Civ III, Don't Buy If SP only - Page 4

TCO · September 16, 2001, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Sn00py
This is very bad publicity, because they're making it obvious that they're in it for the money.

Ummm...DUH!!!!

Like they don't have Mommy and Daddy feeding them like you do. Like they have to go out and make money!!

TCO · September 16, 2001, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Wiglaf

the purpose of all that sims talk is to draw a comparison to civ3 - the more merchandise you release on a specific thing, the more likely the product is to die out, rather than build up a large fanbase

That's bullkaka logic. If the market will tolerate expansions, then tap it. And expansions KEEP people's interest.

You use the same kind of faulty logic as the liberals do on highways. "Let's not build extra highways, because people will just use them more and traffic congestion will go up anyway. If we don't build them congestion will keep people of the roads and then congestions will go down!" HELLO!!

Wiglaf · September 16, 2001, 18:17

Quote:

Ummm...DUH!!!!

Like they don't have Mommy and Daddy feeding them like you do. Like they have to go out and make money!!

GP, I think you totally missed the point of his original post.

Making it look like you are invovled with the consumer and actually care about the type of game you release is desired: the opposite is not. So when Firaxis goes and cuts a few features to make a deadline, and maybe even charges for an expansion, they look like money milkers.

That's bad publicity. ummm....DUH!!!

Quote:

That's bullkaka logic. If the market will tolerate expansions, then tap it. And expansions KEEP people's interest.

over "tapping" something can devastate a long term franchise

faded glory · September 16, 2001, 19:21

ok here is the email i sent to Asktheciv team, and 3 other Firaxis top-dogs.

[I]I wont buy this game if you release a single player version for 50.00. And then you realease a second version for 30.00$. Umm.....Does greed ring a bell here? You think we dont notice this?

Please make the right choice. Dont sell them separately. I know your not the man in charge... But perhaps if we bug you guys enough you wont make the same mistake as Activision and Moo!?

Releasing Civ3 without MP is a huge bluff. People will just return the game after beating single player like with Call to Power2[I/]

Hey, c'mon guys...Im seroius about MP

umphbitmaph · September 16, 2001, 19:23

i wouldn't pay for Quake3 if it was only SP ;-] but I just don't like playing Civ (turn-based games) over the net. If the AI is good enought, I'll be happy.

Rommel393 · September 16, 2001, 19:24

After reading this forum, I went to Civ3.com and bought Civ3. And I can't wait for it to get here. Dammit people, stop your *****ing. Half the civers demand civ3 as fast as possible and when Firaxis starts putting things in gear and pulling long, long hours of writing codes day in and day out, the other half of the civers start crying about no multiplayer. If you buy the game only for MP then wait to buy it until springtime. But unless your like the rest of us, who just wanna have fun, then just buy the game.

Rommel393 · September 16, 2001, 19:29

BTW: I will probably never play civ3 MP anyway. This does not mean I'm a "panzy" though. I play diablo, starcraft, age of empires, age of kings, and counterstrike over the net all the time. Counterstrike also takes a lot more practice to play well on, too. I am a civer whos been playing since civ1. I also had NES. As a matter of fact I still have it. The fact of the matter is, some games, namely TBS, are not suited for MP. Their just too slow.

Rommel393 · September 16, 2001, 19:31

Hey Faded Glory. I live in West Bend. Small world huh?

isaac brock · September 16, 2001, 19:31

Stop complaining that they're in it for the money. First of all, GP is right, everyone needs money. It's what grown ups use to feed themselves. Secondly, you have no basis with which to say "Those bastards are charging for an expansion pack. That's wrong." or something like that. Take a deep breath and repeat this to yourself: "No one has said they were charging extra for multiplayer. We, in fact, have no proof that multiplayer will not be included. We will stop whining like 2 year olds at this time."

Its not very kind of me to remind you of the truth, I know. But stop b itching and wait until you have the facts.

Wiglaf · September 16, 2001, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel393
After reading this forum, I went to Civ3.com and bought Civ3. And I can't wait for it to get here. Dammit people, stop your *****ing. Half the civers demand civ3 as fast as possible and when Firaxis starts putting things in gear and pulling long, long hours of writing codes day in and day out, the other half of the civers start crying about no multiplayer. If you buy the game only for MP then wait to buy it until springtime. But unless your like the rest of us, who just wanna have fun, then just buy the game.

more power to you

I hope you realize all us "*****ers" have a reasonable concern though

faded glory · September 16, 2001, 19:50

I guess Rommel isnt taking to light the fact that the AI will probably be as lost an as hopeless as the one in Civ2 and CTP

I think its interesting how all these pro-single players seem to assume that the AI is going to be a dominant, real life, quick thinking, conniving, monopolisitic force.If History tells us anything, When has single player mode AI ever been like this!?. The fact is, it will most likely be submissive and weak. Not knowing how to use the diplomacy, and rarely making smart decisons.

isaac brock · September 16, 2001, 19:56

didn't they say the AI cheats only on impossible setting? If so, I would say the AI is a lot more promising than you've been scaring us into believing

dennis580 · September 16, 2001, 20:52

Well faded glory I will personally go on record as saying i beleive Civ3's AI will have the greatest AI of any game ever made.

faded glory · September 16, 2001, 21:33

Quote:

Originally posted by dennis580
Well faded glory I will personally go on record as saying i beleive Civ3's AI will have the greatest AI of any game ever made.

