It Feels Like Christmas Already!

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by player1


Or if you relese game to early, it dies out like Call to Power games.

Thats my sad negative expirience.
Those games (CTP1 & CTP2) had a lot of potential.
But Activison just wanted to release it to early & without proper patching.

Is Infogames decision right?
I don't know.
If Civ3 is propely patched & palyers still play it then its OK.
But if it ends like CTP, then it isn't.


I just hope that something similar doesn't happend to MOO3.

Excuse me, but aren't we talking about Infogrames here and NOT Activision? If so then why do you continually bring Activision up?

Have you seen some sort of official response from Firaxis where they are refusing to release patch's for Civ3? Have you seen some sort of official response from inforgrames where they deride the gaming community and refuse to support the game?

Until you see either of these issues, then you are basically worrying for no apparent reason. Last I heard there is a good possibility that a patch for Civ3 will be released the end of this week or the next at the latest.

Stop worrying, Infogrames has released one game that I am aware of, Civ3, and I can't say that it's not pretty fun for me. Of course, I wasn't hooked on Civ2 and SMAC as much as I had been on Civ1, so I like the game as is because it forces me to TRY NEW THINGS and not use the same old tired strategies all the time.

[player1]

Yes, I am worring to much.
And yes, I am blaming Infogrames becouse they are RELEASING unfinised project.
And, I am blaming Infogrames becouse they haven't POSTPONED unfinised project.
(ok, Firaxis is also guilty because they were slow)

I guess that expirience with another civ type game (CTP2) and publishers decisions (Activison) have affected me.

I thought that something like that won't happend agian to similar type of game, esspecialy not to game like Civ3.

But, this all looks just to much similar as that what happend to CTP2 (it did had one, but actually pretty useless patch).
I thought that publisher like Infogrames won't publish not-enough finished product. I thought that they would exted deadline for a month.
Now, I was wrong. They released it early.

Also, they are also publishing another sequel of MOO.

So, yes I am worried.

Publishers who are alredy risking a lot by releasing two TBS games in these days, shouldn't release those unfinished. Such things could actually destoy TBS. (could, I am not saying it would)

If MOO3 would have some problems I doubt that Infogrames will extend its deadline for solving those problems.

But, maybe there won't be such problems.

Still, I hope everyting goes alright.
Maybe...


P.S.
Civ3 is not a bad game.
Civ3 is fun game (i like to play it).
Civ3 is good designed, but
Civ3 IS JUST NOT FINISHED.

[Sencho]

Originally posted by player1 And yes, I am blaming Infogrames becouse they are RELEASING unfinised project.
And, I am blaming Infogrames becouse they haven't POSTPONED unfinised project.
(ok, Firaxis is also guilty because they were slow)

Once again, Infogrames distributed Civ3 on schedule. Firaxis couldn't meet that, a date they had for months, if not over a year. Blaming Infogrames is incorrect and not productive, imo.

I guess that expirience with another civ type game (CTP2) and publishers decisions (Activison) have affected me.

I thought that something like that won't happend agian to similar type of game, esspecialy not to game like Civ3.

But, this all looks just to much similar as that what happend to CTP2 (it did had one, but actually pretty useless patch).
I thought that publisher like Infogrames won't publish not-enough finished product. I thought that they would exted deadline for a month.
Now, I was wrong. They released it early.

Mixing apples and oranges. Wait until Firaxis produces a patch and see what caliber it is before comparing it to the post-release support of Activision. Even then, you're comparing completely different companies with different activities.

Also, they are also publishing another sequel of MOO.

So, yes I am worried.

Which is a shame. Civ3 is remarkably bug free. The only crash to desktop I've seen involved me doing some extraordinarily exotic activities. Few games I've played in recent years are that clean. If you don't like how the game plays, then that's your opinion. And Firaxis can't make a product that every single consumer is satisfied with, especially with all the pre-release hype of Civ3.

Publishers who are alredy risking a lot by releasing two TBS games in these days, shouldn't release those unfinished. Such things could actually destoy TBS. (could, I am not saying it would)

You're a real "the glass is half empty" kinda guy. Has it occured to you that Moo3 could also revitalize the TBS genre?

If MOO3 would have some problems I doubt that Infogrames will extend its deadline for solving those problems.

Nor should they. They told Quicksilver when the product is to be done, and like any good boss (teacher, etc.) they expect the product delievered on schedule. The ball is in QS's court.

But, maybe there won't be such problems.

Still, I hope everyting goes alright.
Maybe...

Have some optimism, it's too early for this kind of talk.

