism you had the chance to make your colony flourish someday. Try to do that in Civ3. You can't buy barbarians, you get **** out of huts, the world is colonized too early etc. I want to mention another two things. First there is no way to initiate a pop boom. Second you can't rush a wonder. Enough said.

Lack of humor. Yes, previous versions of Civilization were a lot more playfull. Civ3 makes me wonder whether I play a game or I am just working.

No engineer unit. No way to transform terrain. Too few kinds of bonus squares.

No espionage unless you really want to waste money or make someone else attack you.

The game is tedious. Maybe in their vocabulary challenging and tedious are synonymous but there is a difference. Strategic resourses should be opportunities enabling you for example to build faster but not required for absolutely necessary things, like railroads for instance. There is no coal on my continent; ok that's not my fault, now what? Well, you can't build railroads, have a nice time crawling on the map. Or another scenario, there is coal and I have it. Great, let's build some railroads! And the next day the coal disappears.

Not even one interesting new wonder. Wonders stepped down. In any case you can't be sure you will build one. And yes, no wonder movies (Frankly I don't care much about that).

Even with roaming barbarians the world is too hostile to make exploration worthwhile. Pity because many players actually like exploration.

About corruption and waste. I don't mind that as an element, what makes the game tedious is that there is no way to get rid of it completely. This makes you feel that your efforts to build a big empire were in vain.

Pollution. Same as the above, only a bit worse. In fact although I need the extra population I feel reluctant to build hospitals. Compare this with the expectation we had in Civ2 for the Sanitation advance. In all you build an empire which doesn't make you happy but instead it gives you more problems and requires more and more micromanagement. (At least Shift + P works correctly now.) This is realistic of course, but I think it's too much reality for a game.

For best results you have to fight the builder in you and also the honorable part of you. Going to war, breaking treaties, surprise attacks, backstabing etc are all very profitable in this game.

P.S. I wouldn't mind playing on Emperor, as someone suggested, but as you can see there is more than the fact that Deity level limits your choices.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Strollen
Satisfaction = Reality - Expectation

I don't think that equation holds true in all circumstances. Imagine yourself a prisoner of a hostile force, you have no expectation of release. Are you satisfied?

Originally posted by Alkis
In all you build an empire which doesn't make you happy but instead it gives you more problems and requires more and more micromanagement. (At least Shift + P works correctly now.) This is realistic of course, but I think it's too much reality for a game.

I think the problem is just the opposite, it's the lack of reality (i.e. complexity) in the game. In the context you're speaking - expansion leads to corruption - you are of course correct, but overall I think the game lacks depth. When it was being advertised, it was said that "warmongers won't like it. This is a game for builders." (close enough) But if you don't go to war, what is there for you to really do? Oh goody, I built all the buildings in my city and I only have to wait 40 turns for the next advance that will give me the technology that allows me to research something, so that I can build another building after 40 more turns of research. click, click, click, click, click.

What about exploration and commercial development? Oh yeah, build a marketplace. There's some commercial development for Ya'

[Stuie]

Originally posted by ahenobarb
Most people who have played from Civ I's initial release were impressed with the quatum leap of Civ 2.

That's funny. I remember people complaining to no end that Civ2 was just Civ1 with a graphics upgrade and it sucked because it didn't have multiplayer out of the box. I don't recall ANYONE asserting that it was a "quantum leap" over Civ1 when it came out. Amazing how perceptions change.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Stuie et. al.,

Every Civ-style game has been slammed on these boards upon release. It was the same for CIV2 then SMAC, wow did CTP ever get thrashed, and now CIV3.

In each of those situations (I can't speak for CTP as I never tried it, being too involved in SMAC at the time), I thought the critics were waaay off base. As you follow the progression of the games, each generation of games added something to the game. CIV3 took away much more than it added IMHO. Now the game itself is Ok and if modded or Xp'd properly might even become good ( I doubt if it ever will achieve classic status ), but my issue with the release of CIV3, is the message SID/FirX are delivering and receiving.