*knock* *knock* ! HELLO ?? Is anybody home!?

What the hell make you all think the AI is going to be the best ever!!!

Hah You are all fools the lot of you! Havent you ever heard Marketing gimmics? Advertisement? Paid endorsements? I can remember countless reviewers as well as Activision itself, claimed that the CTP2 AI would be 'Far superior challenge to any civ game to-date!'. Its the "next best thing in Artificial intellegence"! "Simply the best" said a Gamespot reviewer. What a freakin joke

Honestly...its all self promotion. They tell you what you want to hear. If you think the AI is going to be as awesome as firaxis is telling you. You are sadly mistaken and are in for a big upset

. Mark my words, quote them...A later date, send me a Private Message. Prove me wrong!

Ive seen the "Awesome AI" gimmick way too much to be fooled. Its all File-Switching and randomized response. Thats the way it is always going to be. Nothing new about it.

Cyclotron · September 16, 2001, 21:54

Quote:

I think its interesting how all these pro-single players seem to assume that the AI is going to be a dominant, real life, quick thinking, conniving, monopolisitic force.

Umm, first of all, I don't understand this "pro single player" idea. Nobody has said, "hey, I hope firaxis charges extra for MP so we can screw those goddam netties up the ***!" Do you mean people who play SP much more often than MP? I am one of those persons. And I never assumed the Civ3 AI would be a mean, lean, human-overpowering machine. I still play Civ2 often on a regular basis, and yes, I don't even own the MP version! I don't need the Civ AI to be the biggest thing since sliced bread. But that is all my personal opinion...

If you are such a "pro-multiplayer" guy, why do you care how bad the AI is? I am pretty sure all the people who play SP play it for a reason. If they play SP on Civ2, and that AI is "lost and hopeless," then isn't it obvious that those same people would be satisfied with a great game like Civ3, even if the AI is by your standards just mediocre?

PS. What would a MP jerk like you know about AI anyway?

faded glory · September 16, 2001, 22:06

Im saying we MPers are way more into the games we play. We look for challenges, not walkovers. Playing a Human opponent is loads more fun than playing an AI. I have learned that during my breif sojourn into the world of Call to Power PBEM.

No offence to the people buy games just to kick the AI's ass

I suppose I should cut firaxis some slack. But If Civ3 is not a hit. And its sold separately, Interest will wain very quickly. Trust me, that will be it for the Civilization Series.

Cyclotron, answer my question on the modern tank thread

Colonel Kraken · September 17, 2001, 09:30

I have read and/or skimmed most of the posts in this thread and am amazed at the outrage. I can understand the frustration, but I would think the simple approach would simply be not to buy the product.

I have been very excited about this game for a long time now (as most of you have), and I thought I would snatch up a copy of it as soon as it hit the shelves. But if there's one thing I've learned about even the most polished games, it is: wait a few months (which really sucks when you've waited so long, but what's a few more months?) and the company will come out with, first, a patched version, later, an expansion pack, then about a year later there'll be some "gold" addition that includes the expansion pack for much less than the two original products cost, then they'll finally come out with some kind of "platinum" version or whatever.

The point is: instead of buying the game right away, I think I'm just going to wait until (1) the price comes down a tad, and (2) they release the inevitable patched version with probably the multiplayer portion included.

This most certainly is not the ideal solution. I want the game just as quickly and badly as the next Civ fan, but maybe this is the best way to go.

The only MP I'll use is Hotseat. If that's not included in the initial release, I'll wait. Not exactly a boycott, but then it shows the publisher that they're not going to make money off of at least one customer (me) until they make a product I want (i.e. includes Hotseat). I would suggest those of you who are upset about certain things with the initial release do the same.

I really do want the game right away. Oh well.

Cyclotron · September 17, 2001, 11:18

Quote:

Im saying we MPers are way more into the games we play. We look for challenges, not walkovers. Playing a Human opponent is loads more fun than playing an AI. I have learned that during my breif sojourn into the world of Call to Power PBEM.

Do you think SPers play for cake walks? I play scenarios, custom maps, and make my own scenarios to have probably just as much fun as you have playing multiplayer. I think that this is more fun than MP, but that's my opinion. And that's just what it is: an opinion. So don't make your opinions out to be facts, faded glory.

I do agree that this is a poor financial decision on the part of Firaxis. But don't petition Firaxis to release the game later, because some of us don't care about the MP module: we just want Civ3.

Wiglaf · September 17, 2001, 14:39

faded glory's AI post is tough to take in, but in all honesty I think he's right. Take SMAC's AI - good, yes, but only for the period of time it took for you to use crawlers or any of the game's other complex features. Civ3 is SMAC times ten in terms of new little additions..why would its AI be as revolutionary as Firaxis and other reviewers make it out to be? It's all hype.