P.S.
Civ3 is not a bad game.
Civ3 is fun game (i like to play it).
Civ3 is good designed, but
Civ3 IS JUST NOT FINISHED.

I agree, several parts of Civ3 feel unfinished. Perhaps if Firaxis had spent less time squabbling and more time working on it.

[player1]

Originally posted by Sencho
Which is a shame. Civ3 is remarkably bug free. The only crash to desktop I've seen involved me doing some extraordinarily exotic activities. Few games I've played in recent years are that clean. If you don't like how the game plays, then that's your opinion. And Firaxis can't make a product that every single consumer is satisfied with, especially with all the pre-release hype of Civ3.

Civ3 is relativly bug free. I never said it has many bugs anyway.

But is full of a design-type bugs (ok full is harsh word, but it has some).
Like Air-support bug, or non-testeted units stats (for exp. subs & privateer) & corruption treshold. Like they tested game, but not played it enough (modern era looks unfinished, or not enough played by design team).

One of the things wich is strage is that game was advertisted at first to have 12 scenarios & MP.
It didn't had both.

Just to now, I am blaming Infogrames only for what they did, not for Firaxis faults. As a player I expect to buy finished games. And publishers should keep their reputation by releasing good & finihshed games. That game is theirs, not Firaxis. They have rights on it. Firaxis was just doing what is paid for. It's Infogrames choice to relase it in such condition.


Now, I am worried about something like this:

Lets see, MOO3 is experimental game. It is something completely new.
Games such it, become greatest hits, or greatest failures.
That makes them more vunerable to things like:
-unfinished or rushed parts
-AI errors
-desing unbalances
-or similar things

Now what if something like that happends to MOO3 (I hope not).
Will published give Quicksiler a time to fix that or not?
From such errors can depend public opinion, because the game forms a completly new genre. Infogrames profit also depend of it.

Civ3 is different. It is like a using an old recepe. Its name alone can save it from misfortune (read bad selling).
That's a probably a reason why Infogrames did what it did (but I still think it was wrong decision).


P.S.
What's the point of worring after the game is released anyway.
I worry before anything happens. After is to late anyway.


But, since I like new things. I'll buy MOO3 anyway.
I hope you guys do everything right, so Infogrames won't be "forced" to do things which nobody would like.

I also still play Civ3 regardless of all things I said.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by player1


Civ3 is relativly bug free. I never said it has many bugs anyway.

No? I thought you said the game was shipped unfinished. Which means it was not done and hence, should be full of bugs and/or fatal errors.

But is full of a design-type bugs (ok full is harsh word, but it has some).

There is no such thing as a design "bug". There are design issues that YOU may not like or agree with, but a design cannot have a bug. There can be design flaws or over-sights, but these are not bugs. There is a distinction.

Like Air-support bug, or non-testeted units stats (for exp. subs & privateer) & corruption treshold. Like they tested game, but not played it enough (modern era looks unfinished, or not enough played by design team).

There were some issues that FIraxis knew were broken when the game shipped, unfortunately these happened while trying to fix another bug in the game. Check the patch that should come out this weekend, all of the issues you mention here have been addressed as well as additional items added to the editor so people can "tweak" the game how they want.

One of the things wich is strage is that game was advertisted at first to have 12 scenarios & MP.
It didn't had both.

And both of these issues had ceased to be advertised before the game shipped. Will you still flame MOO3 when it arrives because it doesn't have Ethos and Space monsters, even though they have been told, well before release, that they won't be in the game??

Just to now, I am blaming Infogrames only for what they did, not for Firaxis faults. As a player I expect to buy finished games. And publishers should keep their reputation by releasing good & finihshed games. That game is theirs, not Firaxis. They have rights on it. Firaxis was just doing what is paid for. It's Infogrames choice to relase it in such condition.

Inforgrames shipped the game they were delivered as FINISHED by Firaxis. I'll tell you this, if you're in school or even at work, turn in a piece of work that is not complete to your boss or teacher who has a designated deadline for the product. Whose fault is it that the product was not finished, your boss or teacher? NO, the fault lies with the student, employee or in this case the developer for not delivering a finished product. STOP blaming Infogrames for not doing the job that FIRAXIS was supposed to do!

Oh, and if you'll read some of the official statement that Infogrames put out concerning the recent translation project you'll notice that Firaxis STILL has a legal share of the Civ series and name. Infogrames doesn't OWN the Civ name, at least not totally.

Now, I am worried about something like this:

Lets see, MOO3 is experimental game. It is something completely new.
Games such it, become greatest hits, or greatest failures.
That makes them more vunerable to things like:
-unfinished or rushed parts
-AI errors
-desing unbalances
-or similar things

Now what if something like that happends to MOO3 (I hope not).

