Here's why we complain of things in Civ III that were in Civ II

[Trifna]

Many asked "Why do people complain about things in Civ III that were in Civ II, saying it destroys Civ III, whereas they didn't complained for Civ II?". So here's my interpretation in three steps:

1- I have a little hypothesis about it. Game's concepts and technical development, in the 1980's, weren't of the same quality than now (in a general way). If they were, well we would stil making 2D games, etc. This is because designers and everyone lurned from the past.

2- Look at people in the mid-ages. They were doing things you would say are boring. This is because you have better things to do than at that time. "Boring" is an adjective, and as all adjective, it is a comparison. It can only be "More boring than" and not just "Boring". When you say only "Boring", you implicitely compare it to the average within the context of your sentence.

3- NOW, in gaming, we are able to do more, we lurned of our experience, we know this and that can be ameliorated. So when we see it NOT ameliorated, we compare it to what we think it could have been, and to what we find in other games, which (both together) is forming our average in the present context (what we think it should be).



This text isn't complete and I know it. But it gives the general idea, without considering some factors I did saw, but that were complicating the thing. Or this would be a discussion about factors of happiness, which would be longer and ask me to go on some fields I'm not fixed. But the factors that are giving the reasons in the present context, I think, are here.

Hope those who read this make fun with it and find it interesting

[Libertarian]

Once again, Trifna, you've made an insightful contribution.

One of the things that developers have learned (which I mentioned briefly in another thread) is that an interface ought to be designed in such a way that a user is immersed in his work (or play), and not bothered with leading the software around by the nose.

Being a "power user" used to be a badge of honor. People who knew how to "make software sing" were a hot commodity. Nowadays, software is much more transparent and docucentric. Interfaces are much more encapsulated. Today's power user is the person who can make documents (or games), rather than what's wrapped around them, sing.

Civ3's interface is very 80s.

[cutlerd]

IMO most of the people who have expressed dislike of CIV3 on these forums are the type that like to sit down at the computer, fire up a civ game, and kick unholy arse on the AI. I have heard the same refrain from the critics on these forums over and over again. Many even say it explicitly "I like to sit down at Chieftain level and dominate."

CIV3 has thrown a monkey wrench in their comfortable CIV2 domination fantasies. They can no longer tech blitz. They can no longer blitz through enemy territory with armour and spies. They can no longer build every unit in the game willy nilly with no thought of resources. They can no longer take city after city with nary a garrison in them. They can no longer build the UN and constantly start wars of aggression as Republics or Democracies. They can no longer build massive world spanning empires and not worry one whit about the difficulties of running such a huge sprawling mess.

In other words, they can no longer indulge their megalo-maniacial Napolean-complexed world domination mental masturbations unfettered from the needs of strategic planning.

This bothers them and so they hate the game without giving it much of a chance. In their desire to hate the game so rabidly, they end up eventually complaining about things that were exactly the same in CIV2, but I guess are coloured through the nostalgic glasses of years gone by.

P.S. There are some actual thoughtful people who dislike CIV3 for reasons that, while I don't agree with them, I at least respect them. But for the most part what I've read and heard falls into the characterization above.

Devin

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by cutlerd
*snip*

Ah, that would make for an easy dismissal of most complaints, wouldn't it? The people who play Chieftain aren't nearly as vocal as those who don't, at least on a regular basis. As such they aren't really responsible for a great deal of uproar. The majority of veterans (Of the series) and frequenters who share the opinion that the game is highly flawed attest to playing Monarch or harder.

That card has been played already, and is out of the game. Sorry.

[Ming]

Sure... "some" of the complaints about Civ III are the same things we put up with in Civ II. (note: I still play Civ II MP on a regular basis)... so what. They are still valid complaints.

We were led to believe that Civ III would be the game to end all games. Just take a look at all the hard work and effort put in by Yin and others putting together a list of things we wanted to see for Civ III. We were expecting soooooooooo much more. And what did we get...

Now, I'm still playing Civ III, and I find many elements very enjoyable... But I really hope they solve a lot of the late game "issues" and continuing nagging problems with a future patch(s). I hope they don't just walk away from the game!

[cutlerd]

<
That card has been played already, and is out of the game. Sorry.>>

If you interpreted that my point was that all of the complainers only play chieftain, then you missed the point or I was not clear enough.

Let me try again. The majority of complainers seem to be those who enjoyed the megalomaniacal component of the game. Kicking the asses of one's opponents and cutting through their empires like butter. All smash and no subtlety.

