Have you gotten your money's worth? - Page 3

OneInTen · February 7, 2002, 22:47

Quote:

And let's just imagine the "I got it for free so of COURSE I got my money for it" portion of the most favorable group...I wonder how many that is.

And what about the "I didn't pay anything but I still feel ripped off" section like yin26 and CharlesUFarley?

yin26 · February 7, 2002, 22:51

The word I used was 'disappointed.' Need to download a new video driver, maybe?

OneInTen · February 8, 2002, 01:00

Well, if we have to categorise people's attitudes according to the exact words they use then I guess we're all in a category of our own and we can't make any conclusion other than everyone feels a bit different about the game.

I apologise for assuming we could do otherwise.

yin26 · February 8, 2002, 01:08

Yes, being correct often takes a bit more work. Sad, that.

OneInTen · February 8, 2002, 01:12

Of course someone such as you who is alwayds correct never makes generalisations and categorisations. Thus I bow to your superior intellect.

yin26 · February 8, 2002, 01:13

I see, so this is your way to wiggle out of being wrong in this case? Sorry. Not enough smoke.

OneInTen · February 8, 2002, 01:30

No, I'm saying I'm not wrong. All sarcasm aside, I stand by the categorisation, even if you want to nitpick the wording.

The point was that not everyone who hadn't paid for the game is in the satisfied customer category. That point, I believe, still stands.

Feel free to play word police though if you don't think you can disprove this any other way.

yin26 · February 8, 2002, 01:32

Again, good try. We have a language and a dictionary for a reason. Need a lesson on the difference between "ripped off" and "disappointed"? If you sincerely don't know the difference, I'll be glad to teach you.

OneInTen · February 8, 2002, 01:50

Yes, dictionary ... like I said, play your word games. I've already said the intent of the statement is inarguable, even if you can nitpick the words used.

PS: Which dictionary is "ripped off" in as a word, coz it surely isn't in mine ( http://www.m-w.com )

yin26 · February 8, 2002, 01:54

Well, that explains it. You are unsure of what 'ripped off' means!

Kat_Somm_Faen · February 8, 2002, 01:58

Hmm I really come here to listen. Though right now I have felt compelled to interfere.

For the true Civ fans, the ones that enjoy bilding an empire to rule the world through the ages- Civ III is not to par with Civ II. Even worse, it is far below the standard the previous Civs have put forward.

I am realy surprised that people that measure the value of a game by the time they spend in front of a computer. This is, simply and mildly put, a gross oversimplification.

Spare me your inane comments about weeks of gametime. Civ I and II gave me YEARS. And even more it gve me an experience of building and expanding. Advisors that were cool, movies and smooth gameplay.

And to additionally drive my point in. How much value do you get from you Windows or Linux OS? You spend much more in front of your OS. Pleeeeeeeeaaaaase. Value of game is not measured in the simple AMOUNT OF TIME. Especcialy when considering the lag issues and so on.

The true question should be: "Is Civ III a worthy sequel to Civ II ( or SMAC or Civ I ) ?"

Here it fails nd fails miserably.

Not the value. The honor of continuing the way of the original Civs. It surely fails miserably to do this in my book.

OneInTen · February 8, 2002, 02:32

The game industry is about money not honour. You think the Firaxis folks work for a gold star on their homework or something?

Kat_Somm_Faen · February 8, 2002, 04:01

So is the cocaine industry and the military and so on ( about money ). Stupid argument.

Also, the respect of the gamers to the previously high standards and game overall quality earned them money through blind obedience many of us have shown with buying this game.

My problem with Civ III is not the money or some market value or such. My problem is the GAME ITSELF.

Also, not medals but the appreciation of the public and the consumer is earned through having decent titles.

Apprently to gain your respect it is enough to make money on the software title.

P.S. Please post relevant replies. Or is that something that is a strange concept to you???

P.S.S Why do you have to be such a brownnose with respect to Firaxis/Infogrames???

OneInTen · February 8, 2002, 07:45

I'm the brown nose? I'm not the one talking about the honour Firaxis have to bring us civ 3 ...

I stand by my point about money. They make the game because they aim to make money. That's the bottom line.

