Civ 3 - Don't complain

[DarkForce]

i was looking at the threads and i noticed that too many people complain about almost EVERYTHING in civ3.

i played civ1 for hundreds of hours and then civ2 for thousands of hours!!!!

civ2 is my favorite game of all-time (together with doom2 & ufo enemy unknown)

but now that has changed.civ3 is already my favorite game of all times and it will stay this way until maybe civ4 is released!

and why is that?:

civ3 is much better than civ2 in many aspects.
-graphics
-sound
-animation
-civilopaedia is much better and useful
-far more advanced diplomacy
-more civilizations can be put on the map
-better intro!!
-civ3 is also much more realistic.why?
civ2 didn't have borders!!!
civ2 was not so dependent on resources
in civ2 you could acquire almost all the technologies from your neighbours in 20-30!! turns by using your spies
in civ2 the other civilizations were very friendly.i don't think in the real world countries are so friedly with each other.
in civ2 you could see all the resources on the map before you even discovered them.
in civ2 a phalanx could beat tanks and missiles!!
in civ2 you could send a jet fighter away and then you discovered you had no fuel to get back!!!

and many many other things.............



also about some of the complaints:

-win XP have problems with many other games as well.not only civ3 (try win ME).
-ALL games today require a strong pc.if your pc is not very powerful turns may take a long time.it's natural.
-corruption exists in all countries of the world.also, in some countries like russia, former soviet countries and some asian and african countries corruption is more than 90%!!it is not unnatural to have very high corruption levels.
-i think the interface of the game is much better than in civ2.it's faster, better looking and simpler.in civ2 the menus were just borrowed from windows 95.

i have many more things to say but i haven't got the time right now.

i will continue tomorow.

i didn't say civ3 is perfect but it definitely is the best of the civilization series.(at least I believe so).

[Simpleton]

I agree. Civ3 is now my favorite Civ game. It improves on almost every aspect of Civ2 with the exception of combat (i.e. Firepower + HP in Civ2 --> works great , Just HP in Civ3 --> Not so great)

That being said, Civ3 is not as large an evolution over SMAC. I thought SMAC had many great features. In my opinion, Civ3 is better than SMAC but not that much better.

[Blackadar1]

Another useless thread.

So since YOU like Civ 3, NOBODY should complain. Such an ego...

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Blackadar1
Another useless thread.

So since YOU like Civ 3, NOBODY should complain. Such an ego...

Any better than the "I hate this part of Civ3, if you disagree you are denying reality/a toadie of Firaxis" and such from some of the people who are complaining?

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Blackadar1
Another useless thread.

So since YOU like Civ 3, NOBODY should complain. Such an ego...

So since some people don't like civ3, he can't say that he does?

[Raleigh]

Well, it is as useful to see what players enjoy as much as they don't particularly if the designers read these or the moderators send them to firaxis, and in terms of stimulating debate that might somehow reach the designers. If nothing else, they may take these suggestions for Civ4

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Sinapus
Any better than the "[1] I hate this part of Civ3, [3] if you disagree you are denying reality/a toadie of Firaxis" and such from some of the people who are complaining?

The missing comment #2 is a Firaxis fundie saying shut up or makinmg an insult.

Originally posted by Sabre2th
he can't say that he does?

Check the thread title agian.

[DarkCloud]

Graphics??? I'd go with Civ II's any day- they were much easier to see and modify.

[Deathray]

Well, Civ 3, is IMO, a great game. Not quite a great as Deus Ex, but better than all the other games, and I have to admit that the amount of childish whining in this forum is very annoying. "I can't handle corruption!" "The computer killed one of my more advanced units!" "I can't turn the mountains into fertile grassland!" "I don't know how to barter properly so the AI always ends up ripping me off!" "Whaaaah!". These and many other whines have been posted around the forums. Please don't mistake this for me having a dig at valid complaints, as they are there, this is just about whiners.

