Civ III is probably the greatest game we will ever see in our lifetime - Page 2

Zanzin · November 1, 2001, 07:48

What's funny is how all these "n00bs" have come out of the wood work in the lasr 48 hours since the release of civ3, and how the expect some of the more seasoned Aploytoners to bow down and accept their word on civ3 as absolute truth. I'm going to ignore a lot of the "don't buy civ3" threads from users I've never seen before.

I'm hanging out for reviews from seasoned civ vets and members on this forum whose opinion I can trust.

Provost Harrison · November 1, 2001, 07:48

Looking at the map I see Great Britain has upped anchor and drifted into the Bay of Biscay. If only, the weather would be nicer

Well I have just started playing, I will reserve judgement for now, but it is certainly impressive. The AI is a b*tch, even at Warlord.

Zylka · November 1, 2001, 07:49

...and no bloody multiplayer, although it's obviously in the programming code and waiting to be activated with a re-release add on. The "add on" might as well be a password. ARGHH you people!

Zanzin · November 1, 2001, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
...and no bloody multiplayer, although it's obviously in the code and waiting to be activated with a re-release. ARGHH you people!

That's not going to make multiplayer magically activate, you know

Zylka · November 1, 2001, 07:52

The thing is, it probably will with a 1 kb "download". I'll laugh my ass off if horse somehow manages to figure out that mp is in there already, wouldn't be surprised.

Alexander's Horse · November 1, 2001, 07:55

If the multiplayer code is there, it will be found. Then we'll see.

I swear if Sid Meir was serving up rats on a stick some of you would say it was an awesome game.

Zylka · November 1, 2001, 07:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

I swear if Sid Meir was serving up rats on a stick some of you would ask for more.

I think I've found a new signature

Jason Beaudoin · November 1, 2001, 10:32

You know something... I couldn't care less whether other people like this game. I do, and that's all that matters. It was my money that I spent, and I'm very happy with it. It doesn't occur very often that we get a TBS game of this quality.

Plus, Firaxis is working on a lot of the stuff that many fans are complaining about, and their excuse for not having incorporated MP is fine by me.

Your.Master · November 1, 2001, 10:50

I'm waiting until Christmas for mommy to buy me the game

. But this...I sure hope your statement is untrue, but I think that the thread's title is the biggest pantload in history.

"Tetris is probably the greatest game in our lifetime" *PUKE*

"640Kb ought to be enough for anybody" -- Bill Gates *PUKE*

You know what...Civ2 has been the greatest game for years...but even if no other civilization was ever put out again, it would be surpassed.

*PUKE*

Times, they are a'changin!

donarumo · November 1, 2001, 10:54

I would also like to point out that no game will ever make everyone happy. That is impossible. Even if a perfect game was released, there would be some idiot posting about how it sucked. People like to hate things and once they find a cause, almost nothing will change their minds.

Also, if a any game had everything that "fans" asked for, that game would probably be so overly complicated and directionless that it would most likely no longer play very well.

I, for one, am very happy with my Civ3 experience so far. The game is tightly polished and extremely playable - which is much more than I could say for a lot of games released today - anyone play Merchant Prince II lately? Civ3 allows you to create your own story of world domination that spans to whole of human history in a fun and strategically challenging way just like it's predecessors.

Add to that the promise of expanded modibility (is that a word?) and I believe that you will indeed have a game that will stand the test of time.

jackshot · November 1, 2001, 10:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I swear if Sid Meir was serving up rats on a stick some of you would say it was an awesome game.

And if he made a game as enduring as chess, others would complain the squares were too square.

Oldenbarnevelt · November 1, 2001, 11:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

Looking at the map I see Great Britain has upped anchor and drifted into the Bay of Biscay

It's not Britain! It's Ireland, with Ulster coming off.

techumseh · November 1, 2001, 12:10

Well Seij, I see you've reverted to the "if you don't like the game get out of here" line. That didn't take long. Sorry to disappoint, but...no.

Just to help Dissident who, unfortunately, couldn't post a screenshot of the much better "Huge" world map included in the game, I've attached one. Like the first one, this is reduced to half size and I've added titles to help orient the ecstatic fans.

While doing this, I noticed a few things. First, I can't seem to load a map in the editor from a sav. file. Am I doing something wrong? Second, I can't seem to make a "scenario" from a sav. file or even a game in progress. Third, there doesn't seem to be any way to reveal the entire map of a game in progress. Am I missing something?

I also wondered about the 9 map types you pick from when you start a new game.This leads me to another question. Is there in fact a random map generator included in Civ3? Or do you just pick from those maps? I've been unable to find out, since I don't know how to reveal the maps from started games. Perhaps players who've gotten further and explored entire maps could compare their maps with the mini maps from the start up sequence? Thank you.

