Anybody planning NOT to buy Civ3?

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by Ralf


Well, I wont do that, but I will buy it instantly over the disk .

By the way. when does the game get here? Will there be a worldwide release or will the rest of the world get it after the US?
I suppose nobody knows, but has anything been said about it?

[Sabre2th]

I will be buying civ3 as soon as it comes out. It seems that reviews cannot always be trusted. I usually try to play a game for a bit before i buy it, but it IS Sid. If you can't trust in the almighty Sid, who can you trust?

[yin26]

Well, it's the lack of Sid that is in part making me so "blah" about things. While I understand that he doesn't like to work on a similar game (look at his amazingly varied credits), I was simply stunned after all the drama of losing the "Civilization" title to Activision and getting it back only to realize Sid is putting most of his creative energy into...a Golf sim.

A Golf sim, people!

Sorry, but Tropico is bound to be better in that genre (I love Tropico so far). And a similar game already came out and got blasted by critics. Still, I'm sure Sid will do great with his golf game...and I'm also sure his name will be on the Civ 3 box.

"Sid Meier's Civ 3"

It should read:

"Sid Meier's occasionally-looked-at-but-was-pretty-much-ignored-because-of-a-Golf-sim Civ 3"

Mind you, I have no problems with Sid moving on, and I'm sure he won't mind if several of us do the same.

[marcuspeddle]

I think I will buy it but I will try to wait until I see some reviews and lots of postings here at Apolyton. The diplomacy looks better and the trade system looks very interesting but after playing Civ II, SMAC, CTP (for one day), and CTP2 I don't know if Civ III will be able to keep my interest for very long. Although I like CTP2 I didn't play it for very long because I had played the other games. Civ III will have PBEM, however, so I think I probably will get it. Playing with people makes the game at least twice as playable because you don't have to deal with the AI.

I'm glad to hear that lots of you are highly educated people. I keep trying to justify the hours I spend on these games to my wife by saying, "No,no, it's not a game; it's a simulation . It's a thinking person's activity." She just says, "Yeah, whatever. Keep playing." I started a master degree in creative writing when I lived in Canada but gave up to teach in Korea. Then I started a masters in TEFL but gave that up because it was about as interesting as chewing cardboard. After I change jobs in September I'm going to apply for a master degree in humanities, creative writing option.

But I digress . . . . I'll buy the game.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I am doing a PhD, I am involved in medical research.

Actually he just does cruel things to lab rats and calls it research.

[yin26]

It's a slippery slope to try to convince your wife that computer games are anything other than a waste of time, primarily for two reasons:

1) It's not time you spent with HER (though some couples actually play MP and LAN games together, if you can imagine that!);

2) Given #1, there's absolutely nothing in it for HER, even in terms of her husband's career/education/social development, etc.

Having said that, I think certain games absolutely CAN be a mental exercise. Chess, for example, is supposed to make various thought processes far more acute, so why not some computer games (I don't think FPSs fall into that category, but who knows?)?

Of course, you can play a game simply to become a vegetable. But I rather enjoy looking at various game mechanics and asking: "How close is this to real life? Can I draw parallels? Or is this just a fun puzzle to tweak with certain predictions in mind?" All of that is higher thinking in one form or another, and the fact that is comes in a FUN manner should in no way lessen its value.

But human beings (and, historically, the United States) in general has always looked at entertainment as anti-intellectual. Do you remember the Maypole of Merrymount by Hawthorne? In that, he writes about the early English settlers who dared celebrate in the forest by dancing around a Maypole as being harshly persecuted by Cotton Mather for being "lawless and lewd."

That same basic view is held of PC gamers...as slackers "wasting" precious time and resources better spent on something "meaningful." But more and more, particularly with games like Virtual U., games are being viewed as a potential tool for learning! In the case of Virtual U., a number of universities are even using the game for staff / student training.

What does this say of Civ? Well, I can pretty much tell you that if France had used Civ 2 to develop its foreign relations, we'd all be swimming in a sea of nukes by now. Oh, and there'd be a lot more cities. I mean, a LOT more.

[splangy]

i've put to much anxiusness into it not to

[yin26]

This also explains why I don't find much fun in a game once I've mastered it. There's not much thought left, just rote processes. Of course, many people find that process enjoyable. To be able to use all the skills they've gained and pound on the AI. It's an understandable impulse, but not one I find rewarding.

So unless Civ 3 makes me think in new and interesting ways, I can't see how it will be fun for me...in the "intellectual" sense of the word.

