What are your beefs with Civ3? - Page 3

lockstep · October 1, 2001, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I think this thread should be beefs that can't seem to be fixed with the editor.

I was worried about the government system that seemed like a step back from SMAC´s SE system. Reading in 'the list' (long after it was finished), it seems to me that at least some kind of innovation regarding governments was taken for granted by the Apolytoners.

Now that it is confirmed that one can add new governments (and some of CtP2´s additonial ones were reasonable), I´m not that worried anymore. But will it be possible to teach the AI how to use the additional governments?

I´d also really like to see a system of 'ordinances' that will fine-tune the existing governments. Firaxis´ 'mobilization' setting is a step in that direction.

HalfLotus · October 1, 2001, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous

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.

Oxy I just think you were being a little hard on Firaxis considering th game isnt out yet. These are talented and intelligent people who are about to release one of the greatest games ever. I have been screwed by game companies too (Lionhead's Black&White comes to mind), but to this point, I see nothing but good things so far. I would rather have SP now and MP 6 months from now, than all of it 6 months from now. Also, they haven't said they're charging for MP yet, so dont scream ripoff.

PS-Civ2 is Civ1 with better graphics? Ha.

Kc7mxo · October 1, 2001, 14:06

this is rather an old quote, but oh well
"""""""""""""""""""""""""
Uh, actually it was the natural evolution of the point system from SMAC. And it is not racist. Ask any historian about the Romans and they will tell you they were militaristic. Anyone on the street can see that. What is racist is saying "The Romans are militaristic because all they did was rape and destroy all the things the Greeks and other cultures did"

if you plan to just turn off this feature as soon as you start your
first game then you are insulting Firaxis by saying "This feature
seems stupid so I won't give it a chance."
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Really. So the romans were a fundamentally militaristic species. This never chagned throughout their history and they always liked to run around raping and pillaging because it was in their genetic nature to do so and they'd still have done it if the'd started out in the middle of south america with no one to rape and pillage. if this is what you think then don't bother responding.

Insulting Firaxis? No. Telling them I don't like what they're doing? yes. if i buy a car and it comes with a glovebox full of rap cds i'm going to throw em out the #$$@%^ window no matter how much the dealer liked em.

"""""""""""""""""""""""
Then why even choose a civilization to start off as? Then why even spend time to make a leader animation of a civ? Then why not name each civ Generic Communion of People Number 1, Generic Communion of People Number 2, etc.? You are redoing history by replaying the civs that made history.
""""""""""""""""""""""

Don't. I don't really care about leader animations.

But leave the names, I like the associations that develop as I play. Its easier to remember the babylonians attacked me than green did.

We obviously want to play slightly different games.

Jason Beaudoin · October 1, 2001, 15:40

Truth be told, I'm happy about what I've heard about CIV 3 so far and I will happily buy the game at the end of the month.

However, if I had to say anything that I'm disappointed about, it would be domestic politics. It would have been nice to have to deal (or dispute against) lords of your relm or governors of various different provinces within your empire, and to appoint certain leaders to your cabinet as advisors.

I just wish that there was more of a focus on dealing with different personalities within your own empire.

lockstep · October 1, 2001, 16:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
However, if I had to say anything that I'm disappointed about, it would be domestic politics. It would have been nice to have to deal (or dispute against) lords of your relm or governors of various different provinces within your empire, and to appoint certain leaders to your cabinet as advisors.

I agree. This would also result in more realistic 'inner unrest' and reasons for civil war. However, not being totally in control of your own civ is a very fundamental change of design. Perhaps it will be adopted in a Civ4 (and I´m looking forward to MoO3 for that very reason).