Perhaps its our fault the game isn't as it should be!

The Rusty Gamer · January 9, 2002, 23:28

Did it ever occur to any of you Civ III critics that it is our fault the game isn't as it should be. Let me explain.

With the growth of the internet, and the more direct communication to developers as a result and the increasing flourish of ideas and expectations from the gaming community, it has made it a confusing mess for Firaxis to try to listen and please everyone. Furthermore, their own judgement of what is good for a game may be tarnished as a result. They've listened so much to others expectations that this has put them under some pressure.

Let's get back to the basics:

When the original Civ was created, there was no input from anyone but the developers, they went by their own gut instincts and they were good - its a gift they were born with.

The sequel Civ II was created pretty much in the same way, and the result was a resounding success.

But Civ III - suddenly with the flourish of the internet, everyone is the game-developer wannabe. The problem is I believe, not that Firaxis didn't listen to us enough, but that perhaps they listened too much and tried to imnplement a lot of ideas that sounded good in theory but didn't actually have the fun factor. Pressured by the high expectations of the gaming community, they didn't follow all their usual gaming instincts.

I just wonder perhaps if Firaxis had been left to develop Civ III in the same way as the others in the series, by the seat of their pants going on the good, gifted, gut instinct that they were born with, that it might not have been a much better game.

In a nutshell - just who did we thing we were? Being a game player does not make us a game developer just as watching TV does not make us TV producers.

Please vote on the poll.

Oh, and I'll be hearing your "opinions" on this one, no doubt.

Kirnwaffen · January 9, 2002, 23:46

All I have to say is that there is simply too much non-productive negative commentary. I'd personally feel at least relatively discouraged if I read as much truly negative commentary as I sometimes find here.

I will say though, that there is also a lot of constructive criticism that I would appreciate.

So I vote for bananas.

K

(I'll vote for anything with bananas in it)

Darth Sidious · January 10, 2002, 05:31

"being game players does not make us game developers"

IMO, the only good game developers are those that immensly love to play games and therefore do so 24/7.

There certainly is a difference between players, but i think there are a lot of people around that do understand what makes a game great or sucky.

notyoueither · January 10, 2002, 05:46

I can't agree.

Did Yin suggest Culture? Or Lib, or, or, or...

Did the gaming public suggest Firaxis ignore the best aspects of CTP2. Yes, it was a dog as released, but it had some very sound ideas.

I think the brains of the operation did have a lot of influence on the project, but did not pay enough attention to ensure a polished product out of the box (or devote enough resources).

Oh well, Beta project applications anyone? At least they are sticking with it.

Salve

yin26 · January 10, 2002, 06:24

Culture was a major suggestion from The List. Then again, asking for you to actually know what you are talking about it asking far too much, I understand.

yin26 · January 10, 2002, 06:27

As for the topic, an incompetent developer is to blame, not a devoted fan base, for God's sake. Of course, now the fan base ain't so devoted, so we'll see your theory in action in the future, I'm sure.

Libertarian · January 10, 2002, 07:07

I believe someone in another thread said that it's my fault. I exist simultaneously as a being with an inflated self-importance and an inexplicable omnipotence, unbounded by time and space.

[...shudder...]

MrWhereItsAt · January 10, 2002, 07:33

And, Rusty Gamer, what about SMAC? The 'Net was fully going before SMAC was released, and that game is (at least in the Civ 3 fora

) critically acclaimed as THE shining example of Civ done right (yes yes yes I hear some of you - what about CTP2? Well, I pretend I never heard of CTP. It eases the pain

). Perhaps someone will prove me wrong, but were the fora chocka full of ideas then too? Surely they were, and if Firaxis used what they saw here, why is it that that game seems to be so loved? Sure ppl don't like it sometimes, but most laud the game, for its' format is done very well. Unless Firaxis didn't listen to us then, and did before Civ 3, why the drop in fortunes?

That is, unless my theory is right - that SMAC was just as lambasted at its' release and it was only after some time that ppl calmed down and adapted to like the game (I believe this will happen with Civ 3, given time and another patch or two.

).

MrWhereItsAt · January 10, 2002, 07:36

Or perhaps you're just depressed from the weather.

How was it today Rusty Gamer? Did it thunder and pour with rain as much as Wellington, world famous for its' perfect weather?