However, people have the right to whine. Sad, but true. We live in a free society. Quite honestly, I sometimes think that most people are to stupid to deserve freedom.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Deathray
most people are to stupid to deserve freedom.

Like those who don't realize that there are quite a few valid complaints in comments disregarded as whining.

[splangy]

n.c. would you like to tell me WHY you hate civ3 but continue to mull around in a civ3 FAN forum? Im not telling you to leave but your complaining indicates that you must not have ANY life...just curious (No, im not a firaxis fanatic, not everyone who likes somthing you dont is a blind fanatic)

But I do have to say civ3 is probably the best game I have ever played, and it does have a few problems, but I haven't stoped playing it for the last 2 weeks...

[Ludwig]

Actually, I think it's good that people criticize the game, even when I don't agree with the criticisms. That's how games get better. That's how the best mod's and scenarios get developed [if only Firaxis would finish the editor]. I firmly believe that your ability to play on a gigantic map with more than 8 civ's is the result of the hue and cry raised in the gaming community when Firaxis initially announced smaller map sizes and the continuation of the 8 max number.

What I DON'T agree with are people who freak out, who want to organize a boycott, who accuse the company of deliberating producing a shoddy game, who think the designer community is composed of evil aliens, etc. But this is primarily because I feel computer games as a whole constitute an amazing entertainment value, dollar for dollar, and shouldn't really inspire people to get out of sorts.

I realize that 35 or 40 dollars is a lot of money for many people, but look at it this way: I bought "Caesar III" and only played it a couple of times before I decided that it was too repetitive to be that much fun. I enjoyed it at first, but then it got boring. By the time it got boring, however, I had played it for 12 or 15 hours. That means I got to enjoy it for the equivalent of 5 or 6 movies before I decided I didn't like it. I enjoyed it for 4.5 hockey games, 5 basketball games, and 3 baseball games. 5 or 6 movies, 5 b-ball games, etc. would have cost me a lot more than 35 dollars, even if I went alone, and my wife wouldn't let me get away with THAT.

And that is an example of a game I didn't get that much value from.

I really would be hard pressed to measure the ROI I got from buying CivII. I got CivII IN THE REMAINDER BIN. If I stop playing CivIII TODAY, I still have gotten more than my money's worth.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by splangy
WHY you hate civ3 but continue to mull around in a civ3 FAN forum?

1. I came to this forum while still a game owner/player.
2. I still hold out hope that it will become playable.
3. The conversations are interesting.
4. I enjoy tweaking fundies.

-"not everyone who likes somthing you dont is a blind fanatic"
I'd love to know where I said that.

[Spiffor]

Well, what is common to many whiners and valid criticizers (not all, but many of them) is that they wanted CivIII only to play CivII with. They idolize CivII as if it was a perfect game from the beginning, and that CivIII couldn't change a bit from it.
For example, many think that CivII didn't need a patch as soon as it was shipped. True if you wanted to play solo with regular games (which I personaly enjoyed), but terribly wrong if you wanted to play multi or correct scenario games : it took years to make a paying MP version of civII, and some fans released MP programs before this.
Moreover, CivII, with all these yaers to become better, still has flaws, such as incompetent IA when it comes to war and expansion (and some people whine because the IA in CivIII is expansionistic), too abstract and powerful caravans and so on...
Personaly, in a normal single player game, I couldn't play CivII anymore : having smart opponents who follow the same rules as you in Regent level (yes, they suffer about corruption and about the 2-pop.-points-for-a-settler too), an almost complete diplomacy and an intelligent trade (no longer can you make tanks with wood only) is simply the best I could wait for.
I'm waiting patiently for the paying add-on (which will hopefully contain both MP and powerful scenario editing tools). I'm waiting for it patently, because I don't want the addon to be rushed. I'm believing the same people who are angry for these lacks would have whined too if they were told they had to wait 6 months or a year more, just to have a game as complete as it should be.
CivIII is simply better than CivII, and more enjoyable than SMAC, and except the extreme conservatism of some and the will to whine of others, I can't explain why there are so many complaints about it (well, I uderstand the modmakers who feel cheated though, but instead of uselessly ruminating their hate, they should enjoy the game, which is plain great by itself).