Something like QS not finishbing the ame by the time they contractually promised to finish the game? Then I guess we'll all have a buggy, unfinished game to play because in that case QS will HAVE FAILED, NOT Infogrames.

Will published give Quicksiler a time to fix that or not?
From such errors can depend public opinion, because the game forms a completly new genre. Infogrames profit also depend of it.

The question is why should Infogrames give extra time? They had a contract with QS and gave QS money, in good faith that the game would be done. Should Infogrames lose money because QS failed to do as it promised?

NO! TO believe otherwise is to have NO clue as to how business works, period.

Civ3 is different. It is like a using an old recepe. Its name alone can save it from misfortune (read bad selling).
That's a probably a reason why Infogrames did what it did (but I still think it was wrong decision).

And you think the "MOO" name won't help MOO3 at all? Civ3 could be "Empire builder 3" and if it was good it would sell. The question you really have to ask yourself is this:

Did Firaxis bank on the game having the Civ name and thus make the game less revolutionary and less than it could have been? I highly doubt Infogrames told Firaxis how to build the game, they more than likely said "here, build another Civ game by XYZ date" and Firaxis was left to build it how they wanted as long as it was done on time.

From what I have sen thus far, this is pretty much how QS is also doing with MOO3. They do the game how they want, and are given the freedom to add or remove things how they want, just so long as they deliver the game on time.

P.S.
What's the point of worring after the game is released anyway.
I worry before anything happens. After is to late anyway.

Why worry after the game is released? Because just because a game is out doesn't mean the publisher has washed their hands of the product (generally anyway). I'd rather wait and see how the game plays and works AFTER it comes out and then complain or praise because only then you can get an accurate idea of what it's like. Worrying before the game comes out is fruitless because they seemingly major issues you may priase or complain about could end up being a tiny portion of the game, compared to something that make be the best or worst thing ever once you play the game.

But, since I like new things. I'll buy MOO3 anyway.
I hope you guys do everything right, so Infogrames won't be "forced" to do things which nobody would like.

Glad you'll buy MOO3 regardless. Infogrames won't be "forced" to do anything but publish the finished or not finished product QS deliveres as the "gold version". Just remember to buy the game from a place that will take it back if you don't like it so you won't then clog these boards (like many people seem to like to do at Civ3) if the game isn't how YOU specifically want it to be.

I also still play Civ3 regardless of all things I said.

Glad to hear it. Wait till the patch comes out and then tweak the issues of things you don't like.

[Bobi]

I think we all love CIV too much, and are too gentle.
I shivered when I heard that it was Infogrames in question. I still remember Imperium Galactica 2 - a promising game, left alone to die....

CIV3 is keeping me glued for nights, but there is a lot I can say how it should be

First - graphics. Is it any better than CIV1? 11 years distance, and no improvement in terrain!!!! This is unforgivable
In the early ninetees, there were alreadt 3D terrain games - just remember Bullfrogs Populos and Powermonger.
Railroad Tycoon 2 has a beautiful and very interactive 3D map. Firaxis did Alpha Centaury with 3D map - I personally didn't like the ugly-red fungi thing, but still, that terrain was much better than this old and restricted terrain they are using in CIV3.

Tactical combat? None! Also, in the early ninetees, there was a game, on Amiga/Atari ST, which was called Realms, and it had a beautiful tactical screen, where units were represented as 10-20 soldiers of specific type, which could change formation and move around before and after the battle begin - is that a problem to realize today? Fighting is the worst part of CIV3. Apart from the existing bugs, like precision bombing, air supremacy, etc... I'd blame this on Firaxis, definitely. (And where does Sid Meier come in here?)
Animated units, that's the only improvement, but only of the make-up type. Not really adding to the gameplay.

Even with the map, as it is, Firaxis gives us an Editor which is extremely stupid. No zoom in the map creation, no autoscroll????

All problems with the AI, building cities on every goddamn patch of desert, everybody walking all over your territory without permition, etc. can be fixed in patches, but map - no. The idea of Army - this is too complicated. There are many games which allow stacking of units in armies and don't treat this as some special ability. The idea of leader is something else, and should represent the ability to collect more experience and skill. Armies should be normal. I really expected more in this regard.

CIV3 is supposed to be a strategy game with lots of micromanagment and various options, but war-strategy elements are really rudimentary.