Special_Olympic · January 10, 2002, 07:55

Does it even matter what Civ3 could have been or who's fault it is?

To me it's just another game I don't play.

MrWhereItsAt · January 10, 2002, 07:57

What are you here for then?

SlowwHand · January 10, 2002, 13:18

They wanted a quick buck, left MP out of it, and rushed to market.
And that's my fault, how?

And no joke on Special_Olympics.
Don't you have someplace to be?
Maybe someplace you actually belong?

Imran Siddiqui · January 10, 2002, 14:15

Quote:

That is, unless my theory is right - that SMAC was just as lambasted at its' release and it was only after some time that ppl calmed down and adapted to like the game

Actually you are right. There was SOOOO much critism of SMAC that Firaxis actually ended up closing their forums because it turned into a massive flame war between those that hated (and still do) the game, and the few that were supporting it.

Take it from me, I was there... and it was a mess. People were calling for Sid's head back then.

Grumbold · January 10, 2002, 14:20

Bananas were in Civ 2 and they had absolutely no right to remove them from Civ 3. Without bananas the game was obviously going to suck! How could they not see this? It was so obvious even Apolytoners didn't feel the need to tell them about it twice daily for two years. Just goes to show - we should have had a Do-not-remove-this-feature List too

Khan Singh · January 10, 2002, 14:58

The problem with Civ 3 is not that Firaxis has screwed it up. On the contrary Firaxis has done an excellent job freshening it up and solving many of the problems that people complained about in Civ2. ICS is no longer a problem, for instance. Nor are empires that span the entire globe. The end game only seems more tedious because, with improved AI and changed rules, you can no longer roll over enemy civs as soon as you develop armor.

The real problem is that Civ 3 is, for all its changes, still Civilization. After 4 different iterations of the same basic game, this design is just played out. We have all played through the same actions so many times that doing it again can now no longer amuse us. I mean how many times do you really want to reinvent the Wheel anyway? One thousand times was enough for me.

I tried to point this out back on the Firaxis forums, but was shouted down by the likes of Yin, who went on to become the chief fanboy for this project, with his endless list, and countless others who insisted that they needed another version of Civ---- and who now do nothing but complain that they are bored with the result.

Civ 3 was a bad idea from the start. It had no original ideas and Firaxis couldn't develop any. If they had it would have changed the game, and then "it wouldn't have been Civilization"----- heavens forfend that anyone should ever build anything new.

But given the restrictions Firaxis had to work under the result is remarkably decent, and even different enough to be slightly interesting. I just don't understand what Yin, et al, are complaining about. This is the game you guys wanted----the game you demanded. It seems a little churlish to complain when someone delivers exactly what you want, after you decide that you didn't really want it after all.

Jaybe · January 10, 2002, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Khan Singh
...
It seems a little churlish to complain when someone delivers exactly what you want, after you decide that you didn't really want it after all.

Must be one of Murphy's Laws:
"It's just what I asked for, but not what I want."

Overall, an insightful analysis Khan. Whoever thought that a recreation of 'civilization' could be boring? What, not enough warfare, ... ?

OTH, I play my games to the finish, and yes, sometimes it's boring and 'work', and yes again, I'm still just on my third game!

JB

Willem · January 10, 2002, 15:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
All I have to say is that there is simply too much non-productive negative commentary. I'd personally feel at least relatively discouraged if I read as much truly negative commentary as I sometimes find here.

And much of that negative commentary boils down to personal preference that a few minutes in the Editor would easily solve.

Willem · January 10, 2002, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Darth Sidious
"being game players does not make us game developers"

IMO, the only good game developers are those that immensly love to play games and therefore do so 24/7.

There certainly is a difference between players, but i think there are a lot of people around that do understand what makes a game great or sucky.

But there's more to it than just instinct. A good game also has to work well through the programming. Everyone has good ideas, but if it causes your game to crash in order to implement it, or is impossible to accomplish in the first place, it's not much good as a design concept.

SlowwHand · January 10, 2002, 15:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Khan Singh
The problem with Civ 3 is not that Firaxis has screwed it up. On the contrary Firaxis has done an excellent job freshening it up and solving many of the problems that people complained about in Civ2. ICS is no longer a problem, for instance. Nor are empires that span the entire globe. The end game only seems more tedious because, with improved AI and changed rules, you can no longer roll over enemy civs as soon as you develop armor.

