Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Alex]

Originally posted by notyoueither


They went simpler. Many people hate that.

As for AI... The Civ3 AI has given me more challenges than Civ, Civ2 or SMAC ever did, combined. I don't see it every game, and it is easy to learn what it will do, but given roughly equal odds in a modern war it will give any player a run for his or her money. Not if the player prepares traps based on predictable behaviour, but just go into a war from a peace time stance with a couple hundred units per side and you will see some things to set you back in all probability.

And on the topic of AI, why is that when the AI acted 'human' and used the 'best' strat of always getting what ever it could from all other civs for tech... too many people snarled and yelled and screamed until the designers put a break on that behaviour???

This makes no sense to me. Give us better AI you t*rds. NO. Not that GOOD!

I wholeheartedly agree. It seems that it is impossible to please everyone.

People used to say: "Civ2 AI is sooo weak, I can beat it easily even on the most difficult levels". Then they improved the AI, but streamlined the game in excess. But -- they improved the AI. Suddenly people started to cry again: "hey, this AI is so bad, it hates me and I can't get anything out of it... this has to change!".

What people want is totally subjective. They wanted the game they had designed in their minds, they wanted Civ3 to be the epitome of a perfect gaming experience. They forgot that gaming industry became a huge and profitable industry, and that it would be necessary to attract new players and create a new fan base. They could not see it, because they were so amazed by their own expectations that they blocked any and all negative information out of their minds.

I'm not happy with this. But Civ3 is not a bad game. It does not deserve to be so dissed on these boards. But that is merely my own opinion. Subjective.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer


I resent the notion that us oldies don't "get" the new game. Perhaps we're best positioned to see what's lacking. I know that when I was younger I was far less critical than I am now. BTW, I'm not geriatric or anything like that. I'm in my early 30s and I'm probably not the only one here in that range.

I'm about the same age that you are. Nobody has accused me of "not getting it". I was far less critical as well, but still this is not a bad game. I'll bet that NO ONE can find a game they thought was perfect.

[Civ Old Timer]

I totally disagree with Alexnm. I think it simplistic to fob people off and say "you didn't get what you wanted so you're upset." I would have been happy with the changes Civ three brought - resources and culture - had they been done thoughtfully. I am quite annoyed at all of the good things that were left out unnecessarily. And the new AI is great in many ways, as many people have said. It's the rules that need the most work. Did anybody test this thing? I wonder about that.

And people here are smart enough to know and resent having a sort of working mess dropped on their doorstep at X-mas. It was Infogrames' way of saying we don't care. We have the name, that's woth $$$. Building on the franchise.... eh, we can make a buck without that.

Play nice, dammit. Or your franchise won't be worth squat.

[Civ Old Timer]

None of the Civ games have been perfect. But they were fun for years... I liked them right out of the box. Not so Civ 3. I dunno who said "it's not perfect so I don't like it." The rebuttal sounds like a straw man argument to me.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
I resent the notion that us oldies don't "get" the new game.

I resent the fact that people who like Civ3 are treated like newbies, even when they might have been playing the games longer than the critics.

[Civ Old Timer]

asleepathewheel -



I didn't intend to imply that everyone who likes the game is new to it, although sometimes my spidey sense does tell something like that.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
asleepathewheel -



I didn't intend to imply that everyone who likes the game is new to it, although sometimes my spidey sense does tell something like that.

You might not feel that way, but that opinion has been expressed on this board before, and often times when it is not expressly stated, it is just beneath the surface of the argument.

[Capt Dizle]

Same old debate, same old choir.

Well, I am no longer mad about it all, but, the game does suck, thats fact not opinion.

Still, maybe its time we all just shut up.

[nato]

Just to get my opinion in ...

I think the thing Civ3 is missing is complexity and a few interesting features, like social engineering and a tech tree with strategic choices in it.

It has been over-simplified.

However I like the game a lot, and it has some great new features like culture. It is very close!

I think if they would add just a couple of complex features, like SE and many more choices in the tech tree, Civ3 would lose the "intellectual lightweight" reputation it has compared to SMAC.

