I've finally played Civ3 to death

[woody]

After owning Civ3 for more than a year, and playing it many, many, many, many, many times, I can honestly say I've played the game to death.

I have always been a big supporter of Civ3, but after reading all the horror stories about bugs in the new release, I don't think I'll ever be buying it. Firaxis really has to learn how to release playable games on the 1st release. Minor bugs I can accept, but their 1st releases are always unplayable.

Apart from that, I really don't think the new release is worth it. I have no desire to play a Civ-like game as multiplayer (way to long!), and the other things added in the new release seem like a simple patch.

That said, the original Civ3 (after the bugs were fixed) was certainly money well spent.

I've now bought a Playstation 2 for other games. PC's are great for strategy, but action games are too awkward to play with a mouse and keyboard. (Although 1st person shooters benefit greatly from a mouse.)

I'll likely delete Civ3 from my hard drive. Perhaps I'll come back to it next year. I played Civ1 and Civ2 on and off for years, and Civ3 will probably be no different.

If I ever buy another Firaxis game, I'll never preorder it. I'll wait 3-6 months until they get most of the bugs worked out.

I don't want to sound like a troll, but why is it that console (Playstation, etc.) games work right out of the box, while PC games often are full of bugs? I'm not talking about hardware compatibility bugs, I'm talking about basic game-play bugs (like fighters not working in the 1st release of Civ3)!

[ChaotikVisions]

Er, if you were going to buy PtW solely for internet mp i'd wait and make sure patches come out. If you were getting it just for sp or even for sp too, i'd buy it. The sp of PtW as far as i've seen is without bugs and working great. AIs been tweaked, the new civs/units/improvements are nice as well. Its not just a "simple" patch, makes the game even more enjoyable for me. Anyway, its your money. Oh, and thanks for keeping us up to date on your gaming purchases.

[player1]

The thing with PtW is that it's probably not good enough for casual gamer who doesn't play MP.

For hard-core fan SP improvements are enough.

For casual player who likes MP, PtW would be OK too, if patched.


For me, just ability to play Hotseat is worth of full price.

[aahz_capone]

SMAC was a firaxis game and it was hella well rounded. I don't remember it being this much trouble on the boards at all. It still is better rounded than civ3SP IMHO, but hey, it has the age of experience. I unfortunately never played SMAC on MP (sci-fi civ fans are fewer the oother civ fans so it's hard to find good people and I only just got a network) so I never had a chance to compare that to civ3MP. Oh, well...

[vmxa1]

No Brian Reynolds.

[H Tower]

don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, AKA, come post in the OTF

[werdhertz]

i hope you burn to death in your house with a fire caused by the ps2

[werdhertz]

and then i hope you come back here and continue to contribute to the civ3 strategy forum!

[Jon Shafer]

Re: I've finally played Civ3 to death

Originally posted by woody
I don't want to sound like a troll, but why is it that console (Playstation, etc.) games work right out of the box, while PC games often are full of bugs? I'm not talking about hardware compatibility bugs, I'm talking about basic game-play bugs (like fighters not working in the 1st release of Civ3)!

Publishers are more tolerant to release dates with video games, because they know there will be no patches. With any computer game, you can easily release a patch and numerous problems can be fixed with a simple download. If a video game has major problems, that's how it's gonna be from first disc to last.

However, very rarely do games ever have the problems that Civ 3 had (has). Like vxma said, Brian Reynolds leaving Firaxis and going off on his own (RoN anyone?) really hurt the development process of Civ 3, cutting many things out to approach the original release date was necassary. PTW's problems stem from that along with a short amount of time to get the thing working properly, and Infogrames forcing GameSpy upon Firaxis (Infogrames required them to use it).

[woody]

No, I don't think Civ3's initial bugs were due to BR leaving Firaxis. I bought Civ2 when it first came out, and it was unplayable with all the bugs it had. However, BR was very quick about releasing patches... I think there were several within the first couple of weeks.

I think the problem is with the development process Firaxis uses. They just never test basic gameplay! We're stuck having to be their beta-testers.

[Kingof the Apes]

The only game that compares to Civ 3 and PTW when they first came out is Myth 3. At least they are supporting Civ 3 with more patches.

[Demerzel]

It is sadly true that because PC games can be patched, the publishers/developers will often release early before proper testing knowing they can patch if necessary.

Almost wish PC were like consoles and had to rely on the released version. Yes we'd no doubt have to wait longer BUT as we seemingly have delay after delay, what's another month or two after a six month delay? Better another wait and finished, then out early and bugged.

Can't really see people accepting a PS2/XBOX/GC game which crashes whilst running for the first/second/nth time, whereas people will accept that for PC games. Not sure why we tolerate it tbh. Nor why we slate people so who don't tolerate it and speak out against it. Yes of course configurations of PC's are far more diverse than the standard console where you can work to tailor your product. However, a long testing period will remove a heck of a lot of bugs from your product, as I know from working in the games industry.

It just seems to come down to the fact that they know we'll accept "shoddy" workmanship for PC games ( as long as we get patchs ) and so they'll give us it whereas console owners won't and so they don't get it. Maybe a little simplistic in answer but a grain of truth nonetheless I'm sure.

[TheHobbit]

Just a thought...

But don't get all over the PC developers. A lot of it might be their fault, but you have to give them a break. Console developers have one thing to develop for, one specific console with specific hardware and setup. A PC has many many many configurations and tons of possible hardware. While console games only have to fix problems with one type the reliability of code with one PC to another varies greatly.

[redstar1]

True.... but there is the argument that Direct-x and/or OpenGL take a lot of the work away from the developer.....

I would suggest its because PC games tend to be more complex and generally a lot 'bigger'.

Of course there is also the culture of 'what does it matter, we can fix it later' which is impossible on the consoles. A good example of a publisher that treat consumers with respect is Microsoft. Look at the quality of games they release and look at how relatively 'bugless' the games are. I own quite a few titles published by Microsoft and have never had to patch any one of them.

[TacticalGrace]

Wow! Someone saying something good about microsoft!

You're absolutely right though redstar, microsoft games do seem to work out of the box.