Indeed, one of the reasons I like Tropico so much is that you are playing to LOSE, or should I say: You are playing to see how long you can stave off your eventual overthrow. The game is designed for you to lose, and the number of tiny but interrelated ways you can delay that loss (or, sure, meet scenario goals) is very rewarding.

I love losing, and Tropico delivers. My greatest fear with Civ 3 is I'll install, put it on a hard setting, and win without much effort. Then what? Mods? Sorry. I'd rather not.

[Kurgan]

"There's not much thought left, just rote processes."

I agree with you, but if you can play it with other human players, from my point of view things change completely. First, then my objective will be to develop alliances and relations with other countries that follow the logic of the real international scene. Second, it is not possible (if playing with average players at minimum, not to say if they are as good or better than you) to win as in the normal games (against AI), because the balance of power will make alliances shift when one player gets too strong. So the challenge not only increases, but it changes in nature. If you have played "Empires in Arms" you will see what I mean. Then the only fear I have is how will they implement the multiplayer feature in the game.

[marcuspeddle]

This might be an ignorant question but what does 'buy over the disk' mean? I noticed someone said that in a previous post.

I bought CTP2 directly from the company because it wasn't released in other countries and I wanted an English manual. Boy, they really fleeced me with their courier fees. I tried ordering from other places first but they all said "not for export". I guess for Civ III I'll have to wait a while.

Concerning wives, I think I have the perfect one because she doesn't mind me playing games - er, thought-provoking simulations. She's usually busy doing her own thing so she's not computer jealous.

[yin26]

Anatolia:

Living in the same country as you (I sent you a personal mail on this site just a few minutes ago), I use http://www.cdmag.com/cgi-bin/order.cbi_home to get my stuff delivered. You end up paying about an extra $12 to get it shipped to Korea (you can also go the $20+ route to have it in 3-5 business days, but I don't mind waiting the 2-3 weeks).

But to have the game here, in English, pretty much whenever you want it, is worth the $12 IMO. I've had perhaps 10 games delivered to me that way and never had a problem.

[Grumbold]

$12 is considerably less than it costs to get US-release only games imported into the UK when you combine tax and postage so I heartily agree. I wish it was that cheap here. I think it is some secret American conspiracy to improve the profits of UPS and FedEx

[Robert Plomp]

I'm a little bit disapointed that people lik Yin26 act the predictable way.

If people have to wait for a long time, they're first excited, then very excited. Then they're getting impatient and then they start to wonder IF there's anything to be excited about.

In fact is it predictable that if you 'dream' about a game and later realise that the game isn't gonna be the same as your dream...... then it's a disapointment.

Of course I've been playing civ and civ2 since it's been released. And I've had much fun. And sometimes I just have enough of it. I haven't played civ for 1 year ! And now I've picked it up again recently and I'm enjoying it again now !

Of course even civ will become boring if it's something you're doing for years. But take a vacation from it, return to it and you'll love it again.

I'm really sorry, but I don't have any respect for people that are publicly saying that they're pherhaps not gonna like CIV3 while they don't even know what it's gonna be like ! I even think it's actually pretty stupid, and it shows off that you've got ways too much time on your hands to start topics like this.

Again, I've always had pretty much respect to Yin, and pherhaps that makes me more disapointed right now. It just makes no sence at all.

And yes, I'm going to buy the game for sure. Immediately.
I've had 10 years of fun with the civ series, why should I suddenly start to doubt about it with NO reason ?

CyberShy

[yin26]

First, as for your "too much time" on my hands remark, I work 7 days a week. Yes, re-read that. NO day off in a typical week. Care to compare your life with that? So, what that means is I won't be bothered with make-over of a game I mastered 5 years ago. I suppose YOU will...so who has more time on his hands?

Second, I think you miss my point entirely. I think Civ 3 will be a GREAT Civ game. My point is: I'm tired of the basic Civ formula, and I have no real reason to believe that Civ 3 will be anything too risky, do you? Sure, resources will be a nice touch, etc. But despite all our efforts to help Firaxis push the envelope, we'll have what looks to be Civ 2.5. No problem. I understand their decision.

So I think your criticism is off the mark. And if anybody has a "right" to say "Gee, I'm disappointed at what we have / haven't heard so far" it would be the leaders of the List. Why do you think I donated literally 100's of hours to that effort? 100's of hours to a guy working 7 days a week is quite considerable, I'm sure you agree. Oh, and did I mention I have a 2.5 year-old daughter and live in a foreign country (so have to go through all the aspects of learning a new language, culture, etc?).

