Civ III In Computer Games Magazine: Wins Game of the Year

DarkCloud · January 28, 2002, 23:25

In Computer Games Magazine, which just came today (I am not sure if its sister publication in England, PC Games Magazine, mentioned Apolyton)
But on page 34 of the March 2002 issue, this is mentioned in the Strategy Science section of their Mod issue:

"... The best singel source ofr mods is the Apolyton Civilization site, whree you'll ifnd everything from a completely revised rulees set for the Ancient governments in the game to oddities like Pierre Trudeau's head for use with a custom created Canadian civilization..."

http://www.apolyton.net/civ3

is the link- and on page 55 Civ III won the Game of the Year award

It also won the Strategy Game of the Year award! 6 screenshots are included.

Ironikinit · January 28, 2002, 23:29

Congrats Firaxis and Apolyton.

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · January 28, 2002, 23:30

Congrats, Markos and Dan!

Now, get ready for that tsunami of new members...

Dan

DarkCloud · January 28, 2002, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
Congrats, Markos and Dan!

Now, get ready for that tsunami of new members...

Dan

Hopefully Apolyton can take the influx well

Thanks for posting, Dan

Here is some of the quote (I'm sure Dan has already read this

):

"The folks at Firaxis have done it again. IT would be easy to dismiss Civ III as just another iteration of a great game... But to peanalize the game for its ancestry is unfair... In some respects it's amazing the game works at all. Civ III offers the largest leap in gameplay since the series began... etc. It is about a page in length but stretches across 2 pages.

In addition, It beat out Europa Universalis II, and Ralis Across America as the Best Strategy Game.

Congratualtions Firaxis and Apolyton

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · January 28, 2002, 23:37

Actually, I don't think we've even seen the issue yet, or at least I haven't... who won the other categories?

Dan

PS - thanks for the news!

Encomium · January 28, 2002, 23:46

One hand in the Industry washes the other hand.

It's almost incestuous, or does Firaxis use its "influence" in the right places?!

"Game of the Year."

Just read the torrent of complaints about this very flawed game on this and the other site. Just check out the number of people who want to sell Civ III on Ebay.

If the Firaxis shills and apologists want to just admit the game was rushed to market for Christmas, and that it needed more playtesting, fine - so long as a REAL PATCH is upcoming. And be sure it gives us a cheat mode and scenario-building for starters.

Better yet, let those of us with the disc send it to you NOT for a refund but for a better-developed game that addresses the scores of problems people have found with the game, problems posted en masse.

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · January 29, 2002, 00:07

Allow me to indulge this threadjack for just a moment...

http://search.ebay.com/search/search...vilization+III

People Selling Civ III: 42

http://search.ebay.com/search/search...t&BasicSearch=

People Selling Empire Earth: 42

http://search.ebay.com/search/search...t&BasicSearch=

People Selling Return to Wolfenstein: 266

Moral of the story: there are always a lot of people selling popular, mainstream PC games on eBay.

P.S., I already answered your polite inquiry about cheat mode on Civfanatics, there's really no point in continuing to ask about it here.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled topic.

Dan

Ironikinit · January 29, 2002, 00:33

As Catherine the Great, Czarina of all the Russias, remarked to me upon her election to Secretary-General of the United Nations:

Told!

Chronus · January 29, 2002, 00:38

I was at Best Buy today and was surprised to see that Europa Universalis II has already had its price dropped to $19.99!

Civ 3, of course, has still maintained its original price tag.

Alex · January 29, 2002, 08:00

Well, Dan is right about Ebay... There will always be a lot of people selling popular games there or in any other auction site.

I bet that most of them are casual players, who buy a game, play it for three or four weeks and then move to the next game of the season.

There are a lot of people selling "Return to Castle Wolfenstein", which is supposed to have a lot of replayability due to multiplayer support... [cough, cough] Er... what was I talking about, really?

DarkCloud · January 29, 2002, 22:17

Here'es the last paragraph:

BUt the game's appeal isn't limited to new features- it's also the most polished (and prettiest) Civilization game to date. You might not immediately notice the hundreds of little tweks and adjustments Firaxis has made to combat, and Wonders and advances and more, but it all shows thorugh in play. Firaxis obviously spent a lot of time doing exactly that-- playing the game. Enhancing the stuff that works. Eliminating the stuff that doesn't. When your eyes finally start to droop and you realize that "one more turn" has turned into two, and then ten, and then one hundred or more, you're glad that they did."

