[/rant] - Page 2

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 23:23

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
You can't possibly try to take the position that Firaxis didn't lead everyone to expect multiplayer. That is ridiculos.

From an interview given during the development process:

Sid: We're working on a really fun and unique multiplayer concept that we'll talk more about when we're closer to completing it.

And this proves that multiplayer was "promised"? i read that statement as saying that something is in development, nothing that was guarenteed.

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Reportedly they are working on it still, but apparently are still not close enough to talk about it (or even admit that they are going to charge the suckers for it).

Like they charged "suckers" for civ1 and Civ2 multiplayer? what a shocker!

notyoueither · April 21, 2002, 23:23

Anybody with a brain knew that MP wasn't in the box, unless they had been in Antarctica in October. You bought it, your choice.

Capt Dizle · April 21, 2002, 23:27

The slowdown in the game is at least as attributable to culture as pathfinding. Given that culture adds nothing of substance I would be please if they would eliminate it, which would greatly speed up the game.

AI pathfinding does not a game make. The AI is still easy to beat, if tedious. Improving AI does not necessarilly improve gameplay (of which Civ3 has little), introduce fun, (of which Civ3 is barren), nor increase replayability, (of which Civ3 lacks totally).

There is no question that throwing out the advanced pathfinding would be an acceptable trade off. Civ3 is nearly unplayable in its current state because of the delays (please wait.................). When and if the jump is made to multiplayer who cares about AI pathfinding at that point.

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

I don't hear too many people complaining about stupid path-finding. Maybe that's because the path-finding implemented is very good, however it takes horse-power. On very large maps the amount of horse-power required is beyond the ability of most 3 year-old computers to accomplish quickly. Firaxis has admitted this. Maybe it would be better if Firaxis changed things to stupid path-finding. Then people would complain about that...

good idea, maybe they should restore the pathfinding from civ2 and package it as Civ3-light.

man, do I miss the days of civ1 where I had to move each piece individually every turn. they should bring that back, it would make the turns go so much faster.

Capt Dizle · April 21, 2002, 23:29

I am sure that thousands of people bought Civ3 thinking that MP was in the box based on Firaxis's false advertising.

notyoueither · April 21, 2002, 23:33

Thank you jt for your wise pronouncements on the code beneath civ3. You know jack about it, but once agian you have decided to decend on Poly for a little trolling.

Somehow jimmy, I think making you happy is pretty low on the list of priorities at Firaxis. I don't know what makes someone tick who spends so much time being so incredibly unproductive about a game, and you know, I don't care.

I'll happily lable this:

A troll is a troll is a troll v 3.55

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I am sure that thousands of people bought Civ3 thinking that MP was in the box based on Firaxis's false advertising.

but where is the false advertising? Its not on the box. it was known for a few weeks before release that it wouldn't contain it.
your only evidence of false advertising is a vague statement by Sid.

DrFell · April 21, 2002, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Somehow jimmy, I think making you happy is pretty low on the list of priorities at Firaxis.

Funny, I thought pleasing the customers would be pretty high up in the priority list

Inverse Icarus · April 21, 2002, 23:36

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

but where is the false advertising? Its not on the box. it was known for a few weeks before release that it wouldn't contain it.
your only evidence of false advertising is a vague statement by Sid.

force me to rant again will you?

[RANT]

the website for preodering (ie civ3.com, ebworld.com, amazon.com) all proclaimed MP out of box. sorry that they changed their advertising a few days before release.

Capt Dizle · April 21, 2002, 23:38

Its not as if this issue hasn't been discussed in depth. Firaxis led everyone to believe that multiplayer was in the game for almost all of the long development cycle.

False advertising. Period. Lie. Deception.

notyoueither · April 21, 2002, 23:38

DrFell

And they are working to please as many people as possible. To think that they will be able to please everyone is unrealistic. To think they would make adjustments to please a few who make repetitious rants is absurd.

Inverse Icarus · April 21, 2002, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
DrFell

And they are working to please as many people as possible. To think that they will be able to please everyone is unrealistic. To think they would make adjustments to please a few who make repetitious rants is absurd.

