I smell a conspiracy

[Sparky]

To cyclotron7:

My expectations are not unreasonable or astronomical. I merely asked for 2 things:

1) that the game be finished.

2) that I get what I paid for.

The game, released in October, still is not finished. Look at the diplomacy screen. I doesn't even encompass more than 8 civs. Firaxis promised multiplayer; we still don't have it. The editor speaks for itself. This game is not done.

I paid for a number of features I didn't get. Granted, they were "promied" to me by news groups on the Internet (sites like Apolyton!) but have do you have the Limited Edition? Have you seen the bonuses? They border on false adversiting -- the "making of" video is sorta a string of commentary and endorsement by Sid and other Firaxis gurus. Little in the way of anything constructive. I won't even bother with the "designer's notes."

But more than all, I wanted scenarios and a scenario maker. Imagine my delight at discovering: 1) there was no bonus scenario, 2) there were no scenarios period, 3) I was prevented from even making my own scenarios, and 4) now they expect me to pay for it all again.

I don't think so.

I'll acquire the expansion by other means. Sid already got more $$$ from me than he deserves.

[Sparky]

BTW Promethius, at one point I had thought that Microprose was the only one out for a quick buck. I remember the pre MGE days, too, when I was searching for multiplayer (I didn't know much about computers back then, and thought the feature might be buried). I bought the first expansion because I just liked scenarios. It was pretty good.

In the mean time, Sid left Microprose to form Firaxis.

I noticed that Microprose immediatly started milking the series. Fantastic worlds, MGE, and TOT were mostly shameless. Especially MGE, which didn't add anything more than multiplayer and a slightly uglier GUI to the original game and expansions, which loyal civers like me already bought. What a sham.

But I thought Sid was beyond those tactics. He's proving me wrong.

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Civ3 is inferior to Call to Power 2, it just got better publicity.

Smoking the weed again?

Let's see, Ctp2 shipped with an extensive macro language, scenario and map support, multiplayer, graphics editting ability, granted the AI wasn't quite as smart. The game also had stacked combat (the likes of which were about 100x better than civ3), phalanx were not prone to blowing up tanks, just as a pointer.

Why, in fact, Ctp2 had about 100 times more innovation than Civ3. It is easily superior.

Edit: I totally forgot that the Diplomacy is lightyears ahead, and I think the workday and public works were critical advancements in the genre. Let's face it, civ3 just got better publicity just because of the name. It doesn't even challenge the precident set by CtP2

[DarthVeda]

and the really sad thing is that while a mod community has sprung up around Civ3 (which is strugling in vain, IMHO) , CtP2 which is 100x more flexible, has seen hardly a scratch.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sparky
I noticed that Microprose immediatly started milking the series. Fantastic worlds, MGE, and TOT were mostly shameless. Especially MGE, which didn't add anything more than multiplayer and a slightly uglier GUI to the original game and expansions, which loyal civers like me already bought. What a sham.

But I thought Sid was beyond those tactics. He's proving me wrong.

Sid would be with the company that designed the game. The publisher, who owns it and the name would be the ones deciding what to do and when to release it. That would be Infogrames.

I understand the confusion. I'll bet Sid wishes he declined to lend his name to the third edition by now. OTOH, does he have a choice?

Norton has been out of the utility business for a while now, but the company that bought him out bought the rights to the 'name' as well.

[notyoueither]

CTP2 was cr*p out of the box. It got zero support from the developer/publisher. Needing a mod community to make the thing work well does not a good game make.

That doesn't take away from the efforts of the modders. In the case of CTP2, any distinction for making a good game belongs almost entirely to you guys.

[Deornwulf]

Face the reality of the situation --- Firaxis and Infrogreed are whores and we're the johns that keep going back to them again and again.....They tell us that they love us and give us their attentions for the amount of time for which we have paid.

I was going to continue with this analogy but I better stop before I get banned

[notyoueither]

Sounds a lot like General Motors or Sony.

[zulu9812]

A few points:

1. Multi-player was supposed to ship with the game. Then as a patch, due in March. Now we have to pay an extra £20 for it. Uh huh.

2. Despite Call To Power II not bearing the Civ moniker, it is a damn sight better than civ3. A fantastic diplomacy model (although not as good as Imperium Galactica 2), lots more units and more eras make this more interesting than civ3, which lacks the imagination to go beyond modern day techs. The only plus points for civ3 are the graphics and a more user-friendly interface.