Also, there is nothing "predictable" about my behavior as you define it. I was never excited in the first place. Nor did I complain when Firaxis didn't release information. In fact, I was AGAINST their posting ugly alpha-graphics, if you recall.

So, to recap:

0. I promise you have more free time than I do.

1. Civ 3 will be a good Civ game. But I'm tired of the formula since I bet I could install Civ 3 right now and beat it on hard level with almost NO effort. I'd rather play something challenging. How about you?

2. I never cared what info Firaxis released or when. But what they have released so far gives me more than enough to see that I'm right with #1. How about you?

3. In a sense, I've been disappointed since SMAC. Point out one time when I was excited. If you think about it, I've been very consistent. I just haven't voiced my opinions lately.

So, if you find the above "stupid," you certainly have a right to your opinion. But to lump me in with the other whining crowd is simply wrong.

Finally, I think you are angry that I might be right. At least you FEAR I might be right. Does the idea of an expansion pack appeal to you after all these years? Trust me. I hope I'm wrong. But I've been around this stuff a while and have developed a pretty keen sense. Perhaps you are just an Optimist? More power to you.

Take care.

[Colon™]

Cybershy, I haven't been playing civ2 for about a year and I was bored with SMAC after only a couple of weeks. That’s a bit longer than just a break so the game really will have to be innovative to make me buy it.

Overall, I don’t think it’s unfair to state you aren’t going to buy the game until you’ve read reviews and heard comments from buyers, especially when money is an issue.

Yin, re the learning process. That’s part of the bind Firaxis is in I mentioned earlier. Should they listen to people like you, veterans who want more complexity and bigger challenges, or to people who only occasionally play strategy games, or even games in general?
You can’t afford to let the fans down, but neither can you to neglect attracting new players.

European Universalis appears to be a game that tilted too much to the former (the civ and imperialism crowd), putting of newbies in the genre, while Sim City 3000 appears to have tilted too much to the latter, disappointing the vets.

Adding various difficulty levels, only partly alleviates the problem, since you can’t add or retract complexity.

Maybe Firaxis should try out creating entirely new games, as Maxis tried and succeeded in.

[Grumbold]

Believe it or not EU is actually more of a simplification of the boardgame, if only because the computer does all the record keeping and such like for you. It is certainly a complicated game but I believe its biggest "failing" could be the way the manual was written as a historical guide with lots of wordy chapters rather than a clear structured list of rules and available orders.

Thank goodness it has a popular website where most posters are happy to answer the newbies and help them get the most out of the game. I really do think Civ 3 could make a much bigger impact if Firaxis do the same rather than relying on Apolyton & co to sell their product for them. However they have to make a game that people want to compliment rather than flame for this to work.

[rah]

yin26, I share your fear.....
But, After all the year of enjoyment out of this series (mostly the last few years of MP) if they asked me to just send them money, I probably would. So I figure there really is no risk in buying the game. If MP works, I'll get my money's worth.

I will buy it the second it comes out because I know Ming will, and I don't want him to get a head start.

And classic yin, only you would say your daughter is 2.5 years old.
I love it.

RAH

[Colon™]

Grumbold, I know EU is based on a boardgame, but I think the the computergame was still mostly aimed at the civ&imperialism crowd and point remains that it turned off newbies with its complexity.

I think that we keep in mind, that people who are intensely engaged in civ, cooperate in making a civ3 list and all, are a minority and Firaxis can't rely on only these people alone.

[yin26]

Rah: LOL! Yes, she's getting patched all the time. She's version 2.5 now, but by version 25 she'll be easy to handle I'm sure. (Probably not, am I kidding?).

Grumbold: Won't Chips and Bits deliver to the UK? I think they do. As for EU, I'll be the first to say that I didn't put in the required work to make it fun. I'd come home from a long day, take care of house stuff, sit down to play and found myself saying: "Man, I research how to do things AT WORK. I'm not up for doing that for a game." Don't get me wrong. I gave more than a few attempts but realized I wasn't really willing to comb the forums. No doubt a great game once you learn it.

Colon: I absolutely agree with you. Firaxis has to make money, and this Civ 3 title is one of those "Just don't too much and you'll make tons of cash." Hey, I can't and don't blame them. And who knows, perhaps some genuine innovation will sneak in?

