Civ3 is great!

Marquis de Sodaq · January 10, 2002, 14:25

So many posts about how disappointed people are about Civ3, it really surprizes me.

This is a really cool game! The addition of culture is awesome, in my opinion. More civs at once, woo hoo! People whined all the time about the limit of 7 in CivII. Now you get 16, and it's still not enough. The graphics are good. The changes to improve governments are good. Elements of CivII that were too easy for the player are now harder. The AI is a bit smarter.

Of course it has flaws, almost every game does - that's why patches are made, and the game is updated. Many elements of it are far superior to the previous versions. Sure, people want the editor for scenarios (I agree whole-heartedly on this), multiplayer, etc. Those will come. Some whine that it should be perfect at release. Well, the realities of software companies prevents that from happening. Deal with it.

Some whine that it has bugs or problems, most of which turn out to simply be user error - trying to play CivII while Civ3 is running on the PC. It's a different game! You need to adjust!

If what you want is a virtual reality machine, you will be sorely disappointed, as will the next few generations of your descendants. Enjoy what a good game you have instead of complaining about its imperfections.

ACooper · January 10, 2002, 14:30

Amen

cassembler · January 10, 2002, 14:34

I agree, there are many MANY good things to be said about the game. The fact that people (including myself) want a better editor just goes to show you how good the skeleton programming is.

Ecthy · January 10, 2002, 15:35

I disagree.

I's quite OK a game. Maybe above average, just so you guys don't come over and kill me. but it's not great.

SMAC is a lot mor ewell-balanced, has more innovations etc., so does the Call to Power series just their games are too isolationistic in diplomacy.

I don't think it outdoes Civ2 that much, especially since a game Civ2 is a lot easier to overview than Civ3, and Civ3 just doesn't offer that many innovations.

And the combat system of Civ2 is handled in better ways than that of Civ3. Modern units just die too early in the latter, even you can arrange soem nice overruns with the right tactics. Air units are too weak in Civ3 as well

BanastreTa · January 10, 2002, 16:11

Yes, but you have to understand, Civ 3 had big shoes to fill.

If this were a new game produced by some startup software development team, I don't think you'd hear as many complaints.

Unfortunately, that's not the reality. In order to be truly successful, Civ 3 had to top Civ 2, although that's almost an unfair burden. I don't mean "it has to be a better game in an absolute sense"--I think many people, myself included, recognize that Civ 3 is at least an incremental improvement over 2. The burden it needed to meet, though, is that it had to be as good or better better, in the context of the present day, as Civ 2 was in the context of the day it was released. Substantial numbers agree that it fails this burden, regardless of how good it is on its own merits.

To employ a sports metaphor--for most Nebraska Cornhuskers fans, this was a bad season, despite the teams appearance in the BCS championship game. This is because the 'Huskers, through their success, have come to see anything short of a national championship as a failure. Now, most schools would love the chance to even appear in the championship game. Not so with Nebraska. The same general truth controls the Civilization franchise.

Civ 3 is a fun game, I agree, but I think nagging details add up to diminish the immersiveness. As it is, it is a disappointment for people who wanted it to live up to Civ 2.

Furthermore, the Civilization "community" has always been quick to offer modifications. It is no different now--although the current editor frustrates the efforts of some of the more radical reformers.

Finally, I'll tie these two strands together--Civ 3, to be successful, had to top Civ 2. Some people think that with modificiations, it can top Civ 2. That's why you hear the complaints. Sometimes the complaints aren't the most civil, sometimes they aren't the most productive, but that's why, in most cases.

BT

Comrade Tribune · January 10, 2002, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq Civ3 is great!

At What?

If you mean it´s great at showing what a TBS should not be like, I agree all the way.

It is less complex, subtle and multifacetted than even an RTS game like AoK, and that says it all.

Apart from being unbalanced, and having some ouitstandingly ugly graphics, of course.

It´s one of the most uninspired strategy games I have ever played; so, yes, it´s great, in a negative way.

Dis · January 10, 2002, 16:29

I actually like the graphics. much better than civ2. I can't go back to civ2. but other than that...

Comrade Tribune · January 10, 2002, 16:36

That´s why I said some graphics. The unit animations are OK (but still a waste of programmer time). The leaders and advisors are

.