In fact, I am willing to bet most of the complainers regularly beat King and Deity on CIV2. After all.....it hardly serves to be conqueror of a whimpy universe....right?

So I suppose I should have divided the complaints into two categories....the casual players who have stated that they just like to set the game to Chieftain and kick ass without any problems, and the hardcore CIV2ers who liked to set the game to Deity and kick ass over and over again using the same tried and true kick-ass formula every time.

I hope it is clearer now.

Devin

[Libertarian]

Clearer, yes. But still randomly arbitrary.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by cutlerd
IMO most of the people who have expressed dislike of CIV3 on these forums are the type that like to sit down at the computer, fire up a civ game, and kick unholy arse on the AI. I have heard the same refrain from the critics on these forums over and over again. Many even say it explicitly "I like to sit down at Chieftain level and dominate."

CIV3 has thrown a monkey wrench in their comfortable CIV2 domination fantasies. They can no longer tech blitz. They can no longer blitz through enemy territory with armour and spies. They can no longer build every unit in the game willy nilly with no thought of resources. They can no longer take city after city with nary a garrison in them. They can no longer build the UN and constantly start wars of aggression as Republics or Democracies. They can no longer build massive world spanning empires and not worry one whit about the difficulties of running such a huge sprawling mess.

In other words, they can no longer indulge their megalo-maniacial Napolean-complexed world domination mental masturbations unfettered from the needs of strategic planning.

This bothers them and so they hate the game without giving it much of a chance. In their desire to hate the game so rabidly, they end up eventually complaining about things that were exactly the same in CIV2, but I guess are coloured through the nostalgic glasses of years gone by.

P.S. There are some actual thoughtful people who dislike CIV3 for reasons that, while I don't agree with them, I at least respect them. But for the most part what I've read and heard falls into the characterization above.

Devin

I played games that were hard (most people not finishing it) and it didn't influenced my opinion. What does influence is if it has resemblance in its own context, the interface, etc. I never even played Civ II at its higher difficulty. I never liked to rule only. And I'm constantly criticizing. Would it be almost perfect, I could stil criticize, except that I would add "It is almost perfect, just a tiny detail...", since I'm reconnaissant of things made. Nothing is perfect, thus we can try to make it better (even if when its realy tiiiny details, we change to something more criticizable since more valuable). Do you think that every litterature, politic, ..., critics are criticizing because they like to be the boss or anything, that they aren't able to criticize by looking at if it is CORRECT instead of looking if it is an advantage to themselves or else? I would guess I'm able to criticize by trying to make it better.

[Trifna]

and it didn't influenced my opinion

Correction. I think it didn't influenced my opinion. I'm not perfect thus I guess I'll make a fault somewhere, but I have the opposit goal.

[Capt Dizle]

I find Trifna's writing more colorful than the game. Civ3 I mean, not that I play anymore. I wrapped it up and gave it away as a Christmas present to a particularly distasteful cousin.

[cutlerd]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Clearer, yes. But still randomly arbitrary.

Isn't that redundant?

And hardly random or arbitrary, since I neither rolled a die nor flipped a coin to formulate my opinion nor did I simply make up my opinion as a flight of fancy or whimsy.

Has your vocabulary sputtered out oh fellow Libertarian?

Devin (long time Libertarian)

[cutlerd]

Originally posted by Trifna



I played games that were hard (most people not finishing it) and it didn't influenced my opinion. What does influence is if it has resemblance in its own context, the interface, etc. I never even played Civ II at its higher difficulty. I never liked to rule only. And I'm constantly criticizing. Would it be almost perfect, I could stil criticize, except that I would add "It is almost perfect, just a tiny detail...", since I'm reconnaissant of things made. Nothing is perfect, thus we can try to make it better (even if when its realy tiiiny details, we change to something more criticizable since more valuable). Do you think that every litterature, politic, ..., critics are criticizing because they like to be the boss or anything, that they aren't able to criticize by looking at if it is CORRECT instead of looking if it is an advantage to themselves or else? I would guess I'm able to criticize by trying to make it better.

Heh. I knew when I put the P.S. to my post that some people would ignore it and then tell me how my characterization does not apply specifically to them.

If you are not one of the megalomaniacal CIV2 whiners then great...you fall under the few, the proud, the ones mentioned in my P.S. who actually make legitimate gripes about CIV3. As such I heartily congratulate you (insert handshake here).

