Civ III In Computer Games Magazine: Wins Game of the Year - Page 2

Zoid · January 30, 2002, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill

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.

True, both Infogrames and Firaxis won´t give a rats *ss ´bout the disgruntled hardcore civers as long as they make enough money selling Civ3 to bozos who can´t tell Civ 3 apart from Backpacker!

Civ 4 could be coded by a bunch of chimps for all I care, they can´t possibly make a worse job than Firaxis did.

Ironikinit · January 30, 2002, 16:39

you have a public that is lukewarm about Civ3.

I'm quoting yin out of context cos I didn't read his post, but I got a laugh out of this. Good sales and a game of the year award = a lukewarm reception.

Ironikinit · January 30, 2002, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamrat X

True, both Infogrames and Firaxis won´t give a rats *ss ´bout the disgruntled hardcore civers as long as they make enough money selling Civ3 to bozos who can´t tell Civ 3 apart from Backpacker!

Civ 4 could be coded by a bunch of chimps for all I care, they can´t possibly make a worse job than Firaxis did.

And why should anybody give a damn about the "hardcore"? They're a tiny minority and as can be seen around here they're disloyal and demanding. Add to the picture that hardcore gamers have a reputation for piracy, and why should any company cater to them?

Zoid · January 30, 2002, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
And why should anybody give a damn about the "hardcore"? They're a tiny minority and as can be seen around here they're disloyal and demanding. Add to the picture that hardcore gamers have a reputation for piracy, and why should any company cater to them?

Coz "hardcore gamers" are basically the fanclub and everybody knows you have to keep the fans happy

If Firaxis had been a sports team, they´d been booed right of the court, or worse

I would consider myself an extremly loyal gamer, I´ve bought and played almost every Sid-game for the last 8 years. And as such I´m entitled to be demanding!

Regarding piracy, I´ve played my share of cracks. But just to check the game out, if I like the game I buy it. Like I did with Civ3, it isn´t always foolproof, though...

yin26 · January 30, 2002, 18:29

Quote:

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

Ming, why go trolling? Honestly, I don't expect it from you. Go back and actually read what I posted, unless you just enjoy being wrong.

Ming · January 30, 2002, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Ming, why go trolling? Honestly, I don't expect it from you. Go back and actually read what I posted, unless you just enjoy being wrong.

I troll no more than your do

... Oh... and I was just yanking your chain. Believe me when I say that it is almost impossible not to read what you post...

vee4473 · January 30, 2002, 20:13

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 think it is hard to tell exactly what the public thinks of civ3, because if you take out the extremes at either end, then what you most likely are left with is a large group of people who bought the game and they probably don't even know what Apolyton is, so they can't voice an opinion. They probably just bought the game and are playing it, not running around the internet posting their review. So, who knows what they think...

I like it (for the most part)..still fiddling with the editor...

vee4473 · January 30, 2002, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamrat X

Coz "hardcore gamers" are basically the fanclub and everybody knows you have to keep the fans happy

If Firaxis had been a sports team, they´d been booed right of the court, or worse

Hmmm...Maybe they would have, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that the scenario would be something like this...most of the crowd cheering while there is a small group booing in the background.

Kind of like a group of hardcore Metallica fans from the Metallica early days who think that they sold out, booing at one of their concerts, while the vast majority of new fans (some old) drown out the booers with cheers...

By the way, I am a long time civ fan, and i like civ3, but think it can be improved and I am trying to see what can and can't be done with the editor in order to tweak it to my liking. I think there are some major issues that need to be addressed, just like civ2 had some issues to address, but overall I think they did a decent job of balancing Civ3 between long time fans and newcomers.

After all, the point of ANY game is to learn the rules and then devise strategies to win. I mean, does anyone who plays chess complain if they think that the knight should have a different movement pattern? That's how the game rules are.

I just make this post because, I think that alot of people who think that nobody likes Civ3 need to rethink that position.

yin26 · January 30, 2002, 20:59

Amazing how so many people can miss the point. Has reading comprehension dropped this far?: I *never* said (not in this thread anyway) that Civ3 is the worst game ever made, blah blah blah. What I said, and what seems clearly supported by the nearly 4,000 fan votes a Gamespot, is that Civ3 in NO WAY deserves to be considered Game of the Year.

It simply has too many problems.

Markos: You asked if I think people at Gamespot use the same scale. I think when most people rate a game at 7.9, they think of it as C+ or B-. To me, that results in something harsher than what Gamespot says. More like:

"This game should only be played if you are hardcore into the title or if there are no B+ or higher games waiting for you."

And, in fact, that's precisely how I feel about Civ3. If you really want to like aspects of the game, you can find them. But it's work. And there are just too many glaring flaws for anybody but the most blind fan or clueless reviewer to ignore.

Will it be a good game come Gold Edition? Perhaps. But it ain't right now, and the fans' votes support that view.

vee4473 · January 30, 2002, 21:16

I would like to think that you weren't insulting my reading comprehension Yin.

I was simply inputting my opinion to a post you made.

I agree with you that Civ3 in NO way deserves Game of the year!!!

I enjoy the game, but, it is not a game of the year.

