Civ3 is great!

[David Murray]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Dunno, I'm doin pretty good with Communism.

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

Salve

I like Communism too, but come on. Civilization isn't Civilization without FUNDAMENTALISM.

What *were* they thinking about.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Smash
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.

Maybe I'll get bored, maybe not. My life away from the pc only allows me an hour or so in a day, if that. 50 hours of fun would last me months... As I said, I'm not convinced it's a classic, that maybe in a half year I'll find it tiresome. I expect a working scenario editor will make it impressive for most anyone. Really, strategic resources, diplomacy (even tho I miss the spy and caravan units... ), and culture are cool additions to the civ genre.

I like the CivII combat system better, but have not minded the unbelievable result that crops up once in a million battles. CivII had that, too.

I don't miss fundamentalism at all. That gov't made the game far too easy in CivII. It allowed the player to sidestep any concern for happiness or science. That's half the game! I say good riddance to it as a gov't.

What many have complained about can just as fairly be seen as changes that add to the challenge. You wanted to win at deity by your third game? Too bad, they made a game that will take longer to master.

[Libertarian]

Huh? The only difficult way to win in Civ3 is world conquest at higher levels. But even then, the only opponent that will defeat you is the interface. So you lose. Interest, that is.

[frankdog]

IMHO Civ 3 is a better game than my beloved CIV 2...

1) Strategic resources - this is what real world wars are fought about

2) Corruption - it's too expensive to conquer the planet - again, like the real world

3) Better battles - retreating units and stacked units each getting a chance to defend themselves

The Civ series is supposed to be a recreation of real world history, these new ideas get it closer.

[simwiz2]

"Better battles - retreating units and stacked units each getting a chance to defend themselves"


Yes, having immortal horsemen/knights/cavalry does vastly improve the battles

[Ironikinit]

Well, it's my experience that units capable of disengaging are pretty far from immortal, for the following reasons:

1. They don't retreat against other fast units.

2. They don't retreat when the defender is down to a single hit point.

3. After retreating they are easy prey.

If you feel that horsemen/knights/cavalry/tanks/whatever are too powerful, as I understand it they are easy to weaken with the editor.

Pardon me, simwiz, but why do you hold up a single one of frankdog's points while ignoring the rest? Invalidating a single point (which failed for the reasons I listed above IMO) doesn't invalidate the entire argument, no matter how many smilies you use.

Edit: simwiz, your signature is bull and you know it if you've actually played the game. Knights have always lost to tanks in my games no matter how good their terrain is. This whole "spearmen defeating tanks" line is a molehill posing as a mountain.

Lib, while you may find the game to be unchallenging (as unchallenging as you no doubt found Civ 2), a quick look through the strategy section shows that not many find it to be so easy. Personally, I find monarch level to be a pleasant challenge, and I can make it more difficult by handicapping myself (taking a civ I don't like, intentionally being a slowpoke, upping barbarian activity, etc., etc.)

[notyoueither]

re

I think they think it lends some sort of authority. The more the better. Or something.

Maybe it's the badge that some trollers are always on about. Who knows?

I don't know. Have you ever found the AI's fast units to be immortal? I haven't. Neither are mine, except the casualty rate is much lower. MUCH. Soren?

Salve

[Smash]

ok...an hour or 2 per day should be about right for 3 weeks.

It is good,but no where near great.And rather monotonous at times.

The new 1 at a time stacks make combat much,much,much easier.In 2 I had to use terrain wisely.I had to split my armies,I couldn't just use a right of passage and put my armies next to cities.I had to plan it out or lose the whole shibang in 1 shot.Now I can completely ignore terrain and tactics,I just overwhelm cities one by one.Its very easy.

Now I have to worry about losing my troops after the battles have been fought.Big improvement

[Libertarian]

Ironik:

Yeah, I tried that sort of thing. Playing maps and civs I didn't like, and so forth. The effect was to end up with a game I didn't like.

Meanwhile...

Our Exile arrived. Sumptuous. Positively an object lesson in what interfaces are all about. Mystery and puzzle solving is fun, mentally challenging, and rewarding. And the interface is completely forgotten within moments, being, as it is, merely an extension of the gaming experience.

Playing Exile after fighting with Civ3 for months was like a cool balm on a searing wound. I like strategy games, but I think I'll wait for a good one. One that I can play the way I like and still enjoy the experience.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Libertarian

Playing Exile after fighting with Civ3 for months was like a cool balm on a searing wound.

I had a similar experience recently with Galactic Battlegrounds. I do not usually like RTS games, but this one is so good in every department -play balance, pacing, aesthetics, interface, you name it-, that I really feel I am getting my money´s worth here; very much unlike CivIII. It´s really preferable to play a great RTS instead of a crappy TBS.

