Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Jaybe]

Where did Civ3 go wrong?
It Didn't! Just as any of you didn't go wrong when you were smallfry. It's just maturing, that's all.

Myself, I can't seem to get one game done before another update comes out. My games take more than a month to play.

JB

[Zoid]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Another factless, baseless comment.

I'm aware you don't care, but that piece of snide, arrogant, irrelevant trash, plus the accumulation of the rest of your garbage posts on this forum just earned you a ticket to my ignore list. Congrats, not even Coracle has gotten there yet.

You´re that easily provoked cyclo? jt has a point, Firaxis IS cashing in on Sid´s rep. They know darn well that if there´s SID MEIER in bold letters on the box the game will sell. Sid´s name in itself is a guarantee for quality (or so people think...)

And yes jt can be perceived as snide and arrogant, but I think he´s quite funny most of the time (as I myself like to deliver the occasional snide arrogant comment )

[Zoid]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


I wonder if some folks here are braindead.

Maybe not braindead, but sure as hell gullible to the extreme

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by zulu9812
whilst the victory conditions have been improved - i always find my games unfolding the same way - become the only empire on my continent and then settle others & make war when i discover magnetism

If you are finding your "games unfolding the same way" then
change the way you play your games!

BTW, I am trying to do that myself. I've never had an ancient offensive war and I'd like to try it out. Gotta finish my current game first, though.

JB

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Strollen

Interesting you bringing up prisoners. A few weeks ago I attended an inspirational speech by Jerry Coffee. A friend and fellow POW (for 7 years) of John McCain. I believe this man would fit your criteria right?. In his speech he talked about how initially he was feeling so sorry for himself "why me", "when will I get out" etc. But after a while though faith in himself, his fellow prisoners, his country and God, he thought he gained from the experience. (In fact, he got credit for 2 years of French at Berkeley after his release that he learned from fellow POWs via tapping on the walls in code.)

In fact he was more than satisfied each day when he got a small sliver of fish in his soup, or he wasn't tortured, he was actually happy. Since, he expected to be tortured most days and the only protein he expected to see in his food was maggots. So you see lower expectations worked for Jerry.

In the game I gain satisfaction when the AI does something clever (which happens pretty frequently) or when one of my strategies works out. Given Sid's name is on the box, I'll admit I expected the humor, and just fun elements that are present in a game like SimGolf but sadly absent in Civ3.

I find that comparison hilarious and oddly unsettling at the same time

[Zoid]

Just a question. How many are actually still playing the game, but flame the hell out of it anyway? I know I do (occasionally)

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
You´re that easily provoked cyclo? jt has a point, Firaxis IS cashing in on Sid´s rep. They know darn well that if there´s SID MEIER in bold letters on the box the game will sell. Sid´s name in itself is a guarantee for quality (or so people think...)
...

As long as Sid's games are quality games, I see nothing wrong with utilizing his reputation. Without business profits, there would not be (too many items to mention).

OTOH, I have no intention of trying to be a golf course manager!

JB

[Fitz]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Heck, it worked. Lowest common denominator. Inclusive. Lot like the democratic party.

From a marketing standpoint dumbing down products makes sense, at least over the short term.

Right now Firaxis is all about cashing in on Sid's rep. That will work for a few more years.

Despite the fact that this is one of the more arrogant posts I've seen you make, I agree with everything you said. Although in the case of the DNC I don't think it's such a bad thing.

And Cyc, I had wondered before if you needed to be included in the rabids catagory with AC and Coracle, and to me you've proved you have. OR at least that you fall into the incredibly easily baited catagory.

Dominae (and others), I pretty much think that you've got the one problem (for many 'Poly members) of CivIII down, which is the replayability issue. In my case, it stems directly from the dumbing down for mass market appeal, as I prefer a very complex set of options, which is why I loved and still love SMAC. Others may find it easier that I to find that replayability without it, but unfortunately I find it hard to vary tactics with a limited set of units and governments. I think the primary reason is that limitation tend to make a few tactics stand out far ahead of the others.

And, like in SMAC, there is a limit to the self imposed challenges you can give yourself (let's see here, Deity with Raging barbarians, but should I do islands or pangea?) which fortunately I haven't reached yet.

So my point of view basically boils down to good, but not fantastic.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Jaybe

As long as Sid's games are quality games, I see nothing wrong with utilizing his reputation. Without business profits, there would not be (too many items to mention).

My point is that Civ3 isn´t a quality game. And I think that Firaxis realized this, but relied on Sid´s good name to flog a half-assed game.

OTOH, I have no intention of trying to be a golf course manager!