Kurgan: Yes, I keep forgetting to say that if the MP in Civ 3 is OUTSTANDING, then I may well be playing Civ 3 for many, many years. I truly hope Firaxis is sold on the "Net culture" surrounding games. Sadly, what proof do we have? Their entire web presence is suspect (this is NOT to criticize the games themselves, which I critique on their own merits).

Cybershy:

I would also like to say that I respect you. Still do. And I understand your backlash against my post. From your point of view I have not enough evidence to make those claims. However, I feel I do. Again, I hope I get proved wrong.

[Slax]

Originally posted by CyberShy
...I'm really sorry, but I don't have any respect for people that are publicly saying that they're pherhaps not gonna like CIV3 while they don't even know what it's gonna be like ! I even think it's actually pretty stupid, and it shows off that you've got ways too much time on your hands to start topics like this....

CyberShy

On the other hand, I'm glad to see there are civ fans who are not necessarily CIV III fanatics with blind faith in Firaxis. What kind of game would we get if Firaxis thought we all had this blind faith? Maybe it IS what they think....

[Robert Plomp]

0. I promise you have more free time than I do.

I like statements like that, it's like "My feet hurts more then yours" or "The candy tastes better to me then to you".
I mean, how can you say that while you don't know ?
I'm not really interested in a "who's the busiest" contest.

What I meant to say is that civ-addicted people like you and me spend much time on civ-related forums, and we spend much time thinking about civ etc. Then one day you might find there aren't enough topics to provide you with enough information / challenge to to think about. Then you have to start one yourself.

This might finally result in a topic like this one.
You have too much time on your hands might mean that you work 23 hours and 59 minutes a day, but spend that left over minute with civ, and that's one minute too much, as it appears to me.

Topics like these are imho born because the person that started it has thought to much about a game. In other words, spent too much time on thinking about a game that hasn't been released yet.

But I'm tired of the formula since I bet I could install Civ 3 right now and beat it on hard level with almost NO effort. I'd rather play something challenging. How about you?

This kinda sounds to me like "I'm sure I can jump high enough to reach the moon" by someone that never realised the distance to the moon.
HOW can you state right now that you'll beat the AI without spending much efford to it ? It just makes no sence. It doesn't matter how good you are on Civ, it just doesn't make ANY sence.

Yes, of course I prefer a challenging game. And if I don't like the game I won't play it anymore, like I did with SMAC and CTP, but those games were 'different' then civ3. The precessor to Civ3 is Civ2. SMAC has no precessor nor does CtP.
Don't compare SMAC with CIV3, that game has a complete different feeling and athmoshphere.

I never cared what info Firaxis released or when. But what they have released so far gives me more than enough to see that I'm right with #1. How about you?

I don't care about any Firaxis / Microprose release, but that doesn't mean I dislike Civilization and Civ2.
Civilization is a game on itself, I like the concept. The problem CtP had was that they couln't bild CtP on the existing Civ2 engine, they could only take the basic idea but they HAD to make it much different then civ2, because it wasn't civ3.

CtP was based on the idea behind civ2
SMAC was based on the idea behind civ2
Civ3 will be based on civ2.

No fance new game elements need to be in the game to make it different to civ2.

But to lump me in with the other whining crowd is simply wrong

Oh, but I never putted you in that crowd.

Finally, I think you are angry that I might be right.

Sure, you might be right. But there's no evidence at all that you might be right or wrong. It's too early to say. No, I'm not angry.

Does the idea of an expansion pack appeal to you after all these years?

Yes. I really like civ2 as it is right now. Like I said, I didn't play it for 1 year and now I like it again.
An expansion pack will be great. Civ3 will be even better, as long as they don't ruin the current game ballance and fun and conept. Things like culture and trade really sound great assets to me.

I'm not really waiting to CtP. I'm waiting for Civ2 plus new features, thus that would be civ3. All of the old features plus some new ones, and all combined with a new layout = civ3.

Perhaps you are just an Optimist?

I surely am.
But again, so far I don't see any reason to opimistic or pessimistic.

My point is: I'm tired of the basic Civ formula, and I have no real reason to believe that Civ 3 will be anything too risky, do you

Then I advise you to take a civ vacation (like I did) until civ3 is released. Don't visit Apolyton, don't play any games. Just forget about the game. Playing a game for 10 years might make you tired about it. That's not really strange, is it ?

But despite all our efforts to help Firaxis push the envelope, we'll have what looks to be Civ 2.5.

In that case there aren't any games that deserve the '2' asset.
What's the difference between Doom and Doom 2 ? Quake, Quake II and Quake III ? Isn't it all the same plus more ?

