$worth and good game?

Captain · February 9, 2002, 00:30

Ok, the other poll on money's worth got bogged down in definitions of good game versus money's worth.

I'll try to make this one clearer, but my last attempt at a poll still had people who misunderstood, so if you have a better way of doing it, make your own poll - or maybe the moderators might change it.

This is about CIV 3 as of today, February 8th, 2002. This is for the regular game (not the LE that most call a rip-off). If you bought LE, please rank value AS IF you had paid regular price.

The first rank is for Civ 3's value in terms of what you paid.
The second rank is for Civ 3 as compared to your ordinary standards of gaming.
The third rank is for Civ 3 as compared to the Civ genre legacy/standard (Civ 1&2, CtP 1&2, SMAC/X).

Modded means you think it deserves that ranking only because of the hard work of all the modders and file creators that have made the game better. If there were no mods, and you had to play exactly as out of the box, then you'd choose a lower ranking.

I assume the 2nd rank will always be equal to or higher than the 3rd rank since this is a Civ fan site so a good Civ game will always be a good game.

I also assume that a great game will always be great value, though an ok game might still be poor value.

Hope this makes sense.
Comments welcome!

ColdWizard · February 9, 2002, 01:03

poor value, ok game. it's ok considering that it's still unfinished, but there are better games out there that i could've dumped $60 on.

Pembleton · February 9, 2002, 01:07

Quote:

This is about CIV 3 as of today, February 8th, 2002. This is for the regular game (not the LE that most call a rip-off).

So if we bought the LE, we can't vote?

Captain · February 9, 2002, 01:10

sorry, I didn't mean that.
I meant that if you bought LE, "pretend" that you paid regular price.
We already know that most feel LE was a ripoff, but if you had paid regular price, would you rank it differently?
If so, what would you rank it then?

so that's what I mean. I'll adjust my first post.
Thanks for pointing that out.

ColdWizard · February 9, 2002, 01:21

if i'd paid the normal price, i'd still give it the same ranking, though it'd be closer to ok value.

Harovan · February 9, 2002, 07:02

Great value (I paid only $35 for the LE last Nov.), but in current state only Ok game/Civ game. Could (should!) have been not rushed like that and more polished.

steelehc · February 9, 2002, 07:41

People who paid $50+ for the LE got jacked. All in all, its a great game, but I think that people's (including mine) expectations were a little too high, considering the predecessor.

Steele

Adagio · February 9, 2002, 08:34

Compared to other games on the marked Civ3 deserves "numero uno" (Number one, the first on the list

)

Alkis · February 9, 2002, 08:37

As I said (wrote) on the other thread I voted for the second category (just barely) but I must say here that only my tolerance and the fact that it has a challenging high level prevented me from feeling cheated. Oh yes and the fact that I knew what to expect from Firaxis.

I give it a generous 7 out of ten. I also want to say that no matter how many times they patch it there are some things that cannot be changed. It is simplistic to say the least.

My sincere apologies to those who still enjoy the game. Don't bother with my opinion, it's just that, an opinion.

P.S. To Captain. I think there are too many categories. Just two, great game (or o.k or poor) and how it compares with previous civs would be better. In other words the value part should have been excluded IMHO.

Colonel Kraken · February 9, 2002, 11:55

I chose "Great Value. Great Game. Great Civ game if modded."
Actually, if the choice were present I would have chosen: "Good Value. Good Game. Good Civ game if modded." . . . not quite "Great" but definitely better than just "ok."

I'll explain the value part: I had a $25 gift certificate to EB, traded in 3 games for about $15 and got a $10 in store coupon from EB (yet to be received by the way

), so I couldn't pass up trying Civ III for almost free (as far as out-of-pocket cash). Also, my wife and I played it very regularly for a couple of months (but not so much anymore).

I would say "Good Game" because it intrigued me, held my interest, and made me say, "Wow, look at this" and "Oh, that's neat", and made me laugh several times. That's a good game to me. It's not a great game because I don't find an incredible urge to play it every waking minute as I have of some titles.

The different mods so far out (even just graphics changes) have immensely increased the fun value for me. That's only going to get better with time, especially with things from Snoopy and Dark Sheer, to name a few. This is why I think Civ is/is going to be a "Great Civ game when modded."

--Colonel

ACooper · February 9, 2002, 14:42

Great value. Great game. Great Civ game.

Captain · February 9, 2002, 15:21

well, just like Civ 3, we can't keep everyone happy about how the poll is done.

some say there's too many categories, others wish for something between great and ok. but I guess that's what the posts are for, to clarify what you mean. I didn't put in more options because that would get very very long but you can see a continuum there so the poll results should make sense.

what I'm going for here is:
1) how do you rate the entertainment value of the game as compared to the money you shelled out (kindof like opportunity cost).
2) how do you rate the entertainment value of the game as compared to other games you typically would play.
3) how do you rate the game as compared to other Civ-type games you've played.

I imagine the standards are different. For me, any game where I enjoy 50+ hours of playing is great $value. I like most Civ style games so that automatically makes a Civ game at least an ok game. But then since it is a sequel, how does it compare in this genre?

For comparison, I played 100s of hours of Civ 1, Civ 2, Warcraft, Starcraft, HMM3, MOO, MoM, AoK. Those were great value for my $. Compare that to say $12 for a movie!

The games listed above are also great games. Fun, immersive, addictive - at least for a while. nothing is forever. But after a few months off, I'd come back and play them more. Civ 3 is only ok compared to them. It's not bad. It's even somewhat "original", but overall, it doesn't grab me like those other games did.

Lastly, compared to Civ 1&2, it's graphics are way better and some ideas are great, but poorly implemented. Plus, for some reason, I chalk it up to tedium and a sense of detachment (which also existed in Civ 2 late game), I think it rates lower just because I just don't seem to enjoy it AS much as the other Civ genre. It's poor but would be good if modded.
(I should add that I'd rate Civ 1 and Civ 2 as great, great, great.
I rate SMAC as poor, ok, poor, but I haven't played a modded version of it.)

But who knows, if a really good patch/mod comes out, I might bump this sucker up to great, great, great!

Captain · February 9, 2002, 15:23

now that I think of it, having played 100s of hours of those games seems kind of sad.

but then, I've probably spent 100s of hours on these boards too!

how is it that I get any work done at all??

... ah yes, now I remember,... no need for sleep!

Captain · February 10, 2002, 00:45

c'mon people! vote vote vote! 34 people isn't nearly enough to see any trends.

Captain · February 18, 2002, 01:27

need... more... votes...

Minuteman · February 18, 2002, 01:47

Great value: With the exception of the one week that I spent playing Ghost Recon, Civ III is the only PC game that I've played since Nov. I'd say I've gotten my money's worth.

Great Game: Well, it's not perfect, but I would classify it as such. Besides, like I said, I've been playing this game almost exclusively since Nov. So wouldn't I look like an arse if I devoted so much of my spare time playing a game that I didn't think was great??

Great Civ game: After playing Ctp & Ctp2, I wanted a game that captured the original flavor of the Civ franchise. Civ III gave me what I wanted in that regard. So yes, it's a great Civ game.