I'm deleting Civ3 and reinstalling good ol' Civ2

Foot · February 5, 2002, 22:19

Didn't they PLAYTEST the damn thing? Didn't they realize that the casual player (that's me) would have massive trouble getting technology that existed IRL before the 1900 mark by 2000?
Didn't they see the massive, glaring flaws?
Didn't they realize the AI cheats more than my 10-year-old brother playing checkers?
I feel like I've become a beta tester, except I paid to do it.
And of course, to even make the game a micron less of a colossal ripoff, I'll have to fork over more money to get an expansion pack.

I'VE HAD ENOUGH. Goodbye.

MOHonor · February 5, 2002, 22:26

Double Login alert!

ACooper · February 5, 2002, 22:33

Don't go away mad - Just go away!

August Borms · February 5, 2002, 22:38

(why did you uninstall civ2 in the first place?)

yin26 · February 5, 2002, 22:59

You should have read my review that explicitly said: Only buy Civ3 if you don't mind paying to be a beta tester. Admittedly, there are people who don't mind paying to be beta testers, so it's really your decision.

FNBrown · February 5, 2002, 23:23

Ya know, I'm trying to be optimistic, and hope that Civ3 is still a work in progress... Civ2 had such a huge and long-lasting following that there's certainly a precedent for maintaining the game for years to come with expansion packs, additional patches, etc.

It would be nice if we heard more from Firaxis, though....

Alexander's Horse · February 5, 2002, 23:25

My third game of Civ III is unfinished.

I've gone back to Civ II multiplayer. Civ III really makes you appreciate Civ II

Encomium · February 5, 2002, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
You should have read my review that explicitly said: Only buy Civ3 if you don't mind paying to be a beta tester. Admittedly, there are people who don't mind paying to be beta testers, so it's really your decision.

EXACTLY!! I've been saying for weeks this game was NOT playtested before marketing. They had to get it out for the Christmas buying season!

If it HAD been playtested, the following problems would NOT be in Civ III:

1. Submarines and privateers on TRADE ROUTES damage the opposition's commerce and trade in real wars. Protecting commerce is a navy's real purpose, not constantly bombarding "improvements". Wooden ships shouldn't do that at all. Navies cannot attack trade (or even diplomats or caravans) in Civ III and it hurts the game.

2. Bombers can sink warships in the real world. But not in Civ III!!!

3. Great Leaders should supply a Combat Bonus even after forming an army.

4. I want a Cheat Mode.

5. I want to be able to make SCENARIOS.

6. I want to be able to toggle OFF the nuclear war option; i.e., no Manhattan Project.

7. Less Culture Flipping with no more mysteriously vanishing garrisons. As the game is now we have to raze city after city.

8. Nuclear submarines should be far less visible than regular subs. SSN's stay submerged; SS's mostly ran on the surface (as in WW II) being diesel powered subs.

9. I want crusader and cruiser units back.

10. Less corruption.

11. STOP THE AI CHEATING!!!!! The AI cheats shamelessly from handing out free techs to AI civs to having ocean-going galleys. I've seen it over and over. It destroys the game for me more than anything. The AI must STOIP BREAKING ITS OWN RULES. Advantages and bonuses are one thing; outright cheating is something else.

12. Bring back the Eifel Tower and its effect on civ's opinions of you. The Statue of Liberty can have a similar effect.

13. I WANT CANALS!! Why isn't the Panama Canal a Great Wonder??

14. "Broadway" and "Hollywood" can both be Small Wonders creating Happy Faces for whatever civs build these movie and musical advances.

15. I want a "naval bomber" unit for use off carriers. It would be cheaper than normal bombers.

16. STOP the land-grabbing AI settlers that wander around your territory and build cities on any open piece of land. They also build on deserts and tundra! THIS MUST STOP. Also, if they build close enough to encroach on your borders it constitutes an act of war.

17. Any rival's city built close enough to a colony of yours to eliminate the colony is committing an act of war against you.

18. We need an easy way to check the status of alliances with other civ's while discussing peace with the hostile civ. We also need the capability of making a joint peace with our ally.

19. We should be able to move AS A GROUP a bunch of individual units. Example: a force of, say, fifteen offensive units attacking an enemy's territory could be moved TOGETHER - thus saving me a lot of tedious work.

20. Units from DIFFERENT AGES should get a combat bonus against those from an earlier age. Therefore, we will be less likely to see longbowmen destroy cavalry, for instance. Say a 25% bonus per age.

