Let's face it...

[civcop]

Civ 3 will thrill a great many and yet cause others to grumble and complain. From, "There's no MP!" to "The AI sucks!", those who are umimpressed will compile a list of flaws with Civ 3 while those who appreciate it will laud its virtues.

It appears that the more "sophisticated" players are at least suspicious of Civ 3 (if they haven't already written it off as crap) and the more trusting and/or less demanding players hold out faith in Sid and Firaxis and will most likely enjoy the game. For the most critical, Civ 3 will be sub par no matter its features. The game could induce orgasms and they would still find something to complain about. What intrigues me as much or more than how the game will play is whether or not the harshest critics and most jaded players will eat crow if the game is actually good.

[korn469]

what we must remember is that it is only a game...yes one i have been waiting on for the past two years, but still it is only a game

like you say some will love it, some will hate it, most of the world's population won't even play it

but most important, there will always be room for improvement, so civ1 sucked a few weeks out of my life, civ2 a few months, civ3 a few years, civ4 a few decades

[Bkeela]

I would positively hate Civ III if it pleased the so called "sophisticated" player.

All games should strictly adhere to the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid.

Bkeela.

[Blake]

I'm one of the faithfull.

Firaxis can do no evil. It's all good.
And if they make the AI moddable I wont even have to gripe about that .

[Adm.Naismith]

Point 1) Most of people who are afraid of a Civ III flop would love to see a Great Game, still if it cost them to eat something

Point 2) As for movies and books critics and readers can often debate and never fully agree. That's fine for me: is not as if we need a "standing ovation" for every products we buy.

Point 3) This game is one of the most relevant case when so many people tried to help developers posting and sending an excessive, stunning amount of suggestion, hints, models....

If you take something to your heart is understandable you are more ready to debate and complain if something goes "wrong" (in your point of view).

This will not be a surprise, IMHO.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by civcop
those who are umimpressed will compile a list of flaws with Civ 3 while those who appreciate it will laud its virtues.

I think maybe both. I still find flaws about civ2, but I keep going back and playing it.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Bkeela
I would positively hate Civ III if it pleased the so called "sophisticated" player.

All games should strictly adhere to the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid.

Bkeela.

I'd hate Civ3 if it was geared for the "idiot" player.

All games should NOT adhere to the KISS otherwise you'd miss out on games like Age of Kings, SimCity, Homeworld, any and all flight sims, MOO3 (hopefully), Railroad Tycoon, etc.

If you want a simple game go play solitaire and leave the complex games to those who enjoy them.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


All games should NOT adhere to the KISS otherwise you'd miss out on games like Age of Kings, SimCity, Homeworld, any and all flight sims, MOO3 (hopefully), Railroad Tycoon, etc.

Actually Age of Kings or Railroad Tycoons were simple games - it was the scope that made them extremely playable. All Civs were simple. Chess are simple.

Simple does not mean basic or plain.
Complex does not mean fun or challenging.

And SimCity never really took my attention for long. When I want complexity, lots of numbers and data, I simply go to work.

Unfortunately I can't call Godzilla to eat my boss though, just as in Sim City

edit: spelling

[Rasbelin]

Looks like you share the same ideas as Sid.
Simplicity is that what gives the game the final touch.

[Martinus]

Yes. I mean there is nothing wrong with implementing new ideas. But after the first stage of development, there need to be a second one - cutting off the redundant ones and making the game run with the same simple engine.

What intrigues me as much or more than how the game will play is whether or not the harshest critics and most jaded players will eat crow if the game is actually good.

I'm sure the gameplay will be good. I like what I've seen with respect to resources and culture. BUT

I'm concerned that instead of an improved AI, Firaxis has concentrated on animated leaders who for the most part look like clownshoes. (Exception: Lou Diamond Phillips makes a great Montezuma). But I think the AI will be reasonable, and hey, they may even suprise me. Also, I can replace dopey animated leaders with photographs according to Firaxis (which also means I can change leaders entirely). I guess Firaxis copied one thing from Activistion. But I don't like the leaders, so I won't eat crow there unless the art totally changes (fat chance). Won't eat crow on the AI either, again I'm sure it will be reasonable.