[Ironikinit]

Have fun, guys. I'm not big on mystery or RTS myself. TBS still rocks for me.

[Comrade Tribune]

It would for me, too. There just haven´t been that many good TBS around, lately. I´m not giving up hope, though.

[LaRusso]

the game is rather good. can use some improvements but is overall good bang for the buck. much better than civ2 in its time.

[The diplomat]

Civ3 is great!

I think the anti-civ3 feelings are a little overboard. Civ3 is an amazing game. I love it and can't stop playing it. The only reason why people are complaining is because many civers had unrealistic expectations. We expect the perfect game, which will never exist.

The perfect civ game does not exist! it is impossible to make a civ game that will have no flaws, no bugs, and meet every single civers expectations. Can't happen! We can try to imporve civ3, but let's stop bashing the game unfairly! The game is excellent!

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Thanks, diplomat. In almost every aspect of life, disappointment is due to expectations being too high, not because someone or something is at fault. The same holds true for a game.


(MdS watching for the tomatoes about to fly...)

Yes, Firaxis made promises that were not fulfilled, I'm aware of that. Even so, they are only a software programming group. If you expected them to deliver a lifelike sim that answered the requests of all, of course you are disappointed.

I'm not trolling with this thread, I just want people to sit back and appreciate the game. If you gave it a fair chance and still think it sucks, fine.

[Libertarian]

In almost every aspect of life, disappointment is due to expectations being too high, not because someone or something is at fault.

I've never seen a more gratuitous assertion. The counterexamples are too numerous to list. It is to laugh. Ha!

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Libertarian


I've never seen a more gratuitous assertion. The counterexamples are too numerous to list. It is to laugh. Ha!

Well, list a few then. Or are you back to painting everything with broad, vague strokes?

[Colonel Kraken]

I agree, MdS. If you take a look at my "First Impressions" with Civ3, you'll see I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoy the game. Given all the comments I read in these forums, I thought it was going to be a real let down. Well, my wife and I can't stop playing it (when we have the time).

Now, MdS, you did know that you were simply inviting flame wars with starting this thread, didn't you?

[Libertarian]

Well, list a few then.

A man who examines the withholdings on his check stub.

A woman who meets the midget that had sent her pictures of his roommate.

A child who discovers that Santa Claus is not real.

An American who finally makes it to Paris.

A gamer who plays Civ3 to its ending message box.

[Ironikinit]

Stay on topic now. You'll notice that the thread is called "Civ 3 is GREAT", not "I'm a bitter bitter person who won't stop complaining somebody help me please."

[Libertarian]

Well, I suppose that's another:

A person of dainty constitution who visits a thread and finds a view that opposes his own.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
So many posts about how disappointed people are about Civ3, it really surprizes me.

Right on dude! Civ 3 rules!!! All u have to do is compare it to civ2!! It's not often you find a game which is full of modifications and still so incredibly close to the original and always gets better!! (unlike Twisted metal series after the 2nd one). Civ never had such a good replay value. I could go on but i have to go by a beer and celebrate!!: !!( I just won the space race at regent, it was my third try)

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
If you gave it a fair chance and still think it sucks, fine.

Look, I did give it a fair chance. I was relatively gloomy (but not half as gloomy as I am now), before the game came out. But I was totally prepared to say: 'My initial scepticism was not confirmed; the game really turned out to be brilliant.' Think of the great image associated with being fair and objective and admitting you have been wrong.

The sad fact is, CivIII sucks like a vacuum cleaner, though.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
Now, MdS, you did know that you were simply inviting flame wars with starting this thread, didn't you?

Well, by proclaiming that I enjoy the game, of course I knew the naysayers would jump in to disagree. However, it has also brought out an equal crowd of players who like it.

Libertarian, if my statement about disappointment strikes you as gratuitous, then you apparently are one of those who don't understand it. More on topic, why on earth do you continue to post on this forum? If all you have to say about the game is bad, why are you even raining on the discussions? You've made it clear that you are unimpressed with Civ3. Do you need to repeat it hundreds of times?

Regarding the disappointments, the flip sides are:

He understands that most of what is withheld actually benefits him indirectly ( ... where did you get your handle... )

The midget turns out to be a good person, she learns to be less hung up on appearances

The child learns that his parents do even more for him than he thought

The american has good memories a very vibrant city

The gamer thinks, hey, that was fun.

It's all in how you choose to look at it.

[Libertarian]

Civ 3 rules!!! All u have to do is compare it to civ2!!

Uh huh. It also rules compared to stabbing your eyeballs with toothpicks.

He understands that most of what is withheld actually benefits him indirectly...