Of course, there's a chance the game will provide a challenging experiance each and every time. If the team didn't have to get this thing out in time for the holidays, I'd say they'd be able to reach that goal somewhat. But if they release civ3 in October, as an SP only experiance in the 21st century, that not only smells of money lust, but also horrific laziness.

SerapisIV · September 17, 2001, 14:46

Well for the multitude of Civ3 players who don't give a rats a$s about MP...we don't want to wait longer for a game for a feature that we won't use. Being that SP players are far and away the majority of players...why should our game experience take longer to get because a there are a precious few people who want MP?

SerapisIV · September 17, 2001, 14:48

Oh yeah and MP play is not the future of TBS games. TBS games due to their extremely long play times will always predominantly be SP games, subject to MP by only a very few hardcore and dedicated players.

splangy · September 17, 2001, 16:08

First of all id like to say that im glad I never played MP after those first two times (one i defeated a "almighty" human faster than ive EVER beat a AI, the other one I was booted for winning...) becouse they are all a bunch of bickering children, who cant stand to lose, they dont play for fun, just to win (witch may be fun to them, not for me) and be able to say
"I beat -insert name here- in record time, I may not have a life but atleast I can sit in front of a computer for 11 hours playing with pixils, rather than go outside."

The majority of people who play civ are gonna want a good SP, then if thats good they will buy/ D\L MP.

But in the end it all comes down to: SP now, MP later OR MP later... ive waited long enough, I want SP.

Whitestar718 · September 17, 2001, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
But isn't it better to wait a few months and get a really cool MP instead of getting a half-baked MP right out of the box?
You will get your MP, so chill out!

You are probably right diplomat.....probably...

I think both sides of the argument are right. Civ is a great single-player game. However, it is also a great multiplayer game for people who want to invest the time in a good match. I don't much care for the SP'ers out there who look down their noses like snobby aristocrats because they "don't much care for MP". That's pretty narrow-minded.

This is the year 2001; many people want MP in their games. I don't care how good a game's AI is--it cannot hold a candle to a thinking, intelligent human opponent. It was Firaxis themselves who said the game was going to have multiplayer. They didn't say "It might have multiplayer," or "It will have multiplayer, but not for six months after it hits the shelves." You can't blame the people who want MP now for having unreasonable expectations. Firaxis said it would be MP-equipped, and they will shoulder disappointment of MP fans if it is released to market without it.

Firaxis/Infogrames isn't doing this group of fans any favors by keeping so tight-lipped about it. It is simply not fair for the developer/publisher to accept money for pre-orders without being absolutely forthright about what features are or are not going to be in the game. Surely, if the product is in beta testing now, then they must be pretty sure of the MP issue. So it is time to come clean about it.

MH

Rommel393 · September 17, 2001, 17:46

I agree Whitestar.

Alexander's Horse · September 17, 2001, 17:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I play Civ series almost exclusively Singleplayer

That's because you have no friends

As a compromise, I would be quite happy if they put the civ 2 multiplayer engine in. That shouldn't be too hard.

Then they can tempt us with something better later

Everyone should be concerned about Multiplayer not being in - its a great experience but also it makes you wonder what other corners they are cutting.

I definitely won't be buying this game without multiplayer - I never SP now and I don't want to have to buy the game twice

isaac brock · September 17, 2001, 18:08

If they wanted to shove some old code in there, they'd put in smac's multiplayer engine. but they won't do that, because they are working on other ways to make MP fun. I won't rule out the possibility that they might be able to ship with MP. On the other hand, if they don't and you have to wait a few months for a patch, then sit down, stop complaining, and WAIT. you'd have to wait anyway if they were to withhold the game until MP was done. Enjoy SP as a timewaster until you can play your unholy multiplayer games afterwards. *****ing will get you nowhere.

PS Multiplayer sucks

Alexander's Horse · September 17, 2001, 18:28

Quote:

Originally posted by isaac brock
If they wanted to shove some old code in there, they'd put in smac's multiplayer engine. but they won't do that, because they are working on other ways to make MP fun. I won't rule out the possibility that they might be able to ship with MP. On the other hand, if they don't and you have to wait a few months for a patch, then sit down, stop complaining, and WAIT. you'd have to wait anyway if they were to withhold the game until MP was done. Enjoy SP as a timewaster until you can play your unholy multiplayer games afterwards. *****ing will get you nowhere.

PS Multiplayer sucks

Idiot.

isaac brock · September 17, 2001, 18:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Idiot.

You're just afraid that the AI will be harder than beating brand new players on MP. You are a dirty, dirty man.

Alexander's Horse · September 17, 2001, 18:51

isaac brock · September 17, 2001, 18:59

Alexanders Horse, why do people such as yourself always sink to the level of personal attacks? the dirty, dirty man comment was constructive criticism, and now you've turned this forum into something ugly. I guess a low sperm countdoes go to ones head.