Where I will level my harshest criticism is at the following two items -
(1) No Scripting Language! Here is where Activision actually introduced an important innovation. Because Civ3 will not have such a language, Civ3 is really a step backwards with this lacuna. One, it allows modmakers improve on the game and create really cool scenarios. I had some great ideas about alien scenarios . . .
(2) No Social Engineering. This was a great innovation in SMAC. Instead we are stuck with a civ1 political model ten or so years later in civ3. Boring!

Will I eat crow? Nope. I'm sure I'll enjoy the game out of the box, but the fact is it could have been better and we all know it.

Firaxis can do no evil. It's all good.

Do you own stock? Are you an employee? If not, what do you care?

A software developer is only as good as their last few products. If Firaxis makes a good game, I'll buy it. If they crap in a box, stamp "Sid Meier's Sh!t" on the front, I won't (not even if a beefy roll of toilet paper is included). Firaxis is only a company, people.

[Mankind]

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant


If they crap in a box, stamp "Sid Meier's Sh!t" on the front, I won't (not even if a beefy roll of toilet paper is included). Firaxis is only a company, people.

even if they add a poster?

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
..........If they crap in a box, stamp "Sid Meier's Sh!t" on the front, I won't (not even if a beefy roll of toilet paper is included)....

Do you think they will release the limited edition?

[cassembler]

I remember playing Civ2 for the first few months and it [seemingly] had no flaws... as the years rolled by, however, they became very obvious to me (mostly the AI- everything else was and still is acceptably ok to me). Dang, they could have just rewritten the AI for Civ2 and I'd still pay $50 for it.

I will buy Civ3, and I will play it, and I will like it.
I can already tell that Firaxis has their poo together.
Kudos.

[civcop]

Someone mentioned chess and I believe that is a fantastic analogy here. The players I directed the term "sophisticated" toward are those who desire a game that challenges them every time they play it. They found ways to beat the AI in Civ 1 and 2, even on deity level, and so they were forced to turn to MP in order to be challenged. I could say that it's easy to fall into this rut if you continue to play the game in the same manner every time, to wit: I found a way to win on deity so I continued playing that same way every game and got bored. I also admit that human nature directs one to continue doing that which works and this same group may have been able to win even trying different methods of gameplay (i.e. warmonger, through science, etc.).

Then you have another group that found the game fun, even if they could win at deity most of the time too, and continued to appreciate the game. Thus comes the chess analogy. I've played a fair bit of chess and even got seriously into it for a time. I read books. I bought MCO (the "bible of chess"). I went to Kasparov's site daily to see what was new in the chess world and what he had to say about it. I studied notated games from chess Masters and Grandmasters. Despite all that, I still struggled against my chess computer when it was set at higher difficulty levels. But I still enjoyed the game. If you reach a point when you feel unchallenged, the game loses appeal. Such was the case for some with Civ 2. And so they view Civ 3 as likely to bring about the same problems for them. Others play chess because they enjoy it, not in order to become a Grandmaster. So it is with civvers. I suppose in the end I'm trying to say that if you are one of those who demands a game that will challenge you every time you play, for several years and several thousands of games played, you will be frustrated. Such a game would be difficult to create, expensive to create and produce and would require the most modern PC systems. Also, only a small segment of the gaming population would purchase it and it would be therefore unmarketable.

I hope for the sake of you guys (and dolls) who were easily frustrated with Civ 2 that you find Civ 3 to be a pleasant (no pun intended toward Mr.) surprise. But I do also wonder if anyone who spoke doom and gloom toward Civ 3 ahead of time (such as, "It will absolutely suck and I won't buy it!") will admit you were mistaken if in fact you are. I do respect the position of those who say that regardless of how good it is they won't buy it unless it has MP capabilities. They stand on principle.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by cassembler
I remember playing Civ2 for the first few months and it [seemingly] had no flaws... as the years rolled by, however, they became very obvious to me .......

I totally agree - initially the majority of people will have difficulty identifying the flaws in the AI - or finding the perfect strategy that will allow them to win on the hardest settings.....

...and by the time this has happened MP will have come along

... and why are we now so interested in scatology?!!

[Locutus]

How do you know it will be good, have you played it?

Sorry, couldn't resist. I certainly don't mind if people are enthousiastic about this game but I do mind if people can't accept it when others don't share this feeling (I'm not calling any names and I'm not saying such people posted here but they're out there)...