3. I bet the scenario editor in Play The World doesn't have a mini-map. God dammit.


Don't get me wrong - civ3 is my favourite game (that and Ghost Recon). I just feel as though my strings are being pulled by commercial ****ers, and I don't like it.

[Grrr]

I agree with zulu on all his points.

[zulu9812]

Cheers Grrr. Cool name by the way. My other concern is that the number of civs will stay at 16 - the 8 new ones will simply be replacements in these scenarios. Better not be.

[notyoueither]

Do you mean 16 max per game? Or 16 max in the entire game. Like they eliminate 8 civs to put 8 new ones in?

[zulu9812]

The latter, but only for these scenarios. Again, better not.

[notyoueither]

I think you're jumping way ahead of yourself.

[zulu9812]

Hope so.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Needing a mod community to make the thing work well does not a good game make.

I beg to differ - the bottom line is where the Modded game stands now, not where it was a year ago. After all, if the Modding community has succeded in making CTP2 into a good game, what's stopping people from playing - It is cheap now...

And before somebody blasts away that they cannot possibly support Activison because of their lack of support for CTP2, I will remind them that Firaxis is going to charge players for features that they had promoted as part of the original civ3 release.

Pay a total of $70-80 for civ3 or now pay $10-15 for CTP2, and also have a vibrant Modding community in place that actively listens to you? Seems to be an easy choice, but I am somewhat biased (check out the CTP Mod threads though).

Originally posted by notyoueither
That doesn't take away from the efforts of the modders. In the case of CTP2, any distinction for making a good game belongs almost entirely to you guys.

We'll take the credit for where the game stands now, but Activison did us all a favor by releasing a very Modifiable game - maybe someday civ3 can say the same.

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by hexagonian
We'll take the credit for where the game stands now, but Activison did us all a favor by releasing a very Modifiable game - maybe someday civ3 can say the same.

After about another $150 and 5 expansion packs.

[hexagonian]

Darth,

I NEVER thought I would hear you saying anything nice about CTP2, yet here you are in these forums in several threads actually doing that.

What has happened with this world...?

Gotta lay down!

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by zulu9812
A few points:

1. Multi-player was supposed to ship with the game. Then as a patch, due in March. Now we have to pay an extra £20 for it. Uh huh.

2. Despite Call To Power II not bearing the Civ moniker, it is a damn sight better than civ3. A fantastic diplomacy model (although not as good as Imperium Galactica 2), lots more units and more eras make this more interesting than civ3, which lacks the imagination to go beyond modern day techs. The only plus points for civ3 are the graphics and a more user-friendly interface.

3. I bet the scenario editor in Play The World doesn't have a mini-map. God dammit.


Don't get me wrong - civ3 is my favourite game (that and Ghost Recon). I just feel as though my strings are being pulled by commercial ****ers, and I don't like it.

here here zulu, i raise my glass to you.

it's not that civ3 isnt a good game. it's a GREAT game, and i play it often, but i honestly didnt get what i was promised. now i'll get flamed for whining, but ebworld.com (where i ordered civ3 from) had the bullet "Full Multiplayer Support" until a WEEK before the release. it was basically a lie, and some "leaked" email by some (probably ex-) PR person (Kelly or something) threw it all to hell.

i like civ3, i like sid's games / concepts, but i f*cking HATE getting jerked around and getting squeezed for $80-$90 for a game.

if firaxis was SMART, which they're not, they'd offer a MP patch w/o the stupid 8 other civs that no one really needs at all. why should i shell out $30-$40 for 8 civs when i'm perfectly happy with the 16 i have already? ALL I WANT IS MP. i don't need the scenario editor, i don't make them. i dont need more civs, i'll make due with what i got. i just want MP, but firaxis is goign to squeeze me dry.

[Capt Dizle]

I think Civ3 sucks.

[da_jaymz]

LOL@Jimmytrick

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think Civ3 sucks.

same here

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think Civ3 sucks.

Profound.

[notyoueither]

jimmy be as jimmy do.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think Civ3 sucks.

Wow! The most intelligent thing I've read on these forums!

Seriously, I enjoyed Civ III. True, that it isn't as good as previous titles like SMAC, and even Civ II had some advantages over it, but I still enjoyed playing it, and I come on these forums to discuss concepts of the game.

When whiners let out hot air about how much they hate the game, how much they hate Firaxis, how much they hate Sid, etc. it becomes a problem. I don't care about how much anyone hates the above things. I acknowledge that the game isn't perfect, but to deface a Sid picture to make him look Satanic and put it up on a dartboard is probably a better way to vent any anger you have against him than to fill these forums with about how much you hate the game and anything to do with it. I'm fine with civil discussions about how Firaxis can improve the game, and where certain mistakes were made. I just get sick of people using Apolyton as a channel to release their anger. Go punch a wall, go punch a punching bag, try meditating, learn to RELAX!!!