Deornwulf · January 10, 2002, 17:22

I have played a lot of computer games. TBS games are my favorite. I started in my youth with Star Fleet Command and Empire and went on from there to master Orion and magic, Imperialize and Conquer the New World; I answered the Call to Power; I have negotiated Royal Marriages with every country (except the Papal States). I even own a copy of Star Wars Rebellion.

The reason I name these games is that even now I am willing to sit down and play any of them. Whether the game was released in 1990 or 2002, there is something about each one of them that draws me back to play.

Not so with Civ 3.

Before I left for Christmas, I had Civ 3 installed on my god-awful 433mz Celeron HP. For Christmas, my father-in-law gave me a P4 1.2gz machine that can practically tap-dance. It is the perfect machine for playing games.

I have yet to install Civ 3. I don't know if I ever will.

I tried my best to enjoy playing the game. I liked the concept of luxuries and resources. I never read about ICS or any other strategies so I didn't miss them in my games. I don't like to see any civilization wiped out of the game so I'm glad the quick conquest is gone. I can remember having revolting cities join my civ back in Civ 2 so I really like the concept of culture.

So why don't I like Civ 3?

I have always been more in the play of a game than its conclusion. I do play to win but I have been known to stretch out a game for as long as possible before achieving victory. In computer personality terms, I would be a perfectionist.

There are more things that I either don't like about Civ 3 or feel were poorly implemented than there are things that I like. I would have liked to see government directly give bonuses or penalties to production and science. (Corruption and waste should have been separate factors) The number of resources you control should have more of an effect on production.

I have to sign-off for a server shutdown so I must cut this short.

Marquis de Sodaq · January 10, 2002, 17:30

At this point, I think CivII is a better overall game than Civ3. But I don't find that disappointing, as many posters apparently do. The new elements in 3 make it different enough to be interesting. Maybe in eight months I'll yawn at the thought of another Civ3 campaign, but for now it's good. CivII is a classic I'll probably always keep around, but even it got terribly dull for spells.

Comrade Tribune, our tastes differ. Games like AoK bore me. To each his own. You seem to think Civ3 is worthless, while I like it.

Libertarian · January 10, 2002, 17:52

Gah. I opened a thread like this, and it was removed.

zorbop · January 10, 2002, 18:26

i don't think it's really that good as is...
but it COULD be really good
if they just fixed 2, ONLY 2 things(

corruption and lack of stacks)
that would make it more fun

Ironikinit · January 10, 2002, 19:15

I think that much of the problem is perceptional. I was actually disappointed with SMAC when I bought it, I thought it ugly and I didn't really like the concept. I deleted it and went to other games. (Note: I did NOT hang around SMAC forums griping.)

Eventually, I got bored with the other games I was playing, and idly, I re-installed SMAC. Hey, presto, I gave it a chance and it wasn't so bad. I even got into the idea of micromanaging my units, deleting old types, customizing new units, and upgrading. Pretty soon I was hooked.

I think that adding to the perception problem is that there apparently was a lot of hype associated with the new release. While I had high expectations for Civ 3, my expectations didn't include a great editor or multiplayer system, because I don't play that way. Those expecting great things in those areas rightly, IMO, feel cheated. All I expected was a fun, addictive, one player game, and that's what I got.

Comrade Tribune · January 10, 2002, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Comrade Tribune, our tastes differ. Games like AoK bore me. To each his own. You seem to think Civ3 is worthless, while I like it.

Heh. You should notice my wording: 'Even AoK.' I am lukewarm about AoK, but even AoK I find to be a better game than CivIII. And it´s certainly much better designed. (Interface, Balance,...)

yin26 · January 10, 2002, 20:29

"User error" That one always cracks me up!

Surgeon · January 11, 2002, 00:03

I think all the people that like the game are out playing it instead of whinging like little bithces in the forums.

If you want people that like the game just go to the strat or stories forums. They tend to ignore the posts done by the whiners when they venture out of the general forum.

cassembler · January 11, 2002, 01:01

I think the
big question
here is weather or not Civ3 is as much improved over Civ2 as Civ2 was over Civ1.

