Wherefore the Anger?

[Moraelin]

Actually, I don't know about him, but _I_ couldn't care less who you think is the majority. We're not living by majority rule anyway. I don't need to take a majority vote every time I go to the bathroom, I don't need a majority vote to decide what movies I like, and I don't need a majority vote to decide who has the right to ask questions and who doesn't. Deal with it.

Besides, even if I wanted to be nasty with them, I wouldn't think Firaxis is so totally handicapped and helpless as to need you to be their PR manager and filter which questions need to be answered, and which doesn't. I mean, really, they've got a brain of their own. I do believe they're perfectly able to decide for themselves which questions they want to answer and which they don't. Give them that much credit.

And besides, they probably have far more skilled PR people than you anyway. As in, you know, people who know better than to explicitly try to annoy people. Even Infogrames' heavy handed handling of the fan translation was when they thought they were losing money because of it, not just for the fun of ticking off people.

Let go, man. Relax.

[Libertarian]

Let go, man. Relax

Stellar advice. And well to be heeded by the man who offers it.

[Moraelin]

See, I knew we could reach an aggreement. Now let's bring the crack... erm... I mean.... the PEACE pipe, and have a smole

[Libertarian]

Sure, I'll have a smole with you, but I ask you to go slowly 'till I get used to it.

[gachnar]

Originally posted by yin26
gachnar: Read the past 6 months of threads here and get back to me. I won't waste time telling you just how misinformed you are. It would take me too long. For the record, I am not picking a fight with you. I don't even know you. But you have simply missed too much to come in here and make blanket statements about why some people are upset.

You know what? I get the feeling that you've never made a thing in your life. And if you really need to, yeah, you can act all superior because I've only been reading ACS for a year now. And no, I'm not trying to pick a fight either. I'm hoping you might actually try to see this from Firaxis' perspective, or even try to see it from any perspective that isn't your own.

I understand people being upset over the lack of MP. I realize that they feel that the combat system was simplified. Lots of people wanted a more complex game. And I dont disagree with some of those, but you're silly if you think that Firaxis owes you, no matter how many times you have posted here.

When I release a piece of software (the stuff I make in my spare time is GPLed) users are allowed to use it. They can make suggestions, report bugs, ask how to fix problems, etc. There have been a couple times when I wasn't able to get a feature working, and people had to wait. No matter how much I promised a feature, I dont owe it to anyone to make it available.

You think that because "they" whoever they are in certain instances, said things were going to be available, that it constitutes a promise. Yet again: perhaps we are asking too much of Firaxis? Are you at least willing to admit that your expectations were a bit high?

[Libertarian]

...but you're silly if you think that Firaxis owes you, no matter how many times you have posted here.

I'd say that's about the gist of it.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by gachnar When I release a piece of software (the stuff I make in my spare time is GPLed) users are allowed to use it. They can make suggestions, report bugs, ask how to fix problems, etc. There have been a couple times when I wasn't able to get a feature working, and people had to wait. No matter how much I promised a feature, I dont owe it to anyone to make it available.

gachnar, then there is a fundamental difference there. If your stuff is GPL'ed, then it's a completely different can of worms. Those users got it for free, out of the goodness of your heart. Nice of you, and darn right they have no right to complain. Sure, if they don't like it, they can either go use something else or fix it themselves.

I don't think any of us would have felt disappointed if Civ 3 was a free mod downloaded off the net. I mean, really, you don't see anyone "whining" about korn's Blitz mod, or the Ancient's mod, or whatever other mod from the files forum.

However, I don't know about your copy, but the Civ 3 I have wasn't GPL'ed at all. For starters, I can't even fix their stupid stuff even if I wanted to work for free for them, when they make money out of it.

It also cost some money. And I like to think that at least in a tiny little bit, they do owe to all of us paying suckers that they're even in business at all.

About holding them to their claims, again, we're not talking some free GPL project made by some nice guy in his free time. If that was the case, sure, no problem, he'll do the rest when and if he feels like it. Thanks for giving all that away.

But in the case of promises and claims made by a commercial company, about a commercially sold product... Well, you know, I tend to take them a bit more seriously.

The thing is, I've paid those money based on some of those claims of theirs. E.g., I see that www.civ3.com still claims that it's "more civ than ever", when in fact it's just a case of "same old civ 2 as ever." It claims that it has some mondo diplomacy, but that's only true compared to the ancient Civ 2, when in the meantime there's also been a SMAC. Not quite that new after all. They also claimed they have some ultra-powerful user-friendly editor to replace the old editing text file and that generally it's super-ultra-mega-modder friendly. Guess what? The first thing I notice when I run the lame editor is that you can't even add a new unit. There also seem to be no support for any kind of scripting or linking dll's, so in exactly what way is it totally moddable, is beyond me. What am I supposed to do? Edit the .exe file in hex, or what? And so on, and so forth.