Grumbold · November 1, 2001, 12:39

Getting picky with the maps is probably pointless so I won't snigger too much at the shape and terrain choices of the large map. Seeing absolutely no rivers in Europe, when these formed some of the most important territorial borders in history is so disappointing I have to mention it though.

Dis · November 1, 2001, 15:25

that still doesn't look like my map. maybe because it has been reduced down.

but the lack of rivers is pathetic.

no excuse for that.

I'll concede that the work on the maps has been terrible. They obviously didn't care about the general public at all. And expected the hardcore guys to make their own maps.

the editor isn't very good either.

I still think the game itself is great. But stuff that should have been included weren't done so properly

Mike4879 · November 1, 2001, 15:37

Most of the people in this forumn was disappointed with the game I feel because if you look at the "list of features" to Firaxis, its obvious that people have created a game in their mind that would take years to create and billions of dollars to perfect. The game is great as it is. Some fans will never be happy.

Comrade Tribune · November 1, 2001, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
In other words Imran has NO IDEA where France, Spain and the British Isles are relative to each other.

My thoughts exactly; you be mindreading?

ProfessorPhobos · November 1, 2001, 16:42

I agree that the game's got some problems- no multiplayer, an incomplete editor, and the crap-tacular world maps. None of them deal the death blow to a spectacular game. It's a hell of a lot of fun. Single Player so far is great! The world maps can be improved, so untill then, just play on random maps.

genghisvick · November 1, 2001, 18:37

Agreed it is the greatest game ever!

FexFX · November 1, 2001, 22:06

Mike4879 Has hit the nail on the head with a nuke!
The problem with this whole forum (and the reason I had not posted a single word until after release) is that for almost 7 years the folks here at Apolyton has been building a perfect game in their minds. Granted many of their suggestions has been very good and very innovative. However...and I hate to say this becuase of the angry lynch mob that shows up every time this is said...but this is not a Billion dollar game with a 50 year developement cycle!
I know I probably sound like a drooling idiot to the Apolyton regulars who post in here every day (I have been reading to forum for about 2 years now), but I am happy with the game they have produced.
It have some flaws, and a lack of some features that "everyone" wanted, but these are all FIXABLE!
This game was not release on FIRAXIS' time table, but on their publisher's deadline. From the early interviews I read with Sid, he did not want to release the game "until it is done" in his own words.
Unfortunately it was not up to him.
It was up to Infogrames.
So his team was given a deadline.
in order to meet that deadline and still have a product that was at least useable they had to scrap their grand plans and cut back to what was already working. Anything not finished had to be scrapped.
IN SPITE OF THIS the game is still better than most of the games in the past few years...
How about Ultima 9...Garriot asked for another year to develop and they told him publish it now or we kill the entire project...
I imagine a similar scenario here.
Would that have been better? No Civ3 at all?

So what we get now, is instead of a Dream Game with every feature you have ever dreamed of we get a game that is actually very good for what it is, and which has lots and lots of room for growth.
They have told us that they DO plan on instituting MP and improving the editing tools...So please give them a break...

techumseh · November 1, 2001, 23:06

FeFex, I don't think you've been listening. The main complaints voiced here have to do with features that already existed in Civ2, are standard equipment on most contemporary computer games and were promised by Firaxis for Civ3. Specificaly, multi-player capability and complete and functional scenario editors. Premade scenarios and accurate maps also fit that description.

These are not nice fantasies of naive fans requiring a 50 year development period and a $billion budget. They could have been achieved within existing time frames and budgets had Firaxis not again had major personnel problems. But that's their problem, not ours. We deserve a finished product, which is up to industry standards.

Anyway, it was a good theory.

Zylka · November 2, 2001, 00:26

No Tecumseh, perhaps their argument is logical. Just think, if firaxis were to make the game we were expecting [with all of the features civ2 had, and more

], it obviously would have been phenominally expensive. Yep. Just think of how expensive it would be to create a nice map of Europe, or even one scenario, or activate the existing multiplayer, or make the oceans blue. Or... all of them put together

I think that is a good estimate, it would turn out to be a billion dollar/50 year project

Don't laugh.

That's right, a billion dollars.

Twice as much as a challenger space mission.

You people are so f*cking stupid it amazes me. Good night.

Ballz1998 · November 2, 2001, 00:39

First of all I guess i must be a NOOB according to some of the people on here who have no responsibilities other than playing games... Sorry but I have bills to pay so instead of posting messages about a game, generally I prefer to play it. This explains my big fat "chieftan" tag. I imagine a good deal of the "veteran" posters on hear are newbs compared to me on the civ timeline. I have the original civ, with the 5.25" disks that doesn't have any "game of the year" awards on it yet, so shuv that in your pie hole if you think your special because you have 10 trillion posts on Apolyton.