Civ3 is just a couple of complex features away from greatness ... I sure hope they add them in the expansions.

On that note,

FIRAXIS: Even if the wider market prefers simple games and fewer complex features ... ok, they got that with the initial game! Now that they have mastered the basics, even the simpler, less hard core market should be ready, and even eager, for an increase in complexity!

Expansions must significantly expand the game to succede, and the simpler market should be ready for it by now. Doing this will put Civ3 up to SMAC's level, prove the whiners wrong, and ensure Firaxis's reputation.

[nato]

Still, maybe its time we all just shut up.

I think you're going to get some takers on that one...

[Laiquendi]

And on the topic of AI, why is that when the AI acted 'human' and used the 'best' strat of always getting what ever it could from all other civs for tech... too many people snarled and yelled and screamed until the designers put a break on that behaviour???

This makes no sense to me. Give us better AI you t*rds. NO. Not that GOOD!

My comment was not on the skill of the AI, if the AI is too good, I drop a difficulty level, if it's too easy, I up the difficulty. My problem with the civ III AI is HOW it plays, not the overall difficulty of the play. As seen in many threads on this board, the diplomacy system has some major issues (AI trading, wild valuations to techs/luxuries), the AI sees resources that have not yet appeared, the AI settles useless tundra, the AI refuses to respect national boundaries...

This is why I have stopped playing, again.

For those who say I should quit playing and go away.. the reason I am compelled to whine is that I LOVE CIV! Despite it's problems, civ III is an improvement over civ II and ctp/ctp2. I am angry because firaxis/infogrames are asking me to pay the full price of a new game for a barely improved old game.

[Tiberius]

Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong? Let's see:

MP: It would have been nice to have it from the beginning, but now we know the XP is coming. Having to pay for it is another issue

Scenario-building: in my 5 or 6 years (or more?) of Civ2 I played maybe 5 or 6 scenarios.

Cheat mode: never used it.

Graphics: it could be better IMO too, but compared to what? AoK or Civ1? And does it matter after you are used to it?

Corruption: it was one of the biggest request of civ2 players to make big empires harder to last and give smaller nations an advantage. Now corruption and culture are the problem

Culture and culture flipping: the best addition to civ2 IMO

Espionage: I miss the spies, but wasn't it one of the biggest complains from the Civ2 community to make the spies less powerful?

Caravans: I miss them too, but when it was a discussion about caravans on Apolyton maybe 1 or 2 years ago, there were only a few people didn't want them removed.

Too few units - if we had twice as many units when could we possibly use them or for how long? Two turns then it gets obsolate? No, thank you.

Air combat: I don't like it, but the Stealth fighter was way too powerful.

Goverments: the same as in civ2, except for fundamentalism, which was too powerful

Resourses: make the game more strategic; now you have a reason to go to war or culture-bomb a city or to defend a territory or to trade and so on

Very aggresively expanding AI: I hate this, actually my biggest displeasure about civ3. But again, didn't we ask for a better AI?

Modular units or social engineering like in SMAC? This is not a SF game.

There are a lot more controversial things that some people love while others hate in Civ3. Is it perfect? Certainly not. Neither was Civ2. Is it good? Yes. Could be better? Probably. Can Firaxis please everybody? No.
Do I like it? Yes

Hype? Over-expectation? Nostalgia? Certainly a (big) part of the complains.

[Alexander's Horse]

Where didn't it go wrong?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Laiquendi

My problem with the civ III AI is HOW it plays, not the overall difficulty of the play. As seen in many threads on this board, the diplomacy system has some major issues (AI trading, wild valuations to techs/luxuries), the AI sees resources that have not yet appeared, the AI settles useless tundra, the AI refuses to respect national boundaries

The AI does do irritating things, this is true. About the AI trading: The AI is trying to win, if you are the only civ with a tech, are you going to sell it cheaply? I wouldn't. If it was a tech that was a couple levels down I would, but to another, no way. The aI's goal is to make you lose, or at least prevent you from winnning. I agree it is bad that it can see resources that haven't yet appeared, but you can deal with this as you want, like someone else, NYE perhaps suggested, target oddly placed cities and you can get the resource. About the respecting national boundaries: People complain about this a lot, i've seen, but really, if you send a unit through the AI's territory, what happens if you refuse to move it? They declare war. If they keep bugging you, you should show some force and declare war on them. If you're unwilling to show some backbone, the AI will walk all over you.

