My first impressions@

[Desert Dog]

I am wondering why their are not more disappointment about this "so-called" sequel to my favorite game. I will get hammered for this first complaint. The game looks like a direct rip off of Call To Power. I personally hated that game it never gave the same addictive game play.
There are so many problems and short comings I am surprised how these magazines and others rate it so high. The diplomacy issues are very much the same as call to power. Civilization will agree to withdraw and stay right there. Even though they are weak because you are 4 times larger than them. This is very unrealistic in my view. Not to mention that the bribery tactic is gone. This is a hugh blow because in the real world bribing is key in military efforts. The map creation problems are amazing. How could they leave out the overhead view of map to help with designing? Where are the great editor features?
I bought the LE version like an idiot drooling for a new civilization game. I love the Tin Box but I wish I loved the game but I just can't say it. I am playing on the easy level, I am a skilled Civ2 player at Prince and King levels. I am having trouble handling the game at this level.
I am very upset with Firaxis for releasing a game that does not live up to the series at all. No multiplayer either really sucks! This seems like a rushed to the store product. This is not one of Sid's master software creations. like usual Everyone should be complaining not praising these guys. A score of 9.2 on average for and incomplete game is just funny! I always said that the game makers paid the magazines to print positive things about their games. This is clearly an example of such a pay off! Sorry man but this is one sorry sequel unless they patch the hell out of it!
Peace
Desert Dog

[Jason]

More wisdom from the Settler Nov 2001 crowd.



Can we have a consolidated thread for newbies melodramatically rejecting the false Civ? Just to keep meaningful threads on the first few pages?

This is not one of Sid's mater peice software creation.

[Tani]

so far i haven't heard defenses that doesn't effectively put civ3 into the fantasy genre, i really don't see why any features that is less real than civ2 should make it to civ3. why is the direction not toward realism but away?

the second thing is why don't people see difficult chellenge is a contingent condition to a good game, but not a necessary condition?

worse still is that some "defenses" are nothing but ad hominem post.

[Jason]

I'm sorry, but if quoting someone's semi-literate musings is an ad hominem attack, please, lock me up. Am I supposed to reply with "civ3 does not suck?"

Perhaps with a few words mispelt?

The problems with Civ3 are MP, the editor, and bugs. These idiotic one-post users who joined the board to say "I r not likeing civ3" aren't the type one can engage in debate.

Alrighty then. He doesn't like the fact that units don't withdraw when asked, and he doesn't like that he can't bribe like in Civ2.

Well, from my seat units tend to be withdrawn, although often they leave by the other direction, and therefore are able to cross your territory. C'est la vie.

The bribery thing suggests that he wants his lame old easy Civ2 tactics back where a boatful of spies could conquer a continent with far greater ease than an army, by purchasing None-supplied units and cities.

So to sum up, I was dismissive for good reason. These self-important little "this is my gripe and now I'm not gonna play so there" posts are an offense to my sensibilities.

[Tani]

Originally posted by Jason
More wisdom from the Settler Nov 2001 crowd.



Can we have a consolidated thread for newbies melodramatically rejecting the false Civ? Just to keep meaningful threads on the first few pages?

it wasn't the quoting, but your comment:
-more wisdom from the settler nov 2001 crowd (ad hominem abusive)
-newbies melodramatically rejecting the false civ (ad hominem abusive again)

as you have noticed, he did made points unlike you, which are all ad hominem.

to address one of your points, bribery is not lame, it's the fact of life, to quote you, c'est la vie. but anyway, i didn't like how it worked in civ 2, not because it's "lame," but because it doesn't include other elements such as morale (at least as far as i can remember), loyalty, etc. it just pretty much uncontrollable. it actually makes it works like a spy shooting out coins as bullet.

but come to think about it, why should it be dismissed? your fiat is not really a good reason, it is no better than his complain of not including bribery in civ 3. it'd be best if a whole new bribe system can be included in civ3 like everything that was rewritten.

anyway, to reply with "civ3 does not suck" would at least be shorter than what you've posted, and save you the typing with no less effectiveness.

Thomas Jefferson said "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
tell us the truth, i believe it will stand good on its own against simple whining.

Obviously Jason thinks he is a god send and intellectually superior to you "Nov 2001 newbies". In reality however he is just another Apolyton geek using the forums to engage in "intellectual combat" to prove to himself that he is in fact a very bright young man. My best advice to you Jason would be to get a life. Nobody cares how someone expresses their opinion or whether or not they're using grammar as you see fit. And if you really want to get started about newbies, you my friend are a perfect example. So why don't you sit back and shut up before I really get mean? I assure you I am far better at proving intellectual superiority than you are.