But the Megalos far outnumber the thoughtful critics.

And no, of course every piece of literature and art is not criticized because the critics are megalomaniacs. That term is specifically reserved for CIV2 whiners who enjoyed the world domination aspect of CIV and are complaining because it has been made more difficult and de-emphasized in CIV3.

Devin

[Trifna]

Originally posted by cutlerd


Heh. I knew when I put the P.S. to my post that some people would ignore it and then tell me how my characterization does not apply specifically to them.

If you are not one of the megalomaniacal CIV2 whiners then great...you fall under the few, the proud, the ones mentioned in my P.S. who actually make legitimate gripes about CIV3. As such I heartily congratulate you (insert handshake here).

But the Megalos far outnumber the thoughtful critics.

And no, of course every piece of literature and art is not criticized because the critics are megalomaniacs. That term is specifically reserved for CIV2 whiners who enjoyed the world domination aspect of CIV and are complaining because it has been made more difficult and de-emphasized in CIV3.

Devin

Oh I see... Yup, in fact I read too fast and it seems I past through the PS as if it wasn't there. Sorry. But about if it's the majority or not, I don't know... Maybe they aren't perfectly rational and impartial, but I think that a good part of them sense that something isn,t going right and they try to find solutions, which are correspondant to what frustrated them. Thus, it tends to go in the sense of what they like. Not all are warmonger types.

But what I DO feel as beeing from the majority is that most comments are aready said or useless because without any argument. It's quite harassing when it's in a post that is demanding some to find a solution. So the same things are reapeated again and again. I guess that this was the use of The List. Maximum concentration of useful stuff. Or Firaxis people just don't have time to read 10 000 pages of forums.

PS: I did tried to insert my hand, for hand shake, but got problems with that silly screen...

[ACooper]

Civ3's interface is very 80s.

Alright, we have agreed to be nice to each other but this is ludicrous. Civ 1 was released in 1990. Are you saying that the Civ3 interface is worse or just that it doesn't meet your needs?


BTW, IMHO the CIV3 interface is the best by far in the series.

[yin26]

cutlerd:

You talk about the 'majority' of complainers, which I don't see how you could know. But unless you feel I'm the exception, here's why I don't like the game:

1) It's too easy. Yes, even on the higher levels and even with these supposed 'wonderful new strategies' that a gamer supposedly should use. Show me one. The simple fact of the matter is that Civ3 took the 'build cities until you puke' formula and not only DIDN'T fix it but actually made it worse. So, contrary to your idea on this one, I find the game too easy because it's a no-brainer to have Settler Diarrhea.

2) The late age in the game is God-awful boring. Sad and pathetic, actually. From the units to the techs available. Picking gum off my old sneakers provides more entertainment.

3) Nail in the coffin: Tedium. Gut wrenching, Satan-spawned tedium. Take 200+ units and move them one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one one by one by one by one by one by one

Christ man. That's a strategy game? The only strategy involved in that is how to stay awake long enough to click 'end turn.' Well, I found a great strategy that ends all turns very fast: Uninstall.

[cutlerd]

Yin,

That's fine. You lay out reasonable criticisms, even if I do not agree with most of them.

But tell me how any of those criticisms do not apply to CIV2.

You see, I have a MUCH easier time understanding people who complain that CIV3 didn't improve on CIV2 enough in some areas (such as, for example, late game tedium and no stacked movement).

What boggles my mind and what I was commenting on, however, are the torrent of folks on this board who simultaneously decry CIV3 and yet hold CIV2 up as a paragon of civ gaming.

To address your points specifically:

1. Did you find CIV2 all that hard? Maybe you are (and I am not saying this sarcastically) such a good player that NO AI WILL EVER CHALLENGE YOU SUFFICIENTLY. At some level every AI is going to become too easy eventually. That or it has to cheat tremendously, which ends up pissing off people even more.

I am sure that given X times playing CIV3 I will eventually master it and find it easy to beat. That said, I feel, and many people agree, that the level of difficulty of the AI in CIV3 is far superior to CIV2. I could win every game I started of CIV2. I am still being challenged by CIV3, far longer and more readily than I was by CIV2. Maybe you leapt the CIV curve too quickly. Maybe you are such a good player that only multi-player will work for you.

By definition, the introduction of resources and civ advantages has to at least provide more of a challenge simply because these were things you didn't have to manage or deal with in CIV2 that you do now. You cannot add parameters and constraints and end up with an easier game.

