Archers shoot down cruise missiles... AI hardly notices nuclear attacks...MP anybody?

yin26 · October 30, 2001, 02:35

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=31040

The whole sad truth is there. It's just about every horrid thing I could NOT want in Civ3.

And Korn: Sorry, bro. Not only is MAD *missing* from this game, nuclear attacks are just another form of attack.

*sigh*

So much lost time on the List and this forum. Hell.

yin26 · October 30, 2001, 02:36

Oh, and your reward for reaching the Modern Era is? Boredom.

*clap clap*

Brilliant!

connorkimbro · October 30, 2001, 02:41

i don't trust good reviews. i don't trust bad reviews. i play the game and see for myself.

i'm firmly convinced that 99% of computer game reviewers are completely idiots that couldn't find their ass with both hands.

marcuspeddle · October 30, 2001, 02:43

Some of the things mentioned in reviews are indeed very disappointing. Sluggish screen, nuclear weapons not destroying all units, and so on. Still, there seems to be enough positive points to make the game worthwhile. I'm hoping . . . .
Anyway, I'll just have to try it out for myself and see if it's any good.

orange · October 30, 2001, 02:49

Quote:

Originally posted by connorkimbro
i'm firmly convinced that 99% of computer game reviewers are completely idiots that couldn't find their ass with both hands.

Maybe they just have really small arses

Zanzin · October 30, 2001, 02:57

The sluggish screen scrolling annoys me. I don't think I'll install civ3 until I get my new computer

So, Yin, you're definately not going to purchase Civ3? Even though deep down in your heart you want to, right?

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2001, 03:06

Funny thing is... Yin doesn't trust good reviews, but bad reviews are fact

.

Some other quotes:

Quote:

While I have dedicated several paragraphs to detailing what I found wrong with Civilization III, there is a lot here to like. When taken as a whole, the game is still very fun to play and quite addicting -- just not as much as some long time fans may have hoped.

Quote:

This section is actually a bit difficult to rate, as it took me quite some time to play a successful game on the third level of difficulty -- Reagent. That said, Civilization III comes with six levels of difficulty and there is a noticeable difference between them as you progress along the scale. For example, on Warlord (level two) the computer players are not very aggressive towards you and tend to place cities in poor locations -- even doing so within pockets of your empire not covered by your Culture. However, when you step up to Reagent, the computer players become a lot more savvy: Their city placement becomes much better, they become more aggressive, and because of the bonuses they receive to production, it becomes much harder to keep up. Needless to say, Civilization III doesn't break the tradition of challenging gameplay for players of all skill levels. If there was one annoy point about the AI, it would be that the computer players often make ridiculous demands during diplomacy, while generally offering nothing in return.

Siej · October 30, 2001, 03:37

Yin,

You are obviously on these forums because you enjoy Civilization, so I must ask why you continue to troll in every single thread. Once is enough. We've all heard your opinion and bashings of Civ3 and I'm sure most don't care to continue reading it.

The two reviews are quite favorable and it's a given there will be faults and bugs. I'm very trusting in Firaxis that after our input will address this in a patch. Most of the negative points in the IGN and Avault review are minor and easily fixed. Just give it a rest please.

yin26 · October 30, 2001, 03:39

Well, the burdens of proof are quite different.

"The gameplay is good." Well, how? In other words, it will take time for that kind of good detail to come ... and I will give it every chance.

"An archer shot down a cruise missile, the map won't scroll well and the AI doesn't care if you lob ICBMs all over the place." Gee. Pretty clear on that, eh?

Anyway, the missile and AI issues are *personal* hot-buttons for me. Maybe a number of people here don't really mind.

yin26 · October 30, 2001, 03:40

Siej:

As long as the horrid news comes in, I will write about it on these forums.

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2001, 03:42

But, as you can't take a good review as totally true, can you take a bad review as the same?

Wait for players to talk about the AI. Won't be long

.

Siej · October 30, 2001, 03:51

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but you said you don't trust reviews? So before actually playing the game you are claiming the game is bad from reading two reviews you don't even trust?

Anyway, my advice to you is to pick the game up from your local EB. They have a 10 day return policy and if you don't like the game you can get your money back (store credit.) I just feel you should play the game first before going against your standards and believing reviews.

yin26 · October 30, 2001, 03:57

Quote:

can you take a bad review as the same?

I understand your point, but consider (again): "Great gameplay!" Well, I'll need many good examples. Then: "My archer shot down a missile and the AI doesn't really respond when I nuke people." Well, what more do I need? Is the guy lying? These are MAJOR FAULTS IN THE SYSTEM!!! Can they be patched?

