I'm getting the impression this game is not a worthy successor to civ I and II

n.c. · November 12, 2001, 20:24

The following are not "actual arguments" according to Apolyton management:

1) fix all the bugs and
2) gameplay imbalances
3) no mp
4) air/naval units are pointless
5) governments are done crapilly
6) civ3edit cant make scenerios
7) there no historicle starting places on ma
8) only "in-house" testing
9) serious bugs -- like the airpower-SAM thing in particular
10) corruption bug and
11) air unit bugs
12) This single player version is really no better than a beta you pay for.

Markos, it's okay to admit that some decisions are personal.

MarkG · November 12, 2001, 20:30

well, you copied other people's posts, but what the hell, i'll yell happily:

YIPPIE! finally a thread where the thread starter actually posts some arguments to begin the discussion!

carry on

Alexander's Horse · November 12, 2001, 20:36

Cougz · November 12, 2001, 20:39

don't 9, 10, and 11 all fit under 1

MarkG · November 12, 2001, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Cougz
don't 9, 10, and 11 all fit under 1

12 is a bigger number than 9

monkspider · November 12, 2001, 20:45

A game with a tiny handful of miniscule, virtually unnoticeable bugs with MILLIONS, yes, MILLIONS of good points!
What a game!
What a time to be alive!

n.c. · November 12, 2001, 20:49

The point of the thread, for me at least, is that the other should not have been closed. Those interested in the points above please carry on (I have made my views all too clear already).

Imran Siddiqui · November 12, 2001, 20:54

I'm with monkspider

.

But, maybe not that strongly, perhaps.

cassembler · November 13, 2001, 01:37

I agree that Civ3, IN IT'S CURRENT STATE, is not "worthy."

That's not to say that it could never be- there's LOTS of potential. I just hate being a beta tester, granted it still kinda fun...

Once ALL of the bugs are fixed (read: at least a year from now), this game will be magnificent.

Kautilya · November 13, 2001, 01:57

Well for me Civ 2 and SMAC ended up being somewhat frustrating with the crappy AI and the micromanagement. From the little I played of it Civ 3 is definitely a significant improvement over Civ 2.

What's frustrating about it is that they got some big things right like improving the combat AI but then screwed up on some of the easy but convenient features. For instance the manual is not nearly as good as SMAC and the lack of a tech poster is annoying.

Above all they have done much less than they could have done to reduce the tedium factor which ultimately soured me on both SMAC and Civ2. Not being able to move stacked units together is a chore. So is being forced to watch the AI move its units back and forth for ages.

I have returned the LE but I will wait for the patches before deciding whether to buy the regular version. Civ 3 can easily become a great game but only if Firaxis/Infrogames commit to a series of patches.

BTW we shouldn't foget the whole Brian Reynolds saga when judging the game. That must have cost Firaxis several months in terms of the disruption. Without that they might have finished the game by now without rushing it..

TCO · November 13, 2001, 02:11

I'm getting sick of the blame Brian excuse. Firaxis said they would be able to carry on the project without him...so it's a little late for this spin. and anyway, who cares. I judgge them the same either way. Based on the game delivered...

Seeker · November 13, 2001, 02:14

I hold out great hopes for the Expansion/'Gold Edition'

I will feel like a whore, but I WILL buy it

I have bought every single Civ game and expansion since Civ 1.

techumseh · November 13, 2001, 02:20

Me too, but I don't feel like a whore. A little naughty, perhaps.

Kautilya · November 13, 2001, 02:29

GP,
It's not so much a matter of "blame" or "excuse" so much as cause and effect. The departure of so many senior programmers almost certainly meant a loss of a few months. This needn't have mattered if Infrogames was prepared to delay the release by that much but they weren't. Both factors contributed to the rushed product.

Let's not forget that that the product even as it is is good enough for lots of people to enjoy. The first patch should clean the serious bugs like the air superiority problem and hopefully the later patches will clear some of the tedium issues and other general gameplay problems . The manual and tech tree deficiencies are already being compensated for by the community. So in a couple of months we could still have a very fine game.

Urban Ranger · November 13, 2001, 02:57

That's a problem though.

With all due respect to Sid I don't think any consumers should pay to be a beta tester. I feel that Sid could have more backbones by standing up to Infogrames. If there's any designer out there who can stand up to the marketing department he's one of a handful - if not the only one.

Some of the "bugs" - such as corruption - may not be a bug but a design decision. You may not like the change, but that doesn't seem like a bug.