2. And the late game in CIV2 was......what? An exercise in subtle military tactics? Turn to Fundie,.get oodles of money....spy every city you can, tank and howitzer anything left standing (i.e. belonging to a Democracy). You call that fun? CIV3 may be like picking gum off of your shoes, but to me the late game CIV2 was like picking dog crud off of my shoes. I'll take gum any day.

And I have yet to meet a CIV game that did not get tedious late game. SMAC, CIV1, CIV2, CIV3, CTP, CTP2. If you know of a civ game that does not get tedious late game...please enlighten us.

3. And so what you are saying is that you miss the stacking feature in CIV2 right? Wait.....CIV2 didn't have a stacking feature either...did it? Do I want a stacking feature for CIV3? Yup. But were you and Libertarian and others complaining to Microprose for a stacking feature in CIV2? If not...why not?

Devin

[yin26]

But tell me how any of those criticisms do not apply to CIV2.

This is precisely the point. What was acceptable 5 years ago might not be any longer. Are you saying Civ3 should have kept all that was dull and tedius about Civ2 'just because'? Hey, Pong was fantastic in its day. Try a Pong3 that does almost nothing to update itself (in real gameplay terms, not with 3D bobbing balls that make silly faces, either) and consider your question again.

[Akka]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by cutlerd
Yin,

That's fine. You lay out reasonable criticisms, even if I do not agree with most of them.

But tell me how any of those criticisms do not apply to CIV2.[QUOTE]

When Dune 2 came, it was universally considered a great game. I played it and was captivated (for the people who don't know it : it was the first of the "classical" RTS game). Now, though I have loved this game in its time, I don't even ask myself if I would tolerate actually any RTS that does not allow to select more than ONE unit at the same time or that require I press a key before performing any action (yes, you had to press M for Move, A for Attack, no instant right-click action in these times) like it was the case in Dune 2.

[Ironikinit]

Yin, if a certain tactic ruins the fun for you, don't use it.

If the late game bores you, skip it and start a new game.

If you don't like moving 200+ workers around, don't build 200+ workers.

I give this advice not trying to be a smartass, although I know I probably sound like one by stating the obvious. I look at Civ 3 and I see a lot of new things, the resources, luxuries, the trade system, the combat, so much more, and all pretty good. I see a game that's at present just as engrossing as Civ 1 and 2 were for me. Others can't seem to get over the fact that the interface isn't how they like it and that it suffers from the same flaw as its predecessors.

Please realize that late game tedium is probably inescapable in this type of game. Not only did Civ 1 and 2 suffer it, and Alpha Centauri, but Europa Universalis (quite a different engine but very similar to the Civ series in this aspect) got dull for me in the later game. The big fun has always been in the early and mid game, IMO, and to expect Civ 3 to somehow overcome a flaw inherent to the genre seems to me unreasonable.

Yes, perhaps stacked movement would be swell. Does its absense ruin the game for me? No. It seems nitpicky to keep harping on it.

[yin26]

Yin, if a certain tactic ruins the fun for you, don't use it.

I think City Madness is built into the system. What you are effectively saying is: Purposely make the game harder on yourself by avoiding the fundamental building block of your empire: Cities ... and lots of them. Now, I wouldn't mind the game being harder, of course, but the fact remains, especially with the addition of luxuries, that if you DON'T expand like a disease, you will suffer. Hey, don't ask me to be a bad player. The fact remains that the best way -- in terms of building a strong empire -- to play Civ3, and the way the AI is programmed as well, is also the most boring as it stands.

If late game bores you, skip it and start a new game.

C'mon. I'd rather skip ALL ages (as in uninstall, which I have done) than throw up my arms and say: Well, 30% of this game just plain sucks, so I'll be happy with the other 70%, which is 50% build-up anyway.

Yes, there is only about 20% of any Civ3 game that is worth playing. Hardly a run for your money.

If you don't like moving 200+ workers around, don't build 200+ workers.

I said 'units,' which includes military. So now the solution you propose is:

1) Don't use the precise strategy the game was coded for.
2) Skip the last part of the game.
3) Don't build many workers or military units because they are a hassle.

In other words: Don't play Civ3. Well, I took this advice after my fourth game. And I was the one who gave the advice.

[Ironikinit]

1. I'm sure you've heard of the concept of handicapping. I'm glad you were able to understand what I was saying, but why I said it escaped you. It's a game, and the outcome doesn't matter. You're free to experiment, and that includes playing "badly".