Briefly, I bought the product based not on just some wild assumtions of mine, from my wild imagination, but based precisely on what Firaxis claimed at various point. And I can't help feeling like I've been mislead. Ripped off.

Does that mean Firaxis owes me anything? Probably not. The state of this industry is that bulls**t sells, and the bugs and missing features are the user's problem. Sucks to be them. Serves 'em right if they actually believe that BS. Next time they should engage the brain before opening the wallet. Ha ha.

But at the end of the day, I still feel disappointed.

[gachnar]

Moraelin, the GPL has nothing to do with this.

Did you sign a contract with Firaxis? When you bought the game did it say it had multiplayer? Did it say that you would be able to do everything you want?

Mine didnt. My box says nothing about multiplayer or scenarios.

Would it have been nice to have those? Yes. But at least admit that the information you got was unofficial.

I'm sorry you were disappointed. Ive been reading this board for quite a while, and, unlike some people, realized that things that people said unofficially would be in the game, might not be. Anyone who has any experience with the software industry realizes this.

I can understand you feeling betrayed. But I see that you completely ignore the fact that actual human beings made this game. Its easy for you to say "Firaxis screwed me over, they dont care about me". But if you truly feel the way you say you do, the next time you have the opportunity, I want you to say to Dan, personally, "You screwed me over, You dont care about me." No one does this. Because its obvious that Dan does care.

You say that you know "that bulls**t sells", and yet you took civ3.com's marketing drivel as fact? Its ambiguous slop. You knew that.

Civ is your perfect game. You wanted Civ3 to be everything you dreamed. Sorry. It isn't. It was made by a group of people, who work for a medium sized software company, which was financed by a large distributor with a huge desire to turn a profit.

This is a piece of software. Windows 2000 claims its secure and fast. These mean nothing. Word claims it can perfectly convert between many different formats. It cant. Blizzard said that BNet Realms would eliminate cheating. They didnt.

The claims mean nothing. You knew the product before you bought it. Dont like it? Don't buy it, don't whine about it.

If you want, there is always FreeCiv. More modifiable than any version of Civ or CTP ever was.

[yin26]

To me, this is not an issue of law. Even if Firaxis 'falsely advertised,' that's not really my point. I'm not talking lawsuits (though Infogrames clearly is).

I'm talking building trust and respect from your fans.

Firaxis is quite within its bounds to imply, insuiate, cover up, back pedal, use misleading hype ... etc. It's there business to run or ruin as they see fit.

It's just some of us had hoped they wouldn't ruin things. We hoped that a promise implied would be a promise kept. So while I am no naieve enough to think Firaxis 'owes' me a damn thing, nor am I dense enough to think Firaxis did anything but a sub-par effort with Civ3 (the product itself and the PR).

So if that's their business plan, best of luck to them.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by gachnar
I'm sorry you were disappointed. Ive been reading this board for quite a while, and, unlike some people, realized that things that people said unofficially would be in the game, might not be. Anyone who has any experience with the software industry realizes this.

Ugh... Look, I'm not talking about stuff said on this board by fans, I'm talking stuff that was or even still is on the Firaxis owned www.civ3.com site. Trust me, stupid as I may look, I do read the official site before buying a game. Are you trying to tell me that statements made by Firaxis itself, on their own web site, as part of their marketing BS, should be treated as unofficial fan rumours? To me it looks like false advertising.

For example, on that OFFICIAL site, under key features it clearly says: "Easier-to-use interface for streamlined management and better control." In practice it's the same old tedium as in Civ 2, and clean user-friendly interfaces that have existed for ages (like public works or stack movement) aren't in the game.

From the same OFFICIAL list of key features, I quote: "Improved combat options provide finer levels of control for enhanced war-making capabilities." In practice, combat is an even more over-simplistic screw up than ever.

From the same OFFICIAL list of key features, I spy with my little eye, something that begins with the letter T. "Technologies, Wonders Of The World and Great People expand the scope of the game. " (The official FAQ is even more misleading in this aspect. It actually states there are NEW technologies and wonders.) Exactly in which way I'm totally overboard to expect a better tech tree than in Civ 2? In practice, it's got less techs than Civ 2, half of them are useless balast, and the other half put the carriage before the horses. And Great People are just a stupid gimmick to build simplistic armies, instead of having stacked movement and the improved combat they promised.

That's only from ONE page on the OFFICIAL site. Now also read their FAQ and some of Sid Meier's and other developpers' drivel, on the same OFFICIAL site, and they promise one helluva lot more. (E.g., in more than a couple of places they actually go on and on about how the editor will make the game totally customizable. Reality check: as little as changing a unit's name can make the game crash when you build it.)

So again: exactly WHY should I think that stuff is UNofficial?