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by civcop
It appears that the more "sophisticated" players are at least suspicious of Civ 3 (if they haven't already written it off as crap)

I consider myself to be a "sophisticated" player, but I still believe that civ3 will be the best civ ever. I see no reason why a person can't still enjoy a game even after they find a flaw. It's when they find flaws upon flaws that make the game actually unplayable, which I don't see Firaxis doing. They have worked hard (as far as I can tell) and I trust them to do their best in the time given to them.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Locutus
How do you know it will be good, have you played it?

How do you know it won't be good? Have you played it?

[TresXF]

for me it's like star trek (tng) - critix are futile

i loved civ I / II and alpha centauri -and i believe that i'll love civ III as well

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Sabre2th


How do you know it won't be good? Have you played it?

It was meant sarcastically (hence the smiley), people give me that exact line every single time I criticize Civ3 in any way...

[Steve Clark]

Two very key points I've picked up here:

Sid's Civ games (as well most his other ones) are based on the principle that they are simple in its design but very deep in its play.

The other point is about Civ2. There are flaws in that game and those of us from the Civ2-Strategy forum have joined in with Ming to laugh about most of them. However, I can speak for most of us in saying that it has given us 1000+ hours of enjoyment and to this day, it is a game that we still love to replay.

Isn't that the bottom line?

[Sarxis]

I do have to admire the passion that is expressed by everyone here at Apolyton for our CIV games. But at the same time, I have to say GET F#CKED to the people who are so vehemently criticizing things they haven't even seen yet.

"Sophisticated CIV players"? Geezuz! This game isn't rocket science! It's not the cure for cancer! I doubt any world leaders will be handing out medals for 'greatest CIV player in the world'.





Ahh, who am I kidding? CIV is the KEY to the UNIVERSE!! Put it in your mouth.

im afraid...

[Slax]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I do have to admire the passion that is expressed by everyone here at Apolyton for our CIV games. But at the same time, I have to say GET F#CKED to the people who are so vehemently criticizing things they haven't even seen yet.

I say the same about people who vehemently DEFEND things they haven't even seen yet.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
But at the same time, I have to say GET F#CKED to the people who are so vehemently criticizing things they haven't even seen yet.

See? This is exactly what I mean.
I respect anyone who is enthousiastic about this game and I honestly hope they have an awful lot of fun playing the game, that this game will be everything they ever hoped for (something which unfortunately isn't the case for me). I just wished people with different opinions would get at least some respect in return from people like Anunikoba...

[orange]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
The other point is about Civ2. There are flaws in that game and those of us from the Civ2-Strategy forum have joined in with Ming to laugh about most of them. However, I can speak for most of us in saying that it has given us 1000+ hours of enjoyment and to this day, it is a game that we still love to replay.

I think if I seriously totalled all the time spent playing Civ I, II, and CtpII, it would be about 3 months. 2000+ hours of Civ

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Locutus

that this game will be everything they ever hoped for (something which unfortunately isn't the case for me

Just because you didn't get everything you wanted doesn't mean you can't still enjoy it. If you don't like the game, great, but don't complain that you didn't get your civ3. Civ3 will be a damn good game (I think), but Firaxis can't please everyone.

[Locutus]

Am I complaining that I'm not getting my Civ3? My most important complaint is that it's too conservative. Even Firaxis calls it a 'conservative sequel' while I want a real sequel! It's not that I don't like culture or refuse to play a Civgame without a PW-like concept, it's that it's Civ2.5 rather than Civ3. The whole concept and approach Firaxis took are IMHO wrong, that's why I don't expect to enjoy Civ3 for very long. Combine that with developments like no MP, no scripting language and stuff and I think there is at least some grounds for complaint.

And no, I'm not gonna rehash the whole debate about whether it's Civ2.5 or not or whether or not MP is really that important. Fact is, I think it is and I don't like the game for it. Many others either disagree or don't mind and they have every right to do so. Does that make it illiegal for me to complain about this? It's not like I'm continuingly whining and bashing and not contributing anything useful to the community...

[cassembler]

I think there is at least some grounds for complaint.

The man has a point. Though I do not share his complaints, they are valid.