Originally posted by Laiquendi
For those who say I should quit playing and go away.. the reason I am compelled to whine is that I LOVE CIV! Despite it's problems, civ III is an improvement over civ II and ctp/ctp2. I am angry because firaxis/infogrames are asking me to pay the full price of a new game for a barely improved old game.

Man, I bet you were even more pissed at Civ2 then, since it was basically just a grapical update of Civ1.

I don't think anyone has told anyone that they should stop playing. I think some people (myself included) are just tired of the way these things are continually presented. Look at the threads on Roads and Rails, the thread on ye old culture flip, firaxis: what's up with the 1/3 move, what do you think of carriers. etc. these were sane discussions about aspects of the game people think could be changed. And, in some cases, the editor can be used to change them.

My point is that, as many others have said before me, constructive criticism of the game is much more likely to be met with a civil conversation than a thread that says "Civ3 sux, firaxis programmers suck, worthless beta, poor programming" etc. If that's all you have to say, then you shouldn't feel offended when people don't respond civilly. (note the above was not specifically to you Laiquendi )

Thanks

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Where didn't it go wrong?

You don't like it. They must be doing something right.

[monkspider]

Where did it go wrong? Hmm, I guess I would have replaced Joan with Napoleon, but aside from lack of MP or scenario support that is the game's most serious flaw. I, being a gamer of the most critical standards, consider Civ 3 to be the greatest and most rewarding gaming experience yet created. I love EU 2, I love the old Civ games, I love the Panzer Campaign series, etc but Civ 3 is, thus far, the world's magnum opus of video games.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Laiquendi
My comment was not on the skill of the AI, if the AI is too good, I drop a difficulty level, if it's too easy, I up the difficulty. My problem with the civ III AI is HOW it plays, not the overall difficulty of the play. As seen in many threads on this board, the diplomacy system has some major issues (AI trading, wild valuations to techs/luxuries), the AI sees resources that have not yet appeared, the AI settles useless tundra, the AI refuses to respect national boundaries...

This is why I have stopped playing, again.

For those who say I should quit playing and go away.. the reason I am compelled to whine is that I LOVE CIV! Despite it's problems, civ III is an improvement over civ II and ctp/ctp2. I am angry because firaxis/infogrames are asking me to pay the full price of a new game for a barely improved old game.

The AI doesn't get 'better' by level. It gets production penalties or bonuses. It's called a handicap. Many games use the concept. I want a challenge against a weak chess player? I play without a Queen. Except for in computer games that would not do. So programmers give them 2 or 3 if you feel you're super.

My point about AI trading is that it IS a good strat to follow. I followed it ruthlessly with 1.07 and rode the advantages to easier victories. Now I can't do that because the AI is doing the same 'smart' thing. How is that bad?

As for settlement sites. I ruthlessly go after Desert and Tundra areas during the Medieval era. It means much Oil later. Much Oil means victory. How is the AI being dumb?

As for luxuries, yes the AI is using a skewed value system. But, it has reason to it. The more pop you have the more valuable a luxury is, to you. I disagree with this, because it causes me, a large power usually, to beat the stuffing out of smaller powers to get the luxuries at no cost instead of the outrageous costs they demand as I get bigger and bigger. Resource value should be decided on a global scale. That would help smaller civs survive when they have a luxury I do not, hopefully.

The AI will respect your borders if you have an army worthy of respect. This I have observed. If they don't, so what? You punt them back into the previous age with cold steel. I don't give too much respect to the weaklings near me who have 25% of my forces either.