The majority of people who like the game don't defend it, because they are busy enjoying themselves. So I'm here to do some defending. This game is the greatest thing since Civ 2 as far as I can tell. It's totally different than Civ2 but its much much better. . . as far as I can tell. Diplomacy is vastly improved, the computer AI is vastly improved. The biggest problem I can find so far is the AI tresspasses alot and they build cities where its obviously going to rebel and join my civ. The tresspassing is not an issue to me any more since if they continue to violate my borders I can get them to pay me cash for right of passage. (usually they only tresspass when they need to get to my enemy). This is just a matter of the computer being weak in one area of diplomacy. They seem pretty good at the other things. patch anyone?

On the issue of stupid city locations I have concluded that the computer can "see" the yet undiscovered resources... In fact I even build cities in the middle of the tundra and desert now when I run out of other areas

I know that later on. Being "stupid" is going to pay big in oil, ect. . .

Most of the problems I see people complaining about tend to be things that simply aren't that big of a deal... corruption is one. Get the advanced governments and rush build courthouses, keep your people happy and your culture high... use the forbidden city. Corruption is still a big issue... but even in the USA its a big issue... not to mention countries like russia and china.

People complain about the civs beating them down... I've only had remote instances of civs threatening me... then I just say... no way and they remain polite. I think its because of my culture. Maintain a high culture and other civs realize it will be very hard to take over your cities so they play nice. If all you do is pump out military and don't cultivate culture, you are going to get jumped all over just like in real life. Britain vs. the Zulus anyone?
It helps for other civs to see you has a civilized nation...

This game is great, it will get better... lets hear some more praise from the lurkers out there if you have the time :-)

SixArmedMan · November 2, 2001, 00:53

I think the reason why so many people are flinging out the "newb" remarks is because a lot of these new posters take a confrontational approach with their tone. So what's one supposed to think when someone with a "settler" title comes in and tells you to "play the game or shut up"? It's insulting. Granted, resorting to "newb" remarks isn't justified either but then, I think you should understand why people are reacting in such a fashion.

yin26 · November 2, 2001, 01:58

As a guy who is a few posts shy of the coveted 'Emperor' status, I must say: Post count is absolutely one of the THE MOST HORRID ways to measure somebody's ability to contribute to the forums.

On the other hand, the people who show up here and pretend to know the entire history of what was promised, what was said and how it was all delivered are, in many cases, typing up some of THE MOST HORRID posts to arrive.

My personal take on this: The game was rushed. Anybody who denies that is delusional. The question now is: Do you feel that patches can polish this up to 'your' standards? While a number of people might be happy if NO patches ever came, I think a majority of people expect them. They expect a good editor and they expect good MP.

As it stands, MP has not even been agreed to yet! Yes, there might never be Civ3 MP ability if the contracts go one way or the other. One should hope for a solid editor patch, for without one, this game won't have half the shelf life of Civ2.

In the end, the money was not ripped out of your pocket, of course. This is why I did NOT pre-order and this is why I might NOT buy the game. I am waiting for a few more player reviews and forthcoming Firaxis announcements about MP and so forth.

Until then, if I want to complain: I will.

Zylka · November 2, 2001, 02:17

Hey Yin, remember when you told everyone to have faith because Sid was in control?

Tehehehehehe! Memories....

Ballz1998 · November 2, 2001, 02:34

I definately expect patches... i want the "potential trade" lines and the treat lines to be drawn to the correct people, but not on the turn I last loaded up the game. I wan't the computer to be more active diplomatically when it wants to cross my territory... but I'm content with initiating negotiations myself. And I would like for the computer not to found cities where it will do no good (Like on the coast surrounded by my empire). Its not a big problem... they get assimilated by my culture anyways. . .

(tangent alert) I'm a hard core PC gamer and friends all say that I'm a moron for playing buggy games. On the flipside I say they are morons for playing generic games that never take enough risks to become something truely revolutionary. PC games blow the consols out of the water these days because they can afford to mess up and patch later. And the thing that gets me is how people say that "buggy games wouldn't be tolerated on consoles". Thats correct, but the problem is, you get cookie cutter games that are pretty much bug free. Name all the really GREATconsol games that you can think of... then put the list beside the GREAT PC games.

The Legend Zelda
Metroid
Final Fantasy
Metal Gear Solid
Grand Turismo??? (maybe)

Civilization
Doom
Halflife
Deus Ex
Mechwarrior
Command and Conquer
System Shock
Maxe Payne
Ultima Online
Everquest
Warcraft
Diablo
Black & White (shoulda been. . .)
Sim City
Air Warrior (Old School MMOG, about to be scrapped by EA)
And Most Recently. . . Dark Age of Camelot

The list is somewhat biased considering how PC I am (pun intended)
Hell consol makers didn't have a clue about multiplayer till the PC did it first.