If you keep that in perspective, then it all becomes clear. Of course Firaxis are going to make something with as much mass market appeal as possible. Of course they're going to use Sid's name on it. Of course they're going to do pretty much everything they've done and are doing.

Doing it for the love of it is pretty rare in any industry these days, especially one as cut-throat as the gaming industry. And you know what - the only people who can afford to do things for the love of it are the ones with the money to finance their operations!

I can see why you might hate the economic system. I can see why you might hate our consumerised throw away society. But holding it against a company for doing exactly what is expected it in it's role in this system? For doing what just about every other company does? That seems rather silly to me.

Rest assured, if it was a choice between alienating a few fans and making a few extra bucks, 99% of the game companies out there would go for the money (off the top of my head, id is the only one I am confident would be willing to sacrifice financial gain to make fans happy, since they've proven this in the past).

Firaxis haven't done anything wrong here. The only mistake that's been made was the assumption by some people that Firaxis were somehow immune to the fiscal realities that other companies live by. You've said it yourself - you were blindly obedient and went out and bought the game.

The reality is that Firaxis aimed the game at the mass market, not hardcore fans. That doesn't make it a bad game per se, but it's probably going to tick off some fans who thought that the fans were special and the game was being made for them.

Sorry folks, Firaxis never had any responsibility to make a game for you, they had a responsibility to Infogrames and their shareholders to make the game that would sell the most copies for the least amount of development cost.

I'm sorry that civ 3 has been for some people such a harsh lesson in the way ideals often diverge from reality. But them's the breaks.

PS: Firaxis have respect from me of about the same level of any company that plays by the rules (that is, do things that are legal even if I don't necessarily agree with them). I might not admire them, but I certainly don't hate them. And I feel sorry for the people who work there, who have, to the best of my knowledge, worked as hard at their jobs as anyone on this board works at theirs, yet have copped insult after insult over their work.

yin26 · February 8, 2002, 08:07

Here's some more reality for ya: When the work is shoddy, expect some insults.

OneInTen · February 8, 2002, 08:48

Who's done the shoddy work here? Do you even know which employees have done what on civ 3?

Because even if you dislike the game, I find it hard to believe you think the implementation is shoddy, as oposed to the design.

Boney · February 8, 2002, 09:16

I really can't believe that so so many people have voted for this dumbed down game for monkeys. There is so much wrong with this game that I expect that most of the votes are not from people who have played Civ from the beginning. and now ctp2 is going to be transformed into the ultimate civ game and the monkeys are still in the trees eating bananas.

I hope you enjoy

Kat_Somm_Faen · February 8, 2002, 18:02

Buddy you simply dont get it do you???

Your post amounts to nothing more than saying:

"They made a comercial product that sells and therefore its ok to have a crappy game if it makes money."

You have spent whole post explaining to me how it's the "reality", that the only point to the game is to sell it and make money.

You completely miss the argument. My problem is about the GAME ITSELF!

To distil it further for you:

"Civ III fails miserably to follow the standard of previous Civs!"

Can you please be relevant and post comment that is related to this point.

You basically go into a rant about the market reality or making money or such. How about comment that relates to the quality of the game please???

Otherwise, your post is nothing more than trying to think of an excuse for Firaxis.

"Well the game sucks but it sells and that is why they are all about!" seems to be your whole argument.

Ming · February 8, 2002, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Boney
I really can't believe that so so many people have voted for this dumbed down game for monkeys.

Your opinion... obviously, MANY people disagree with your opinion.

Quote:

There is so much wrong with this game that I expect that most of the votes are not from people who have played Civ from the beginning

And just what do you base this opinion on... While I find there are things that need to be fixed, I feel I'm getting my money worth out of the product. And I've been playing from the beginning...

I just love watching the people that hate the game rant and rave when polls like this show them that the world doesn't agree with their opinion... Based on this poll... face the facts. Only one out of four feel like they were cheated. While that isn't good, it still shows that many more people like the game then hate it.

Salvor · February 8, 2002, 19:17

Wow, what a disillusioned life I've led.

Originally, I thought I liked this game (Civ3) because I have fun when I play it, and it makes me happy.