...Lord, now we go back to Square One.

Siej: It seems I have a *very* hard time trusting positive reviews. Can you blame me? While *specific* negatives really stand out ... and should. Of course, I hate those general negative reviews like "The gameplay is missing that certain something." Well, unless the guy can tell me what that is, I consider his review a waste of Net space. But look at the examples above of what I mean on the negative side. Broken game mechanics.

As for your recommendation to just play the game: I refuse to buy it at anything approaching retail price. If the Korean market gets me the LE at $35, I'll buy it. Otherwise, I'll just play the 'release and patch' game. Again.

Earthling7 · October 30, 2001, 03:58

Given the release/shipment fiasco, fukem. I'm going to get a "temporary" version and only replace it when the MP/Fixed version comes out. That is, unless the "temporary" version proves itself worthy.

AAAAAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

Yin, if you are right, I'm going to call the dog shelter and get them to pick you up. Don't shoot the messenger, my arse.

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2001, 04:00

Yin, what I am saying is can't you take the AI/nuke thing as something that might be a result of difficulty level?

The archer thing does sound like a bug, though might need confirmation.

ACEofHeart · October 30, 2001, 04:05

Now that the intial excitment of playing Civilization with "borders" has long passed, it was with deep interest that I viewed the "negative" areas of the first Review.
Still unrealistic battle results, unavoidable city corruption, poor screen scrolling, frequent city starvation, modern era boredom,
Wonder Movies reduced to name a few..
All that and Minimun System Requirements is a P2-300 !!!
Well,, I'll buy it.. but I'm not going to be deleting Civ2 just yet..

Siej · October 30, 2001, 04:11

Yin,

I suppose you have your opinion on the matter, but I don't see why you must continue as you have in every thread. I myself don't like the fact a cruise missle can be shot down by an archer. That's absurd. Nukes? They should demolish everything in their path. It might be a bug, although, I can't see how something of that nature got through testing. If they aren't bugs I will want it fixed in a patch.

However, I don't expect those faults to subtract from the overall enjoyment Civ3 will bring. I mean come on...this is Sid Mier/Firaxis. Have they really let us down yet? Some would agree SMAC wasn't anywhere near what Civ/Civ2 were. Critics? They praised it. PCGamer gave it a 98% rating practically claiming it flawless. It all boils down to personal opinion and until you've actually played a game you can't agree or disagree with what another person feels that game is or isn't.

LaRusso · October 30, 2001, 04:14

good god, calm down yin.
if AI does not mind you lobbing ICBMs at wimpy level but monitors your mobilization on higher, i'd be very happy
as for scrolling, it has to be seen.....

btw...my baby has been shipped

yin26 · October 30, 2001, 04:15

Quote:

Yin, what I am saying is can't you take the AI/nuke thing as something that might be a result of difficulty level?

That's possible. And if so, a horrible way to handle it.

Quote:

However, I don't expect those faults to subtract from the overall enjoyment Civ3 will bring. I mean come on...this is Sid Mier/Firaxis. Have they really let us down yet?

Well, we can agree to disagree, then. Those two things alone make the game almost unplayble to me. Call me finicky. Call me crazy.

yin26 · October 30, 2001, 04:17

Oh, and as for the "great way" these reviews end: This guy basically says that MP is where the good playing will come. Hello?

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2001, 04:21

Uh.. Yin. They gave Intelligence and Difficulty 4.5/5 stars. That seems pretty damned good to me.

And quote is:

Quote:

If you're a fan of the series or of the genre, then I can readily recommend picking up Civilization III -- just keep in mind that it may not be all you expected, especially later in the game. For those looking to take their first steps into turn-based strategy, Civilization III is an excellent place to start. It will allow new players to start off easy, and grow into the challenges that will be thrown at them. Despite the problems I found within Civilization III and the fact that the Modern Era feels unfinished, the possibilities for expansion seem nearly unlimited. Once Firaxis implements multiplayer, there won't be any reason to avoid this game, which again proves itself to be both fun and addictive to play.

It can also be interpreted as Civ3 is an excellent game and once there is multiplayer then there is no reason for you NOT to buy this game. That does not lead me to believe that you need multiplayer to make the game fun.

Look outside your box, Yin.

Faboba · October 30, 2001, 04:27

Quote:

Originally posted by ACEofHeart
Now that the intial excitment of playing Civilization with "borders" has long passed,

Sorry man, but for me it will NEVER pass. I love the idea, I love that they used it, and I love that they included a normalising effect to stop it from becomming stupid.

Quote:

it was with deep interest that I viewed the "negative" areas of the first Review.

Thats how everyone seems to be looking at the reviews. They're desperate for an excuse not to like the game it seems.