[Max Webster]

great thread guys



settlers rule

[Jason]

There's a difference between "ad hominem" and "ad idiot." If someone posts a bunch of garbled crap, I have no problem posting a little "eek" happy-face.

Regarding bribery, I just don't see the out and out "subversion" of units being especially realistic, in most eras. Perhaps in the Thirty Years War one might bribe a regiment or two, but any other time? Civ isn't always about strict realism, but this most certainly isn't it. So there are balance and realism issues which both suggest bribery should have been removed. Cities can still be subverted with propaganda or culture, you just can't go around turning a big bankroll into a huge army of the enemy's own units.

Finally, if you are going to /quote me, please actually include the ENTIRE quotation, and not comments after a quotation that has been excised.

Obviously Jason thinks he is a god send and intellectually superior to you "Nov 2001 newbies". In reality however he is just another Apolyton geek using the forums to engage in "intellectual combat" to prove to himself that he is in fact a very bright young man.

As a matter of fact, the Nov 2001 newbies' "intellectual combat" is precisely the problem. All of these little message board warrior style posts denouncing Civ3 on dubious grounds. That said, I'm sure plenty of Nov 2001 people (and Sept 2001 people) are perfectly normal users. The vocal minority is just very grating.

My best advice to you Jason would be to get a life. Nobody cares how someone expresses their opinion or whether or not they're using grammar as you see fit.

I suppose this would be a bad time to bring up the fact that godsend is one word, right? Right.

And if you really want to get started about newbies, you my friend are a perfect example. So why don't you sit back and shut up before I really get mean? I assure you I am far better at proving intellectual superiority than you are

I very much doubt it. Feel free to give it a shot though. Perhaps you'd even like to mention Civ3 the next time you go off on a meaningless tangent?

I don't have civ3 first of all, and second of all you obviously don't know who I am. This is probably my 20th name on here. I've been around since April of 1999. I really do love making arrogant self-proclaimed geniuses look like morons. As for Civ3, I don't really care. I only posted here because I spotted your pathetic attempt at an intelligent post and decided it was time to step in and show you your spot in life beneath my boot.

[Jason]

I don't have civ3 first of all,

Imagine my surprise.

and second of all you obviously don't know who I am. This is probably my 20th name on here. I've been around since April of 1999.

You... do notice that I've been here since August of the same year? For whatever "username age" is worth. Frankly what I think people on this board need somtimes is age, period.

I really do love making arrogant self-proclaimed geniuses look like morons. As for Civ3, I don't really care. I only posted here because I spotted your pathetic attempt at an intelligent post and decided it was time to step in and show you your spot in life beneath my boot.

This isn't even good spam, alright? You want to have an on-topic argument, I'll oblige you, but whatever the hell that was, spare me. The off-topic is there for you do go declare how 31337 you are to all the other kiddies. This is a Civ3 thread. Scram.

This is a civ3 thread? I had no idea! This went beyond civ3 when you decided to get pompous and begin insulting on a personal level. So I decided to get to know you on a personal level as well. And now you try to write all this off as if it's nothing more than "SPAM" and I'm some off topic poster? If you like we can talk more about this one ICQ since you feel this should be for civ3 only.

[Darkknight]

AAargh! Enough with the "I love civ3" v "I hate civ3" bickerings!
And what is with accusing a newbie of being any more or less of a civ "expert" then someone whos been posting here for several years.
This I've got more posts so I'm better then you S*** just makes you look less then the newbie! Maybe you should be docked a couple hundred posts to see how it feels to be a newbie.

[Libertarian]

Originally posted by Jason
More wisdom from the Settler Nov 2001 crowd.

Just so you know, there are those of us among the Settler Nov 2001 crowd who very much love the game, who understand that all software has bugs, who greatly admire and appreciate the hard work of the good folks at Firaxis, and who can compose whole sentences. Please don't lump us all together with such a broad brush of bigotry.

[Desert Dog]

Hey don't get me wrong I love turned based games. This is a new tb game based on civ 2. I thought I would see a civ2 with really great enhancements. Now I would like to see a bug list started. Get a patch done soon. Many problems abound with many aspects of the game. Not just my opinion real broken things.