I have also been a long time gamespot reader and I agree alot with their reviews, but there ARE times when their thinking strays from mine.

MarkG · January 30, 2002, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Will it be a good game come Gold Edition? Perhaps. But it ain't right now, and the fans' votes support that view.

well, if you consider 7.9 as saying that the game is bad, that's just fine.................

yin26 · January 30, 2002, 21:20

vee4473: No, I wasn't directing anything in particular at anybody in particular. I was hoping people would sort themselves out.

So many people here, however, think I'm just a "Civ3 SUX!" poster. Actually, I'm a "Civ3 might be a good game in about 6 months to a year" poster.

It's nice to see you agree with me on the Game of the Year thing. Of course, it's no skin off our backs if Gamespot wants to make that choice, but it does seem in this case that the difference between their score and the fans' score is much wider than usual.

Markos: You don't find 7.9 bad? Why would you waste your time playing a C+ game if there are better games to play? That's fine. It's not like it is getting grades of D or anything. Time and sincere patching might bring Civ3 into the A range yet.

MarkG · January 30, 2002, 21:27

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Markos: You don't find 7.9 bad?

according to gamespot scale that you quoted, 7.9 is 0.1 away from being "Great"...

Quote:

Why would you waste your time playing a C+ game if there are better games to play?

better civ games? where?

btw, sincere patching?!?!?

vee4473 · January 30, 2002, 21:29

cool

I have to say that I understand your passion for the game, Yin and I agree with it!

I guess I am just trying to see the whole thing from the developers point of view, whether that is right or wrong on my part I have no idea...

But, putting myself in their shoes, I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trying to produce a mass market, profittable game that will strike a balance between new users and old fans.

That must, indeed, be a very rough task.

yin26 · January 30, 2002, 21:32

Quote:

better civ games? where?

Yes, you fall into the hardcore Civ fan category, so I won't argue with you. I guess I tend to play a wide variety of games and, therefore, view games on their own merits and not as part of a series or something. But I respect your position.

As for the .1 from "Great" -- An 8.0 *to me* is still barely in the B range. I do think once the "sincere patching" (

) takes place ... no, once the X-pack and then the Gold Edition are released ... that Civ could easily move into the 8.5-9.0 range. At that point, I think that even I, a game whore, will make time to enjoy Civ3.

vee4473: Tough task indeed. I'm still giving them another year to work on Civ3.

MarkG · January 30, 2002, 21:44

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
it does seem in this case that the difference between their score and the fans' score is much wider than usual.

Civilization 3
gamespot: 9.2, fans: 7.9, difference: 1.3

FIFA Soccer 2002
gamespot: 9.3, fans: 7.4, difference: 1.9

Max Payne
gamespot: 9.2, fans: 8.9, difference: 0.3

Return to Castle Wolfenstein
gamespot: 9.2, fans: 8.5, difference: 0.7

Black & White
gamespot: 9.3, fans: 7.9, difference: 1.4

Average
gamespot: 9.2, fans: 8.1, difference: 1.1

i wouldnt call it "much wider"....

btw, notice the difference on fifa, which is a sequel just like civ3...

Ironikinit · January 30, 2002, 21:49

I already posted why the votes at Gamespot were tainted. I'm not sure what Gamespot has to do with this topic.

What game deserves the Game of the Year award more than Civ 3? Gotta give it to somebody.

yin26 · January 30, 2002, 21:50

And looking at those scores, the fan average seems far more informed than the Gamespot one, which brings us back to my original point. To give Black and White a 9+ and to call it 'highly polished' is simply sad.

Quote:

I already posted why the votes at Gamespot were tainted.

Yes, and you were wrong.

Special_Olympic · January 30, 2002, 21:54

Bah, what a cheap scam. It's an AWFUL game. One of the worst.

Ming · January 30, 2002, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Special_Olympic
Bah, what a cheap scam. It's an AWFUL game. One of the worst.

Many people would disagree with you

XP NAPOLEON · January 30, 2002, 23:00

MarkG....all your post demonstrates is that gamespot rates EVERY game at 9.2-9.3. The only significant (read meaningful) difference in game to game ratings is provided by the fans.

DarkCloud · January 30, 2002, 23:02

What I don't understand is how poeple could call the game the "best Civ Game ever" if it does not have the sceario editing tools that Civ II had?

I can see best game of the year since the games of this year were not too good- but best civ game- NO. I don't play games without good scenario editing tools... Although I suppose the addons will include better tools (the cheat menu; etc.)

DarkCloud · January 30, 2002, 23:04

Quote:

Originally posted by XP NAPOLEON
MarkG....all your post demonstrates is that gamespot rates EVERY game at 9.2-9.3. The only significant (read meaningful) difference in game to game ratings is provided by the fans.

I think htat he only chose the high rated games for the details- and thus he proves his point.

However, I cannot see how this game could be called the 'best civ game'. Civ is customization, above all else! that is what got it this community.

OneInTen · January 30, 2002, 23:47

Quote:

However, I cannot see how this game could be called the 'best civ game'. Civ is customization, above all else! that is what got it this community.

Civ is many things to many people. To me, customization isn't one of them.