[Capt Dizle]

I am not angry nor do I throw darts. I was on these forums before Civ3 and I will be here long after Civ3 is forgotten (unless exiled, hehe).

I come to this forum to discuss Civ3 game concepts. I happen to think they are very poor, as is almost all aspects of Civ3 design and implementation, IMHO.

My position is just as valid and usful as that of a person who says, hey, I like the game and think its fine.

If there were no negative feedback on products then how who people have a clue?

Most of the negatives of the product have been discussed in detail. I don't see the need to spell it all out each time I post, but, and this is important, since Firaxis has not addressed the issues then it is and by God will continue to be fair game. So, if you don't like it, ignore me, or try to get Mark to ban me.

Ten Reasons the Game needs to be criticized off the top of my head

1. Runs too slow.
2. No new buildings.
3. Civs are too generic.
4. Lousy movement options.
5. Lack of development of the culture concept.
6. Too few units, units blah.
7. Poor trading system.
8. Poor diplomacy system.
9. Poor espinague system.
10. Boring, linear gameplay.

When a game series like Civ is struck by such a stunning and unprecendented failure as this, it is very important that people who cherish the series continue to speak truthfully about their opinion of the product.

That is all I am doing. I am doing it for the sake of the future of TBS gaming and the future of Civ.

Have a good day.

ps. did I mention that charging for multiplayer is unethical corporate behavior?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
1. Runs too slow.
2. No new buildings.
3. Civs are too generic.
4. Lousy movement options.
5. Lack of development of the culture concept.
6. Too few units, units blah.
7. Poor trading system.
8. Poor diplomacy system.
9. Poor espinague system.
10. Boring, linear gameplay.

ps. did I mention that charging for multiplayer is unethical corporate behavior?

1. Get a real computer.

2. Small Wonders. What are they?

3. Too generic? Compared to the Romans building Phalanx of yester-year I suppose.

4. Huh?

5. Culture nearly rules the game. Would you like it to be the only aspect?

6. Actually, I find the ages go by too fast and I don't get a chance to use the units that are in it as is.

7. Trading? You can trade just about everything, but your daughters. Units? No. I guess you're po'ed by that.

8. Diplomacy is reported as poor by many who don't have a clue how to use it.

9. Espionage? Yes, well. There had to be something I have to give you. However, the bribe your way through an AI empire is gone.

10. How much have you played it Jimmy? How many hours?

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Ten Reasons the Game needs to be criticized off the top of my head

1. Runs too slow.
2. No new buildings.
3. Civs are too generic.
4. Lousy movement options.
5. Lack of development of the culture concept.
6. Too few units, units blah.
7. Poor trading system.
8. Poor diplomacy system.
9. Poor espinague system.
10. Boring, linear gameplay.

Sorry, I need to take issue with a couple of points. I love Civ3; I just deplore the lack of imagination put into it.

1. There are options under Preferences which allow you turn off various automatic moves, speed ing up the game no end. It could also be your computer. Being able to run Civ2 isn't the same as running a modern game requiring DirectX.

2. Fair 'nuff. Can't argue with that. Although not too manybuildings; CTP2 had far too many, you were forever upgrading cities.

3. The civs do get Unique Units, as well special abilites - more than Civ2 had. I don't think Alpha Centauri had UUs either.

4. Yep, agree with you.

5. Yep, agree with you - what about religion?

6, 7 & 8. Damn right.

9. I'd much rather this than having lots of spies running about the place. It's much more convenient.

10. Linear? You can pretty much do whatever you want. I mean, tech advancement could be more flexible but you can change this in the editor.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

That is all I am doing. I am doing it for the sake of the future of TBS gaming and the future of Civ.

How noble of you, jt. Liked the post, were you sedated while typing?

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Have a good day.

Right back atcha big guy.

Originally posted by jimmytrick
ps. did I mention that charging for multiplayer is unethical corporate behavior?

no you didn't mention it. I think it may be unethical to release it just as a patch. Unfortunately, the bottom line is satisfying the shareholders. That wouldn't happen with a free patch.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Wittlich


But admit it Dietrich, you will, in all likelyhood, still end up buying the expansion...you might not like it, but like all of us, you are still a civer at heart.

Well ok Wittlich............You're right, but shh.....don't tell Firaxis that I'm gonna get the XP