NYE i wont deny that they cant please everyone, but they did a great job of doing it with the latest patch / lethal bombardment.

they left it as-is unless you want to turn it on, and then gave you the ability to make it HOW you want it. it was a sly move by the firaxians. now if they could only put a multiplayer switch in the editor somewhere.

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

force me to rant again will you?

sorry to force you to rant. I do prefer your rants over jt's, as you seem to give constructive critisism (most of the time) rather than whining to whine.

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
the website for preodering (ie civ3.com, ebworld.com, amazon.com) all proclaimed MP out of box. sorry that they changed their advertising a few days before release.

well, I don't know all the facts to that, but I would say that it was known for weeks that it wouldn't have mp, so you had every opportunity to cancel your order.

notyoueither · April 21, 2002, 23:46

False advertising. Bull twaddle.

False advertising is actually selling something as possessing quality x, when in fact it does not. Wishful thinking and forward looking statements made during the design process is not lying. It happens all the time in every industry with any complexity. What sorts out the good company from the bad is whether they stick around and support their product and their customers. Firaxis seems to have a fairly good record of that.

notyoueither · April 21, 2002, 23:53

You're right KruX. It is disappointing that we are going to have to wait for an XP before the 'standard' rules are adjusted. However, that is the same with every patch to this date. None of the unit strengths have been adjusted. Few unit abilities have been drastically changed. They are tinkering. I hope they are sucessful enough to warrant a product similar to SMAX, where there are some radical changes. That would be good.

However, about lethal bombardment, many people don't want it, and said so. Thus I doubt that it ever will be accomodated in the 'standard' rules, unless opinion shifts and everyone discovers how much fun Carrier Wars can be.

BTW, how many of you are aware that Sid has recently stated that MP is being worked on with a high priority (my word). Does that make things any easier for you?

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Its not as if this issue hasn't been discussed in depth. Firaxis led everyone to believe that multiplayer was in the game for almost all of the long development cycle.

False advertising. Period. Lie. Deception.

Jt, I feel your pain. You feel that firaxis misled you. I'm sure they're sorry. I'm sorry. Everyone's sorry. There was the possiblity that MP would be in the initial release. That unfortunately didn't happen. Firaxis tried to put the word out before it was released, but perhaps it fell on deaf ears. Firaxis didn't mention MP on the box, so that you wouldn't expect it. Surely MP would be considered a major feature of a game and would be displayed prominently on the back! Now firaxis knows that MP is an important part of the industry, and its customers are important to them, so they are working diligently on making a mp versionas an xp. Such as Civ1 had. Such as Civ2 had. hey, those xps were sold full price as new games, maybe they will release this for 10-15 dollars! Maybe then we can put this whole unfortunate episode behind us, and you Jt, can let go of that anger that's been eating you up inside for six months.

Capt Dizle · April 22, 2002, 00:22

No, I need this anger to sustain me.

Thanks anyway.

player1 · April 22, 2002, 02:52

simwiz2 wrote:
"Nothing, except 1.21 breaks the game's speed on slower computers EVEN ON A TINY MAP."

One tip:
TURN OFF AUTOSAVE.

Since saves are now COMPRESSED, more TIME is needed to SAVE them.
Not too much, but enough to make some people annoyed.

Mr. President · April 22, 2002, 03:10

It's important not to look at other games like SMAC and Civ2 through rose-colored glasses. Sure Civ3 has problems. But show me a game that doesn't. Alpha Centauri had extremely intransigent AI and limited diplomatic options, meaning that conversations with other leaders became very predictable. I like the fact that commerce in Civ3 allows you to trade specific resources, instead of the incredibly abstract commerce in Alpha Centauri. It's also more interesting to use real-world civilizations. Sure, the SMAC factions are interesting, but they're incredibly rigid as enemies and their novelty wears off. And those who complain about realism should surely realize that half of SMAC-X's factions wouldn't last five minutes as a real country (particularly the Alien Crossfire cast).

MarkG · April 22, 2002, 03:44

to help uber in his path to a life with no rants this thread is history...