I think the problem with this game is that it's concept was somehow rushed, not the final realization, and that is to blame on Firais, not on Infogrames.

b

[korn469]

Ozymandous

i agree with you to an extent on your take of the firaxis/infogrames deal...however i disagree with you on the following points

No? I thought you said the game was shipped unfinished. Which means it was not done and hence, should be full of bugs and/or fatal errors.

that is not true, a game could be perfect and not have a single flaw but just abruptly stop because they didn't add in the last level of the game, or it could have some major feature left out of it, unfinished means it doesn't include something, unpolished is when a game has tons of bugs and/or fatal errors

The question is why should Infogrames give extra time? They had a contract with QS and gave QS money, in good faith that the game would be done. Should Infogrames lose money because QS failed to do as it promised?

NO! TO believe otherwise is to have NO clue as to how business works, period.

it's call brand management, just imagine if you went to your local benz dealer and they were trying to sell you a dodge neon with a Mercedes-Benz hood oriment slapped on it for 50,000 dollars? they wouldn't try to do that, because a neon just isn't a high value car...i feel that many people think that civ is one of the flag ships of strategy gaming, and as such that means Civ3 needs to be a great game (personally i think civ is good just not great) just to live up to the brand, and that anything except for being an embodiment of the highest form of a strategy game is somewhat of a failure

i believe that the Civ name has built a reputation of being a great strategy game, and that everytime something less than great comes out under the Civ(Sid) name that it hurts that reputation and harms future sells, not only does Infogrames have Civ's reputation to protect (since they own the rights to the franchise) they also have their reputation to protect, and they have the ultimate responsibility for all of the games published under their name...if a game turns out bad, then it is Infogrames fault because they should have been keeping tabs on the project and making sure it was both on schedule and of the quality they expected, if not then it is their responsibility to their shareholders to replace that company and find a company who can get the job done...if you do a bad job and your boss doesn't replace you then it is his fault, and his boss should replace both of you

And both of these issues had ceased to be advertised before the game shipped. Will you still flame MOO3 when it arrives because it doesn't have Ethos and Space monsters, even though they have been told, well before release, that they won't be in the game??

your analagy is really bad here...multiplayer and scenarios are standard features of virtually all strategy games, especially TBS games...i mean how many TBS games since Civ:MGE came out that didn't ship with one or the other? civ3 didn't ship with an economic victory, or minor civs (both of which were one time features of the game) and nobody (that i've heard) is complaining about that, advertised or not most people expect scenarios, multiplayer, or both in a stratgey game and when a game doesn't include those they feel cheated

Civ3 could be "Empire builder 3" and if it was good it would sell.

i disagree with you here, Civilization:Call to Power sold about 500,000 copies...CtP2 sold about 40,000...i do realize that there were a number of factors going on here including poor brand management by Activision, but i know that the civilization name had something to do with that also, same thing with SMAC and Civ2, part of the reason SMAC didn't sell as well was because it had Alpha Centauri on the box instead of Civilization...if you had two games of equal quality the one that said "Sid Meier's Civilization X" would sell better than "Abstract Strategy Game of History 1.0"

personally i think that if Infogrames had of delayed Civ3 for three to five months so that it included Scenarios and Multiplayer out of the box (and let the single player simmer for just a little while longer) that the cost they incurred would have more than been made up in with extra copies sold, but that's just my take

i hope that MoO3 is a good game, but the thought of kosmic karma or whatever they call it turns makes me wary, i really hate the idea of being punished for playing well, i will have to hear excellent reviews here before i pick up my copy (no offense sencho)

but by that time the WarCraft three money will probably be on my back

Bobi

tactical combat was left out of Civ on purpose, Sid believed it distratced from the game...it's in the Sid Legacy on gamespot i think

[player1]

Originally posted by korn469
personally i think that if Infogrames had of delayed Civ3 for three to five months so that it included Scenarios and Multiplayer out of the box (and let the single player simmer for just a little while longer) that the cost they incurred would have more than been made up in with extra copies sold, but that's just my take

I think just needed to delay it for a month or month and half to finish editor & most of annoying bugs (thing that probably will be finished in approximately first two patches). It would still be out before Chrismas.

I also don't agree also that they should wait 5 months to give us MP & Scenarios. They don't have that much money for such delay.

[Sencho]

Three things, first, one reason that CTP2 sold poorly is CTP was, imo at least, a poor game. The lawyer units still keep me from giving it another change.

Second. Most of the heady goodness we came to love about Civ came from Brian Reynolds, not Sid. His loss must have hurt Firaxis' design staff massively.

Finally, think of the Mona Lisa. Did the Louvre make it a great painting? Nope, Leonardo did. The Louvre only made it accessible to the public. Same thing with games. The publisher (Louvre) makes the work (the Mona Lisa) available.

