What are your beefs with Civ3?

[Sava]

I have nothing to complain about, I expect Civ III to be an awesome game that eats up many hours from my life.

The thing I think is funny is the people that whine about what they think is going to suck in Civ III are the same people that will be playing the game 8 hours a day.

I often make suggestions about things that I'd like to see in the game, but I'm not going to complain if these things aren't in the game.

I wonder if Sid Meier could be held libel for all the time I'm going to waste playing that game.

[Chronus]

5. No hp/fp for units anymore? What the hell is that? I better not see my battle ship lose to a phalanx in this game as happens in civ 1 far to often.

YIKES!!!

Has this been officially confirmed? I hope it isn't true.

[FuFu15]

Originally posted by Bleyn

2. A lot of the people complaining about MP seem to forget that it takes a LOT more effort to make a great SP game than it does to make MP work. Their choice to delay MP shows that not only do they want MP to be the best it can be, they want the SP to be really good as well. There are trade-offs that have to occur in the development of a computer game and as things go, I don't think this is all that bad of one.

k here's a revelation that came in my dreams last night. TAKE THE NETWORK CODE FROM SMAC, and IMPLEMENT IT IN CIV3. OH MY. It's not like that could take more than a couple weeks to tweak it up to civ3 par. then release all your revolutionary "multiplayer tweaks" in the expansion pack.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by FuFu15


k here's a revelation that came in my dreams last night. TAKE THE NETWORK CODE FROM SMAC, and IMPLEMENT IT IN CIV3. OH MY. It's not like that could take more than a couple weeks to tweak it up to civ3 par. then release all your revolutionary "multiplayer tweaks" in the expansion pack.

They want the expansion pack to sell. Get it?

[squid]

Originally posted by FuFu15


k here's a revelation that came in my dreams last night. TAKE THE NETWORK CODE FROM SMAC, and IMPLEMENT IT IN CIV3. OH MY. It's not like that could take more than a couple weeks to tweak it up to civ3 par. then release all your revolutionary "multiplayer tweaks" in the expansion pack.

you clearly do not work in software development. for one, the network code was most likely adapted and optimized to SMAC. usually this happens with the knowledge it will not be used again, since code portability to new architectures tends to make things inefficient and slower to develop. Even so, testing of a MP component would be radically different than testing the SP component, and this alone would take several months to iron out.

Firaxis made a design decision to do it right the first time rather than releasing a bad version and having to support it. I applaud that. It takes a good company to have the courage to say "no" to features when they do not have the time. Anyway, if you don't have the time to do it right the first time, you don't have the time to do it twice.

[Wexu]

My biggest concern is that pink nation color, what if I can't change it?!!

And BTW, units do have hitpoints..

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by squid

Firaxis made a design decision to do it right the first time rather than releasing a bad version and having to support it. I applaud that. It takes a good company to have the courage to say "no" to features when they do not have the time. Anyway, if you don't have the time to do it right the first time, you don't have the time to do it twice.

It also takes a good customer to not pay twice for the same product. Would you buy a car that had non-changable tires that could only travel 10.m.p.h. on and couldn't drive more than 2 miles from your house only to have to pay more to get the "upgraded" tires with a pair of fuzzy dice later? Heck no.

If people want to pay double for a game because a game company couldn't pull it's head out long enough to build and sell the entire game in the first place then go right ahead, some of us will wait and see if ALL the promised features are included and if not, wait and buy the whole package later.

If the game ships with all promised features, including MP and isn't buggy then people will buy it, when people buy a game that doesn't have all it's features they are essentially telling a game company it's ok to shaft customers. I don't like to be jerked around and think it sends a bad signal for the gaming industry (whose credability is already thin). I don't like being a beta tester when I pay for a game and I sure as heck don't like paying double for a game that should have been sold as one piece to begin with. It's not a problem of money, I buy 3-5 games a year on average, but it's merely that I am tired of being lied to and being sold crappy product.

It's the principle of the matter. You want to be rewarded for doing a good job then when you have finished the job I'll be happy to reward you, no payment for poor service or product, it's that simple.

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


It also takes a good customer to not pay twice for the same product. Would you buy a car that had non-changable tires that could only travel 10.m.p.h. on and couldn't drive more than 2 miles from your house only to have to pay more to get the "upgraded" tires with a pair of fuzzy dice later? Heck no.

If people want to pay double for a game because a game company couldn't pull it's head out long enough to build and sell the entire game in the first place then go right ahead, some of us will wait and see if ALL the promised features are included and if not, wait and buy the whole package later.

If the game ships with all promised features, including MP and isn't buggy then people will buy it, when people buy a game that doesn't have all it's features they are essentially telling a game company it's ok to shaft customers. I don't like to be jerked around and think it sends a bad signal for the gaming industry (whose credability is already thin). I don't like being a beta tester when I pay for a game and I sure as heck don't like paying double for a game that should have been sold as one piece to begin with. It's not a problem of money, I buy 3-5 games a year on average, but it's merely that I am tired of being lied to and being sold crappy product.