2. If you insisted on playing out the game to the bitter end even though you don't enjoy it, realize that it was your choice to do so. I frequently quit games of Civ 2 before they were close to ending because the end was obvious. Late game tedium is a problem with the entire series. If you can think of a sure fire way to prevent it (SMAC did try to address the issue a bit and failed, and so has Civ 3), you shouldn't tell Firaxis. You should put together your idea into a nice package and sell it to a game company.

3. Yes, I'm said if you don't like dealing with a lot of units, don't make a lot of units. Of course, you can't because you uninstalled the game, which leaves the question:

Why are you here? You don't play the game, you don't intend to, you don't like the game, you never have, you aren't here to help or get help, so why are you here? There are other games. If you're expecting Firaxis to fix Civ 3 up just the way you like it, I really don't think it'll happen, I don't think it could happen. You're not talking about a fix, you're talking about a whole other game.

[yin26]

It's a game, and the outcome doesn't matter.

Well, even if we agree on this overstated premise (since surely losing every game would not be terribly fun), what we are left with is: IT'S THE PROCESS THAT MATTERS. On that, we agree. And the process in Civ3 is shoddy, unrewarding and just plain dull.

Late game tedium is a problem with the entire series.

Which begs the question: 10 years after Civ1, the best Firaxis can do is to make the problem just as bad or worse? Sorry, but that's pathetic. Keep in mind, the late age is PARTICULARY sad and anemic. In other words, Firaxis seemingly paid zero attention or planned so badly that end-game tedium was left in-tact but on steriods in Civ3.

Don't make a lot of units.

Cool. I can't wait to try my 'no unit' Civ3 game!

Why are you here?

I've answered this 1,000 times. I don't care to repeat it and you likely don't care to find out where I've said it, so I guess that one will remain a mystery to you.

On the list of motives, however, is: I slow down at car wrecks, too. Another one is: I hope Firaxis has a sick taste in their mouths reading some of these threads such that IF they ever go for a Civ4, they might actually pull their heads out next time.

[Libertarian]

And hardly random or arbitrary, since I neither rolled a die nor flipped a coin to formulate my opinion nor did I simply make up my opinion as a flight of fancy or whimsy.

All bifurcations are both random and arbitrary.

Alright, we have agreed to be nice to each other but this is ludicrous. Civ 1 was released in 1990. Are you saying that the Civ3 interface is worse or just that it doesn't meet your needs?

I don't know how I could have been more plain.

The idea in this day and age is to present the user with a tool whose purpose is to facilitate his work or play. A user's immersion is inversely proportional to his interactions with a software's interface.

If you don't like moving 200+ workers around, don't build 200+ workers.

Speaking of ludicrous, the argument that we ought to mitigate the game's intrinsic tedium simply by playing an inferior strategy is Neanderthal in its conception. For empire building — a play style that facilitates at least two victory options — workers have been given to us AS THE VERY MEANS by which our empires are built. Advising us to eliminate them is tantamount to advising us not to play.

And frankly, defending Civ3's deficient interface by alluding to how it is no different than its predecessor is anathema to the whole notion of progress.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Yin, if a certain tactic ruins the fun for you, don't use it.

If the late game bores you, skip it and start a new game.

If you don't like moving 200+ workers around, don't build 200+ workers.

When you have to not look at many places on a gem to not see some imperfection, it's becaused it's flawed. When you can't place the gem in any position so that you're able to not always have your eye concentrating on an imperfection or annother, it's because it needs to be reworked or that its core is just too bad to do something with it.

Civ III has a magnificient core, so it's not the material (Civ's game concept) that's the problem. Civ III has many imperfections, and too much of them for some (as yin and others) to be able to "forget" a feature that's cheezy and continue to play (which I personnally had the habit to do with some games). When there are too much flaws, you can't play it because it was made to have a role in-game and when you try to put that role out, it wasn't made to be as such and has consequences on your new "personal rebuilt game".

[ACooper]

The idea in this day and age is to present the user with a tool whose purpose is to facilitate his work or play. A user's immersion is inversely proportional to his interactions with a software's interface.

I feel facilitated just find thank you very much. This interface is by far better than any in the Civ series or the CTP series or AoE or EE. What could be simpler. 3 buttons on top. Basic buttons on bottom, along with a Mini-Map and a dialogue box so you can tell workers from transports.