Civ2 was pretty freakin' good- I think we all agree, yes?

What was improved/ changed over Civ1? Many things, yes, but to sum it up:
1) Axonometric view (as opposed to bird's eye)
2) Better editor (as opposed to shift-12345678) (allowed scenarios)
3) More units, techs, civs, terrain improvements, etc.
4) Different combat system (better or worse is not the topic here)
5) Improved diplomacy
6) SOMEWHAT improved AI
****keep in mind this is a BRIEF summarry****
****please note the word BRIEF****

Ok, what has Civ3 brought to the table over Civ2?
1) Better Graphics (edited or not- the resolutions are, in fact, higher)
2) Editor that has the potential to be better (cross yer fingers)
3) Borders & Culture (over Civ2, keep in mind. NOT SMAC or CTP2)
4) New air unit system
5) MUCH improved AI (How many of y'all quit your very first game?)
6) Resources
7) Better diplomacy (again, over Civ2 only)

Ok, now if we look at these two oversimplified lists, it seems that Civ3 is getting close to the mark. Yeah sure, it's not quite there yet, but
IF
(that's a big IF)
the editor is improved to a full-functionality, I think we'll have a winner. Just not yet.

$.02

Marquis de Sodaq · January 11, 2002, 01:33

As an additional thought, if people really thought it was so bad, why the heck are they still poking around the forums?

I'd hazard to guess that it is because Civ3 is at least potentially a good game to them. If the editor leads to great scenario creation possibilities, I bet most of the complaining will disappear. If they think it stinks and isn't worth beans, they ought do something better with their time than slow down the Apolyton server.

Marquis de Sodaq · January 11, 2002, 01:34

As an additional thought, if people really thought it was so bad, why the heck are they still poking around the forums?

I'd hazard to guess that it is because Civ3 is at least potentially a good game to them. If the editor leads to great scenario creation possibilities, I bet most of the complaining will disappear. If they think it stinks and isn't worth beans, they ought do something better with their time than slow down the Apolyton server. [bad analogy] After all, if you hate broccoli, you don't go browsing cooking sites to post about how bad it tastes. You let sleeping dogs lie. [/bad analogy]

Trifna · January 11, 2002, 01:43

Quote:

Enjoy what a good game you have instead of complaining about its imperfections

Could you define me "imperfection" please?

Would its definition englobe: useless colonies, cavalry too strong, phalanx beeting tanks, bombarding useless, corruption, no stacking, all what is flying useless, warrior destroying improvements better than a bomber, spying useless even if it is common in world, a poor editor, retrograded tech tree and retrograded government system?

yin26 · January 11, 2002, 01:51

Quote:

I'd hazard to guess that it is because Civ3 is at least potentially a good game to them.

Yes, I am in this category. I am also fascinated by the gaming industry itself, and I have watched a number of interesting developments regarding Firaxis that I want to see play out past Civ3.

Smash · January 11, 2002, 02:53

Marquis de Sodaq-I want to post back in...oh..2-4 weeks of playing and tell us your thoughts at that time.

I think it will be most interesting.

cassembler · January 11, 2002, 03:44

Hey Yin, nice to see you're at least willing to give Firaxis a chance... I have a strong gut instinct that the Civ3 editor will eventually reach a superbly wonderful status... Until then I guess we're all SOL. So what was your response to "the big question?" [Did civ3 add as much to civ2 what civ2 added to civ1?]

yin26 · January 11, 2002, 04:04

Well, you never know. It could well be that Firaxis is really working its tail off to make up for the beta release. One would hope. It is very rare, it seems, that a company works that hard AFTER a release unless money is guranteed to be made. Frankly, I think they kind of sold tomorrow to pay for yesterday. We'll see.

Ah, the Big Question.

I think it's important to put the progress in context. In some ways, Civ3 is a bigger jump than Civ2 was over Civ1. Take pixel counts, for example. Civ3 put a whole lot more pixels on the screen, relatively speaking, I'm sure. And yet, this is a pretty meaningless fact.

Graphic jumps just mean less to us now than they did 5 years ago. Or, I should say, to achieve that same wow-factor Civ2 have us 5 years ago would take vastly more effort than it did then.

