Why the Anti-Civ3 Attitude?

Nubclear · May 13, 2002, 01:42

While playing Civilization III today, I realized something. So I go through the Civilization III forums, and I mainly see messages that are slamming, insulting, or are otherwise deragatory messages towards Civilization III. I have to ask the question: Why?

In December, I was shopping for a game because playing SimCity 2000 was getting quite boring. I had recently read somewhere that Civilization III was the great sequal to a Sid Meier legend, and although I didn't really know anything about Civilization, I bought it.

But before I even opened the box, I began searching the internet for reviews. Most of them were negative, but the ones that were positive promised a great game. I took my chances, and opened the box. I installed the game, and began to play it. At first, I was disappointed. What was the goal of the game? The tutorial wasn't very helpful, and I didn't want to read the manual.

About two weeks later, I was bored of my newly purchased Empire Earth. The only game I hadn't played in a while was Civilization III. Why not give it another shot, I asked myself. I began playing again, but this time I set everything low and NO other Civs. I began experimenting with everything. Soon, I figured many things out. This does that, which causes this, which effects that, etc...Soon, it was quite fun!

The diplomacy was easy to execute once I added other Civs. The graphics werent groundbraking, but they made me feel really comfortable with the game and in many respects were much better than anything I had encountered before. The sounds were okay, sounded like sounds I encounter in SimCity. I liked how the combat system made it so you couldnt just go up the tech tree and fight with a superior army, it always kept me on my toes. The advisors were actually helpful, and the game was just so fun.

A few months later, I recieved Civilization II as a gift. I was appauled. The diplomacy really sucked, you couldn't even technology for money! The graphics were so bad I couldn't tell what was what. Moving the units was a hassle, becaues they often landed on the wrong tile. National borders weren't clear, and I couldnt tell what was two or three or whatever amount of squares away. Enabling the grid just made the graphics worse. The movies IMO were horrible, the Civlopedia wasn't helpful at all...I had to learn about "home cities" and "unit support" which still confuses me to this day. I can't tell wheather my citizens are happy sad or indifferent because of the 'beautiful' graphics. Throne room? I'd rather have a palace. The music was horrible. It sucked...It REALLY sucked.

However, there are people who prefer it to Civilization III. I ask myself how they can do that, when Civ II is obviously inferior. How can they slam Civ III while tolerating the many imperfections of Civ II. And then I realize.....They were exposed to it before Civ III. There are always exceptions, but isn't that the major majority of it? I mean, after reading all the praise for Civ II, I was very excited to play it. But then I felt the same feeling that other forumers say here, I felt betrayed. How could my friend give me such garbage? How could Sid Meier have designed such a piece of trash?

But again, I was exposed to Civ3 first. I like it more because of that. I'm willing to deal with the corruption, and the crashes and the lack of wonder movies. Because to me, the pro outweighs the con. I love the clean graphics, and the diplomacy. I love the national borders, and I really love culture. I love the peaceful methods of winning. But some people love Civ2 lack of culture. It's cheat menu. But I hate it. I hate it so much....I can't begin to describe it. I keep it on my hard drive....I don't really know. But I can't bring myself to play it for more than a few minutes, unlike Civ3 which keeps me here for hours on end.

And then I have another question to ask. Why are people actually turning Civilization into a religion? All over Apolyton, I've seen people insult others just because they Like CivIII over Alpha Centauri, or they want Brazil in Civ3 XP, or they actually support the Americans...Why? It's just a game for heavens sake. To me, that just indicates that they really have nothing better to do, which in some ways can be very sad.

Sitting here right now, I don't even know why I'm typing all this up. Maybe I'm just tired of seeing people continuously slamming Civ3, maybe I'm just trying to rationalize their behavior. Or maybe in my subconcious mind, I just want to be a part of slamming something so I designed this message to slam Civ2. Or maybe I'm just trying to tell everyone that it's all because I started with Civ III whle otheres started with Civ II.

Well, whatever the reasoning behind this post, I do know one thing. I have an unfinished territorial dispute with the Americans (I'm the Chinese...I can smell a conquest victory on the horizon).

I am going to leave now. Farewell, fellow Apolyton peoples......

Tassadar

Fayadi · May 13, 2002, 01:52

Are you sure Civ2 music is that bad?I agree Civ3 was totally better than Civ2 100 times but I like some of the Civ2 music,they are nice,some of them is better than Civ3's.