It's the principle of the matter. You want to be rewarded for doing a good job then when you have finished the job I'll be happy to reward you, no payment for poor service or product, it's that simple.

In game terms I think Civ3 (SP) will be far better than "a car that had non-changable tires that could only travel 10.m.p.h. on and couldn't drive more than 2 miles from your house".

Multiplayer has never been PROMISED to ship with first release. Who are you to decide what the COMPLETE game is? Are you programming the game? Do you work for Firaxis? Didn't think so.

I believe CIV3 with only SP will be well worth the money I pay for it. It would be nice to have MP, but Civ 3 will be worth it's weight in gold.

You now, but I'll bet you buy Civ 3 and love it.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by yin26
There are a number of indications that Civ3 is being held to a pre-Christmas deadline. The lack of a wider beta effort...apparant lack of MP out of the box...only 16 civs through using the editor...

No offence yin, but you are not accurate regarding the '16 civs'-issue. A few quotes from another thread (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=2), emphasis added:

Originally posted by Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
Using the editor you can allow 16 civs to be played on smaller map sizes and also change the default sizes of the maps.

Originally posted by yin26
Which means you MUST use the editor to use 16 civs on anything but the largest map...

[Nemo]

I let you know what my issues with it are...after I play it first

[Patriqvium]

4. No new government forms infact they took out fundementalism...this is my biggest disapointment...I would like to have seen a few new ones like in CTP.

Some good news for you: It is possible to create new government types using the editors included with the initial release edition of the game.

[Gandalf The Grey]

Some good news for you: It is possible to create new government types using the editors included with the initial release edition of the game.

I saw that, but is it going to be like in Civ 2 where you can change the names and maybe a few numerical attributes? Thats weak. I was so hoping to see new governments...but i guess its going to be despotisms and democracies hand in hand like in civ 2...that always annoyed me, I always wanted to see a world cololition of fundementalists or communists against a cololition of Democracies or some higher form of government....well theres always civ 4 .

[Jools]

I'll wait and see though I do have some issues

Will this game bring anything new into the series? CTP was crap but it had a lot of good new ideas. Played Europa Universalis lately? That's a new brilliant idea and many people like it because it is something new.

Anyway I hope it will be good..... But generally the more I talk to EU2 beta testers (and watch my brother play CTP2, yech!) the more I loose my 10 year loyalty to civ........

[ixnay]

Originally posted by Gandalf The Grey


I saw that, but is it going to be like in Civ 2 where you can change the names and maybe a few numerical attributes? Thats weak. I was so hoping to see new governments...but i guess its going to be despotisms and democracies hand in hand like in civ 2...that always annoyed me, I always wanted to see a world cololition of fundementalists or communists against a cololition of Democracies or some higher form of government....well theres always civ 4 .

IIRC, you can specify wonders and improvements that can and can't be built under the certain governments. So, I would imagine that you would be able to make or edit the governments to be extremely diverse and different.

[CobraA1]

LACK OF MP HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED

quit whining about something you don't know about .

[CobraA1]

From what I've seen so far, the editors are extremely powerful. They're definitely more powerful than editing the text files in Civ II (example: you can add new governments).

[FuFu15]

Originally posted by CobraA1
LACK OF MP HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED

quit whining about something you don't know about .

LACK OF A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER IN WHICH U KILL RABBITS hasnt been confirmed EITHER. but with the evidence, you can sure as hell conclude that.

[CobraA1]

The "evidence" consists of a single letter, and about 10000 posts screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!."

And last I heard, we weren't talking about first person rabbit shooters.

[yin26]

Lockstep: My understanding is that 16 civs is the default only for the largest map. If you want 16 civs on other maps (or anything other than the default civs determined by Firaxis for each map size) you have to use the editor.

Do you have different information?

[gremalkin]

My biggest worry is the AI.. Though certain recent threads have given me hope..

I'm also worried that after a few games a single strategy becomes the best and easiest way to win the game.. Which I guess is to do with the AI and game balancing. If as and when they bring out MP, it will be really boring if there is one sure fire way to win.. There has been a lot of talk on making peaceful strategies as powerful as military ones tho, so there's hope yet!

But I've got no beef with Firaxis until I've played the game! What I really hope is that the AI thrashes me the first 3 or 4 games.. Then I'll know they've done the business!!

[gremalkin]

[SIZE=1] 2. Too many irrelevant UUs. 1/1/2 for the aztec UU? I dunno about the rest of you but it isn't long before i get bronze working i normally only make 1 warrior in civ2 and thats to scout with...some of the units look like they will be good but for the most part many seem a little to weak.

With the need for the horse resource in order to build cavalry units, the aztecs have a 2 movement point unit right from the start of the game - that requires no resource.. This is surely incredibly powerful? Plus I have read that workers can be captured.. A two movement point cheap unit will be perfect for picking off workers..

I guess we need to see how the UU's play.. And you can always switch them off..