Of course Civ III will be for a big part Civ II, otherwise it would be another game. It would be Call to Power, in example.
I dislike the idea that civ would be 'civ 2.5' since it won't. It's a new game, new grahpics, new concepts etc. etc. And of course much from the old game.

And if anybody has a "right" to say "Gee, I'm disappointed at what we have / haven't heard so far" it would be the leaders of the List. Why do you think I donated literally 100's of hours to that effort?

Remember that I've putted much efford in that list as well. I've managed multiple threads in those days. Actually I had much fun doing that. Do you remember our motto ? "If just one idea....."

Were you joking when you said that ?
There are multiple ideas from the list in the game, as far as we can see right now. I think we really succeeded ! You can complain, when the game is in the shelves. And I will if there's any reason to.

I was never excited in the first place

Of course you were, otherwise you would have never started with 'the list'. you were very excited about the idea of a civ3. If you weren't........ I don't understand your 100's of hours of efford to the list.

Short said: have patience and don't make any premature opinions about the game public. Remember that much people will be inspired by your opinion as one of the 'big' guys. It's not really fair towards Firaxis that their game already has negative feelings towards it even before it has been released or finished !

CyberShy

[Robert Plomp]

Yin, I do respect you to !
I only disrespect your post more or less.
That has nothing to do with you as a person.

How could I *ever* disrespect someone that putted 100's of hours in 'the list' while he wasn't even excited about the game

[yin26]

CyberShy:

You make several good points. So let me explain myself some more, realizing that you still disagree with me:

1. Sid seems not to be very active in Civ 3. Even at E3, he was talked about as sitting off to the side and letting Jeff Briggs run the show. Nothing against Jeff Briggs and the rest of the team, but Sid is the genius there, and he has been pouring himself into SimGolf...which got honorable mention from Gamespot. Obviously an enormous amout of Sid's efforts have gone into that game and NOT Civ 3.

Of course, perhaps I make too much of that. Brian pretty much did Civ 2 on his own, right? (He also did SMAC, but that's another story).

2. The diplomacy stuff only sounds good on paper. When was the last time you saw a game ACTUALLY make competent AI players in something as difficult as saavy diplomacy? I think Europa Universalis has gotten the best reviews on that, but even there you could do things like simply take an enemy's capital and ignore all other states but he'd still roll over and die no matter his larger advantage.

Of course, perhaps Civ 3 will actually deliver on the promise...but experience is on our side against that, I think. (NOTE: For ANY company to make a truly awesome diplomacy for the AI would be stunning, so I lay no blame).

3. Resources look ripped off from this site, quite frankly. Like days after it was posted here, *boom* it's in the game. Coincidence? Perhaps. If not, though, then I just ask myself: "Hmmm. The game has been pretty long in development and now something as complicated and potentially unbalancing as this gets seemingly tossed in? And if they hadn't thought about this before now, what else have they not considered?" And why no real explanation to us how it will work?

Of course, I don't want to sound like "I hate you, Firaxis, for using our suggestions." No way. The fact that they might see a great idea and feature it in the game is precisely what we, as fans, hope for. I was just a bit taken back by the timing of it and the depth to which it was announced without any real explanation. More like, "Hey, we'll have these resources, you know. You can mine Bronze, yeah! And, ummm, well, we really don't know how it will work yet." Sorry, then, tell us about it when you've actually decided IF it will work. Be professional, is what I'm saying.

4. Culture points sounds interesting, but can't a human player already pound the AI with the simple buildings available in Civ 2? I fear how badly the comp could curl up and die when it can't handle creating enough culture points to compete with a human player.

Of course, I'm NOT saying: "Keep everything simple." I want more complexity, etc.

Rather than go on, I'll just emphasize that THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT hope I had for Civ3 (hope, NOT excitement) was that the AI would be given enormous attention. Because outside of multiplayer, our only hope of having a good game, a game that actually makes all this new stuff meaningful is to be able to play against computer opponents that make good use of it themselves. And my point about using old strategies is this:

Don't you think you could pretty much ICS (despite the "fix) all over the place, simply "out-culture" the computer and basically win by scale alone? I know fully well that I **could** play at the computer's level and give it a chance to win, but aren't we doing that already in many cases just to keep the game interesting?

