Tweet
First of all, Mark, please feel free to close this thread and help it die if it gets filled with spam or turns into a stupid flame war.
In the interview thread, I inadvertantly let myself get sidetracked, and rather than take the whole thread of it's intended purpose, I thought I'd start a new thread in case anyone (especially Mark) wanted to further comment or discuss (ie argue) my point. I will state my opinion, my arguments, and rebutt some of the most common counter arguments.
The opinion I posed: CivIII is not a quality product, and Firaxis/Infrogames should be ashamed of what they produced, or at least stop trumpeting it as a fantastic product.
Note that I am not saying that I was ripped off by Firaxis. I am saying that CivIII is not a great game, it is a mediocre game.
Arguments supporting my opinion (probably the normal):
1) It was a "step-backwards", to steal a phrase of a column writer, from the direction that Alpha Centauri, and apparently Civ I and II from what I have heard/read, was going. The system was simplified, units and techs were removed, fantastic concepts ruled out completely.
2) Replayability is an issue for many, including myself. I personally played Alpha Centauri for years, including at least a year of playing 10 hours a week. I play CivIII about 1-2 hours a week on average, although that tends to be 2-4 hours every two weeks.
3) Many veteran Civ and Alpha Centauri players were severely dissapointed. The reason seems to be primarily 1 & 2 of course, so this point is merely a supporting point, not a point in itself. I take it as a pretty good indication of the failure of CivIII to live up to its potential though. Ask Vel or OO (known to me through AC) what there opinions are of CivIII, or better yet ask them how much they play it or if they even still play it, and you will start to get my point here. It's also kind of hard to deny that most of the articles here at Apolyton have been negative comments about CivIII (which proves to me that Mark isn't too biased
)
Arguments against my point (and rebuttals):
1) CivIII has less bugs now than SMAC/X or CivII did, and they patched the few that were game breakers.
1r) I agree, which is the primary reason I play CivIII. Can't deny this one, and their support has gone well so far. This may mean that they can stop supporting the game (like they did SMAC/X) and it will still be very playable.
2) CivIII has sold millions of copies.
2r) You find out about the quality of a product after you buy it. In addition to this, most high selling products are very low quality, designed to be bought, played for a while, then be tossed away when no longer interesting. Does this sound like a quality product to you? Apparently game reviewers are stupid enough to think yes, which is why such games can get high reviews (and continue to sell), despite low quality. Examples include CivIII, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, Duke Nukem, Half-life. Note that every one of those except CivIII is realtime, and that the primary aspect of the game is multi-player.
3) The graphics were improved.
3r) Are you going to be bought off by a graphics designer? And how does this balance out the lower design quality elsewhere?
4) The AI was improved.
4r) This is debatable. First, the AI does not do well in the later game. Second, this comment begs the question was the AI improved or the game dumbed down to the point where it seemed improved?
5) Firaxis was forced to an early release by Infogrames, and has done a wonderful job patching the flaws this caused.
5r) How does an early release in any way indicate a quality product? Even if the bugs are later patched, there are bound to have been dozens or more design improvements left out.
6) Firaxia/Infogrames had to consider mass market appeal to stay in business.
6r) Which certainly explains why the game is dumbed down. This argument is, like #5, an explanation for why CivIII is a failure, not an argument that it is not.
7) If you don't like CivIII why don't you go play something else and get the hell out of this forumn?
7r) Several points here. I don't hate CivIII, I just think it's quality leaves much to be desired, especially considering what it could have been! I prefer playing it SMAC/X currently because I finally got tired of that game, and I wanted to play a game that I will only play a couple of hours a week. With SMAC/X, I can't stop (1 more turn syndrome). CivIII is a passable game, and it doesn't demand commitment. Furthermore, while I am playing it, I would like to discuss certain issues and aspects of the game with other players.
My basic point, overall, is that CivIII severly failed to live up to it's potential, Firaxis sold out quality to mass market appeal (and incidentally sales), and that just because I believe this doesn't mean that I can't play the game, like certain aspects of it, and (hopefully) get along with most of the posters on this forumn.
I'm not a generally a huge whiner. But I know when I see a sell out, and I get very annoyed by those who trumped CivIII as a fantastic game, the pinacle of it's kind, and refuse to accept a different point of view. If you are going to be blind (from my point of view of course) to this, that's your perogative, but please stop belittling those who see it in it's full. Feel free to argue your side, but flaming or complaining about whiners makes you look like a lesser man in many cases.