The funniest thing is that their website: www.cgonline.com
has not yet updated with the results

They're a month behind their shipping

DarkCloud · January 29, 2002, 22:25

Wow! I didn't know that- I'll have to try to scan this soon-

Here are the other winners:

Best Multiplayer- Rails Across America
Best Action: Operation Flashpoing
Best RTS: Kohan: Immortal Soverigns
Best Technology: AquaNox
Best RPG: ARcanum/Wizardry 8 tied.
Best Online: Dark AGe of Camelot
Best Wargame: Bulge '44
Best Simulation: IL-2 Sturmovik
Best Add-on: Diablo II: Lord of Destruction
Best Adventure: Myst III Exlie
Best Sports: High HEat 2002
Best Racing: Nascar 4
Best Interfafce: Black and White
Best AI: Operation Flashpoint.

enjoy

Imran Siddiqui · January 29, 2002, 23:25

WooHoo! Congrats 'Poly

.

kimmygibler · January 29, 2002, 23:45

Wow High Heat 2002!

That is well deserved. Even for a game that was very very poorly patched, the open customization and modding options made up for it. Can't wait for 2003...

yin26 · January 30, 2002, 00:04

Let's look at that from another angle.

Gamespot, 1 reviewer, gives Civ3 a 9.2 (and we all know how much time reviewers have to play games of Civ3 in their entirety):

Quote:

9.0 - 9.9 ... "Superb"
A game within this range is absolutely recommended. Games that score in this range are highly uncommon.

Meanwhile, 3565 ratings by players themselves, and Civ3 comes in at 7.9:

Quote:

7.0 - 7.9 ... "Good"
A game within this range is very good and worth playing for fans of its particular genre. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults.

Anybody who doesn't take issue with the 'noticeable faults' in Civ3 and, in fact, calls it Game of the Year or some other such rubbish should try playing more than 50 turns and moving on.

Capt Dizle · January 30, 2002, 00:16

As usual, Yin is correct.

OneInTen · January 30, 2002, 01:05

Any review by a group of people is naturally going to be biased further towards the centre of the scale.

For example, a rating of just 7.9 out of 10 is enough to put a movie in the top 100 movies of all time in IMDB.

yin26 · January 30, 2002, 01:13

It's not a 'bias' -- it's called a Bigger Picture. And plenty of games with hundred or thousands of player reviews still come in at high 8 or 9+ averages.

And yet there's Civ3...

MarkG · January 30, 2002, 05:12

yin, dont know if you noticed this, but you took the gamespot reviews definition of a 7-7.9 score and applied it to the users reviews

please dont tell me that all these people voted having in mind the definitions gamespot reviewers use for the "official" reviews...

Ironikinit · January 30, 2002, 05:45

Gamespot's player reviews were tainted. Disgruntled jerks who thought that because they wasted a large chunk of their lives playing the predecessor to Civ 3 they owned the series posted bogus null reviews to lower the average. In response, other reviewers posted falsely inflated reviews. In other words, the numbers are about as valid as a compulsive whiner's opinions.

Take a look at the quality of some of the player reviews. No thought whatsoever went into some of them, both the favorable and the rabidly disappointed.

Let's not forget that the Gamespot reviewer did address what he considered to be Civ 3's flaws in his review. I find it annoying how self proclaimed experts presume to smugly invalidate the opinions of people have dedicated their professional lives to the industry.

Dis · January 30, 2002, 05:52

they are player reviews after all.

so a player who doesn't like the game isn't entitled to give his review?

OneInTen · January 30, 2002, 05:52

Hmm, I went to the gamespot site to investigate their user polls.

I noticed that you can vote without registering, and the site doesn't appear to make any attempt at all to stop people from voting as many times as they wish.

Given that for all we know all those votes came from anywhere between 1 person and 3565 people (at the time of yin26's posting), added with the fact that any web poll suffers from the problem of the voters being self selected, I hardly think we can form any conclusion from it at all, other than at least one person voted, and the votes at a minimum ranged from between 7 and 8.

Ironikinit · January 30, 2002, 06:07

What I have a problem with is people giving Civ 3 a zero when they don't really consider it a zero. Are they really saying that 100% of the games they've played is better? No. They're saying that they're mad they didn't get the game they wanted so they wanted to do something petty.

Does that answer your question?

Honest reviews are fine by me, unless they're honestly biased and shortsighted.

Edit: I want to make it real clear that I like Gamespot a lot, and that includes their player reviews. I read them, not all of them, obviously, but some. That's how I knew that jerks had been at work trying to smear Civ 3. Even before I started reading Apolyton.

yin26 · January 30, 2002, 11:52

Ha! This is rich. The apologists go to new levels.