[player1]

The only difference in our opinions is in this:
-you think that Infogrames decision is right
-I don't think so

You, because of your opinions can't blame Infogrames, so you can balme only Firaxis (if you want).

I don't think that decision is right. I think that if given proper extra time (one or max two months), game would be actually finihsed properly (although without MP, but its OK), and Infogrames won't lose anything and they'll gain more buyers.

Now giving developer unlimited time isn't good solution, because:
5 months later when they do game completly, Infogrames would lost to much money, and plus it would be forced to release two TBS games in same time, wich would make money loss to them even bigger.

That the prbably the reason why game didn't get delay or extra time to be nicely finished.


P.S.
My opinios still stand. I don't think that Infogrames decision is right.
You think the opposite. The matter is then closed.

Also, poor or unfinished paintings would never be in Louvre.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by korn469
that is not true, a game could be perfect and not have a single flaw but just abruptly stop because they didn't add in the last level of the game, or it could have some major feature left out of it, unfinished means it doesn't include something, unpolished is when a game has tons of bugs and/or fatal errors

Hi korn, glad to see you made it over here as well.

But the fact remains that Civ3 is finished in that it has the features they said they would have at the time of release. It may not have the features they said they had hoped to do 9 months ago, but it does have the features they said it would, namely culture, borders, armies, etc.

To me this means it is essentially finished. Now then, I also differentiate between "finished" and "buggy" because while the game has the concepts in and they work relatively well there are a few bugs which didn't work quite as they should. Having done programming before I also understand that sometimes you miss errors.

it's call brand management, just imagine if you went to your local benz dealer and they were trying to sell you a dodge neon with a Mercedes-Benz hood oriment slapped on it for 50,000 dollars? they wouldn't try to do that, because a neon just isn't a high value car...i feel that many people think that civ is one of the flag ships of strategy gaming, and as such that means Civ3 needs to be a great game (personally i think civ is good just not great) just to live up to the brand, and that anything except for being an embodiment of the highest form of a strategy game is somewhat of a failure

Hmm, so to you think that Civ3 isn't at least as good as Civ2 was when it was first released? I do, in fact I think it's better than Civ2 at initial release.

Now, how they manage the game in the next year with patches and an expected X-pack will see how well they truly want to keep the brand name alive.

TO get a little off-topic have you never seen a company make a bad product, or one that isn't quite up to par? I have. I am sure "new" coke lived up to it's brand name as well..

i believe that the Civ name has built a reputation of being a great strategy game, and that everytime something less than great comes out under the Civ(Sid) name that it hurts that reputation and harms future sells, not only does Infogrames have Civ's reputation to protect (since they own the rights to the franchise) they also have their reputation to protect, and they have the ultimate responsibility for all of the games published under their name...if a game turns out bad, then it is Infogrames fault because they should have been keeping tabs on the project and making sure it was both on schedule and of the quality they expected, if not then it is their responsibility to their shareholders to replace that company and find a company who can get the job done...if you do a bad job and your boss doesn't replace you then it is his fault, and his boss should replace both of you

So... You're saying that Civ3 is bad? Or that it didn't fullfill every single expectation of every single fan by incorporating every single wish that every player has ever had? Is this truly realistic?

Civ3 isn't bad, and (IMHO) it wasn't rushed. If it was "rushed" then who do you blame, Infogrames, who gave Firaxis over a year to make the game, or Firaxis, who had most of the development team working on the game leave 9-12 months ago??

I, myself, would blame Firaxis for the "rushed" feeling people seem to have because Inforgrames gave them plenty of time to make the game. THis being said I don't think Civ3 feels "rushed" but then again I didn't play Civ2 for more than a week because it felt exactly like Civ1 with different graphics, yet other people seem to think Civ2 was the best game ever (I'd rank Civ1 then Civ3 then Civ2 in order of fun factor).

your analagy is really bad here...multiplayer and scenarios are standard features of virtually all strategy games, especially TBS games...i mean how many TBS games since Civ:MGE came out that didn't ship with one or the other? civ3 didn't ship with an economic victory, or minor civs (both of which were one time features of the game) and nobody (that i've heard) is complaining about that, advertised or not most people expect scenarios, multiplayer, or both in a stratgey game and when a game doesn't include those they feel cheated

Sorry but my analogy is very appropriate. Just because most of the cars out today have cruise control or power windows doesn't mean that a new car you buy will have these features unless it SPECIFICALLY says so.

I believe what I read and I never read that Civ3 would have MP or scenarios when I looked at the outside of the box before I bought the game.