21. I want more HISTORICALLY ACCURATE unit values. For instance. . .longbowmen should by English-specific and have a strong defensive value against knights. War Elephants should have a weak defensive value. Neither should have "airlift" capability!

22. Why is the AI so stupid it has a civilization being conquered by another start making Wonders instead of more troops??

23. Nothing left to explore by the time we get to caravels.

24. AI land-grabbing settlers.

25. Wandering workers who won't leave.

26. AI trade deals can be very dumb.

27. AI building happiness Wonders while being invaded. Other dumb decisions, also.

28. Civs not trading resources even with a 3:1 advantage in a deal. Crazy.

29. Same hills for grassland, desert, or jungle. They should NOT produce the same.

30. Flood plain tiles look like desert tiles.

31. Unit activation sequence jerky and stupid: you try to move units from one tile but get jerked around the map.

32. Fighters cannot escort bombers.

33. The tech tree is more limiting in choices than in Civ II. You can't beeline for a needed tech.

34. A stubborn almost suicidal AI Diplomatic advisor that won't make peace until almost exterminated.

35. Too much yellow in the map requiring us to downloand new greener graphics files.

And on and on and on. . .

Dis · February 5, 2002, 23:57

I salute this thread

all hail civ2.

I'll admit I was just hoping for civ2 with better graphics. instead I got this heap of...

only a few things needed changing in civ2. Unit support being #1 on that list. That has been done. But they broke everything that wasn't broken.

Oh sh!t. I sound like the winers I complained about months ago. Hmmm what should I do?

I realize I can't have my cake and eat it too. that is why I know longer play civ3 or civ2. I can't play civ2 with some of those annoying features anymore. Not after I have been spoiled with unit support system of civ3.

I'll keep my hope up that a patch or mod may actually be fun.

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 00:08

Quote:

Oh sh!t. I sound like the winers I complained about months ago. Hmmm what should I do?

Well, admitting it is good enough for me.

Seriously, I also hold out some hope that come Gold Edition time tha many of these things will be finished. Rest assured, of course, I won't invest my money (as I didn't with Civ3 beta release) unless it's a truly stellar effort.

notyoueither · February 6, 2002, 00:19

I'l bet that makes Dan and Jeff and Soren burn the midnight oil...

*Gotta get Yin's money, gotta get Yin's money...*

Anything that encourages them can't be all bad.

Salve

ACooper · February 6, 2002, 00:20

1. How do you want to do this? There are no single line "trade routes" as in CTP. All it requires is some kind of connection and most of the time there are many different ways (i.e. multiple trade routes) to connect from on city to the other. (BTW there are no diplomats or caravans in CIV3)

2. Bombers represent of group of bombers. Ships represent a fleet. I know of no instance when even a group of bombers have sunk a whole fleet of ships.

3. Armies should be more powerful, but they do have a bonus of 3 (or 4) against 1. Probably should be improved.

...

6. You can modify the Manhatten Project in the editor to make it impossible to build.

7. I've had this happen only rarely. I always garrison enough units to prevent flipping. Maybe I've been lucky?

...

10. It's not hard to built temples and courthouses, etc. (This was also in response to the ICS problem in Civ2)

11.

Don't know about this one. I'll take your word for it.

...

13. Where exactly would you biuld a canal. As a wonder built in a city where would it's effect be felt?

...

16. If it's free land - it's free land. You can use or they can.

...

18. a must

19. You will be lucky to see stacked movement even in a patch.

...

24. Isn't this the same as 16?

27. Same as 22.

26 & 28 cancel each other out. Which do you want?

30.

They look different to me.

...

33. There were a lot of requests for "eras". You can beeline within an era.

34. Probably my #1 complaint

35. Personal preference. I down loaded some "greener" graphics and I thought they looked stupid.

I just picked a few of these, but I fail to see how they show a lack of playtesting. Most of these problems come down to your personal view of the game. (Which is fine.) To say Firaxis or Infogames did which was under handed is just not fair.

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 01:05

Funny thing is, I'm usually pretty relaxed about my gaming purchases. I buy more than $2,000 worth of games a year and don't normally care if I get just an hour or two out of a game before deciding it sucks ... yet when it comes to Civ3 and Firaxis *nadda*.

Strange, isn't it?

OneInTen · February 6, 2002, 01:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I'll admit I was just hoping for civ2 with better graphics. instead I got this heap of...

So why didn't you just make/download a graphics mod for civ 2? It'd be cheaper and exactly what you wanted.