There are always jerks at either end of the scale. How about the: "I give it a 10! I haven't bought it yet, but Sid is King!" Face it, take out the extremes at either end of the scale and you have a public that is lukewarm about Civ3. And don't give me the 'The reviewer is a professional' garbage. Is this the same reviewer who mentioned that full and robust editor for God's sake!? What a joke.

Sorry it's so hard to accept.

Ming · January 30, 2002, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Sorry it's so hard to accept.

Yeah... it must be hard to accept when so many people disagree with your point of view... different strokes for different folks

Harovan · January 30, 2002, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Face it, take out the extremes at either end of the scale and you have a public that is lukewarm about Civ3.

I suggest you to make a poll here, collect some data and then interpret it at your heart's content. Ignore the 0's and the 10's and make an average. Here's enough players who played more than a reviewer ever would, here's enough who know the Civ/Civ2/SMAC(X) to compare, and it's granted that everyone votes only once.

I wonder what would the result be... And what both sides of this discussion would interpret into...

Bilas · January 30, 2002, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Yeah... it must be hard to accept when so many people disagree with your point of view... different strokes for different folks

Ming... I think There are more people out there that think CIV3 is a good game with flaws then "GREAT GAME... GAME of the year!" Hey I will listen to both sides, play the game and form my own opinion. My opinion is this game is OK to good and could be very good if the FLAWS that are mentioned here an on other sites are fixed.

Ming · January 30, 2002, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Bilas
Ming... I think There are more people out there that think CIV3 is a good game with flaws then "GREAT GAME... GAME of the year!"

And I'm one of them... it is a Great Game, and it has it's flaws.
Hopefully some of those will be corrected. Heck, Civ II STILL has flaws, and it's years old, but I still play MP.

I don't expect games to be perfect... I do expect them to work.
And after the first patch, most of the stuff does work. I look forward to future patches... MP... and better editing/moding.
And I"m not going to start whining about it until there is proof that none of it is going to happen. Until then, I remain positive about the game, and I don't need to hear from Firaxis every day as proof that they are working on it.

But my original point was... Yin thinks the game sucks and has no social redeeming value. Many people disagree with that

Barnacle Bill · January 30, 2002, 13:42

The problem is that most of the people who are buying/playing Civ3, including professional reviewers, are not long-term fans of the series who have been heavily into scenarios, mods, etc... They either never played the previous games (before their time), or just played them in the basic plain-vanilla form, and never devoted much thought to what Civ3 could/should have been based on their Civ2 experience. OK, so it looks better due to an advance in the state of the art in graphics and has a few new features - that must make it better than Civ1/Civ2 - Civ2 was great so if Civ3 is better it must be great, too - "Game of the Year!". As to the "late game tedium", this is believed by most people to be an unavoidable consequence of the TBS genre, so fans of the genre don't hold it against Civ3.

The core fans represent a minority of the buyers (actual or potential). They see beloved features from Civ2 missing, new featured requested by the fan community for years not included, and poor implimentation of such new features as were added (as compared to other TBS games with similar features). They are disappointed to the point of feeling betrayed.

What can/should Firaxis do about it? Well, they were hired by Infogrames to do Civ3. The game is a hit, so Infogrames is happy. Infogrames cares about units sold, not whether the Civnards are happy (be different if it was a nitch product aimed at Civnards, but it's not). Very likely, Infrogrames will not finance any further effort by Firaxis to "fix" Civ3 via free patches, with the possible exception of adding features that were clearly advertised but not yet delivered (a fully functional editor, maybe MP). Infogrames has no incentive to finance anything for which they will get no return. How many more units would they sell if they do a Civnard patch vs if they don't? Firaxis perhaps has more reason to care, because their reputation is on the line, but again the sales & reviews speak for themselves and it would be easy for Firaxis to ignore the Civnards as an excessively vocal minority with little influence on others. Maybe they will care, maybe not.

I think we can expect a fully-functional editor via patches: able to add units, etc... plus place units, cities, civ starting locations, etc... on the scenario starting map. A Civ2-style scripting language is more iffy. If they really did promise MP, there may be an MP patch. I expect anything else will go into an expansion product or "gold edition" that you'll have to buy if you want it. Based on the reviews and sales, though, I expect that there will be such a product (maybe more than one - there were essentially 3 for Civ2). Firaxis will probably try to address the gripes of the Civnards in those products, to the extent that the schedule and tasking from Infogrames permits. In that regard, I hope MP was not promised in such a way that they need to do it as a patch - it is big enough to provide room for piggybacking other things.

Zoid · January 30, 2002, 14:58

Game of the year, hah!

Someone should sue Gamespot for misleading marketing

Congrats to Mark and Dan, anyway!!