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by HalfLotus


In game terms I think Civ3 (SP) will be far better than "a car that had non-changable tires that could only travel 10.m.p.h. on and couldn't drive more than 2 miles from your house".

Multiplayer has never been PROMISED to ship with first release. Who are you to decide what the COMPLETE game is? Are you programming the game? Do you work for Firaxis? Didn't think so.

I believe CIV3 with only SP will be well worth the money I pay for it. It would be nice to have MP, but Civ 3 will be worth it's weight in gold.

You now, but I'll bet you buy Civ 3 and love it.

Well... The analogy was that you're buying a semi-functional product and having to pay more to complete the whole product at a later time. Sorry you couldn't quite piece that together.

I believe SP has the potential to be very good for the game but shipping it (potentially) with only SP and no MP to charge MP later would be wrong, IMHO.

Oh, and regarding this "MP was never promised to ship with the first release" BS. since when? When the game was first advertised there were numerous references to "ground-breaking MP", etc. Since word leaked out several weeks ago about MP not being included (and not denied by Firaxis) most of the web sites that used to include "ground-breaking MP" as a feature of the game on initial release have since changed their ad's. If you followed the game development closer you'd know this.

I hope that SP will be worth the money people pay for it, and I hope they like to shell out additional dollars if MP comes out with an add-on pack (of which >50% of the scenarios will come from the Internet anyway), but I can guarentee that I will wait to buy them both together, if at all based on real reviews a month or two after it's released.

I rant now? Nah, not really, because I loved the firct Civ and have already had my expectations shattered when Civ2 was nothing but Civ1 with better graphics. I doubt Civ3 will be that much different than Civ2 except for soime minor things. If it is radically better with adaptive AI, better unit design and if the "added" features like culture and hero's actually make the game better then fine I may get it, provided it all ships in one piece.

In all honesty I do hope the game is great and ships with MP (as originally promised) because I'll join the rest of the lemmings in buying it, otherwise I'll buy Stronghold and/or Pool of Radience and be happy with those until MOO3 comes out and then I may buy Civ3 when the gold edition comes out.

Civ3 is not the end all-be all, of my life or my computer gaming experience unlike some folks here apparently.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What are your beefs with Civ3?

Can we agree to stop "replying w/quote" now, please?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by yin26
Lockstep: My understanding is that 16 civs is the default only for the largest map. If you want 16 civs on other maps (or anything other than the default civs determined by Firaxis for each map size) you have to use the editor.

This is also my understanding, but I wouldn´t abridge it to a mistakable 'only 16 civs through using the editor' as you did before.

BTW, I think your criticism regarding beta efforts and MP was clipped and precise.

[yin26]

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I wasn't clear. But you quoted my statement elsewhere in which I say it:

Which means you MUST use the editor to use 16 civs on anything but the largest map...

I have been assured, however, the editor is a friendly tool that even seeds the civs randomly, so perhaps it will only be a few extra steps?

[Earthling7]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only official info we have on the mapsizes and amounts of Civ in a game is from that Firaxis Q&A page.

As I see it, it's a default. You could select how many Civs to play in Civ2, why not here? It doesn't say that it's a max amount, so it could be a default or recommended for that mapsize. No?

[yin26]

I agree with that except for the way it was answered in another thread. Something like: "Can we not have 16 civs in a game?" "Well, 16 is default for the largest map size..." as if to say, 16 ONLY for the largest map. If that was just bad timing/wording, and if we can select any number of civs up to 16 for any map size (which is how it should be...within logical limits of too many civs for too small a map or something), then great!

[Boris Godunov]

But if it only takes the use of the editor, which is supposedly very simple, then what does it matter what the game defaults are? You can just change it to suit your little heart!

I think this thread should be beefs that can't seem to be fixed with the editor. I think the editor is going to make a lot of people very very happy.

I have ONE major gripe that doesn't seem to be easily solved by the editor, and that's the exclusion on the Ottoman Turks/Arabs and inclusion of the Iroquois. Yes, I know you can change the civs, but I want a leader portrait! And I don't want to have to go in and change all the civ-specific things about the Iroquois to the Turks. I want it done for me!! It makes no sense to me and I strenuously object!!!

However, this might get fixed in the expansion pack, which I hope will add new civs.

*Breathes deeply*

[Boris Godunov]

if we can select any number of civs up to 16 for any map size (which is how it should be...within logical limits of too many civs for too small a map or something), then great!

What I gather is that for each successive map size, the maximum number of civs gets greater. So for the huge map, you can select 16 OR LESS and so on. But on a smaller map, you couldn't go beyond the maximum except by using the editor, and this is just to maximize AI effectiveness.

If this is the case, what's the big deal? Just use the editor and be done with it if you want 16 civs on a small world (why on earth you'd want this, I don't know...)

Cheers.

[yin26]

If this is the case, what's the big deal?

[edited after re-reading]: The only point is that the player should be able to select the number of civs without having to use the editor at all...within reason of map limits. But if the editor is easy to use, etc., then this is no big deal, either.