Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

[Travathian]

Since I dont know how to set up a poll, I'll just post a message and ask this . . .

Does Civ 3 offer as much of an emotional aspect as SMAC?

Let me explain. Sister Miriam of the Believers is a... No matter how many games I played I always tried to kick her a$$ cause she would always, ALWAYS come after me. And Morgan, that thieving bastard, always had enough money to just steal my armies from me.

See, I dont feel that way about Ceasar or Bismark. I dislike them because they are my opponents, but I dont intensely hate them with every fiber of my being like I do Miriam.

That's what I mean by emotional aspect. The way the games draws you into its world and forces you to evoke emotion, not just because you lost a particular city, but becauce of who did it!

For me the answer is simple. All my opponents in Civ3 could be named AI#1-7, and I'd never be able to tell them apart. Or feel any differently about individual ones.

What do you think?

Added by Ming... I think you should check your PM's...

[Artifex]

I loved that game,,, but I played it too much, got too good at it, beat it all the time, and then finally got burnt out and quit after it finally got too boring.

It's been 3 years since I played it. I kinda forgot alot about it. I do remember Miriam was a byatch...I liked playing as morgan.

I loved designing my own units ALOT.

I am curious if there has ever been an SMAC vs CIV III Thread? Which one of these games is acknowledged as being the best/ is most popular, has the biggest following? I have always wondered that.

[Artifex]

oh as far as emotional aspect..yes civ 3 does..when I am attacking a fortified pikeman with 10 cavalry and it kills all 10 of them I cuss out loud at my computer screen..hehe. I have real bad luck in combat it seems.....

Then gettign great leaders make smy day...on the extreme opposite end of th espectrum.

As far as leaders? Hmm...I view them as pawns and thier people as slaves to help promote my empire. Xerxes can be tough if you let him get alot of immortals...

[Nubclear]

No, other than when I lose a battle unfairly.

To me, it almost seems like enteracting with one entity. I know I was doing the same thing with SMAC, but with SMAC its different. I didn't feel as if I were interacting with just one computer.

But civ3 is still fun, even if it doesnt evoke the emotional response.

[Demerzel]

civ3 certainly brings out the emotion in me, mostly negative as I've said before when battle after battle goes wrong or another WoW is built a turn before I complete it.

that said the leaders are a bit too cut & paste really to get emotional about individual ones, they all act the same far too much, mainly attempting to try to rip you off in the same way. a pity that firaxis didn't have it so peaceful leaders would avoid war at all cost and actively intervene in conflicts attempting to mediate ceasefires ( which I liked in Civ2 ).

SMAC: I liked the designing of my units too, shame they had to junk that - I came up with some natty units indeed. Santiago of the Spartans annoyed me most as I was often the University and she would cosy up to get most of my techs as an ally then backstab later in the game when she had what she wanted.

The thing that I miss most about SMAC were the planetary busters. I loved building a few of those babies and then using them to take out an entire empire at once and turn their lands into sea. that was quality, the nukes in Civ3 suck so much in comparison ( in game terms & in amount of fun to use ) - raising the sea level too to inundate the enemy was often fun too

The planetary council was well done imho. The interaction was reasonably basic but was a nice addition indeed for game purposes. The UN in Civ3 really does suck ( I always disable diplomatic win 'cos it is so badly done ). It looks like they spent all of five minutes on it ( if indeed that much ) - anyone feel that this was one of the corners they cut to get it out when they did? Going from SMAC's council to Civ3's UN is a comically retrogradive step.

[Jethro83]

Re: Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

Yes it does.

While not to the extent that Yang and Miriam do in SMAC, Xerxes and Shaka send me and my empire into a fanatical rage and I always end up in a mad rush to wipe them out.

Of course, the ridiculously random results that tend to be more in the AI's favour can invoke anger. Even when I have 20 other knights in a stack and will easily take the city eventually, losing one means that the moment my forces are stretched too thin will be drawing closer. And I also tend to think "Why didn't you retreat you fools?!" when they do no damage whatsoever to the defenders, and they don't retreat when downed to 1HP.