Nubclear · May 13, 2002, 02:01

Well, it's not horrible but when compared to Civ III, in my opinion, its very bad.

Jethro83 · May 13, 2002, 02:20

I too find it strange that so many whiners make their way onto these forums.

When they whine about it, I often find their complaints somewhat exaggerated. Though I do see problems in the areas they are whining about, I find their negative attitude and anger off-putting. It gets harder to have a decent discussion when a whiner enters the thread.

But as for people who prefer Civ II, that is just their opinion, and you need to respect that. Just as they need to respect the opinions of those of us who do prefer Civ III.

Nubclear · May 13, 2002, 02:27

Quote:

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I too find it strange that so many whiners make their way onto these forums.

When they whine about it, I often find their complaints somewhat exaggerated. Though I do see problems in the areas they are whining about, I find their negative attitude and anger off-putting. It gets harder to have a decent discussion when a whiner enters the thread.

But as for people who prefer Civ II, that is just their opinion, and you need to respect that. Just as they need to respect the opinions of those of us who do prefer Civ III.

I agree with you whole heartedly.

notyoueither · May 13, 2002, 02:36

You've hit the nail on the head Tassadar.

If you search, you will find that many of the people who hate Civ3 love Civ2 or SMAC and bring much criticism along the lines of 'why is Civ3 like this when X was so much better'. A lot of it boils down to personal preferences and expectations.

As for why it takes on religious proportions, well there are some things people feel strongly about. A pass time that has occupied one for many hundreds of hours (if not thousands) is going to build up some strong feelings. For some of us Civ isn't just a game, it is THE game.

So when you see jimmy and I going at it, you aren't watching 1 person who likes the game and 1 person who hates it. You are watching 2 people who love Civ, but who can't agree on the details about how things 'ought to be'.

One last thought. I believe that the number of people who have been disappointed may be partly due to the very poor job that Firaxis and Infogrames did of managing expectations on boards such as Poly. To this day there are many people about who feel that MP was promised out of the box as some sort of guarantee. There are others who were surprised that Social Engineering wasn't ported from SMAC. In short, the fanatics were left to their own devices to conjure up images of the new God with very little guidance from on high. Thus when the Godling made it's appearance and deviated considerably from what had been anticipated, the protests followed. I'm not sure that the realities of the development cycle could have allowed for better management of expectations, or whether it would be worth the resources in the first place, but had the job been possible and been done then Poly would have been a bit calmer these last 7 or 8 months.

Theseus · May 13, 2002, 02:53

I have just finished a mind-boggling spreadsheet, and it's 2:30am, so I apologize if what comes out is mush. Also, I have a big post coming, catching up on a lot of threads and commenting on my recent gameplay... so I've had Civ commentary in the back of my head for the last week or so...

Re II v III, and also re whiners: [hands paused in exhaustion... fingeres moving slow] I tend to look toward the positive, and there is so much in Civ3 that rocks. I am just getting to the "one-turn-more" phase though... maybe it took 1.21. For perspective, I took a vacation, alone, in Belize last August... I purposely took a laptop to play Civ2. I don;t feel that way about 3 yet. So I guess I understand the almost religious dedication to 2; 3 is different, and yes, the initial release was a screw-up, but I can FEEL it's better. A little more tweaking, filling out some missing pieces... I don;t mind the evolution, I think this is how it'll be from now on... game designers won;t be expected to be Michaelangelo, but will engage in a dialogue. Hmmm, jt, Coracle, and others, your job is to help produce the next iteration... I am always happy when I see you contribute, rather than rant.

I've loved the entire series. Civ3 was the first that came out of the box without the one-more-turn feeling... but now it has that, and more. I am a newbie here in the community, but I do know that I'd rather focus on gameplay, and possible improvements for Firaxis and the mod / scenario people, then on *****ing.

Sorry for the ramble; I just really agree with Tassadar5000, and had to throw in my two cents.

Harovan · May 13, 2002, 05:30

Good post, Tassadar. I think you are correct with your analysis about the rants in the Civ fora. Mostly, they can be reduced to "Why can't Civ3 be like [...]" (Place your favorite game here, Civ, Civ2, SMAC, CTP etc.).

I won't call Civ2 a bad game, and I find the soundtrack very good, considering the release year 1996. Civ2 gave me years and years full of excitement, CivCTP and CTP2 helped to shorten the delay between Civ2 and Civ3. I played SMAC as well (and still play now and then), but I'm not much into the reddish-futuristic environment. Well, that's a matter of optical preferences, overall it's a great game too, and I understand, why for some it's THE game.