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Spiffor
They idolize CivII as if it was a perfect game from the beginning, and that CivIII couldn't change a bit from it.

I have read a great many of these threads and not seen this once. You should find a more believable strawman.

What I have seen are brand-new complaints about Civ II from the Firaxis fundies, esp. wrt combat.

[Deathray]

Originally posted by n.c.
Like those who don't realize that there are quite a few valid complaints in comments disregarded as whining.

Yes, luckily I'm not one of those people, as I clearly stated that I was not having a go at those who have valid complaints, just about the people who whine for the sake of it or because they're too lazy to read the manual/learn to play the game:

"Please don't mistake this for me having a dig at valid complaints, as they are there, this is just about whiners. "

[Styx]

I guess CivIII is a good game to play but I still prefer Smac(X) because it has MP, it loads and plays faster.
The battles in CivIII are predictable and always the same, reloading doesn't change it, however skipping 1 round does make a difference sometimes.
I don,t like it much, sending enough barbarians to 1 city just to be sure to get that almost finished settler out of the game.
It feels like overpowered brute force against human skills somewhat. Fun and evil but still not a smart AI.


Huge game, worth the money, that's not an issue but I can,t get rid of the feeling that it is still a betaversion.
I wouldn,t buy it just like CTP2.
I would rather see a new patch for Smacx.

[narmox]

Originally posted by Simpleton
I agree. Civ3 is now my favorite Civ game. It improves on almost every aspect of Civ2 with the exception of combat (i.e. Firepower + HP in Civ2 --> works great , Just HP in Civ3 --> Not so great)

the fact that there's just HP isn't what's really causing the problem. Look at CTP, and what they explained in the readme file: (paraphrasing)

"Unlike civ2, where each unit has different firepower and hitpoints that grow as they are more modern, CTP has constant HP and FP (except for a few exceptions). What we have done to compensate is to have larger differences between the attack/defense ratings of the units as they get more advanced. So, a tank in civ2 might have only 10 attack, but will get 20 in CTP..."

I've noticed too that the diff in attack/defense is greater in civ3 than in civ2. Probably for the same reason. So, maybe something else is wrong? Random nubmer generator?

Personnaly I haven'y experienced the consistent spearmen killing tanks "bug", so I'm not even convinced it exists... Or at least not at the level many people claim it is happening..

[splangy]

Originally posted by n.c.
-"not everyone who likes somthing you dont is a blind fanatic"
I'd love to know where I said that.

4. I enjoy tweaking fundies.

Gee, I wonder were you mentioned fundie...

Dark Force Said:

-corruption exists in all countries of the world.also, in some countries like russia, former soviet countries and some asian and african countries corruption is more than 90%!!it is not unnatural to have very high corruption levels.

I agree that it exists and I think it is an important aspect to add to the game. However, it does make the game less playable when you have cities that can't build a factory for 200 turns due to high corruption. In the last game I played I had cities with most improvements built, had been under my command for centuries, and had no rival civ cities around them (there on an island). You would think I could manage and lower the corruption through improvements, but I couldn't build anything without rushing all the time. I believe it needs to be tweaked so people have a logical way of fixing the corruption. As it stands now, it seems the further your cities are from the capitol they will be super corrupt. Building courthouses and increasing luxuries can't bring the corruption down to manageable levels. About the unit imbalance issue: it is a big problem in my opinion. Since we compared the corruption to the real world lets do the same thing with military units. In WWII the Polish attacked German tanks with Cavalry charges. They were decimated. In civ III it is quite common for Cavalry units to easily defeat Tanks. That is not realistic or even fun to play (unless your the one with the Calvary). I sincerely hope the combat system is fixed to be more realistic, if not I will probably stop playing Civ 3 real soon. It's a shame because the game has such potential.