The claims mean nothing. You knew the product before you bought it. Dont like it? Don't buy it, don't whine about it.

This is even more surrealistic. HOW was I to know the product before I buy it? Was there some demo that I've missed?

[Freeze]

It's good to see that the Defenders of the Faith (Noble Polishers of the Corporate Knob chapter) are still hard at it.

This content-free message was brought to you by RFC 1925.

[Libertarian]

Moraelin,

With all due respect, you seem to be disappointed in your own subjective expectations, rather than in broken promises. The snippets you lifted can be interpreted just as easily as promises kept. Many reviewers have cited the improved interface as a key game enhancement. Many players believe the combat is much better balanced. And the claims made about new technologies, new wonders, and leaders are demonstrably true.

Maybe the difference is that those of us who like the game did not "predesign" it in our heads. We approached it fresh, with the understanding that its strategies, interstices, and penumbras would be new.

[Moraelin]

Libertarian, I seem to remember that you didn't exactly love the tediousness of moving 50 units one by one, either. Nor the fact that you get control of them in a seemingly random order. Or is my memory failing me?

And that's just one of the issues with the interface.

So exactly in which way was the interface improved? Anything I can think of is either like in Civ 2, or is actually worse than Civ 2. (E.g., lack of a "Sentry" command on huge map is a royal pain in the rear.)

With combat, it's not just the way the dice are rolled. It's that even if you want to believe it's an improvement, it's just a tweak. Where IS that wealth of combat options?

And so on.

The point is that it's not really a case of pre-designing it in my head. (Though even if it were the case, it's a bit annoying to find out that people like me or you can have far better design ideas than the "legendary" Sid Meier. I mean, did he even try?) It's a matter of expecting SOME notable change there, if it's listed under KEY features, not under "minor tweaks."

I didn't really have an idea of HOW would combat be richer and full of options. I never actually imagined whether it would be the awesome tactical battles from Master of Magic, or the automated stuff from CTP2, or something else. But I did expect SOME real overhaul, not just a tweak to the dice rolls, and an uninspired one at that.

Likewise, I never actually had a clear idea of what the tech tree would look like, down to what depends on what. But WTH, I expected that the third time around it would at least make SOME sense, instead of looking like someone just pulled a bunch of stuff out of their rear.

Likewise, I didn't really have a preference of how the editor works or what it looks like. Scripts, external DLL's, whatever. But if they claim it allows some total customizations, I merely expected that it's POSSIBLE. (See Counter-Strike or Team Fortress classic, for an example of what a real mod is really like, and what kind of stuff I expect to be possible with a game if they actually BRAG about making their game customizable. Some lame half-arsed support for only tweaking numbers to existing units, is NOT what I have in mind as mod support.)

Now enter the lame supplied editor. Let's say I don't even want to ADD a new unit, just to make do with tweaking existing ones. E.g., let's say I don't want a Scout, I want that instead I give Expansionists a different Worker who moves two steps instead of one. (To help them with moving around to work across an expanded empire early in the game, which is what Expansionism is all about.) OK, I make the normal worker available only to non-expansionists, I rename the Scout to Worker (or anything else), make it cost one unit of population, change the icon to the Worker one, and give it the actions that the Worker has. Straightforward stuff. Load the game, start a game, try to build a renamed scout, the game crashes. The ONLY way to avoid a crash is to let its name as Scout. Run the game again, guess what? Even though I've changed its icon to the Worker one, that's only in the build menu. In the game it still looks like a scout, and just stands there when cutting down trees and whatnot. There's no way to also make it have the worker animations.

E.g., let's say I leave the Scout alone, since there's clearly nothing useful to be done with it. Let's design my own civilization instead. I pick one of the existing one, and change their attributes, which now don't include Expansionist. I also DID make sure that scouts are no longer linked to that civ, in the editor. Start a game with another civ as my main one. Hey, is that one of their Scouts? I thought they're neither Expansionist, nor able to build Scouts any more. Why did the game give them one? Right, because it's stupid enough to have that hard-coded, instead of actually reading that from the modded file.

[Libertarian]

Sorry. I thought that by "interface" you meant tools of navigability: menus, command buttons, and the like.

Regarding design issues, it might well be that Sid et al can conceive ideas equal to our own. If you and I were to implement our own ideas — admittedly quite good ones — how long do you suppose it would take? What I'm getting at is that, for example, I didn't necessarily expect stack movement to be in the first release, but now that the guts of the game is out, such items as impede gameplay need tending.

[yin26]

As we can all guess, the programming and government support required in making stacked movement actually work would have pushed this game well into the 2010 time-frame. Totally unrealistic, to say the least.

[Moraelin]

Well, I did say it wasn't the only complaint with the interface. I also notice such inconsistencies as that some actions have buttons, while some require one to memorize a key.

As for the ideas... Actually, most of them don't even need THAT much extra coding.