If people EXPECT something that isn't promised then who is to blame? The company that didn't mention these features of the people who didn't pay attention to what they were buying? "Let the buyer beware" I believe the saying goes. If you, as a buyer, don't pay attention to what you buy by researching before hand, etc, then you have only YOU to blame for things you *thought* were there but were never mentioned as being contained in the final product.

i disagree with you here, Civilization:Call to Power sold about 500,000 copies...CtP2 sold about 40,000...i do realize that there were a number of factors going on here including poor brand management by Activision, but i know that the civilization name had something to do with that also, same thing with SMAC and Civ2, part of the reason SMAC didn't sell as well was because it had Alpha Centauri on the box instead of Civilization...if you had two games of equal quality the one that said "Sid Meier's Civilization X" would sell better than "Abstract Strategy Game of History 1.0"

True, but then again, if people blindly by anything with a Sid Meyer, SIM or Blizzard logo on it and expect the best they will sometimes be less than happy with the product. I don't seem to remember Diablo2 selling any less even though a lot of Diablo1 players didn't like it. That is because (yes) it did have the Diablo/Blizzard name on it, but also because it was a different type of game than the original.

personally i think that if Infogrames had of delayed Civ3 for three to five months so that it included Scenarios and Multiplayer out of the box (and let the single player simmer for just a little while longer) that the cost they incurred would have more than been made up in with extra copies sold, but that's just my take

You may be right, but they had already been in development for a year, how much more time would they need? Who'd decide how much extra time they got, the marketing folks, the programmers, who? Who's to say they wouldn't have tried to stick more stuff into the game with the extra time that would then STILL not be done when it shipped??

No, the date had to be set by someone and they had to make the best they could in the time frame mentioned, that's simple business.

i hope that MoO3 is a good game, but the thought of kosmic karma or whatever they call it turns makes me wary, i really hate the idea of being punished for playing well, i will have to hear excellent reviews here before i pick up my copy (no offense sencho)

You mean the IFP issue? Or the HFOG? I like the idea that large governments and empires are harder to manage and inefficient because, you know what, that's *very* realistic. Look at the original MOO, where you could move from 95% of your empire's production in science to 95% of it into ship building in a single turn. Was this realistic? Heck no. I like the idea of watching how the decisions I make will unfold over time through-out the entire empire. This will be closest thing any of us will ever get to being Ceasar, Napolean, etc.

but by that time the WarCraft three money will probably be on my back

Heh, seems that people expect Civ3 (and MOO3 as well) to be more RT than TB of strategy which is too bad. I am looking to see how Age of Mythology myself having grown tired of Blizzard and their "3 years in development and the game is still flawed and grossly unbalanced" crap lately.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by player1
P.S.
My opinios still stand. I don't think that Infogrames decision is right.
You think the opposite. The matter is then closed.

Also, poor or unfinished paintings would never be in Louvre.

Fair enough, we agree to disagree.

By the way, I know of a lot of people who think the Mona Lisa isn't much to look at anyway, so I guess we're even on what constitutes good or bad in other people's opinions.

"Opinions are like rectums, everyone has one and they usually stink."

[korn469]

Ozymandous

Hmm, so to you think that Civ3 isn't at least as good as Civ2 was when it was first released? I do, in fact I think it's better than Civ2 at initial release.

civ2 maybe, but i do not think that Civ3 is better than SMAC (relatively speaking) when it first came out, i think that in many ways Civ3 is superior to SMAC, but that in many ways SMAC is superior to Civ3, and that shouldn't be the case, Civ3 should be superior to SMAC, Civ2, and Civ in everyway, even Civ2 has some things on Civ3

So... You're saying that Civ3 is bad? Or that it didn't fullfill every single expectation of every single fan by incorporating every single wish that every player has ever had? Is this truly realistic?

Civ3 isn't bad, and (IMHO) it wasn't rushed. If it was "rushed" then who do you blame, Infogrames, who gave Firaxis over a year to make the game, or Firaxis, who had most of the development team working on the game leave 9-12 months ago??

no i'm not saying that Civ3 is a bad game, its far from it...i have played many bad games and Civ3 isn't one of those, but what i am saying is that Civ3 doesn't surpass Civ2 and SMAC in all ways, that for me is the biggest disappointment with Civ3, it should have trashed those games and it didn't, certainly as a whole it is better than Civ2 and SMAC but it should have built upon their foundations and should have been more fun in each and every way

and you must blame Infogrames, they are the captain of the ship, and ALL responsibility ultimately falls on them, they own the franchise, they paid for the development of the game and it was their responsibility to find a developer who would make a great game and if that developer appeared not to be up to the task, then it was up to them to find a team who could do it

when Brian and crew left that was most of the original civ3 development team, and this should have let Infogrames know that something was very wrong, one of the firaxis people (Soren i think) said they basically had to start over when Brian left...this was a perfect time for Infogrames to set down and reevaluate the development process, if they didn't then Infogrames messed up for not properly managing their subcontractors