JB

[Kc7mxo]

My point is that Civ3 isn´t a quality game. And I think that Firaxis realized this, but relied on Sid´s good name to flog a half-assed game.

I absolutley disagree. Civ3 is a quality product. The fact that many of us dislike (myself included), nay despise certain aspects of that product do not negate the fact that it is a quality product.


Perhaps I am mistaken, but what parts do you consider to be of lesser quality?

The parts that I myself dislike are design choices, not problems of quality. I have not experienced any bugs of inordinate magintude, and while I have found their combat engine to be frustratingly grotesque at times, it does not mean the game is of low quality.

And before you complain about the lack of multiplayer, consider that such aspect of the game is one that will be used by VERY few of the people who bought the game. and I have zero interest in it. I find that the game model simply does not support multiplayer as an entertaining (for me) method of play.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


I absolutley disagree. Civ3 is a quality product. The fact that many of us dislike (myself included), nay despise certain aspects of that product do not negate the fact that it is a quality product.


Perhaps I am mistaken, but what parts do you consider to be of lesser quality?

The parts that I myself dislike are design choices, not problems of quality. I have not experienced any bugs of inordinate magintude, and while I have found their combat engine to be frustratingly grotesque at times, it does not mean the game is of low quality.

And before you complain about the lack of multiplayer, consider that such aspect of the game is one that will be used by VERY few of the people who bought the game. and I have zero interest in it. I find that the game model simply does not support multiplayer as an entertaining (for me) method of play.

It MAY be a "quality" product NOW - but it sure wasn't six months ago when this beta game was sold to me for fifty bucks, along with that useless Strategy Guide written by a Firaxis flack. It was a piece of crap in November; now it is just flawed in many basic concepts. . . including fun.

The lack of Scenarios or Cheat Mode - so beloved and basic to Civ 2 - I consider a rip-off, especially as they never told us it wasn't there on the box.

[Kc7mxo]

It MAY be a "quality" product NOW - but it sure wasn't six months ago when this beta game was sold to me for fifty bucks, along with that useless Strategy Guide written by a Firaxis flack. It was a piece of crap in November; now it is just flawed in many basic concepts. . . including fun.

The lack of Scenarios or Cheat Mode - so beloved and basic to Civ 2 - I consider a rip-off, especially as they never told us it wasn't there on the box.

well, both of those are design decisions, and are not reflective on its quality. and the strategy guide isn't beind discussed.

you still haven't mentioned anything to support your claim of lack of quality.

[KrazyHorse]

Civ 3's not that bad. Having trouble getting as engaged as I did in Civ2, though.

[nmcul]

I can't take it anymore! My Civ 3 forum site tanked, (right before I would have gotten promoted, of course) so I'm (sort of) new to this site.

I really can't understand how some of the others here can tolerate what Infogrames has done. I may not agree with jimmy trick on politics, but we have the same opinion that Civ 3 is no more than an ordinary game that's been surgically attached to a series of excellent games. Civ 3 is a good, mabye even great game; this, unfortunately, isn't enough to live up to the name of Civilization.

How does Civ 3 fail? Let us count the ways:
1) Firepower. Sure, mabye it helps players with no resources, but it's simply ridiculous to have guys with swords beat out machine gun-toting mech infantry. Besides,
2) resource distribution should be more sane anyway. I think that it says IN THE CIVILOPEDIA that over 5% of Earth's crust is iron... I've yet to see a map with 5% of the squares containing iron deposits.
3) Supersimplifying the game. It attracts a few more followers, but chances are that if Civ 3 is your first Civ game, you didn't buy it because it's simple. And the notion that Infogrames is suggesting... "We figure that our customers are too stupid to understand a complex game "
4) Features murdered for no reason. A lot to list, but spies is mabye the most significant. Why are spies gone? "I couldn't defend against them." Good for you. It takes 2 units on a square to spy-proof it, and we know how hard THAT is. Bribing barbarians was always useful against other barbs.
5) Wonder Movies. Column 203 should explain it all. So they didn't want to distract me from the current MUSIC?! I loved those things! I still catch myself whistling the tune from "Magellen's Expedition" when my caravel sets off to explore the world, althouh that's usually pointless because
6) the random maps are so bland. There are almost never any midsea islands. An Australia or even a Hawaii equiv. is practically never present. And what's the deal with rivers and huge jungles.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by nmcul
ICiv 3 is a good, mabye even great game; this, unfortunately, isn't enough to live up to the name of Civilization.

How does Civ 3 fail?

I'm so confused. For $50 Firaxis makes a "good, maybe even great game," and it still fails somehow.