In the interview thread, I inadvertantly let myself get sidetracked, and rather than take the whole thread of it's intended purpose, I thought I'd start a new thread in case anyone (especially Mark) wanted to further comment or discuss (ie argue) my point. I will state my opinion, my arguments, and rebutt some of the most common counter arguments.
The opinion I posed: CivIII is not a quality product, and Firaxis/Infrogames should be ashamed of what they produced, or at least stop trumpeting it as a fantastic product.
Note that I am not saying that I was ripped off by Firaxis. I am saying that CivIII is not a great game, it is a mediocre game.
Arguments supporting my opinion (probably the normal):
1) It was a "step-backwards", to steal a phrase of a column writer, from the direction that Alpha Centauri, and apparently Civ I and II from what I have heard/read, was going. The system was simplified, units and techs were removed, fantastic concepts ruled out completely.
2) Replayability is an issue for many, including myself. I personally played Alpha Centauri for years, including at least a year of playing 10 hours a week. I play CivIII about 1-2 hours a week on average, although that tends to be 2-4 hours every two weeks.
3) Many veteran Civ and Alpha Centauri players were severely dissapointed. The reason seems to be primarily 1 & 2 of course, so this point is merely a supporting point, not a point in itself. I take it as a pretty good indication of the failure of CivIII to live up to its potential though. Ask Vel or OO (known to me through AC) what there opinions are of CivIII, or better yet ask them how much they play it or if they even still play it, and you will start to get my point here. It's also kind of hard to deny that most of the articles here at Apolyton have been negative comments about CivIII (which proves to me that Mark isn't too biased
)Arguments against my point (and rebuttals):
1) CivIII has less bugs now than SMAC/X or CivII did, and they patched the few that were game breakers.
1r) I agree, which is the primary reason I play CivIII. Can't deny this one, and their support has gone well so far. This may mean that they can stop supporting the game (like they did SMAC/X) and it will still be very playable.
2) CivIII has sold millions of copies.
2r) You find out about the quality of a product after you buy it. In addition to this, most high selling products are very low quality, designed to be bought, played for a while, then be tossed away when no longer interesting. Does this sound like a quality product to you? Apparently game reviewers are stupid enough to think yes, which is why such games can get high reviews (and continue to sell), despite low quality. Examples include CivIII, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft, Duke Nukem, Half-life. Note that every one of those except CivIII is realtime, and that the primary aspect of the game is multi-player.
3) The graphics were improved.
3r) Are you going to be bought off by a graphics designer? And how does this balance out the lower design quality elsewhere?
4) The AI was improved.
4r) This is debatable. First, the AI does not do well in the later game. Second, this comment begs the question was the AI improved or the game dumbed down to the point where it seemed improved?
5) Firaxis was forced to an early release by Infogrames, and has done a wonderful job patching the flaws this caused.
5r) How does an early release in any way indicate a quality product? Even if the bugs are later patched, there are bound to have been dozens or more design improvements left out.
6) Firaxia/Infogrames had to consider mass market appeal to stay in business.
6r) Which certainly explains why the game is dumbed down. This argument is, like #5, an explanation for why CivIII is a failure, not an argument that it is not.
7) If you don't like CivIII why don't you go play something else and get the hell out of this forumn?
7r) Several points here. I don't hate CivIII, I just think it's quality leaves much to be desired, especially considering what it could have been! I prefer playing it SMAC/X currently because I finally got tired of that game, and I wanted to play a game that I will only play a couple of hours a week. With SMAC/X, I can't stop (1 more turn syndrome). CivIII is a passable game, and it doesn't demand commitment. Furthermore, while I am playing it, I would like to discuss certain issues and aspects of the game with other players.
My basic point, overall, is that CivIII severly failed to live up to it's potential, Firaxis sold out quality to mass market appeal (and incidentally sales), and that just because I believe this doesn't mean that I can't play the game, like certain aspects of it, and (hopefully) get along with most of the posters on this forumn.
I'm not a generally a huge whiner. But I know when I see a sell out, and I get very annoyed by those who trumped CivIII as a fantastic game, the pinacle of it's kind, and refuse to accept a different point of view. If you are going to be blind (from my point of view of course) to this, that's your perogative, but please stop belittling those who see it in it's full. Feel free to argue your side, but flaming or complaining about whiners makes you look like a lesser man in many cases.
) had hoped it might be. It really doesn't suck, and I can kind of see how it could bring new blood into the fold, but for you and for me, who doubtless have fond memories of holding Moscow, Kiev, and three or four other Russian towns hostage with nukes while extorting huge sums of cash from Uncle Joe in Civ1, there's something more that we need.
But seriously, I do feel the one more turn syndrome with Civ3, no doubt.
Comment