E.g., if they already have the code for armies, how about just giving any unit the button to make an army? And I don't mean lose the unit and get an empty army instead, like happens with Great Leaders, but make a new army AND load itself into that army? And when the last unit has been unloaded, the army should disappear. (To also avoid the current screw-up of having armies with zero units in them.)

That should IMHO be a good enough a substitute for stack movement.

And if someone wants to say "but easy armies would unbalance the game", well, not if the AI uses them too. It would just become a game of armies-vs-armies, instead of a game of units-vs-units. And frankly, I'd prefer the AI to move 10 armies through my teritory than 40 individual units. Takes less waiting between turns.

E.g., if they also want to have Great Leaders, how about just making them a regular unit that doesn't fight, but gives a bonus to the army it's in? I mean, make him a kind of a support unit, like the artillery. Let's say, 1 extra hit point to any unit that's grouped with a Great Leader. (So basically conscripts become regular, regulars become veteran, venterans become elite, and elite becomes some uber-elite, because of benefitting from the wisdom and experience of a great commander.) I don't know exactly what their combat code looks like, but I can't see any reason why it should be hard to check if it's grouped with a Great Leader before starting the fight.

E.g., I really don't think it would have required ages to implement a system of public works, instead of a horde of workers that make the turns take half of forever. And then some. If nothing else, you don't have to code an AI for the automated workers, so it should more or less balance out IMHO.

[Antonin]

I'm back from a weekend of having a life, which includes playing Civ 3 and lots of other fun stuff.

I see the whining hasn't gone away.

Hate Civ 3? Don't play it.

Sell it and move on.

Design your own game.

[Jack_www]

I have Civ3. I believe that I got my money's worth and have enjoyed the game alot. There are also a lot of other people who feel this way but never post here. I have been waiting for Civ3 for years, and I expected a lot of out Civ3. I was dissapointed in the things they said that they were going to include into the game but did not. But I still like the game.

I can see why some people really hate the game and think that it is the worst of game of all time. They had very high expectations for Civ3, like Yin26 and others. They though that Civ3 was going to be total rework of the Civ. When they realized that this would not be the case they hated the game form then on, even if they played it or not.

I dont think that Firaxis is evil or whatever Yin26 or the others thinks that Firaxis is. What I think happened was they were planning on putting a lot of things into Civ3, but they realized that they did not have the time or money to do this. They had a deadline to meet, and if Civ3 was delayed so that they could put some more features into the game they would most likely lose their jobs. Does this mean that they were lazy or incompentent? I think not. I would like to know what the people who hate the game so much would have done if they were in the same possition. I have also seen that the people at Firaxis have been visiting the forum here and have been posting more as well.

And please do not call me a fanboy or that I am blindly tyring to defined Firaxis and Sid Mires because I think that they are gods. This is not the case. I know that Sid had nothing to do with Civ3, all he did was overlook what was being done, but thats I think was all he did. Personally I dont even care about Sid Mire, and if he had any part in making the game or not. I also think that Firaxis could have done a better job if they had managed their time and money better or if they had more of both, but I dont know because I was not there with the Civ3 team working on the game, and neither any of you who hate the game so much. This is game, so relax. If you think it is trash sell it or if you can return it and never buy a game form Firaxis never again. If you think that the game is that bad they only way they will know this is if enough people do not buy the game that they start to lose money, then they will know that the game they made was not good at all. But if you spend all your time around here complaining about the game and go on how it sucks they will ignore you. Anther reason why they ignore you is the way you complain, when you voice complaints, ones that are most likely be valid ones, they are lost because you insult the people who work at firaxis anyone else who likes the game and trys to say that they do not understand why you hate the game so much.

[gaikokujin]

Originally posted by gachnar

Oh very well yin, why is that?

You decided you hated the game before you even played it.

In fact, this is not true. Please search for Yin's earliest immediate post-release comments, where he gushed enthusatic over a (seemingly) coordinated modern era amphibious invasion. Like a true "fanboy". After that, it was all downhill (for the game, that is).

Originally posted by gachnar
You are one of the most frustrating people here. You have the intelligence and passion to really improve the game (I like the game, but I haven't met a game that can't be improved), but you mostly just use your intelligence to post witty insults and complaints.

This may be because 1) the game has some fundamental design flaws whose effects become evident in the late game, which as such are unpatchable or unmoddable by definition, and 2) CivIII does not represent a qualitative innovative advance over the last "tranche" of games in this genre (CTP2, SMAC2) and in some areas takes a step backwards (stacked movement, public works - CTP, flexible gov combinations - SMAC) and 3) the well-known bad PR.

As for Yin, it is recommended that you dig way back in the archives - especially SMAC - to get a more well-rounded picture of one of the more incisive minds on this site, rather than the Osama bin Laden of Apolyton that some make the mistake of assuming.