The answer to this often asked question is probably, "Civ3 is not like [...], because it doesn't try to." It's a different game, which tries to implement other features like culture, strategic resources and really different civilizations (not as different as the SMAC factions tho). For several reasons, it dropped other features and was streamlined, be it for balancing or as a try to fight ICS. As a logical consequence, people who loved the dropped features/missing complexity, are disappointed now.

I'm far from defending the game in all cases. It was rushed to the market as a beta release and improved by 3 patches, to it's current playable state. And, even though it still has several weak points, for me it is enjoyable now. For others, may be not. I'm not against criticism a la Zylka, jimmytrick and Coracle at all, as long as it is constructive and not sheer rant and insults of Firaxis and the Civ3 community. Unfortunately, I see the latter happen more often.

Now that the first extension pack will be released, many people ask, why these features could not be implemented in the initial release, and why have the fans to pay twice to get multiplayer and other promised features. Well, both Firaxis and Infogrames aren't the public welfare, but companies with one main goal: maximize their profit. Their leaders decided, that it's more profitable to release it unfinished/untested, and charge twice (and even more) for a decent game. That's nothing new, considering the way Civ2 went. If people don't like it, they should not blame Firaxis and Infogrames for exploiting capitalist principles ("Make money, make more money..."), but may be next time elect the communist party. Be assured, things will change. Personally I will buy the XP. Sure, it would have been nice to have the new features in the initial release, but this would probably mean the delay of the game release till this fall. And if one asks me, if one more year playing Civ3 was worth the 30 extra bucks for an XP, my answer will be yes.

campmajor! · May 13, 2002, 07:13

Interesting point Tassadar. I have never looked at it that way because I have played civ2 for so long now. And it is probably not fair to first try civ3 and then civ2. Civ2 is so much older that it is only logical that both the graphics and the sounds are very bad. But you should take a look at civ1. Pfew, talk about bad graphics...

Overall I like civ3. I have never played SMAC so I'm not influenced by that game. But after playing civ3 for a long time now, I feel that every game I start, eventually results in the same: a huge war with me and some AI civs on one side and an alliance of other AI civs on the other side. Usually I am strong enough to wipe them out and win either by conquest/culture/space. I have tried other ways, but they usually fail on higher levels. Because if you're weak you will be attacked....

Civ3 was promised to be more for the builders, but I think that it turned out to be the other way around. Because in civ2 if you were ahead in tech (which usually means that you have build up a larger property with better improvements in the cities) you could stop the warmongerers by superior units.

Anyway this is just my opinion. No need to liquidate me for it.

You never know these days...

Cookie Monster · May 13, 2002, 07:49

Great thread Tassadar5000!

I am in agreement with everyone's statements here especially NYE's take on Infogreeds treatment of the die hard old time fans.

What anything in life boils down to is proper marketing.

Capt Dizle · May 13, 2002, 07:56

Well, a lot depends on your perspective. If I were writing a book about the shortcomings of Civ3, I would be able to devote chapters and chapters to set the stage so that the reader could understand the main failures of the product, which can be explained in just paragraphs, but never understood by someone who hadn't the perspective.

T5000 is looking at the issue with new eyes and just doesn't see it the same as others do. T5000 has probably never played a OCC in Civ2 for example.

Civ3 is bad civ, but it's civ, and even bad civ is good compared to other games.

Compared to Civ2 and SMAC, Civ3 is awful, but even its worst critics have to agree its still better than most games. It may have even been the best game of the year.

But its still a disgrace.

Zachriel · May 13, 2002, 08:16

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
It may have even been the best game of the year.

But its still a disgrace.

That's the crux of the matter. How can it be the best game of the year, and yet a disgrace?

Thanks for the post Tassadar5000. I have played all variations of Civ, and Civ3 is the only version I currently play. Great game!

Capt Dizle · May 13, 2002, 08:44

There aren't many TBS games coming out Zach.

Civ3 is a disgrace because Sid and Firaxis, upon Brian's departure, assigned less than their best to do it. With predictable results.

The Civ series deserved Firaxis's best effort. They didn't even attempt to do their best. Shameful.

zulu9812 · May 13, 2002, 08:45

I think what pisses people off is the fact that we were promised so much (multi-player, being able to see some Wonders on the map, e.g. Great Wall), expected so much (scenario editor, decent map editor with mini-map, no. of units & resources hard-coded until after 3 patches), and didn't get it.