Boy, what a silly thing that is. I should have known that those aren't what makes a good game. I should have done an in-depth analysis of how it compares to other games, like CTP2 or SMAC. And I should have found out the salaries of every Firaxis employee on the project to see if they really earned their pay or were caught slacking on the job (like replying to forumites when they should be programming). Those are the true standards for measuring whether it's worth my time and money. Fun? What's fun got to do with it?

I also should have seen if there were other people who didn't like it, and if there were, then I better not like it myself, because that will make me a juvenile brown-nosing idiot in their eyes. Heaven forbid that should happen.

Don't I know how flawed it is? Or how unrealistic? Or how much worse it is compared to some other game? Or how the Firaxis people don't respond to our complaints? Nope. And I don't care. I just play the game and have fun.

Boney · February 8, 2002, 23:42

Wow A reply from the Magnificent Ming the Merciless.

Quote:

Originally posted by Boney
"I really can't believe that so so many people have voted for this dumbed down game for monkeys."

Originally posted by Ming
"Your opinion... obviously, MANY people disagree with your opinion."

Firstly the fact that I don't believe something is not an opinion, it is a belief. (Der stupid, too many beers and now whisky, I believed what I said, but now I can't opinion what chronus has just replied, thanks for pointing this out, man I must down another glass to get over the puzzlement. Thank you Chronus for showing that these two words, though similar, are not the same. I can't believe what happened on sept 11, but it did, is this my opinion?)

Yes to call the game dumbed down is my opinion, but any player of civ2 or ctp cannot deny that there are less choices in civ3.

Firstly agriculture, is it right that there were many agricultural improvements from the beginnning of time to the present day? Was this not reflected in the upgrading of farmland in civ2, ctp1&2. Is this reflected in civ3?

secondly, where are the choices of government? were there not more governments in previous games?

Thirdly, the tech tree, has the tech for for civ3 been pruned or not? Is the choice af tech now easier to make?

I could go on but this long enough already and it has all been said before.

Quote:

There is so much wrong with this game that I expect that most of the votes are not from people who have played Civ from the beginning... And just what do you base this opinion on...

This is based on people who I know that play civ/ctp. Some who were the newbies loved the game while the old timers found it a bit disillusioning. Also I think that for the first few games I liked civ3 too, it just does not last the pace.

How long were they in developing the game?

Quote:

I just love watching the people that hate the game rant and rave when polls like this show them that the world doesn't agree with their opinion... Based on this poll... face the facts. Only one out of four feel like they were cheated. While that isn't good, it still shows that many more people like the game then hate it.

I love watching the ranters and ravers too especially when I am one of them

Based on the pol...face the facts, only just over 40% are totally happy. 40% not happy (though some 'not yet' happy), and 20% on the edge (happy but only just). This shows that probably 60% think something is lacking. I also know that if I had voted after only having played three games I would have voted with the totally happy people.

Note that I did not say 40% hated the game, or that 60% did not like the game. But I did say that 40% were totally happy.

Chronus · February 9, 2002, 00:20

Quote:

Firstly the fact that I don't believe something is not an opinion, it is a belief.

I can't believe I just read this.

Well, since we had a dictionary war earlier in the thread (or, perhaps, it was another thread), I will quote the following from . . . what else . . . a dictionary:

"belief 1. something believed; OPINION; conviction."

Part of this amusing mass of confusion is how we all interpret the poll. Those who dislike the game view the top choice as a "good game" category and the remaining choices as "bad game" categories. Those who like the game view the top two choices as "good game" categories and the remaining ones as "bad game" categories. Nevermind the fact that the last category, "Not yet", should really be left out of both "good" and "bad" categories . . . in my own opinion . . . er, I mean, belief.

ColdWizard · February 9, 2002, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Chronus
Nevermind the fact that the last category, "Not yet", should really be left out of both "good" and "bad" categories . . . in my own opinion . . . er, I mean, belief.

it should be in the "bad" category, it just has potential to move into the "good" category at some future date, if certain conditions are met. you're wrong

Captain · February 9, 2002, 01:18

there is a new poll where you can rank all the following:

1. Civ 3's value compared to what you paid for it
2. Civ 3's value compared to other games you typically play
3. Civ 3's value compared to the Civilization legacy

hopefully that might clear up some confusion. but who knows. someone inevitably complains about polls being biased but I may as well try.

cheers!