Quote:

Still unrealistic battle results,

Its not unrealistic. The chances of entrenched warriors, in a fort, at the top of a mountain killing modern infantry soldiers is actually pretty high. Doesn't bother me unless it's too extreme. ( IE -AI has lucky day, sacks your metropolis with a legionaire ). What with the outrageous bonuses by the end of the game ( city wall = 50%, entrenched = 50%, Metropolis = 100%. Mech infantry with a defense of 60 anyone......... I hated that in CTP I could NEVER win against a more advanced unit.

Quote:

unavoidable city corruption,

Say it all doesn't it? UNAVOIDABLE. You're damn right. You can't stop the crime element, only put it down slightly. The richer your city the more will be lost via nefarious means.

Quote:

poor screen scrolling,

Probably because they've done away with the irritating pain-in-the-ass feature POP-Up CTP had. ( you;'re scrolling, you can't see anything, you pause and suddenly POP, there are your cities and units. Can't see anything as you move. There will naturally be some slowdown because of the correction of this.

Quote:

frequent city starvation,

Good. I don't want metopolises in the friggint dessert! You should be able to 'make a go of it#' no matter where your city was. Otherwise you could just build it in te middle of a mountainrange and ferry food there turn after turn.

Quote:

modern era boredom,

Where have you been? The modern era is boring. All that happens is every so often someone builds a giant army and tries to take over the world with it, and fails. All that happens in the modern age in reality is that someone gets a really big army and conquers maybe two cities or so. The modern age is a conflict of science and diplomacy my friend.

Quote:

Wonder Movies reduced to name a few..

We were told they were out entirely. I'm just glad they're in at all.

Quote:

that and Minimun System Requirements is a P2-300 !!!

You honestly telling me you don't have that. Hell if you've bought a half decent computer in the last half a decade you'll have that.

Quote:

Well,, I'll buy it.. but I'm not going to be deleting Civ2 just yet..

Well I won't be giving up on Civ3 just yet either. "And don't you roll your eyes at ME young man!"

yin26 · October 30, 2001, 04:31

Quote:

They gave Intelligence and Difficulty 4.5/5 stars.

Again, where are the solid examples of this?

As for the 'expanding' and 'multiplaying': It seems clear. The SP experience will be less than what we were expecting ... and it will be up to the modders and MPers to fix it (again).

Faboba · October 30, 2001, 04:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Look outside your box, Yin.

But the light.... AHHHHH! It's too bright!

"False dawn! Makes the night BRIGHTER THAN THE DAY!"

yin26 · October 30, 2001, 04:33

Quote:

The modern age is a conflict of science and diplomacy my friend.

See: Previous AI apathy posts.

Quote:

But the light.... AHHHHH! It's too bright!

Wow! Witty!

LaRusso · October 30, 2001, 04:34

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=31040

The whole sad truth is there. It's just about every horrid thing I could NOT want in Civ3.

And Korn: Sorry, bro. Not only is MAD *missing* from this game, nuclear attacks are just another form of attack.

*sigh*

So much lost time on the List and this forum. Hell.

okay,
let me get this straight
adrenaline vault moron transports cruise missille. that probably has to be done bu a truck. some mujahedeens basically killed the driver and destroyed the missile.

monkspider · October 30, 2001, 04:41

If the AI is indifferent about nukes, then that is ATTROCIOUS!
That itself should constitute an attrocity. Hopefully it's easily patched, or a random glitch that the reviewer encountered.

ACEofHeart · October 30, 2001, 05:15

Faboba, will I'm still a kid at heart, being a Vietnam Vet believe me I'm not a "young man"..
Ok,,I've read 3 reviews so far, and I find one irratating trend in all
of them. Just because something is "different" in the game does not translate to being better !!!
Example..Visually sending my spies and diplomats out was a "fun" factor in the game, so eliminating that entirely now, according to one reviewer is better ??? grrrr..

And saying that a P2-300 is the "minimum" requirements means
you probably need a Pentium3 to optimately play Civ3.. I just found that unrealistically pretty darn steep....
Anyway the bottom line to any game is "was it a fun gaming
experience, that you would want to play again".. I'll know by this
weekend the answer to that personally..!!

fanatic civver · October 30, 2001, 05:17

Yin: The game has been out for one day. *You* havent even played it. Yet you flame away like there is no tomorrow

I think you are being very unfair to Firaxis and the civ community in general.

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2001, 05:26

Quote:

Again, where are the solid examples of this?

I don't understand you Yin. This is the SAME reviewer that you are using for your negative points. Why is it when he says something positive you hav trouble believing him?