Personally, I love Civ3 and enjoy it's user-friendliness (for a civ game anyway).

homegrown · May 13, 2002, 08:49

Quote:

How can it be the best game of the year, and yet a disgrace?

Says something about the current state of pc game development doesn't it?

ACooper · May 13, 2002, 09:40

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
I think what pisses people off is the fact that we were promised so much (multi-player, being able to see some Wonders on the map, e.g. Great Wall), expected so much (scenario editor, decent map editor with mini-map, no. of units & resources hard-coded until after 3 patches), and didn't get it.

Personally, I love Civ3 and enjoy it's user-friendliness (for a civ game anyway).

This is why members of the Firaxis team say "No comment" in all discussion of future patches and the XP. They don't want to promise too much again.

People must remember that situations change and "breaking" a promise is not the same as a lie.

I would have liked to see some of these people when they found out about santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Tre976 · May 13, 2002, 10:00

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper

This is why members of the Firaxis team say "No comment" in all discussion of future patches and the XP. They don't want to promise too much again.

People must remember that situations change and "breaking" a promise is not the same as a lie.

I would have liked to see some of these people when they found out about santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

umm i Hope yer not attempting to mislead us by saying there is no such thing as Santa Claus or Easter Bunny!!!

ACooper · May 13, 2002, 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Tre976

umm i Hope yer not attempting to mislead us by saying there is no such thing as Santa Claus or Easter Bunny!!!

No comment

Akka · May 13, 2002, 11:20

Contrary to other people, I won't praise Tassadar for his post.
What you are doing, Tassadar, is comparing a game from 1996 to a game from 2001. It's nothing but normal that things evolves during this time. When you talk about the value and the greatness of something, it's always relatively to things that are on the same scale.
What makes so many people say that Civ2 is better than Civ3 is that Civ2 was much better in its time than Civ3 is. Civ3 has not improved enough according to improvements of the time.

If I hear that a motorbike in 1930 was reaching 200 Km/H, I will be pretty impressed. I will say that this should have been a rocket in this time.
Though, if I buy a sportive motorbike today, I will expect it to have discal breaks, to be able to reach at least 240-250 Km/h and at least 100-120 horsepower. And I can still feel it's not that much a powerful machine.

Because the standards have changed. It always comes back to common standards.

jabroni154 · May 13, 2002, 11:32

My guess would be a lot of the negative pub also came from the game being rushed/buggy. Civ3 sat idle for quite a bit of time but now with 1.21f I can postively say the fun is back (in fact, a little bit too much fun so I try to push off starting a new game as much as possible).

For me, I had mixed feelings on the game when I played it under the initial release version. When I went on-line, I basically found a ton of people echoing the various issues that I had seen. I just took a wait and see as it looked like Firaxis was actively trying to patch and work with the community which I really must commend. They appear to be honestly taking suggestions/patches and I think more of that is needed which is why I stuck with Civ3 and didn't write it off at the beginning. I've never done the whole MP bit so I never got in on that bit.

Thank goodness though that MOO3 is not coming out until fall. I am hoping for a December release (after my dissertation is finished) as I don't think I could battle both the forces of Civ3 and MOO3.

Franses · May 13, 2002, 11:42

I played History line (do you even know it?), CIV I, II, III, SMAC and CTP (I know, I am getting old).

I do like CIV III a lot but I must admit that it is not what I expected it to be. This may be the reason why many of us are whining so much. We expected a completely new experience and it is not. At the very least I expected it to contain all the good stuff from all its predecessors. In fact that appeared not to be the case. Some things are even less attractive in CIV III than in some of its predecessors.

My conclusions:
1. It appears to be very difficult to design and implement a far better CIV game than we are used to.
2. I do like CIV III, have spent hundreds of hours playing it and therefore it was worth its price for me to the last euro.
3. I will have even more fun when MP comes around. As a CTP MP player I am 100% sure of that.
4. I switched from CTP to CIV III because Activision stopped CTP II support only weeks after it hit the shelves (fortunately I did not buy it). Firaxis does not do that. It is still patching the game. They are listening to us (not everything of course) and take part in the forums now and then. That is great and perhaps it will result in a better game than any of its predecessors after all.
5. I do understand the whining but the way Firaxis is blamed is often not fair in my opinion and I do hope that our community will get back to more positive criticism. As far as I am concerned whining may stop now. It has been enough. :-)

monkspider · May 13, 2002, 13:54

Extremely well put Tassadar5000, you have articulated the arguement against the case for Civ 3 extremely well.

homegrown · May 13, 2002, 15:05

Quote:

I do like CIV III a lot but I must admit that it is not what I expected it to be.