Then why not let him retain what he's earned so that it might benefit him directly? As it stands, the direct beneficiaries are those who populate the bureaucracies that suck up his earnings, keep a cut, and redistribute the remainder in accordance with what they believe to be politically expedient.

where did you get your handle

I oppose the initiation of force.

The midget turns out to be a good person, she learns to be less hung up on appearances

And deceit as well, I guess.

The child learns that his parents do even more for him than he thought

Right. Maybe more lies. Maybe they've lied about loving him. Maybe they've lied about how he should behave. And then there's that God thing.

The american has good memories a very vibrant city

Yeah. The smell of sidewalk unrinals, for example. Plus, fond memories of the undersides of French nostrils.

The gamer thinks, hey, that was fun.

I see. He studies the detail in the message box's texturized background and finds interesting patterns, leading to an inspirational epiphany and final enlightenment. Zat it?

It's all in how you choose to look at it.

I suppose you have a point. After all, masochists exist.

[Deathwalker]

I agree, I like the game and think it's a great improvment over Civ 2 But I do think they need to fix a number of small issues. Like the ability to sink ships with air power and so on. I think these can be fixed in a patch or addon. But I like the underlining game

[Dev]

I played Civ1 for years and loved it.
I played Civ2 for years and loved it.
I've played SMAC since it came out and still love it.

I played Civ3 for a week and initially loved it for the new features, then I reached midgame and began hating it...and I still hate it.

No matter what Civ3 is to you then in my world it's a huge letdown.

I expected a great game along the same lines as its predecesors but got a game which I regret byuing even more than I regret buying SU27 Flanker back in the early multiplayer days for its advertised MP feature (on the damn box, no less) only to find a small note inside the box saying "No MP sorry".

/dev

[Brutus66]

I must say that the exchange between Libertarian and Marquis has added some amusement in this tiresome, endless battle between the fanboys and the "whiners".

It seems that to Libertarian, the glass is not only half-empty, but the damn glass is defective as well, and the glass manufacturer should be investigated.

As for Marquis, I suspect that he is heavily dosed on Prozac. Somebody get this guy a lifetime membership to the optimist's society, please! He reminds me of the kid who got a ton of horse manure for Christmas and was dancing for joy, 'cause there had to be a pony in there somewhere.

Alll kidding aside, I think that posts insisting that "Civ3 kicks ass" or "Civ3 sucks" are both expressions of opinion and pointless. When someone says that the game has some problems, though, and proceeds to point them out, they should not be castigated as "whiners". If they are like me, they just want to get what's broken fixed.

I played a lot when Civ3 was first released and I got pretty disenchanted. It had too many glaring bugs to be considered a finished product- for example, my nuclear subs were getting sunk regularly by frigates. So I stopped playing for a couple months.

Now that the patch has been released I have come back and am trying it again. According to the list of fixes, the sub problem should be gone- we will see.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I must say that the exchange between Libertarian and Marquis has added some amusement in this tiresome, endless battle between the fanboys and the "whiners".

Well, I'm fine letting it rest. Such stuff is more appropriate for the off-topic, anyway. Two different views, two different people, no harm done.

Originally posted by Brutus66
As for Marquis, I suspect that he is heavily dosed on Prozac. Somebody get this guy a lifetime membership to the optimist's society, please!

Sorry, but no prozac needed here...

Originally posted by Brutus66
...posts insisting that "Civ3 kicks ass" or "Civ3 sucks" are both expressions of opinion and pointless. When someone says that the game has some problems, though, and proceeds to point them out, they should not be castigated as "whiners".

Fair enough. I don't think people are whining when they actually present a topic for discussion. There are indeed legitimate things to complain about, and they should be brought up. But it turns to whining when they just vent about what a drag it is, time and time again. Good luck with your subs...

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I must say that the exchange between Libertarian and Marquis has added some amusement in this tiresome, endless battle between the fanboys and the "whiners".

Well, I'm fine letting it rest. Such stuff is more appropriate for the off-topic, anyway. Two different views, two different people, no harm done.

Originally posted by Brutus66
As for Marquis, I suspect that he is heavily dosed on Prozac. Somebody get this guy a lifetime membership to the optimist's society, please!

No need for prozac, tho!

Originally posted by Brutus66
...posts insisting that "Civ3 kicks ass" or "Civ3 sucks" are both expressions of opinion and pointless. When someone says that the game has some problems, though, and proceeds to point them out, they should not be castigated as "whiners".

Fair enough. I don't think people are whining when they actually present a topic for discussion. There are indeed legitimate things to complain about, and they should be brought up. But it turns to whining when they just vent about what a drag it is, time and time again. Good luck with your subs...