Has Civ3 mets your expectations as of yet?

ancient · August 11, 2001, 16:22

I have had high hopes for civ3, and im afraid to say civ3 has fallen short in a few key areas..

although it certainly looks better than it did a month ago and keeps getting better the more we know it still is short in my mind.

1. Such a low number of civilizations.. i was looking forward to 32+ civs to choose from and atleast being able to play with 16 civs at a time..

2. same lame government model from civ2...

other problems with the game are looking good and the game will be great, but its not fair to the series to have a game not reach its full potential..

what do you think?

Sabre2th · August 11, 2001, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by ancient
what do you think?

I think people are whining too much. The game will be great.

Provost Harrison · August 11, 2001, 16:54

Well the thing is the engine seems to be fairly easily customisable, so extra civs can be easily added on from what I can tell. So don't panic. I think it is shaping up well, better than I expected looking at some of the earlier screenshots.

The website is very slick and professional, and if this theme is going to run through civ3, I envisage very few problems at all.

Footie Mad · August 11, 2001, 17:01

I had high expectations to start with and so far there have been few letdowns, some minor things but im satisfied. Perhaps when I get the game heads will roll?

Kassiopeia · August 11, 2001, 17:15

I only stumbled across Apolyton a month ago, so I haven't had enough time to get my espectations as sky high as some here. I think that so far the game is exactly what I was looking for, much better and functional and more beautiful then Civ2, but not Civ 2.5.

Ralf · August 11, 2001, 17:25

Im mostly very positive to the Civ-3 development so far.

The only important issues left is how the AI comes out, and how effectively one can manipulate & trim how the AI-civs should behave. Also, Im curious if the scenario/map-creator can pinpoint preferable AI-city founding-locations all over the map - giving him an added AI-expansion control as well to his own maps/scenarios.

CapTVK · August 11, 2001, 17:50

I'll pass final judgement when I've played the game myself. Although I'm a bit jaded since the CTP->CTP2 fiasco. CTP wasn't "it" and CTP2 was so hyped and had so much fluff that it took awhile for people to realize that it sucked. Civ3 at first glance looks good but that doesn't say anything about substance and lastability (Remember that CTP1/2 got reasonable reviews 7/8?)

.

So the first signs seem positive...now we can only wait.

Nikolai · August 11, 2001, 18:05

I voted for the first option! I just love this game, even I haven't played it yet!

Difficult to explain, but I think most of you understand, this is what I have dreamed about(actually, I have

) in a looooong time!

Of course I know this game wont be only heaven, but I guess I'm an unstoppable optimist...

But, I am tired of "Civ3 wont haven't Bismarch as Germanys leader, I wont buy it"-crap!

OK?

Ralf · August 11, 2001, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by CapTVK
I'll pass final judgement when I've played the game myself. Although I'm a bit jaded since the CTP->CTP2 fiasco.

Well, I certainly understand you viewpoint. But although I didnt like the SciFi-aspect of SMAC, I must admit that the game at least had a game-design & game-mechanical quality-feel to it that CTP simply didnt have.

So the general "expected quality-feel" should be judged based on SMAC and above - not on the CTP-1/2 series.

Provost Harrison · August 11, 2001, 18:13

It is nice to see a cheery face around here Nikolai

Yeah, I am optimistic about the game. Some of you are nothing but whingers. There are some genuine issues that need discussing and ironing out, and I have some things to discuss about them. But on the whole I am very satisfied and optimistic about the whole things. My issues aren't so much complaints but queries about certain aspects of the game...

Ribannah · August 11, 2001, 19:06

Let's see ....

graphics: wonderful

info on screen: exactly what I was hoping for

gameplay: very promising (resources, borders, culture)

tech tree: disappointing, many mistakes

special units: some flavour, but that's it

special advantages: interesting

civs included: I want an expansion pack!

scenario building: awaiting info ...

Warm Beer · August 11, 2001, 19:34

I must admit that the information is better than I expected... I have a positive feeing for Civ3 so far. I woudn't go as far as to say my expectations have been blown out of the water, tho...

I have to wait to play it to say that

Kropotkin · August 11, 2001, 20:11

As a realist (some naive losers might call me pessimistic) I thought the game would be a disaster (CTP...) but after a while looking around civ3.com I've been converted, at least for now. I'm seeing that quite a few of the things I argued for back in the lists have been included just as or almost as I wanted it (nationalites for citizens and strategic resources for example).

It seems strange but I'm getting the impression that they almost listen to their fans. Amazing...

Eddin · August 11, 2001, 20:11

Quick judgement is something I shun.

Adagio · August 12, 2001, 07:29

They have barely exceeded my expectations, the only things I more expected (my expectations is kinda high

) to be in the game is more random generators, this means a random generator for the nations special abilities so they not always are the same, and the ability to choose from the civs included + other made Civs (from the playersetup screen it doesn't look like this is posible)

ancient · August 12, 2001, 10:51

see, about a month ago this poll would be the oppositer of what it is..

Arator · August 12, 2001, 15:07

Unless and until Firaxis gives us the ability to ADD OUR OWN CUSTOM CIVS to the playable mix in a standard, random map game Civ 3 will be smashing disappointment to me.

In fact, I won't even consider buying it if I am limited to playing with and against the 16 built-in Civs they've included. That simply does not cut it.