Maybe it's what we call an id10t error.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by cutlerd
In other words, they can no longer indulge their megalo-maniacial Napolean-complexed world domination mental masturbations unfettered from the needs of strategic planning.
Devin

"We" already had our strategy planned! And we had lots of fun for being great! We ruled the planet! We were the best! But this kind of fun has just been crippled, and I can't find any way to make Civ 3 fun because of the (ridiculous, IMO) 40 turns cap, the horde of units you need to build a successful empire and, as mentioned before, the settler diarrhea!
If you find this fun, then you just haven't been playing games lately! Well I have, and among them are the brilliant MOO 2 (1996!) and Starcraft (1998!), whenever I'm in the mood for TBS or RTS. Multiplayer, of course.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by ****gyRA


I feel facilitated just find thank you very much. This interface is by far better than any in the Civ series or the CTP series or AoE or EE. What could be simpler. 3 buttons on top. Basic buttons on bottom, along with a Mini-Map and a dialogue box so you can tell workers from transports.


Maybe it's what we call an id10t error.

I think that what is said here is that the present interface is stil not enough. "It's the best yet? Could have been better with ideas given." seems Libertarian's idea. My own idea is that the interface is great, but that they made a few little errors that change many things (to name them: no stacking, can't look at civilopedia when diplomacy, engeneers everywhere and maybe others).


IMHO, I think that we should try to see what we're all agreeing on, first. This would be a start on what should be changed. After, we can put al the rest as what we think of hypothesis of what should be chaged. Or something like that.

[Zachriel]

I like Civ3, especially like the cultural aspects. Play it all the time.

[cutlerd]

Zealot,

Then stick with CIV2. You are absolutely correct in your statement that CIV3 has hamstrung the megalomaniacal portion of the game. IMO that is a good thing, because I get my jollies less from mindlessly crushing units with a different colour under my boot heel than I do from having to balance a lot of different factors in order to succeed. Because of this I tend to very rarely in CIV3 go for domination victory and it suits me just fine. I prefer short, sharp wars with definable goals. It seems far more realistic to me.

So less than CIV3 being crappy in this regard is just that CIV3 is designed for a CIv type TBS style of play that does not match your style of play. In other words, CIV3 is less a piece of crud than it is simply not the game for you and your playing style.

Yin,

Handicapping your own victory conditions or criteria is hardly antyhing new in gaming against an AI. In CIV2 I found the game so easy that I had to artificially insert new instant loss criteria. For example, if global warming occured I instantly lost the game.

I fail to see why you have this mental block against self-imposed criteria. It's kind of like the people complaining about the pre patch ability to chop down forests to get shields over and over again. They whined about it, yet refused to stop doing it. That makes no sense. Same with people *****ing about the million gold trade bug. Damn man...just don't make that particular trade!

Dude...this isn't multi player yet. ANYTHING you feel like introducing to the game to make it better is legitimate. If you find CIV3 too unchallenging at all levels of play, then what the heck is wrong with handicapping yourself? Don't allow yourself to build a second city for X turns. Who the hell is going to object? Playing solo against the AI is like masturbation...you CAN'T do it wrong!

As far as tedium and the like, all you have so far stated is that CIV3 hasn't improved on CIV2. My question to you remains...and it is a legitimate one since I have not read the CIV2 boards here....were you complaining about non-stacked movement or late game tedium or ease of victory on the CIV2 forums? If not...why not?

Is it legitimate to expect CIV3 to IMPROVE on CIV2? Yep. But that's not the general tenor of your and other's posts. You are not saying "The entire civ series sucks and CIV3 did nothing to change this". You seem to be singling out CIV3 for faults endemic to the entire series and to the entire genre in general.

Libertarian,

I feel like I am corresponding with a zen master on crack cocaine.

Why the heck to you think all bifurcations are random and arbitrary? Ever heard of Positive Determinism?

"Quit talking and start chalking"

Devin

[Libertarian]

This interface is by far better than any in the Civ series or the CTP series or AoE or EE.

I just spoke to Miss Cleo. She told me that you eat your peas one at a time. Is she correct?

Why the heck to you think all bifurcations are random and arbitrary?

Because of the tautological nature of epistemology. At the root of every thought is an assumed truth that cannot be proved.

Ever heard of Positive Determinism?

I'm familiar with historical, logical, and scientific determinism. I've never heard of "positive determinism". Can you give a link?