D. G.

[Desert Dog]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
Obviously Jason thinks he is a god send and intellectually superior to you "Nov 2001 newbies". In reality however he is just another Apolyton geek using the forums to engage in "intellectual combat" to prove to himself that he is in fact a very bright young man. My best advice to you Jason would be to get a life. Nobody cares how someone expresses their opinion or whether or not they're using grammar as you see fit. And if you really want to get started about newbies, you my friend are a perfect example. So why don't you sit back and shut up before I really get mean? I assure you I am far better at proving intellectual superiority than you are.

Well said, and I am not a newbie! Civ III should be called something like, Call To Power III instead. I do like it much better than CTP2. It is only my opinion which I am entitled too. I figured many more disappointed Civ2 fans would voice there opinions. If it is not broke don't fix it is my motto. Plenty of things in Civ2 were perfect and should have been brought over.
I laugh at anyone who uses the Internet to make his "****" bigger than it really is! Apolyton Geek or anyone who trys to flame people for their posts and make them look okay is out of line! Later.................... Much later! This forum is worthless for Civ III news!

Desert Dog

[AMC]

This game does have a problem. Blind following of "The Sid" just isn't for me. I've been playing Civ games for 10 years, not because I worship Sid, but because they were good games that I spent countless nights playing until the wee hours.

This game, sadly, is a disappointment, and I think that's where our angst arises. We believed it would be so much, we believed it would truly be the next step on from SMAC, which was groundbreaking.

Instead we get a CTP clone, and a bad one at that. Yes, Civ players have a right to be disappointed, and they have a right to have expected more based on the previously proven ability of Firaxis to create very good games. And then there was the hype...for months the Civ III web site has given me a tingly feeling inside.

Without detailing the various technical problems with the game that have been adequately covered, I'll suggest my "feeling" of the game: it's shallow and extremely difficult to really feel a part of. There were times playing Civ II when I truly felt a part of the game, not so with Civ III. CTP all over again.

Sorry, it's a bad game, and Firaxis has toppled from its ivory tower to join the mud-wallowing cretins like Activision, but that's a price you pay for overpriced mediocraty. I'm sad, not angry.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Jason
More wisdom from the Settler Nov 2001 crowd.

More attempts at elitism from the 'Warlord 1999' croud

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do people actually think of this as a CtP III! LMAO! What fools!

[TitanTim]

I just had to post considering my login date is earlier than everyone else except the last two posts (those cheater admin types, hehehe) AND, get this, I'm a Settler too.

I've been playing Civ since it first came out. I consider Civ 1 great but lacking when battleships lose to settlers (due to the win/lose combat it had). Civ 1 was also slick because you could build railroads on water. (Why not be able to build bridge/causeways like we have nowadays?)

I consider CivNet far superior to Civ2-MGE because you could play simultaneous and it's movement resolution wasn't bad. Another incredible benefit to CivNet was its use of multiple windows showing you different "views" of the world.

I found Civ2 to be the most graphically pleasing and playable version of all the Civ's so far. The terrain blended beautifully and you still knew what was what. One of my favourite parts of Civ2 was the unit's sound effects (Fire! bang, bang). It made me feel a part of the game. Lastly, Civ2 worked so well with Windows. My 1600x1200 display allowed me to view practically the whole map is striking detail. Beautiful.

Now Civ3 is another step in the right direction but, I have to say it, lacking in some regards. Everyone knows the problem about corruption. I used to also play Civ2 with the bribery method but I looked to Civ3's lack of bribery as a positive move (though I used bribery in Civ2, I hated how easy it made the game not to mention that it hinged almost completely on the amount of gold your opponent had). I also find that city building by the computer runs rampant and this is due to the fact that the cities grow too quickly (unless you're in the jungle or mountains). Also I find Civ3 is missing many of the nice "tidbits", "niceties", and other statistics that Civ2 had allowing you to properly plan your future moves.

Sorry the message was so long but I have to say one more thing. Many people seemed disappointed with this release and that it was simply a carryover from Civ2 with better graphics, blah, blah, blah. Firaxis marketed and built the game perfectly. Keep the game relatively the same, add new concepts and features but keep it in line with the other Civ games. If it's too "new" then you'll lose people. Lastly, keep the multiplayer feature out thereby releasing the game sooner and allowing you to sell another "version" a year down the road. Blizzard has this way of selling games down to an art.