Heliodorus · January 31, 2002, 14:37

Yin, keep banging your drum. This is definitely one of the "1 in 10 times" when I'll stand behind you and nod vociferously that you're on target and in good voice.

Speaking of reading comprehension, did anyone take umbrage at what the reviewer said - that the team spent time playing the game and taking out the things that don't work? Huh? What a trite piece of drivel that is to anyone who played more then 3 games on a map larger than "small." That's what pisses me off in awarding Civ3 GOTY in its genre. That's crap, and anyone who played the game with a modicum of honest analysis knows.

I don't have a problem with Civ3 winning in its field because I don't know what other games might have been considered, and I didn't play any of them anyway. Maybe it's possible that this was literally the best game in the field this year and the other stuff was worse.

The more distance I have from these magazines (I've let all my subscriptions lapse in the last year and a half to PC Gamer and that CGW or whatever its acro was) the more I realize that, like the celebrity journalism magazines (People, etc.), this is just one big cult of celebrity worship.

It makes me ill.

"we lie to each other so much that there's nothing we trust"

MOHonor · January 31, 2002, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Heliodorus
That's what pisses me off in awarding Civ3 GOTY in its genre. That's crap, and anyone who played the game with a modicum of honest analysis knows.

Uh so let me get this straight. You're telling me the reviewer didn't know if he was having fun playing the game or not? That he erronously thought he was having fun when in fact he wasn't? Further all the billon other reviewers who rated the game highly because they thought they were having fun are also suffering from this bizarre and undiscovered disease?

I'm am constantly amazed that some of you retards can look at this game that is back in the top 10 and is getting perfect reviews and now game of the year awards and say it was a disaster. Maybe it's all venting and if we weren't subjected to it you'd be keying cars or telling AIDS jokes or something. But it seems to me more like brittle egos who can't admit they don't know sh*t beyond comic book, video and computer game stores.

FrantzX · January 31, 2002, 22:01

Oh, my, god! Could be it? Could it actually be... that...

Some people actually LIKE this game!!??

DarkCloud · January 31, 2002, 22:08

It is a disaster beccause it isn't better than Civ II.
Civ II had more options.
THus it desreves its criticism.

And anyways- those magazines are frequently bribed or are idiots... Now I am not saying that Firaxis or Infogrames did as such, for example:

They gave Tropico 4 stars or something like that and complained of how you had to hit 3 clicks to access some data or figure things out.

1.) Did they not use hotkeys?
2.) I could figure out when a revolution would come. All i needed to do was look at political dissent and somehting else, etc.

3.) They neglected to mention the game's one major flaw- it was TOO EASY!

I have only been able to beat a few games without cheats- and tropico, sadly waws one of them.

These reviewers don't know what they are doing.

Encomium · January 31, 2002, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
It is a disaster beccause it isn't better than Civ II.
Civ II had more options.
THus it desreves its criticism.

And anyways- those magazines are frequently bribed or are idiots...
These reviewers don't know what they are doing.

I think they KNOW what they are doing - sucking up to Firaxis and encouraging INTEREST and sales in computer games, which is what they want.

Civ III is a disaster also because it is simply a lot less enjoyable than Civ II, and the lack of a scenario builder and cheat mode is a major failing, among a ton of other things.

Civ III is such a huge disappointment owing to failed potential.

Heliodorus · February 1, 2002, 12:41

Quote:

Originally posted by MOHonor

Uh so let me get this straight. You're telling me the reviewer didn't know if he was having fun playing the game or not? That he erronously thought he was having fun when in fact he wasn't? Further all the billon other reviewers who rated the game highly because they thought they were having fun are also suffering from this bizarre and undiscovered disease?

I'm am constantly amazed that some of you retards can look at this game that is back in the top 10 and is getting perfect reviews and now game of the year awards and say it was a disaster. Maybe it's all venting and if we weren't subjected to it you'd be keying cars or telling AIDS jokes or something. But it seems to me more like brittle egos who can't admit they don't know sh*t beyond comic book, video and computer game stores.

Like I said, it's about reading comprehension: Here's the quote you took from me:

Quote:

Originally posted by HeliodorusSpeaking of reading comprehension, did anyone take umbrage at what the reviewer said - that the team spent time playing the game and taking out the things that don't work? Huh? What a trite piece of drivel that is to anyone who played more then 3 games on a map larger than "small." That's what pisses me off in awarding Civ3 GOTY in its genre. That's crap, and anyone who played the game with a modicum of honest analysis knows.

Now, where in that did I say anything that remotely could be construed that Civ3 wasn't fun for the reviewer in question. I didn't. Read it again. Maybe get someone who understands human communication to give you a hand.

Even I had fan playing Civ3. I only played 3 games into the modern era or to completion, though. Then I set it aside. I questioned the writer's integrity (and as much as I'd like to question yours with a handle like "MOHonor" all I have grounds to question is your negligible capacity for discerning thought) because he claimed that everything in the game "works" even into the modern era.

Your name-calling and pedantic apologies belie your own psychological self-interests. I quote one of my favorite bands, Tool:

"You can point that f***ing finger up your a$$"

Heliodorus loves Tool.