If boeing builds a 747 and it crashes because the people who made the wiring did a bad job, boeing would still get the blame, and if they didn't replace that contrator or ensure that it changed its manufactoring processes then just imagine how much trouble they would be in if it happened again

If people EXPECT something that isn't promised then who is to blame? The company that didn't mention these features of the people who didn't pay attention to what they were buying? "Let the buyer beware" I believe the saying goes. If you, as a buyer, don't pay attention to what you buy by researching before hand, etc, then you have only YOU to blame for things you *thought* were there but were never mentioned as being contained in the final product.

i still contend that multiplayer and scenarios are standard features...Civ3 was built on the SMAC engine which included both features, firaxis kept on making vague promisies about Multiplayer, they never officially said that it wouldn't make it into the game, even after civ3 had went into beta in an interview with Sid and Jeff they said that Civ3 would have some undefined yet groundbraking multiplayer, they also made promises about the power of the editor, and only when the box hit stores did we learn that it didn't have those features

and if you look at Civ3's competition, EU2, Empire Earth, MoO3 they all have multiplayer, SMAC, Civ2:MGE, Civnet all had multiplayer, so this is different than little ingame features, Multiplayer is many times more important than ethos, or space monsters, or economic victory, or minor civs, it is in a completely different category

You mean the IFP issue? Or the HFOG? I like the idea that large governments and empires are harder to manage and inefficient because, you know what, that's *very* realistic. Look at the original MOO, where you could move from 95% of your empire's production in science to 95% of it into ship building in a single turn. Was this realistic? Heck no. I like the idea of watching how the decisions I make will unfold over time through-out the entire empire. This will be closest thing any of us will ever get to being Ceasar, Napolean, etc.

HFOG? i'm not sure what this is, but what i was referring to is the way that players in a poor position get a disproportionate number of the good event cards, according to that event text, the entire event system makes me wary, but for the most part the rest of the game sounds amazing, i personally like the idea of IFP with one little cavet, the AI will hopefully not be idiots

actually the idea of IFP is nothing new, if you go back to the Super Nintendo, you will find a sequal called Geghis Khan II (a fundamentally flawed sequal to my all time favorite game, Genghis Khan for the NES) which gave each leader "action points" and every order they could issue had an action point cost associated with it (and as leaders aged they would lose action points), or there was a game for the NES called conflict which was this primitive turn based Nato-Warsaw pact tactical combat TBS...you had two options of play, one was you could move all units and the other option was you could only move three units per turn, so while neither idea is the exact same both are similar enough to IFP as not to scare me away

from the sounds of the event system with its kosmic karma, one player controls 15 star systems, one player controls 4, and one player controls one star system

the player who control the 15 star systems would have a 90% chance of getting a supernova, while the player who controled 4 star systems would have a 10% chance of getting a supernova, and the last player would have a 0% chance of getting a supernova...now i know my exact numbers won't match up with the game

but if you are below the median in terms of power you will get a disproportionate number of good events, while if you are above the median in terms of power then you will get a disproportionate number of bed events

my final thoughts is that Civ3 is a good game, yet it is a subpar Civ game, and while this is certainly a direct result of Brian Reynolds and the others leaving firaxis, Infogrames has to take responsibility for it because they are the ones who commissioned its creation, they funded the project, and they have a financial responsility to their shareholders to produce games which will maximize their profits both long and near term, and releasing games under a certain brand name that devalue that brand runs counter to their interests, however if looking at the extra money and time it would take to include multiplayer and scenarios and the amount of sales increase by adding those features and it turned out it would cost them money, then they made the right call, i'm just another peon playing armchair CEO

[Bobi]

Hi to all



I have no problem accepting someone's decision as an answer, but I do object to rationalization. Tactical combat in CIV may be disputable. But CIV3 has a problem which is typical for this kind of games. CIV1 had it, MOO2 had it - it is: towards the final stage of the game, the game becomes very boring. This is specially true for MOO2 - because the player, instead of enjoying the gameplay, turns into a complete bureaucrat, serving the purpose of the game, instad of the opposite. CIV3 also becomes boring after a while. The most interesting part is certainly the beginning of the game, when one is fighting to lay down strong fundaments for his empire and to survey the map. What to do to eliminate this passive part of gameplay?