Message sent : A stripped down version of CIV is what the gaming public wants b/c overly complex games (that ultimately culminated in overly complex SMAC as the last generation) will not find a wide appeal.

Message recieved: Look at the reviews from the (syncophant) game reviewers, Look at our sales!! Woohoo told you we were right! Civ 4 should be even further stripped!

OTOH forums such as these appear to be the only areas of dissent. So in summary I think there is a real and legitamite reason to be alarmed and send FIRX/Sid the meassage we as faithful TBS's want him to hear.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Stuie


That's funny. I remember people complaining to no end that Civ2 was just Civ1 with a graphics upgrade and it sucked because it didn't have multiplayer out of the box. I don't recall ANYONE asserting that it was a "quantum leap" over Civ1 when it came out. Amazing how perceptions change.

I am ANYONE and my perception hasn't changed, i still play Civ 2 and it is still a quantum leap over Civ 1 *AND* Civ 3.

Ogie Oglethorpe is spot on, keep the games nice and shallow (It costs less to program), jack up the price, and rake in the dough. The more shallow, the more boring, the more boring, the more the player will want to buy another game -- would you like another shallow game? Excellent, we have several, $60 please.

Nice and shallow, ankle deep will do.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by nato
I like your post Dominae. I think it points out well that the heart of the problem is they simplified the game too much.

The expansion packs could fix this if they add new features, not just new leader heads and UUs!

More "stuff" does not make a better game. Sometime's more "stuff" just makes a pile of "stuff". Civ II and SMAC definately had more "stuff" and much of it was never used. I'm glad they reduced the clutter, but if you think reducing clutter is the same as simplifying....I don't know what to say. Good luck to you.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

AC,

I understand you want a cleaner more simplified game, hated SMAC, Love CIV3 and all that. But certainly you can see, all that stuff that was never used might have been valuable and used by someone else.

One mans trash is afterall another mans treasure.

Taking it out means that the folks that liked the clutter (as you refer to it) never have the option to use it. A bit too restrictive a policy if you ask me.

[nato]

More "stuff" does not make a better game. Sometime's more "stuff" just makes a pile of "stuff". Civ II and SMAC definately had more "stuff" and much of it was never used. I'm glad they reduced the clutter, but if you think reducing clutter is the same as simplifying....I don't know what to say. Good luck to you.

Oh please. You might not agree with my position, but nothing I said was stupid or unreasonable. "I don't know what to say. Good luck to you." I'm so sure.

I'll save you the trouble. Until you can stop being condescending, don't worry about what to say ... don't say anything.

[Dominae]

Well, it all depends if the "stuff" in question has strategic value, or if it is essentially superficial.

The UUs in Civ3, although a great idea and pretty cool to play with, are mostly superficial. Building an bunch of Immortals is not strategically interesting (similarly for almost all other UUs). I could go so far as to say that early game warfare in Civ3 is dominated by the question: Swordsmen or Horsemen? Building a "mixed" army is hardly more interesting. UUs do not add to this basic question, but in fact make it easier to answer. Mao: "Hm, it's the Middle Ages, guess it's time to build some Riders".

If you've played SMAC sufficiently enough, you know that in no part of the game are the decisions this simple. Sure, the good strategies that have been learned after hours of gaming, yet there are still (IMO) many opportunities for innovation.

"Would upgrading my Terraformers with armor really help thwart an invasion, and is it worth the cost?"

"Can I afford to have Deidre hate me if I change to Free Market economics, given that I have no defenses against Mind Worms?"

"Will my Foil chassis Probe Teams have enough coastal targets, or will they just cruise around and get sunk by Isles?"

I think you'll agree with me that all the decisions arise from complex game mechanics, in other words, they are hardly "superficial". Compare any of these questions with most decisions you make in Civ3 and you'll see my point immediately.

Civ3 is inherently simpler than SMAC; it was designed this way. SMAC was more complex, thus more strategic, thus more replayable, and thus more fun (all IMO).


Dominae

[Alex]

Dominae: