I'm getting the impression this game is not a worthy successor to civ I and II - Page 5

n.c. · November 14, 2001, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yeah those silly people paying 64$ expecting to get their money's worth and actually get some decent goddies. How dare they!

Nice to be on your side of a debate.

Venger- Give 'em hell (great point about Hong Kong, among many others).

UnBiased · November 14, 2001, 23:34

Fine. I realize that scenarios and multi-player were to have been included in the game. And I didn't shell out $64 for the LE for that exact reason--tech tree or not, it sounded like a worthless investment. That's the problem of the people who thought that a tin sounded like it was worth an extra $15. Nobody forced you to buy it.
My point about the multi-player is, berate the game for the features that were included, not the features that weren't. My reading of the text file suggests that they are going to patch the game to enable multi-player, so you won't be waiting that long. I feel the same way about scenarios, but for me, scenarios were how I played Civ II after the normal single-player game got boring. I don't feel that way about Civ III yet and I doubt I will for some time.

Venger · November 14, 2001, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by UnBiased
My point about the multi-player is, berate the game for the features that were included, not the features that weren't.

I feel people are justified for berating a game that doesn't include multiplayer support. This is 2001 for Christ's sake. Multiplayer Civ has been around for every version of Civ. And they can't deliver it now? Also, early Firaxis info said MP in a number of places...

I understand Firaxis was under pressure to get out the game. And I think they know they are gonna take heat, they know it's deserved heat, and I'm sure they wished the timetable would have allowed it to be included.

Quote:

My reading of the text file suggests that they are going to patch the game to enable multi-player, so you won't be waiting that long. I feel the same way about scenarios, but for me, scenarios were how I played Civ II after the normal single-player game got boring. I don't feel that way about Civ III yet and I doubt I will for some time.

Yet, will the MP addon be a patch? Or a new purchase? It's like releasing Quake3 without multiplayer...

Venger

TCO · November 14, 2001, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Check out the jackal.txt file in your Civ3 root directory to see proof that this was to have been included in the game.

So...? There was MP code in 2.4.2 also...

TCO · November 14, 2001, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger

Yet, will the MP addon be a patch? Or a new purchase?
Venger

That depends on their judgement of which makes more money for them. How many people are not buying the game now because of lack of MP. Do the math.

If people buy the game now without MP...AND...they really miss having MP...then it makes sense for Firaxis to charge for MP!!!

Alexander's Horse · November 14, 2001, 23:59

Hey n.c. why didn't you include an acknowledgement of the real author of this thread hmmm?

I saw Civ III in the shops today - didn't buy it

TCO · November 15, 2001, 00:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Hey n.c. why didn't you include an acknowledgement of the real author of this thread hmmm?

I saw Civ III in the shops today - didn't buy it

But are you statistically relevant?

*GP gets woody thinking of what a cool marketing study this would be...*

*Then uses powerful jaws to tear meat off the bone...*

n.c. · November 15, 2001, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
why didn't you include an acknowledgement of the real author of this thread hmmm?

At the time it was pretty obvious. Besides, I figured Mark would close it.

BTW, you are welcome.

Alexander's Horse · November 15, 2001, 19:04

So obvious you didn't think of it

Just edit the topic post and give me a mention and I'll have my due

n.c. · November 15, 2001, 19:07

It can say whatever you like.

TCO · November 15, 2001, 19:10

Give the mountain city pony his cred!!

drreross · November 17, 2001, 15:13

The biggest problem (out of many) I have with Civ3 is that it is SLOW. The AI turns last forever. It is tedious to watch a huge fleet of ironclads move one space at time (BTW, I think the AI builds so many ironclads because it only takes 2-3 to defeat my battleships, and they are very good at bombardment - better than my battleships also).

Anyway, I got to the point where I would bring something to read when I was playing the game. After a while I got to the point where I thought this isn't fun and I uninstalled the game. I'll reinstall it when patches are issued.

Vonotar · November 24, 2001, 02:44

I've read lots of debate about how balanced/unbalanced the game is, but for me within 24 hours I had written the game off (in its present form) because....

...Civilizations don't start where they are supposed to. Call me silly but if I intend to play the Russians and go all expansionist I don't really want to end up an island in the pacific!

...The supplied scenarios/maps are inaccurate
Japan is miles out, Eire appears to be north of Britain not west and in general the map appears to be totally mis-shapen.

...If your playing a scenario that doesn't use the standard rules there is a strong chance the Science Advisor will break

...The Foreign Advisor seems to be only capable of helping you with 7 of your 15 competitors, I get the impression that the game was originally designed for only 8 Civs and when it was expanded to 16 they forgot to fix Foreign Advisor

Fact is we have been sold a rushed and incomplete buggy game. After trawling this site and others I now have a saved game for 4000BC with a realistic map and the other civs in the right places, I've also cobbled together bits of other peoples mods to fix problems in the game, especially with regard to corruption. But am I actually playing civ3 anymore? Every game, no matter how customizable, has a standard scenario that is sold with the game and enables us all to compare how good we are. The 2 maps supplied with civ3 are not fit for that purpose.

Shame on those of you who are using the 'its a new game' arguement to defend firaxis. I don't mind adapting my techniques but I do object to having to fix the game myself before being able to play it.

teturkhan · November 24, 2001, 04:03

I was expecting so much from Civ III - what a disaapointment!

1- the editor sucks, the joy for me in Civ is designing scenarios, hell I cant even get the races to start in their historical lands.

2- Once a wonder was built in Civ II, you were shown a video, yeah it got boring, but Civ III all you get is a photo - after all that time waiting you would think they would do something more to show its impact.. just a simple picture - yeah!

3- the music very irritating...
4- how come there is no Islamic presense in the Game? Turks, Mongols & Arabs had HUGE impact on the history of our world... you got races in the game that honestly you would be hard pressed to show their impact - no disrespect intended... Genghis Khan, Suleiman the Magnificent, Saladin are just a few great muslim leaders that have been totally overlooked... oh yes they put the Persian's & Babylonians but that was before they were muslim... the last great Islamic empire was the Ottoman Turks, from Africa, the Middle East & Europe they commanded the most powerful empire of its time... it was rich in culture, science & the arts... anyways...

I was honestly hoping that Civ III would be so much more than Civ II.. more races, better AI, better graphics, music.. you name it.. I knew I was in trouble when I opened the box and there was only 1 CD?!?!
they could of done so much more but they didnt...