[sachmo71]

Is this don't complain day? As stated in another thread, I would like to complain about those complaining about others complaints. I think?

I say complain if you want to. Or don't. If you are sick of seeing complaining...here is a thought.......


DONT FREAKING READ IT!

[Akka]

Originally posted by DarkForce
i was looking at the threads and i noticed that too many people complain about almost EVERYTHING in civ3.

i played civ1 for hundreds of hours and then civ2 for thousands of hours!!!!

civ2 is my favorite game of all-time (together with doom2 & ufo enemy unknown)

but now that has changed.civ3 is already my favorite game of all times and it will stay this way until maybe civ4 is released!

and why is that?:

civ3 is much better than civ2 in many aspects.
-graphics

Yes.

-sound

Not that much, but yes.

-animation

Yes again.

-civilopaedia is much better and useful

Are you out of your mind ? The civilopedia in Civ 3 is just plainly AWFUL. I mean, where are the description like in Civ 1, 2 and AC ? The text lines that put so much atmosphere and this "historical feeling" ?
Where are the ACCURATE descriptions (just read the government section ; try to find where the "trade bonus" of republic and democracy is described as "+1 commerce on each tile that already produce a commerce" ; would have I never played Civ before, I could not have know).
Civilopedia in Civ 3 is just a short sum up of technical stuff. Not anything about a "pedia".

-far more advanced diplomacy

What's all the stuff with diplomacy in Civ3 ? You can barter, exchange territory map and trade ressources. Except that it's just like Civ 2/AC, but without :
- asking a civ to stop a war against another civ
- cease fire
- world council
-
So, we have lost as much as we have gained. Aren't sequels supposed to be IMPROVING ?

-more civilizations can be put on the map

Yep, I must admit that this option is great

-better intro!!

Better graphics than others, but far to be as immersive or grandiose as the Civ 1 one. But I must admit that Civ 1 intro is just one of the best all games included.
Anyway it's an improve from Civ2.

-civ3 is also much more realistic.why?

"realistic" is not the word I would have used for Civ 3... "fun", "good", "excellent", yes, but "realistic" ?

civ2 didn't have borders!!!

AC too. Though, it's very true that Civ 3's borders are the best from all the serie by far, and that the AI respect them much more than before. Just still not enough, but it's close to what it should be.

civ2 was not so dependent on resources

True.

in civ2 you could acquire almost all the technologies from your neighbours in 20-30!! turns by using your spies

True again, but though it's a much better improvement toward playability, it's not an improvement on the REALISTIC ground. New techs, in the world, has often spread out in the whole world in the 25 years after their development (come on, I KNOW there is exception, I mean in a general fashion).

in civ2 the other civilizations were very friendly.i don't think in the real world countries are so friedly with each other.

Friendly ? Hu well, they attacked your 150 cities-spread-over-the-world empire with there mighty 2-pop unique city and would tell you "you'll regret it, now prepare for WAR !".
On a general basis, all the Civ were inept about the agressivity of other civilizations, making them more agressive when weaker and less when stronger.
Anyway, I think the civ in Civ 3 act better than in Civ 2. But not because they are more agressive, just because of the exact opposite

I would like to see one day a game that allows two civ to have a deep, strong friendship that last for centuries. AC was a good step in this direction, as the longer you stayed allied with a faction, the more you were friends. I would like to feel I have a reliable ally for once (though I love the "never trust them" feeling in Civ 3 as well, just wishing I could get both).

in civ2 you could see all the resources on the map before you even discovered them.

True. The idea of ressources is a great one

in civ2 a phalanx could beat tanks and missiles!!

Don't say stupid things, it practically never happened in Civ 2. In fact, it's Civ 3 which is plagued with "older units kill modern ones".

in civ2 you could send a jet fighter away and then you discovered you had no fuel to get back!!!

True, Civ 3 handle the aircraft better.
But while you talked about REALISM, at least the planes in Civ 2 were able to sink ships.

and many many other things.............