I'm very much looking for a MP patch, and fixes to bugs that i have yet to be annoyed by. . . but you and I both know, Yin, that MP is going to be in the "gold" addition and I will be one of the "morons" that buys it in addition to my LE Civ3

I'm having a blast playing and alot of the problems I see being griped about on the boards have yet to be a problem in my games. I think it's because I came to Civ 3 with an attitude that its not Civ 2 and its not going to be perfect, but just the "next evolution".... there better be a civ 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on... this game is timeless and it will stay that way providing someone is there to develope it. I saw someone say that if sid mier had created chess, someone would complain about the squares being to square... I think this is the case with Civ.

I think we both agree on the most important issue... Civ1, was great, and Civ 2 was greater... and (so far) I personally think Civ 3 is the best yet, but theres always room for improvement.

yin26 · November 2, 2001, 03:15

Naw, I would never call you a moron. You have a game plan. You know what's up. I salute you.

Sikander · November 2, 2001, 04:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Ballz1998

Most of the problems I see people complaining about tend to be things that simply aren't that big of a deal... corruption is one. Get the advanced governments and rush build courthouses, keep your people happy and your culture high... use the forbidden city. Corruption is still a big issue... but even in the USA its a big issue... not to mention countries like russia and china.

People complain about the civs beating them down... I've only had remote instances of civs threatening me... then I just say... no way and they remain polite. I think its because of my culture. Maintain a high culture and other civs realize it will be very hard to take over your cities so they play nice. If all you do is pump out military and don't cultivate culture, you are going to get jumped all over just like in real life. Britain vs. the Zulus anyone?
It helps for other civs to see you has a civilized nation...

This game is great, it will get better... lets hear some more praise from the lurkers out there if you have the time :-)

Play the game awhile, and perhaps you'll see what may be a bug. I've started about four games so far. Today I played one where I did pretty well for awhile. I started two WoWs early on, the Collosus and the Pyramids. When I got Literature I switched the Pyramids to the Great Library, and I finally beat the AI to it. My culture was fantastic even before I built this stuff, every town had a temple, and some had libraries as well. I made up for my normal difficulty in getting good science by aggressive exploration and trade. This kept me from near the top in science, but also helped the AIs keep close to me.

I built the Great Library and got about four or five techs in the next two turns even though AFAIK the AI civs were not as advanced as that. This was my first warning sign that perhaps something was amiss. I switched most of my towns over to building marketplaces in anticipation of picking up The Republic (my next research goal). Throughout the game I had good relations with the AI, the worst being "Annoyed". I built the Collosus, and my Civ (The Indians) entered a golden age. Then things got really weird. A couple of my cities went into Civil disorder for no reason I could see. More techs came in, including Monarchy. I switched to Monarchy because Republic was over 20 turns away, and being a religious Civ I only had to suffer one turn of Anarchy.

As soon as I switched to Monarchy I started getting calls from the other Civs, all of which threatened war unless I gave them a bunch of tech and money. I hadn't completely neglected defense, so I told the first couple to get lost. They declared war, and formed pacts against me. In one turn nearly half of the other Civs had declared war, and within two turns 3/4 of them had declared war. I went from being a cultural giant with everyone impressed by my culture, and with decent to good relations with every Civ to being a Pariah within 5 turns. My sole crime was refusing "offers" to give away all of my tech and money "or else".

This game was on Regent (aka Prince) level, and the rapidity of the tech advances (seemed like too many based upon where I thought the AI was) strange behavior in my cities (revolts out of no where), and a sudden hostility points either to a bug, or some other aspect of the game that I am missing due to inexperience. I have read the manual, and nothing comes to mind regarding the latter. I have enjoyed playing the game, and will start another one tomorrow in all likelihood. If this problem persists (and it isn't some sort of unknowing blunder on my part) it will obviously curtail my enjoyment to a large extent, and I will probably set the game aside until a patch comes out.

I quote Balz above because I think that there is something to the computer players beating the human down syndrome that is not a function of anything he mentions in his post. I am willing to wager that my culture and diplomatic relations were as good as his were when they took a sudden and inexplicable turn south. Things got strange in a hurry.

Btw, most of the time the game runs fine on my Laptop (pentium III 600 w/128 meg of ram), though it did drop me on to the desktop once without so much as a 'by your leave', and it did hang once when I tried to exit the program.

I haven't had nearly as much luck with my desktop, which is a P3 350 w/128 meg of ram. I installed the game, clicked on the icon, and selected play the game from the menu, and it dumped me back to the desktop. The manual said that the game would install DirectX 8, and I didn't remember it doing that so I reinstalled. It doesn't do that, so I downloaded DirectX from MS (it took over an hour and a half). I also grabbed the latest drivers for my video and sound cards. Nothing helped. It still just dumps me back on the desktop.

techumseh · December 14, 2002, 05:45

So, are you all happy with Civ3 now? I deleted it shortly after this discussion and haven't missed it a bit.