Being beaten by two turns to a wonder is another anger-invoking thing to happen.


However, the best emotion Civ III can invoke is the feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment from winning a conquest or space race victory, and seeing my position in first place in all demographics.

[Coracle]

Re: Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

Let's see. Anger, irritation, frustration, resentment, disappointment.

Actually, because of the way the AI cheats and how its civs all work together against the human it evokes less emotion in that sense as did Civ 2. I just don't see the individual civs as separate entities, but as part of the AI whole, if you know what I mean.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Coracle
Actually, because of the way the AI cheats and how its civs all work together against the human it evokes less emotion in that sense as did Civ 2. I just don't see the individual civs as separate entities, but as part of the AI whole, if you know what I mean.

Again, I agree with Coracle. ( ) It just seems like talking with one big huge entity. My enemies are out to get me, my allies are out to get me....the have no individualness.

But Civ2 NEVER got the slightest reaction from me. I'm sorry but...it's just as bad as civ3 if not worse. SMAC is champion. I hate Miriam with a passion, and the Hive are surprisingly loyal allies to me in most of my games.

[Menkerios]

I noticed, too, that the AI doesnt have much personality. Plus, they do things which are damn near inexplicable-- getting annoyed at me for no reason, even furious, without any major diplomatic faux pas on my part.
I dislike cleopatra immensly. Even when I'm ruling the world, she's still mad salty to me. Only one I get on well with is france, but it could be a fluke.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by Coracle
Re: Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

Actually, because of the way the AI cheats and how its civs all work together against the human it evokes less emotion in that sense as did Civ 2. I just don't see the individual civs as separate entities, but as part of the AI whole, if you know what I mean.

We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

I agree that the AI Civs should stop acting like "all for one and one for all" and start acting like "every man for himself". It makes absolutely no sense for one Civ to sacrifice itself in a war with the human so that the other Civs can get ahead. It makes MORE sense if the three or four strongest AI Civs ally against the human and pound him all together.

[jdd2007]

yes. sweat drips down my neck while negotiating with countries that might hace ICBMs, or pumping my fist (tiger-style) after i capture tokyo.

[Thrawn05]

I never played SMAC, but I must say there are times I want to take the computer and throw it out!

Damn you mounted warriors!

[buiz]

Oh, emotion. Throwing half full coffee mugs with cigaret butts at friends at Red Alert sessions during link parties when the god damn tank-rusher-friend-of-yours wipe out your carefully constructed defensive base with 95 tanks or when your harvester on an acird trip tries to stroll through your enemy's camp because the #)%"#)¤/&"# path finding function in RA sucked. When the small hairs on your neck rise in Diablo when you are half dead and have no mana left and you are surrounded by hairy nasty monsters.

That's when emotions run high and coffee gets spilled out into keyboards. Common to these things, however, is the athmosphere. Can't beat an overcrowded room with 5 of your best buddies on a 20hrs straigth caffeine and nicotine fueld link marathon. Can't beat that chilling music of Diablo that just spells evilness and slimy dungeons.

Got carried away there, but my point is that Civ3 (for the moment) has none of this. The game is in my opinion in many ways the pinnacle of PC games and will remain so for many years, however, WHY OH WHY does the music suck so bad? If I'd run a poll I would bet that at least 95% of all players listen 5 secs during the first game, then turns the music off and get that 30GB mp3 collection of theirs running in the background. The music is so bad that it gives me a nose bleed. And WHY OH WHY did they have to save that multiplayer facility for the expansion pack? I would rather have waited for another year and paid double for a complete game from the beginning.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by buiz
The music is so bad that it gives me a nose bleed.

Agreed! I hate the music. And hatred is an emotion, so...

[Inverse Icarus]

Unit workshop
Social Engineering

Civ3 has niether

if we're supposed to "recreate history", why are we confined to history's governments?