If I am not wrong, CIV3 is not meant to be just warfare, there are many ways to win, but I am quite sure that there are many players who simply like to play the game, because it's nice, it's charming, everything functions, the game replies to player's acts - and then, the time comes when nothing happens. In my humble opinion, tactical fight would do a great deal in sense of playing the game into the players hands. Why Sid didn't want it - I'm not sure. The problem is obviously not of the technical nature. Tactical fight existed in MOO2, and MOO2 is in the same category with CIV. The problem with MOO2 was exactly that extensive micromanagment problem, which is supposed to be resolved in MOO3, and I hope it will. They say tactical fight will now be automatic, and administrating colonies will be automated to a degree. My objection was more about constant upgrading of numerous ships, one by one, (in MOO2) because of fast technological advances, although I always set tech advancment the slowest possible, because with fast advancing it is virtually impossible to utilize every new technology - as soon as you create a good ship design, you already have to upgrade it. There is rarely an opportunity to test it in a real fight. Administration, administration! This doesn't seem to be a big problem in CIV3 - CIV3 is very simplified!

Maybe too simplified

After initial clashes with the AI, a few victories, the game becomes stale. For many turns. Building, irrigating, planting, cutting, worrying whether wonders can be built before others, not enough city improvements for a long time, everything already built - is that all? At that time, everybody can research a new advance in 4 turns. It becomes a dead-race. There is very little to do to affect this. We have seen all this in CIV1 and in CIV2. What is really new about CIV3? Diplomacy, trade, culture... Still, it's just like an improved CIV1, no more than that. The AI in Alpha Centauri was better - there were moe clashes between the AI, more was happening. I played CIV3 for a milenium, there was peace everywhere. Maybe the AI is too careful. Or I was too stupid to leave all those victory conditions on, instead of just selecting 1 or 2! Is this going to happen to MOO3 too?

These first 3-4 weeks have passed, the exciting time of exploring the game. Now is the time for some deeper observations. The selling curve may start going down now. We need some clear insight into what we really have in our hands. Will this game really sell at Christmass time? Was it, for some obscure reason, sacrificed?

These games are going to be played by old players, mostly. There will be new players, but they will lack this nostalgic-wise dedication to this game. They may not hold their breath for so long. If playing against the AI is boring, people will definitely scream for multiplayer. Automatic tactical fight - yes, if you can give precise orders, and optional orders, and thus keep the strings in your hands. We shall see if MOO3 has that feature - but CIV3 doesn't. Instead, it has the "seed number" which determines the outcome of fight IN ADVANCE. I don't mind saving throws, it happened from time to time in CIV1 that my charriot gets killed attacking a barbarian leader, but I could accept that. What happens in CIV3 - I cannot accept. And I hope MOO3 is not done in simmilar manner.

Barbarians in CIV3 are a joke. After initial surprises, when 24 cavalry attacks your newly founded cities, it is easy to prevent this. All you need is 2-3 spearmen in the right place. Now, barbarians can't even occupy a city. This is simply a degradation of the previous versions. Barbarians were something to count on, to a certain degree, but now, they only serve as possible source of 25 GP from time to time, if you have the nerve to watch all those AI armies tromping all over your territory to get those barbarians And even this funny little open season ends, when all the territory is covered with settlements. Buying foreign units and barbarians is also gone. Pity.

We waited so long for this pleasure, and I will be happy if it can last as long. But I have my doubts, nevertheless.

b

[Sencho]

Originally posted by korn469
HFOG? i'm not sure what this is,

It stands for the Heavy Foot of Government. It's akin to red tape. It's an increase in costs suffered by large, expansive empires, and numerous, minor laws.

from the sounds of the event system with its kosmic karma, one player controls 15 star systems, one player controls 4, and one player controls one star system

the player who control the 15 star systems would have a 90% chance of getting a supernova, while the player who controled 4 star systems would have a 10% chance of getting a supernova, and the last player would have a 0% chance of getting a supernova...now i know my exact numbers won't match up with the game

but if you are below the median in terms of power you will get a disproportionate number of good events, while if you are above the median in terms of power then you will get a disproportionate number of bed events

Not quite. Your relative strength influences your likelihood of getting carrots (good events to play on your neighbors) and sticks (bad events to play on your neighbors). Weaker empires tend to get sticks while stronger empires tend to get carrots. Both come with a list of potential targets, and carrots may even be able to target the 'owner.'

Besides these two there are character events that generate leaders; fate events (of which supernova would be one) which target a random, unknown target; corruption events that result from rampant political corruption; quest events that reward meeting certain conditions; Lex Galactica which represent legislation for the Orion Senate to debate; and Luck events which can deflect, block, or reverse sticks bad events.

Hope this helps.