Something you learn in 12-step programs is that "Expectations are nothing more than pre-paid resentments." I have to agree that I think 99% of the whining is because it didn't live up to people's expectations, for whatever reason. Those people need to get over it and move on, my god it's JUST A GAME.

Quote:

For me, I had mixed feelings on the game when I played it under the initial release version. When I went on-line, I basically found a ton of people echoing the various issues that I had seen. I just took a wait and see as it looked like Firaxis was actively trying to patch and work with the community which I really must commend. They appear to be honestly taking suggestions/patches and I think more of that is needed which is why I stuck with Civ3 and didn't write it off at the beginning. I've never done the whole MP bit so I never got in on that bit.

Ditto ! Civ III was my first, and even though the game had problems (which have now for the most part been fixed or put in the editor so I can fix them myself) it was incredibly engaging and for a whole new generation of gamers, new. With 1.21 I'm even having fun.

Should a game require three patches before it's fun?

Probably not, but three patches in 6 months is almost unheard of and is a real testament to the dedication of Firaxis to the Civ franchise.

miike · May 13, 2002, 16:21

I was really blown away by some of the posts here. I find it odd, that I really don't like CIV3 becacause of the IMHO easily corrected flaws and bugs. I am really disappointed when I hear about some magazine or some website that give the game a 9/10, 4/5 stars or some high rating like that. Then I come to the conclusion that to really understand the flaws of the game you have to play it alot, and you have to have played civ/civ2/smac. Of course, CIV3 all by itself is a good game. But when you put it up against people who have been following the series from day 1 and have high expectations, CIV3 does not really cut the mustard. Of course you can say that I have high expectations, but I really think that SMAC was better in some respects to CIV3. Also, the bugs that were in CIV3. You would think that the same folks that brought us SMAC, would not have made some obvious mistakes. How many times can you make the same video game and have flaws and bugs? It is the same game, different graphics, slight tweaks and improvements, but it is the same thing.

Nubclear · May 13, 2002, 17:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Contrary to other people, I won't praise Tassadar for his post.
What you are doing, Tassadar, is comparing a game from 1996 to a game from 2001. It's nothing but normal that things evolves during this time. When you talk about the value and the greatness of something, it's always relatively to things that are on the same scale.
What makes so many people say that Civ2 is better than Civ3 is that Civ2 was much better in its time than Civ3 is. Civ3 has not improved enough according to improvements of the time.

Then why do people choose to boycott CivIII? I've seen many messages go like this:

"Civilization 3 sucks and Infogrames sucked us out and betrayed us. I'm never going to play Civ3. At least Civ 2 Multiplayer Community has been revived"

I mean, if something's improved, and you like it more than any other Civ (Including Civilization II) then why express so much negativity? Why pay attention to how many improvements have been made, instead of what the contents are?

If I recieve a package in my mailbox and it's in a brown box and then I open it to find a million dollars, I'll be happy. If the next day I recieve a package in a green box, the packaging hasn't improved much. But when I open it, if I see that there is three million dollars, I will be even happier. Moral? Don't pay attention to how much it 'improves', pay attention to what the contents are.

I offer a theory. Most of you were exposed to Civilization II before Civilization III. I myself was exposed to Civilization III more than Civilization II. I had no expectations for Civilization III, so therefore I enjoyed it. I had high expectations for Civ2 because of all the praise its getting, but it disappointed me.

I see the same thing happening in the forums, except Civilization III is the one coming after Civilization II. High expectations were set upon Civilization III, as high of expectations as I had for Civilization II.

Yet it failed to meet up to expectations for me, just as Civilization has for you.

asleepathewheel · May 13, 2002, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by miike
Then I come to the conclusion that to really understand the flaws of the game you have to play it alot, and you have to have played civ/civ2/smac. Of course, CIV3 all by itself is a good game. But when you put it up against people who have been following the series from day 1 and have high expectations, CIV3 does not really cut the mustard.

I've played civ/civ2/smac, having played civ on a 386 pc back in the day,so I think I have some cred. I would also say that I have high expectations from this game series. I have bought just awful games before and I know what I want in a game. I think that this game is great, based on my own expectations and the history I've had with the game series. Did it have some bugs when it came out? of course. 3 patches later, I think that the game is where it should be. Of course, I can over look minor flaws if I am enjoying the big picture, perhaps you are different, or just perceive the bugs to be major. So this person, who has been following the series since about day 1, does believe that Civ3 cuts the mustard.