[General Maximus]

funny, i know who EGod is, and i'm surprised he let you "newbies" off so easy. As far as EGod(=EyesofNight) is concerned, you can whine all you want. As far as i'm concerned, you can whine all you like as well. They will have many patches for CivIII, including a multiplayer patch. BUT, they wanted a pre-christmas release, not an easter release.

the date and rank of apolyton sign-up is humorous, it let's us know who is an idiot still, and who knows what they're typing about.

[Desert Dog]

Originally posted by General Maximus
funny, i know who EGod is, and i'm surprised he let you "newbies" off so easy. As far as EGod(=EyesofNight) is concerned, you can whine all you want. As far as i'm concerned, you can whine all you like as well. They will have many patches for CivIII, including a multiplayer patch. BUT, they wanted a pre-christmas release, not an easter release.

the date and rank of apolyton sign-up is humorous, it let's us know who is an idiot still, and who knows what they're typing about.

The humor is how all you guys are trying to be at a different class or level because of your sign in date of this forum. I have been on here since 1997 I now use a different handle does that mean I have more rights?
Look I like Civ 3 it seems fun to play but a sequel it is not. Only has same type of tech tree, spaceship race etc. are the same. A patch is what this game needs and fast! This one has bad problems like SMAC did when it was released. My disappointment is how many things were left behind from civ 2 that should have made it to civ 3. If this was not a sequel it would have great potential.
Again I am playing the game I don't hate it, I am just disappointed. All the hype as usual was not correct. The game is bug ridden to the point that it effects your end game to finish. At least in my game! I am sure good old Sid will fix it up. Just wish they did not leave out all the great things that were in civ2! Peace!

Oh yeah, all you ego Apolyton Geeks save your breath. If you can not accept the thruth about civ3 then let it go. Bashing someone for them giving their opinion is childish, which is what I figured out anyways. This web site is full of little kiddies. I am not a kid and see that I need to find another site where I can met others who are not quite so ridiculous when one posts his thoughts. If this is the number one site for all civ stuff, wow that is sad! There needs to be a place where there is not so many attitudes and little kid actions! Later...again much later!

D. G.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Desert Dog


Well said, and I am not a newbie! Civ III should be called something like, Call To Power III instead. I do like it much better than CTP2. It is only my opinion which I am entitled too. I figured many more disappointed Civ2 fans would voice there opinions. If it is not broke don't fix it is my motto. Plenty of things in Civ2 were perfect and should have been brought over.

oh methink they should bring back infinite loops for caravans and settlers. also, panzer /paratroop blitz was nice. bribing cities all the way to their capital....cool. those empty AI sea transports, their puny air fleets, that stupid ICS human tactics.
what i liked about ctp II? the fact that nothing happened. the fact that i could beat AI on highest setting in my second game (actually i did not beat it to the end because it was BORING but he had like 5 cities left and the rest were pathetic). AI. AI. AI. It was simply great. imbecile tech tree.
ctp I was also great

this game is beta! it has no editor! it has no earth map! it has no multiplayer!
i certainly need just a good SP for at least 6 months and some sleeping pills. AI is whopping my ass persistently. so much for the 'broken' game

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tani
so far i haven't heard defenses that doesn't effectively put civ3 into the fantasy genre, i really don't see why any features that is less real than civ2 should make it to civ3. why is the direction not toward realism but away?

This is a good example of what is frustrating about apolyton-newbie (as distinguished formn civ newbie) posts that appear here lately. We have been discussing the historical realism issue here for months. While I lean toward historical realism myself, I have become familiar over the months with the opposite school of thought - that realism should NEVER be placed over fun gameplay. While I find that extreme, I realize that Civ is different from a "grognard" war game, that its audience and emphases are different, and that particular issues are created by its 6000 year time scale. How about 1 month turns - that way we could have more realistic movement factors, and still have interesting strategic movements - but then it would be unplayable. Historical realism must be balanced against issues of playability, balance and fun. Saying this makes it a fantasy genre game is just plain silly. There are fantasy games, there are historical dress games like Age of Empires(where most history is in the atmospherics) there are games like Civ, which illustrate large historical themes, but do not simulate historical simulations, and there are historical sims, like "grognard" war games and related history games like EU. But then if you'd been around for a while you'd have seen that, and you wouldnt say silly things. Its alright to say silly things, everyone was a newbie once, after all and we've all said our share of silly things, its just that some people think that there are ALOT of silly things being said lately.

For more on the history issue, see my column on Civ2's Hegelian Tech Tree.

LOTM

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Jason

Can we have a consolidated thread for newbies melodramatically rejecting the false Civ?

Weren't we supposed to stop this newbie flaming?