Faboba · November 13, 2001, 03:10

Robert Plomp · November 13, 2001, 03:28

Quote:

1) fix all the bugs and
2) gameplay imbalances
3) no mp
4) air/naval units are pointless
5) governments are done crapilly
6) civ3edit cant make scenerios
7) there no historicle starting places on ma
8) only "in-house" testing
9) serious bugs -- like the airpower-SAM thing in particular
10) corruption bug and
11) air unit bugs
12) This single player version is really no better than a beta you pay for.

You can sum up the problems like this:

1. fix the bugs (air / naval / 10000000 / etc.)
2. There are corruption problems. Some like it some don't. It appears to be not a bug but some feel like it is one.
3. Expand advisor screens (trade advisor ie)

Besides these CORE-game bugs we would like:
1. MP
2. Scenario tools (there are billions already, we just miss a few, though these few are important though)

Conclusion: The Core game is really good but has some (fatal) bugs that really need to be fixed. Because of the lack of MP and fatal-scenario editing tools some people feel like something is missing.

CyberShy

ravagon · November 13, 2001, 03:30

I want to like it. I really do. Everything I've heard about what is in seems very good but no scenarios is the killer. This was (IMO anyway) the best aspect of civ2. Civ3 without it is just ... wrong.

LaRusso · November 13, 2001, 03:38

ummm, n.c. i thought you returned the game, so why bother fixing what is 'broken'?
and then - you already started a thread like this. when are you opening the third whinefest?

Deathwalker · November 13, 2001, 03:40

I'm of the opinion that they will release a ptach to fix the little bugs like, imbalances and the naval/iar units.
But I think the big ones like no scenario tools or MP will come in a year or so under a exspancion patch or a updated game. Either way they want our money and they have a plan to get it for as long as possable and as much as possable

mrbilll · November 13, 2001, 04:40

I agree with (apparently) the majority here. Great potential, shoulda been left in the oven a little longer. Many improvements, some questionable decisions, and a few SERIOUS frustrations and bugs.

Is Civ3 worthy of the name? We'll see once the beta testing is done.

Maybe (hopefully) future patches and expansions will settle these arguments.

The Templar · November 13, 2001, 04:54

Worthy? Definitely.
Several bugs need fixing. Air superiority/SAMs of course. The "sub attack" bug, also. Corruption needs some fine tuning. The UN should do more. MP. Five things and the game is fixed. There you go.

Niceities would include: a decent editor, decent world map, non-random starting locations. And so on. This would significantly improve the game.

MisterMuppet · November 13, 2001, 04:59

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
when are you opening the third whinefest?

Great a November Whinefest, and me just back from Munich last month. Now where did I put my Stein.

Max Webster · November 13, 2001, 07:29

Yeah NoClue returned the game so what does he care?

Ray K · November 13, 2001, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy

Conclusion: The Core game is really good but has some (fatal) bugs

There are no fatal bugs. I am enjoying the game immensely. The corruption can be addressed with the editor, the million-gold bug does not have to be taken advantage of, and the air defense bug is in the late game and has little effect by that point.

Grumbold · November 13, 2001, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray K
There are no fatal bugs.

The fatal bugs are where your units get killed by the enemy when you had an (un)reasonable expectation that they would kick AI butt

Robert Plomp · November 13, 2001, 10:47

with 'fatal' bug I mean: It really matters.
the interception bug is fatal to gameplay.

Still love the game very much though

Ray K, I remember we were fighting about corruption.....
I see you changed mind

Ray K · November 13, 2001, 11:05

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
with 'fatal' bug I mean: It really matters.
the interception bug is fatal to gameplay.

Still love the game very much though

Ray K, I remember we were fighting about corruption.....
I see you changed mind

No, I have raised the number of Optimal Cities in order to reduce corruption from 99% to 95%. what a joke!

Corruption is still a huge problem if you expect any productivity out of your captured cities. I just let them grow slowly and feed the war machine from my core cities.

It would probably be better to raze them instead.

I don't consider the 'interception' bug to be fatal because the game is still enjoyable despite it. Still, it is a bug and needs to be fixed.

I would also hope they find a way to build Heroic Epic would building a useless army. As it is, it's the most worthless wonder in the game.

Robert Plomp · November 13, 2001, 11:20

next game play an economic civ.
I'm playing English right now, not much problems with corruption.

Ray K · November 13, 2001, 11:45

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
next game play an economic civ.
I'm playing English right now, not much problems with corruption.

last time I checked, the Greeks were a commercial civ.

It's because I'm playing a conquest game and hitting the max limit on cities.