The real problem is that Civ 3 is, for all its changes, still Civilization. After 4 different iterations of the same basic game, this design is just played out. We have all played through the same actions so many times that doing it again can now no longer amuse us. I mean how many times do you really want to reinvent the Wheel anyway? One thousand times was enough for me.

I tried to point this out back on the Firaxis forums, but was shouted down by the likes of Yin, who went on to become the chief fanboy for this project, with his endless list, and countless others who insisted that they needed another version of Civ---- and who now do nothing but complain that they are bored with the result.

Civ 3 was a bad idea from the start. It had no original ideas and Firaxis couldn't develop any. If they had it would have changed the game, and then "it wouldn't have been Civilization"----- heavens forfend that anyone should ever build anything new.

But given the restrictions Firaxis had to work under the result is remarkably decent, and even different enough to be slightly interesting. I just don't understand what Yin, et al, are complaining about. This is the game you guys wanted----the game you demanded. It seems a little churlish to complain when someone delivers exactly what you want, after you decide that you didn't really want it after all.

B.S.
This MIGHT be the game some of you wimp SP only wanted.
It is a big improvement over II, in many ways though.
Besides the graphics, the concepts of individuality among Civs is a valid point.
My beef is they hurried it out for, as I said, you wimpy SP people.

BanastreTa · January 10, 2002, 16:14

Option 6, for the following reasons:

A. I don't want to get embroiled in a tiresome flame war (unless there are some anti-bananites out there!)

B. "Bananas" is an amusing word to say.

Comrade Tribune · January 10, 2002, 16:41

CIV III would've been a much better game if Firaxis...

...had not developed it, but someone else had instead.

zorbop · January 10, 2002, 18:10

bananas should be a luxery good.
i mean, more than 50% of us say there should be bananas.

firaxes is doing all they can, there issuing free patches. plus they had the challenge of upping Civ2. i bet none of YOU could do that.
of course i have my complaints to...

yin26 · January 10, 2002, 18:15

Yes, at the top of The List was: Release a crap beta.

The diplomat · January 10, 2002, 18:56

How about blaming the publisher, if you really want to blame somebody? After all, they are the ones who give Firaxis a certain amount of money and ressources and tell them what to do. If Firaxis released the game too early in your opinion, it would only be because the publisher said so.

We have to understand how the "game" works: develloppers want to work on a game for as long as possible. Publishers want to release the game as quick as possible. If it were just up to the developper, no game would ever be released because they would keep working on it forever. When a game is actually released is usually a tug of war between the developper and the publisher.

yin26 · January 10, 2002, 19:00

Be it the chef or the restaurant owner, the food sucks. To blame the customers for wanting a tasty lunch is just hilarious!

Willem · January 10, 2002, 19:25

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Be it the chef or the restaurant owner, the food sucks. To blame the customers for wanting a tasty lunch is just hilarious!

Then don't play, and don't bother with it. You have that choice. Why waste your time devoting your energy to something you don't like? I don't understand you critics who spend so much time bad mouthing a game that doesn't suit your tastes. Don't you guys have anything better to do?

I'm amazed at all the whining that goes on around here. I'm reminded of petulant little children who didn't get exactly what they wanted for Christmas.

yin26 · January 10, 2002, 20:00

Oh, I gave up on Civ3 quite a while ago. I'm just here watching how big the pieces of the wreckage are that get salvaged. And I certainly make no apologies to the likes of you for doing so.

Comrade Tribune · January 10, 2002, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Be it the chef or the restaurant owner, the food sucks.

Hear, hear!

And as to the 'chef or restaurant owner' debate: If the food is lousy, sure, part of the responsibility goes to the restaurant owner. He should have fired the chef.

Therefore, my advice to Infogrames:

Fire Firaxis!

yin26 · January 10, 2002, 20:39

LOL! Actually, I bet IG is surprised that Sid's team performed so poorly.

The Rusty Gamer · January 10, 2002, 20:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
CIV III would've been a much better game if Firaxis...

...had not developed it, but someone else had instead.

Err...you mean like maybe Activision and their CTP series?