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

[Sandman]

Reasons why civ3 is boring for me:

1. The terrain is not very interesting, and it has no animated features, unlike civ1! Improving the terrain results in it becoming less interesting, not more.
2. Half the battle is getting your wretched governors to build useful things, not much fun.
3. Discrete units moved with the numeric keypad is simply outdated.
4. Naval warfare is completely broken, as usual.
5. Lousy diplomacy
6. Techs are screwed up. So many are useless or redundant.
7. One way to win. Spread your cities like mould. You can't be a small but densely populated trading nation. You can't have a large colonial empire. You can't become the centre of scientific wisdom.
8. Governments. Why did they even bother with them?

[cutlerd]

Exactly why do you think you cannot be a densely populated small trading nation and win in CIV3? I've done it. It ain't that hard. In fact, you have 2 different ways to win with that playing style.

You can certainly win on points that way.

You can also build the spaceship.

I've won games where I was a single island inhabitant (albeit a decently sized isle). As long as you can secure techs (which you can do very nicely with gold) and resources (often with techs) you can win the game.

CIV2 always eventually degenerated into a slug fest, same with SMAC. The end game in both of those is always about warfare. But in CIV3, I've been able to dwell peacably for most of the game if I have chosen to do so.

Devin

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ironikinit

Quoting Sikander:

Civ 3 has only the very slight variations between nations, which really offer very little for the player to do after the selection is made in the start menu.

End quote.

While I liked most of your post, I had trouble with this bit. Civ 2 had no practical differences between cultures. While the difference between the civs may be of subtle and basic strategy may be much the same for some players, I play the Japanese differently than I do the Babylonians. BTW, I hope you find a taker for your offer to sell the game. At least you have a practical reason for sticking around the forum, unlike most of those who have uninstalled. What loons.

The reason that I am bored with Civ 3 already is that it needs something new to set it apart from Civ 1 and Civ 1.1 (ie Civ 2), which I have played to death. The variations provided by MOO2, SMAC and MoM provided that. Civ 3 doesn't. It may be a good game for someone who is newer to the genre, but for me it doesn't have nearly enough variation to warrant spending my time playing it. I am looking forward to MOO 3, and still play SMAC a bit, though lately I have been enjoying EU and EU 2.

As for why I hang out on these forums, I enjoy it. There are a lot of intelligent people here, and a lot of good (or barring that interesting) ideas floating around. I post more on the SMAC and Off Topic forums, but I do retain an interest in the Civ franchise even when one flops.

[Deornwulf]

What Sikander stated in his posts sums up my feelings for the game as well. I feel disillusioned by what has been released by Firaxis as Civ 3. I had hoped for a game that would be substantually better than Civ 2 and IMO I didn't get it.

I could always just not play and stop posting but I fear that by doing so would mark the end of an intellectual relationship with a series of games that to this point had been very satisfying. I post with the hopes that either Firaxis will come out with a much improved Civ 4 game or that some bright boy will take note of what has been posted and start a new series of games that can keep me at the computer for hours upon hours.

As for repeating what others have posted, that's merely good marketing feedback. If only one consumer makes a complaint, it is ignored. If a large number of consumers make a complaint, some one will listen. It may be a competitor but the consumers will get what they want in the end.

Barnacle Bill - Your argument holds no water. It is fair and realistic for me to compare Civ 3 to any game that I have ever played. The latest models of cars are always compared by what features come standard vs what the competition offers, not by how this year's model is better than last year's model. If Firaxis is going to release a Turn-Based-Strategy computer game, it will first be compared to all others in that category and then against other computer games in terms of standard features common to all computer games.

[Zoid]

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.

Oh, so that´s why I hate Civ3?

[hoppy39000]

Hi all I generally like CIV 3 BUT, I do have a couple things that really bug me. Most of which really havent been touched on here...

1. Like Culture, hate lack of borders... when you plant a city your culture border around that city and should expand around it...like when a city planted in dark areas, when built dark areas lit....and culture border should be harder...too easy for AI too just plant a city in places where culture border hasnt reached, or right on a road between cities....

2. the BIGGEST gripe I have thus far....which thus far reallly hasnt been touched on is TERRAFORMING or in civ 3, the lack of.....case in point, on an island, ......I love the resource concept, but without the ability to, say chg a mountain to hills then grass, then to desert....then ultimately on that desert..is OIL ! wow..might just chg balance of gm and give you a resource ... that was all possible in CIV2 !!!!

where you started at had no real bearing on winning.....in civ3 resources cant really be just found...or land terraformed to fit your needs...harsh terrain could "eventaully" be fertile. and wine or gold or horses found where mountains once were....

now illogically all that is gone ! WHY ??????????????

3. like the overall balance of tech...and ages, much more realistic...BUT, why less techs.....and especially less wonders... where are techs like explosives...that gave us engineers, instead we get "scientific thought " which i believe...is only a step toward other techs....no units....or improvements....too many worthless techs....

4. the lack of elimation of outdated units. and the unrealistic handling of certain units, bi jump in naval units modern transports...at same time as frigates hmmm....or knights and spearmen...running around with paratroopers.....


5. like the improved AI trade diplomacy etcc but AI still unrealistic...war for no reason, mood chgs drastic etcc


6. lastly basically the graphics for many units, and resources SUCKS ! case in point.. saltpeter, little white powder.. on nearly white sand...."goodie hut" tribes, and gold look the same....little droplets...not small tribes...hard to tell apart also why do many units...like settlers....and spearmen or workers look soo similar... hard to tell horseman from a mounted pikeman.. spearman from swordsman..at least at higher resoulutions.....

All in all i think it a step up, needs more flexibilty in govs too but its better than its predecessors

[Zoid]

Cutlerd

As far as from the developer's point of view...it seems CIV3 is selling just fine. I don't think they have much to worry about.

But that has more to do with marketing than anything else...it also helps to have reviews by braindead bimbos who have until now hardly seen TBS-games on a postcard