Announcement

**tniem** · July 20, 2002, 22:13

So Markos, you are going to be desperate for articles, yet you will not accept any more that complain about Civ III? What is left?

**MarkG** · July 20, 2002, 22:18

Bush

**Jaybe** · July 20, 2002, 22:20

MarkG,
I am SO glad that these are the last articles of their kind. I put them into the same class as all the other articles which I didn't care for (all of them, as I recall). They seem to have done nothing but *****, *****, *****.

I LIKE the abstraction that resources portray. Saltpeter represents the capability to make gunpowder, whether or not IRL gunpowder comes from a mineral in the ground call saltpeter.

The vast majority of the time, if I get a start in a so-so location, then it is just a challenge to get to the point of overtaking the AI. I may start over, but I play dozens of hours first. A game of mine may last hundreds of hours. I like to play Regent, and I am a builder/warrior combo.

Basic things I haven't liked about the game include the Starship coming too early (I made it Robotics dependent in 1.29) and lack of different bomber types. Tech trading among the AI is something I just have to deal with

BTW, I have had a tank repulsed (though not destroyed) by a spearman defending in a town.

(Sorry, but I am not much of a writer - get Vel!)

**Wise Ass** · July 20, 2002, 23:33

I really liked the Artical compareing it to CTP id made some really good points.

**Switch** · July 21, 2002, 00:02

Originally posted by Jaybe
MarkG,
I am SO glad that these are the last articles of their kind. I put them into the same class as all the other articles which I didn't care for (all of them, as I recall). They seem to have done nothing but *****, *****, *****.

[

]My sentiments EXACTLY! Finally, we'll get some more original articles more often. Why do people complain about a game? Why not just do something else and let people who like it play and chat about it without their incescant ranting?

Frankly, all I hear when reading these negative rants is
"Don't pick it up, pick it up, pick i -
"Don't pick it up, pick it up, pick i -
"Don't pick it up, pick it up, pick i - "
(That's for all of you Douglas Adams fans out there

)

The positive comment is for the second ranter, who actually complained about something relatively original, starting positions. But that's about it, really.

I guess I should shut up myself now, before I start digging myself a hole

[/

]

**AAGamer** · July 21, 2002, 00:10

I have to admit I agree with a number of things in the article by Dirk Zelwis about 10 reasons not to buy Civ3... I enjoy a number of things about the game--they are few. Probably the best thing to come out of a game with problems are all the individuals that step up and make programs to expand upon the games limitiations.. Between here and Civfanatics I have found many a reason to keep trying to play civ 3 only because of their efforts to improve, modify and limit the boredom.. I too own CTP and didnt play it for long due to its limits from Civ2 and returned to Civ2 only because of its scenarios.. Civ3 still in incapable of creating effective historical scenarios... I could probably create 10 more reasons not to buy but I will leave that up to someone elses artilce.... Thanks for speaking up!!!

**NeoStar** · July 21, 2002, 01:36

I've noticed how people who dislike Civ3 always refer to previous versions of the game. They should remember not to forget that Civ and Civ2 never had so much expectation placed upon them.

I loved Civ2, but if Civ3 had been nothing but an updated incarnation of that I would have been disappointed. Civ3 shares the legacy, but its another individual game by itself so if you judge it by its own merits I reckon Civ3's a fun game.

**Nubclear** · July 21, 2002, 02:57

Re: c#211 CIV3: THE LAST GLASS OF WINE

Originally posted by MarkG
2 articles this time, the last of their kind....

Begin

Mark, why did you post them again in the first place? This has been argued over and over again and frankly, it's getting so ******* old (pardon my language).

I mean, I come online and the columns, their just filled with "Civ3 Sucks, Civ3 Sucks, Civ3 Sucks" and it's so annoying. I mean......its frustrating.

So, on your word of honor, promise us that these are the LAST articles of this kind. No surpises, no loopholes......And please, no more anti-civ3 articles.

End

**Bleyn** · July 21, 2002, 04:35

Comments on GM's column

First, it tends to worry me when someone places CTP1/2 in the direct Civ lineage, considering that neither Sid nor Microprose ever had any direct control over them, and CTP2 didn't even have the Civ moniker. I'm not surprised that Firaxis effectively ignored them.

Second, lets try not to distort the facts too much shall we? According to all the comments from Firaxians I've read, fundementalism was gone well before 9/11. And I doubt PCness had anything to do with its disappearance personally. And for the record, I consider the government modeling in Civ3 successful. I never bothered with Communism or Fundie in Civ2, going straight to Democracy as quickly as possible and staying there. In Civ3, I've started using all of the governments at different stages of the game and will switch between govs in the late game depending on my war status. I just can't see how they could stick Fundie into that mix and have it be useful.

On the subject of the resource system, I personally like it. To me it does make the game more challenging. Its not all just about racing through the tech tree as quickly as possible, or having the most effective system for tiling your cities and terraforming the land into exactly the form you want. You have to think ahead, and position cities in opportune locations, and hope they pay off. It makes the game more of a gamble, because even after you can see where everything is, things can still change. And yes, I can think of some nitpicks with the resource system, but to be honest, they are minor, and I understand why they did it how they did.

As for combat, I'm not surprised that they only did minor changes. Its not like they made major changes with Civ2 either. It works, its familiar and to be honest, after hanging around here, I personally suspect that there would have been more whining on this forum if the combat system had been completely reworked than has occurred with the revisions they did do. You can't please everyone and trying to do so would probably end up with the biggest disaster of them all.

**Aeson** · July 21, 2002, 05:45

I should pay more attention to the threads at the top. The numbers make so much more sense now.

**Harovan** · July 21, 2002, 06:02

Re: Re: c#211 CIV3: THE LAST GLASS OF WINE

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I mean, I come online and the columns, their just filled with "Civ3 Sucks, Civ3 Sucks, Civ3 Sucks" and it's so annoying. I mean......its frustrating.

Good god, who reads these columns? They are 99.9% utter nonsense. See the gibberish of that second guy.

**MarkG** · July 21, 2002, 06:57

why did you post them again in the first place?

they were sent before we made the announcement that we wont be posting any more articles like this. i felt they should be posted

**player1** · July 21, 2002, 07:33

These articles look like some sort of Civ3 bashing.

Talking only about bad sides of Civ3, about good sides of other games, and sometimes even complaining about things that are OK for most people.

There were much better articles which criticized Civ3 in past.

These are just not good.

**SpencerH** · July 21, 2002, 08:28

Markos, AFAIK its your website and you're free to choose what to publish. Where does this type of "broad stroke" censorship end though? The comments are negative towards CIV3 therefore its whining? Is there no place now for legitimate dissent with the majority opinion? Whats next, no firaxis-bashing in the threads? Will we be banned for the "no comment" comments and have to burn the (your) T-shirts?

Perhaps you need to clarify your position?