Yes. Culture, combat tactics improved, AI expansion, small wonders, no more crappy "home city" stuff...
But still no more farmland nor highways, fewer techs, no scenario editor, no multiplayer, no "shut up governor and don't touch to my building list"...

also about some of the complaints:

-win XP have problems with many other games as well.not only civ3 (try win ME).
-ALL games today require a strong pc.if your pc is not very powerful turns may take a long time.it's natural.

A 2D game with tiny animations should NOT be so slow. I don't speak about IA turn, I speak about the horrible slowness of your units when you make them move, which can take up to one second between each movement.

-corruption exists in all countries of the world.also, in some countries like russia, former soviet countries and some asian and african countries corruption is more than 90%!!it is not unnatural to have very high corruption levels.

First, my first world superpower is NOT a struggling african country ravaged by war, nor an ex-USSR plagued with rivalities, mafia and economic recession.
Second, it would not be realistic even if it was (sorry, never saw, even in the most corrupted countries, a 10 000 people town producing as much as a 10 millions inhabitants metropolis ; NEVER).

-i think the interface of the game is much better than in civ2.it's faster, better looking and simpler.in civ2 the menus were just borrowed from windows 95.

Hu, well, if you think that the interface is better than Civ 2...
Well no, really, I just can't find anything to say.
The interface is just a big pile of sh*t, probably one of the worst thing in the whole game. Unintuitive shortkeys, screens full of non-informations, impossibility to get some crucial infos (in the diplomacy screen i.e.), nearly hidden features... I could go on for hours.

i have many more things to say but i haven't got the time right now.

i will continue tomorow.

i didn't say civ3 is perfect but it definitely is the best of the civilization series.(at least I believe so).

I admit that it's a damn hooking game. But while it was a progress on many things, it was a stepback on many others. And well, I just can't understand that a game company would REMOVE good things it made with previous game.
Still hoping that the patch will gave us back some of the good ancient features anyway. But even as it is the game is fun. We "whine" so much because it could have been SO much better with just few more things, that previously existed or that were not that hard to do. So us "whining" is rather a good sign, it proves that at least we are INTERESTED in the game.
I did not even took the care to "whine" about CtP. Just got bored to death and throw it through the window.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by DarkForce
i was looking at the threads and i noticed that too many people complain about almost EVERYTHING in civ3.

um, you mean 10 threads/day started by venger? i am really sick of all the whining. yes, there are some valid points, but everyone here wants both realism and fun and surrealism at the same time. it aint gonna happen. they are fine with pyramids being a free grannary, but can talk for ages about supposedly broken combat. go figure

[DarkForce]

the only bug? i have found so far is with the palace improvements.
i have to click the (P)alace button to see what improvements i am offered. the people have so far have never informed me about an available improvement.

everything else works perfectly.

i started this thread 'complaining' about the numerous people critisizing the game. i believe civ3 is great and much better than civ1 & 2 and that most complaints are wrong or insubstantial. of course this is my personal opinion.

however i must admit that i am also 'happy' seeing such a large number of people criticising the game potisively or negatively.
this shows that people who play this game really love it and care about it. no matter how many improvements are made, people always ask for more because they want civ to be perfect. with most of the games what happens is that people try them and if they don't like them they just throw them in the dustbin. they don't join forums and start posting about what should be improved according to their opinion. very few games can pride themselves of having such dedicated fans that reall love the game. such 'lucky' games apart from civ are probably ms flight simulator, championship manager, might and magic and some others i don't remeber right now.

the large number of people criticizing the game shows that civ3 (and civ1&2) really are great games and all-time best & all-time classics.

[n.c.]

Deathray- Just making sure you apply that distinction.

Originally posted by splangy
Gee, I wonder were you mentioned fundie

Lots of places, as there are far too many fundies here. However, occasional use of that word does not mean everyone who disagrees with me is a fanatic.

If that was too complicated I can try to explain it again.