Quote:

Originally posted by miike
Also, the bugs that were in CIV3. You would think that the same folks that brought us SMAC, would not have made some obvious mistakes.

its the same company, but not the same people. When BR left, he took people with him and they had to scrap much of the system in place and start over.

Quote:

Originally posted by miike
easily corrected flaws and bugs

How would you know if the "flaws and bugs" are easily corrected. I haven't seen the code, so I wouldn't know. And, I would bet that some of the "flaws" are really design decisions that you do not like.

Quote:

Originally posted by miike
How many times can you make the same video game and have flaws and bugs? It is the same game, different graphics, slight tweaks and improvements, but it is the same thing.

These aren't the same games though. Sure, there are pieces of code that are the same, but they are quite different, they are just based on the common ideas. If they were the same game with a bit added in here and there, wouldn't Civ3 have been released sooner that it was? Its taken what, 4 years between games? if they were inherently the same, wouldn't the publisher pump out a new one every 2 or 3 years?

Of course, my opinion is biased, as I like the game. I just find it annoying that some people claim that the only people who like it are newbies to the series. I am not a newbie, indeed I would wager that I have been around the series longer than some of the people saying this, and I love the game.

trickey · May 13, 2002, 17:27

Civ 3 is a great game. No doubt 'bout that. but it just lacks something that civ 2 had. Don't ask me what because i don't know.

ChaotikVisions · May 13, 2002, 17:41

Heh, just joking, but seriosuly. I don't understand the people who are constantly anti-civ3, and still come here. Thats one thing that really annoys me, since this forum is(I assume) for those who like civ3 more then they dislike it. Civ3 does have a few problems, but so did the other civ games. I played Civ2 long before I played Civ3, enjoyed it and the expansions quite thoroughly(especially Test of Time), then when Civ3 game out I tryed it and loved it also.

Infact, I can't go back and play Civ2 now, its not the graphics, or something like that, its what Civ3 has done to go beyond Civ2. The culture borders, military units costing upkeep rather then shields(a verrrry nice feature), the new style of air combat, the civ specific abilitys, the MUCH better AI, and countless other things. But as others have said, its all a matter of personal preference in the end. I like SMAC, SMACX, and Civ2, but I still consider Civ3 the latest and greatest of them. Theres some features that could have been carried over, and theres others the previous games are lacking as well.

I'd just be happy if all the folks who liked Civ2/SMAC/SMACX/CtP2/etc... more then Civ3 could just go to those forums, and not tell us how bad Civ3 is on the Civ3 forums. :P

Kilroy_Alpha · May 13, 2002, 17:43

There are many people that are upset that NONE of the improvements and innovations the CTP series brought to table had any noticable influence on Civ3. Sure, it's a different game made by a different developer and publisher, but that doesn't mean you can't borrow some of the ideas or at least put them in a different context. Oh well.

Fitz · May 13, 2002, 17:49

Tass, as most people have stated, most of the resentment and whining/complaining come from either disapointment in the end result or expectations that were not met. BTW, most of my comments will be from the perspective/lens of having played Alphas Centauri (SMAC) first.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I mean, if something's improved, and you like it more than any other Civ (Including Civilization II) then why express so much negativity? Why pay attention to how many improvements have been made, instead of what the contents are?

Because CivIII is not an improvement in more areas that it is an improvement. The AI is improved. The graphics are (IMO) about the same as SMAC, although I can see that having been exposed to them first, I might easily think that. However, the complexity of the game has been reduced drastically, generally to the detriment of the game, and the help/Civlopedia has definately been dumbed down from SMAC, if slightly more comprehensive. The simplicity may of course be the reason for an improved AI ::shrug:: but the whole of the package is that is is worse. A good stand alone, but worse in comparison, and that's an overall worse, with few standout improvements.

Quote:

If I recieve a package in my mailbox and it's in a brown box and then I open it to find a million dollars, I'll be happy. If the next day I recieve a package in a green box, the packaging hasn't improved much. But when I open it, if I see that there is three million dollars, I will be even happier. Moral? Don't pay attention to how much it 'improves', pay attention to what the contents are.

It's like getting 3 million in the first package and 10,000 in the second. Yes, I'm still happy, but the level of happiness is much lower, especially once you account for the expectation factor.