FNBrown · February 6, 2002, 01:38

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Funny thing is, I'm usually pretty relaxed about my gaming purchases. I buy more than $2,000 worth of games a year and don't normally care if I get just an hour or two out of a game before deciding it sucks ... yet when it comes to Civ3 and Firaxis *nadda*.

Strange, isn't it?

$2000 a year?

I wouldn't have time to play $2000 worth of games in a year... at $50 a pop, that's 40 games... like, one a week...

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 02:03

Oh, you could make time. I have essentially two jobs (work weekends, almost every weekend), am married and have a 3 year old. Where do I find the time? 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. are my prime hours. 5 hours sleep is enough, I think, with periodic holidays used to try to sleep in.

Yes, and it runs close to 1 game a week. Like I say, a *vast* majority of those don't play for more than a day or two. I blast through a pile of titles to find the few gems. Disciples 2, however, seems to have potential as it will last more than two weeks for certain.

FNBrown · February 6, 2002, 02:13

Well, Yin, you're definately a hard-core gamer then... I buy games and sometime have to let them sit for weeks on end before I get around to playing them... I'm still staring at the Empire Earth CD that I haven't installed yet.

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 02:22

To be honest, it's something I've decided to cut way back. First, obviously, is the expense. I think the $2,000 could be better spent on my daughter's college fund or at least some home theater equipment.

Second, I start a new job in April that, while not much more time intensive than my current one, will be far more mentally demanding. I think at that point I'll want my 8 hours sleep.

But I know what you mean about getting a game and watching it sit. Sometimes I *force* myself to play a game I've bought, and that's not really a sign that I'm buying stuff to entertain myself. So 2002 is the year I'm joining Gameaholics Anonymous and taking the first of 12 steps.

Alexander's Horse · February 6, 2002, 02:24

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Funny thing is, I'm usually pretty relaxed about my gaming purchases. I buy more than $2,000 worth of games a year and don't normally care if I get just an hour or two out of a game before deciding it sucks ... yet when it comes to Civ3 and Firaxis *nadda*.

Strange, isn't it?

Not really, I know where you're coming from.

For myself, I only bought the game out of morbid curiosity after many players I respect dumped on it. I get a laugh out of it.

Still can't get the lid of my "special addition" (HA!) to close properly though

That pack was truly crapulous. The tech map is hilariously poorly produced compared to civ II.

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 02:30

But at least there are no cities on mountains. Could you imagine Settler Diarrhea then? Thanks, AH!

FNBrown · February 6, 2002, 02:38

I know what you mean about "forcing" yourself to play... It took a while before I started with Civ3 because I was following what I call "The Microsoft Rule."

See, I'm a server admin by trade... and I never install any new Microsoft OS prior to the second service pack.

I figured Civ3 would be playable with the 1.16f or whatever version they called it, so that's when I finally installed...

Alexander's Horse · February 6, 2002, 02:52

I'd say its not a bad game. It just has a big reputation to live up to.

But they really should have play tested it with people who actually are expert at playing TBS games. So many obvious things would have been fixed.

ColdWizard · February 6, 2002, 02:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
But they really should have play tested it with people who actually are expert at playing TBS games.

they are, the testers just had to pay to do the testing

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 03:05

FNBrown: Excellent policy. I have enjoyed many games much cheaper and with far fewer hassles that way, too.

Alexander's Horse · February 6, 2002, 03:08

I just wanted to be part of the whole catastrophe

FNBrown · February 6, 2002, 03:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I just wanted to be part of the whole catastrophe

So true... it's some sick human fascination that we all seem to share... there's nothing quite like surviving a disaster so you can live to tell about it.

MarkG · February 6, 2002, 03:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Foot
Didn't they realize that the casual player (that's me) would have massive trouble getting technology that existed IRL before the 1900 mark by 2000?

yeap, civ2 was pretty realistic in that sense as well....

Quote:

And of course, to even make the game a micron less of a colossal ripoff, I'll have to fork over more money to get an expansion pack.

unlike civ2 which had no expansions

Alexander's Horse · February 6, 2002, 07:58

Why do you continue to defend this game Mark?

Do you have any criticisms of it at all?

Azrikam · February 6, 2002, 08:07

Quote:

Why do you continue to defend this game Mark?

Cognitive Dissonance. Moderating a Civ III forum, and not liking the game would wreak havoc on one's psyche. It's a defense mechanism.

Alexander's Horse · February 6, 2002, 08:19

So true - very droll.

Poor Mark. He needs our help and understanding. The game sucks Mark, but its okay Mark buddy, we're here for you man