So perhaps I've missed it, but where are all the public statements that: "Firaxis is committed to making, once and for all, the absolute best computer opponents in this genre. We fully realize that a number of vets out there have beaten the Civ AI hundreds and hundreds of times, and it is our belief that the long and short-term success of the series rests on crafting an AI that actually beats those vets the first time they play. Then again. And again. Until the vet realizes, 'Wow. Time to rethink this.' And since we expect the entire Civ community to be playing Civ 3 for years, we want up and coming vets to have a consistent and rewarding challenge."?

Nothing like that. I've heard they are committed to ending the complaints about graphics...and then they post the graphics from 1993 as if to say, "Yeah, baby! Check THAT out!"

I hope you see it's not any one thing but the whole picture that finally got me to post this. In any one area, there's plenty of room to be hopeful. But overall, I'm just not encouraged. However, I understand that you might well look at all those points and see no room for concern.

[KrazyHorse]

Yin, I get the creeping feeling that your problem with Civ III rests mainly on the fact that you don't want to play another Civ-style game at all. That's fine; some of us do. When I first heard about Civ III, I didn't expect it to be any more different from Civ II than Civ II was from Civ I. Everything I've seen up to now tells me that the differences are many times larger than I'd hoped. In my opinion, the graphics have been emphasized because the complaint of the average person on seeing Civ II is that nothing actually moves. The number of dedicated Civ fans is probably somewhere around 10 000 - 20 000, and we've got to realize that we can't possibly support the game ourselves; the public has to buy it too. Oh yeah: I liked Alpha Centauri. Except for the horrible, horrible terrain colouring scheme....so ugly....

[yin26]

KrazyHorse:

Without an AI that can lay waste to me (or an MP that makes it easy for a better player than I to do the same), I can say: "Yes, I'm tired of the whole Civ thing." Can you blame me? How many times do you need proof that you can beat a dead horse? I realize, however, not so many people (by percentage) have played the game so much, so I am not of any statistical concern to Firaxis in all likelihood.

However, if I read posts here about an AI that cooperatively and brilliantly crushes people (or a seamless, fully-supported MP facet), then I'll gladly run it through the paces. So far, on those points all I hear is echo.

Finally, I by no means want to say: "Civ 3 will be terrible." As I said, it will sell well and make lots of people happy. But without a much improved AI and MP, how much longer can this series continue before more people say, "You know, this is getting old"?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Anatolia
This might be an ignorant question but what does 'buy over the disk' mean? I noticed someone said that in a previous post.

Sorry. Sloppy swedish-to-english direct-translation.

Disk = the table between the clerk and the customer. Where the customer hands over the money in exchange for the article.

[KrazyHorse]

Then disk=counter.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by yin26
Won't Chips and Bits deliver to the UK? I think they do.

Sure they do. So they charge $12 then customs charge a flat £10 to open up the package, check the contents and bill you the 17.5% VAT so in total it can often be $35 extra on top of a $40.00 game.

As for EU, I'll be the first to say that I didn't put in the required work to make it fun...No doubt a great game once you learn it.

I think EU's problem is that unless you play fantasia you have to learn how to do everything in the game all at once. There is no soft start and the tutorial isn't enough to compensate. In terms of total complexity I believe Civ is harder than it because of all the different terrain, unit, building and wonder types. Of course we have long since forgotten what learning Civ was like, and we had Civ 1 to get us ready for Civ 2's expansion.

EU has, I believe, actually demonstrated that there is a thriving potential market for original, more intellectual and more historical games. Not everyone wants to play Age of Crud or Dribblo II, thank goodness.

[One More Turn!]

Originally posted by yin26
It's a slippery slope to try to convince your wife that computer games are anything other than a waste of time, primarily for two reasons:

1) It's not time you spent with HER (though some couples actually play MP and LAN games together, if you can imagine that!);

2) Given #1, there's absolutely nothing in it for HER, even in terms of her husband's career/education/social development, etc.

I would just add to that:

3) You spent $50 on that when the baby(ies) need diapers?

I will probably hold off on buying Civ 3 for a couple of reasons:

1. I got burned with CTP - not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but it still stings. I bought that game immediately after reading some good initial reviews, and have played it maybe 6 times. I would not like to repeat that experience and so will wait for the verdict from the Apolytoners that do buy it.

2. Timing - my family will be growing significantly at about the same time as the game will be coming out (I think) and the two just are not very compatible

3. Timing 2 - Assuming that it will have a pre Christmas release maybe one of my family members will take it upon themselves to buy it for me, and I won't have to shell out the $$ at all.

just my 2 cents.

[Inverse Icarus]

HEATHENS!

mines already pre-ordered on overnight delivery.

just kickin back until it comes