Thus it's a problem of exponential progress and expectations. MAJOR progress in the industry has been made in those 5 years, and MAJOR expectations were built up for Civ3. While I don't blame Firaxis for not meeting that enomous challenge very well, I do blame them for not even seeming to have understood what lay before them very well.

So, perhaps this statement will make sense: "Same jump of improvment between the games but drastically undercut by an even greater jump in what the industry CAN do and what we hoped Firaxis WOULD do."

And I should just toss in here: I would have taken Civ2's graphics but with near-genius gameplay improvements any day, so I do not put a premium on graphics and such when I talk about my expectations.

notyoueither · January 11, 2002, 04:05

Marquis de Sodaq:
*Now, most schools would love the chance to even appear in the championship game. Not so with Nebraska. The same general truth controls the Civilization franchise*

How true.

Ironikinit:
*Eventually, I got bored with the other games I was playing, and idly, I re-installed SMAC. Hey, presto, I gave it a chance and it wasn't so bad. I even got into the idea of micromanaging my units, deleting old types, customizing new units, and upgrading. Pretty soon I was hooked.

Exactly my experience with SMAC.

*I think that adding to the perception problem is that there apparently was a lot of hype associated with the new release. While I had high expectations for Civ 3, my expectations didn't include a great editor or multiplayer system, because I don't play that way. Those expecting great things in those areas rightly, IMO, feel cheated. All I expected was a fun, addictive, one player game, and that's what I got.*

More than how true. Just don't disable Space or Diplomatic victories!

Surgeon
*I think all the people that like the game are out playing it instead of whinging like little bithces in the forums*

OK. Your choice of words is bound to lead to a fruitful exchange of ideas, I'm sure. But I'm also sure you're right.

Salve

David Murray · January 11, 2002, 04:32

Did Firaxis really improve governments? All they did was cut one of the best Civ2 governments out. As it stands now, you only have one real choice in the modern area--democracy. How many great empires were forged from the idealism of democracy?

David Murray · January 11, 2002, 04:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq The changes to improve governments are good.

Did Firaxis really improve governments? All they did was cut one of the best Civ2 governments out. As it stands now, you only have one real choice in the modern area--democracy. How many great empires were forged from the idealism of democracy?

notyoueither · January 11, 2002, 04:35

Quote:

Originally posted by David Murray
As it stands now, you only have one real choice in the modern area--democracy. How many great empires were forged from the idealism of democracy?

Dunno, I'm doin pretty good with Communism.

Oh my gosh, did he say THAT word?!!!! Where's McCarthy when you need him?!

Salve

Harovan · January 11, 2002, 10:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
SMAC is a lot mor ewell-balanced, has more innovations etc., so does the Call to Power series just their games are too isolationistic in diplomacy.

CtP2 was once my favorite. I didn't even start it since Civ3 is out.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I don't think it outdoes Civ2 that much, especially since a game Civ2 is a lot easier to overview than Civ3, and Civ3 just doesn't offer that many innovations.

But it offers a much better game concept. The strategic resources, the cultural borders and the improved diplomacy rule. I agree, it's not perfect, but I give it 9 points of 10.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
And the combat system of Civ2 is handled in better ways than that of Civ3.

Don't make me laugh!

I beat one phalanx (of 10) and killed the whole gang? And that is better?

again... But it's not perfect in Civ3, that's true, the admit, the CtP2 combat system is better.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Modern units just die too early in the latter, even you can arrange soem nice overruns with the right tactics. Air units are too weak in Civ3 as well

Agreed. They at least should be allowed to kill units or sink ships.

Akka · January 11, 2002, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Don't make me laugh!

I beat one phalanx (of 10) and killed the whole gang? And that is better?

again... But it's not perfect in Civ3, that's true, the admit, the CtP2 combat system is better.

That's true, this "kill one unit, kill all units" was a pure absurdity that I suppose NOBODY miss, and it's even astounding that it was still in Civ2.
Though, the FP/HP from Civ2 was hugely better than the plain A/D from Civ3, and the stupid "it was too complicated" reason that Firaxis gave as a poor excuse to get rid of it just does not stand.
That's one of the worst trouble with Civ3 : it take back with one hand what it gave with another.