I have no fight with you Laiquendi, and I wish you no ill will. I understand that you love civ and 3 has disappointed you. I am taking the opportunity to 'debunk' some of the criticisms I have seen repeatedly that I consider to be invalid, and to agree that it could be better in some repects.

Keep on civ'in.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
A year ago, Civilization III (which we did not have yet) was perhaps the biggest expectation everyone on this forum was waiting for. Today, the general attitude towards Civ3 is that its a decent game, but it probably won't become a legend anytime soon. My question to the community is, where did Civ3 go wrong?

Was it the lack of multiplayer support which killed Civ3? Scenario capability? Graphics? Hype? Over-expectation? Gameplay?

Discuss.

trolls dented it. didn't kill it, though

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You don't like it. They must be doing something right.

Just for that I'm going to kick a cat the next time I see one

[notyoueither]

Find a big one. Make it a 'fair' fight. Yum, yum.

[Alexander's Horse]

Just for that one of the neighbour Moggies is going to get hosed. Wanna keep trying?

[notyoueither]

I wouldn't want to contribute to the misery of a superior being.

Don't worry. There is a next life for you. Meow. Pffft! Pffft! Roooarr.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
I totally disagree with Alexnm. I think it simplistic to fob people off and say "you didn't get what you wanted so you're upset." I would have been happy with the changes Civ three brought - resources and culture - had they been done thoughtfully. I am quite annoyed at all of the good things that were left out unnecessarily. And the new AI is great in many ways, as many people have said. It's the rules that need the most work. Did anybody test this thing? I wonder about that.

You just reinforced my point. I said that Firaxis streamlined the game in excess because they had to sell the civ concept to a whole new generation. I also think that Civ3 would benefit from more complexity and depth. But if you take a look at some posts around here you'll see that some players are having a hard time even with this "dumbed-down" Civ3. The number of posts saying "I am being beaten all the time! What am I doing wrong?" is amazingly high. Does this mean that the players are stupid? Of course not. Civ games have a steep learning curve, now imagine what would happen if Civ3 had SMAC's complexity.

FIRAXIS: Even if the wider market prefers simple games and fewer complex features ... ok, they got that with the initial game! Now that they have mastered the basics, even the simpler, less hard core market should be ready, and even eager, for an increase in complexity!

That is what I want.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by monkspider
Where did it go wrong? Hmm, I guess I would have replaced Joan with Napoleon, but aside from lack of MP or scenario support that is the game's most serious flaw. I, being a gamer of the most critical standards, consider Civ 3 to be the greatest and most rewarding gaming experience yet created. . . . Civ 3 is, thus far, the world's magnum opus of video games.

I like Joan.
Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly.

[VtG]

For me the single biggest problem with the game is the turn lag.
(My computer's pretty good too...P4 1.4 Gig, 384 Megs RAM).

I had not been following the development of the game or the forums or anything previous to purchasing the game, so my preconceptions were minimal.

When I fired up my first game I was stoked to see that it was possible to play with 16 civs...drool...So I did. I fired up the default huge earth map that came with the game with 16 civs.

Well, the wait between turns became more and more unbearable until I finally quit when the wait exceeded 10 minutes between turns. Oh well, back to playing smaller sissy maps with less opponents. *sigh*

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by nato
Just to get my opinion in ...

I think the thing Civ3 is missing is complexity and a few interesting features, like social engineering and a tech tree with strategic choices in it.

It has been over-simplified.

However I like the game a lot, and it has some great new features like culture. It is very close!

I think if they would add just a couple of complex features, like SE and many more choices in the tech tree, Civ3 would lose the "intellectual lightweight" reputation it has compared to SMAC.

Civ3 is just a couple of complex features away from greatness ... I sure hope they add them in the expansions.

On that note,

FIRAXIS: Even if the wider market prefers simple games and fewer complex features ... ok, they got that with the initial game! Now that they have mastered the basics, even the simpler, less hard core market should be ready, and even eager, for an increase in complexity!

Expansions must significantly expand the game to succede, and the simpler market should be ready for it by now. Doing this will put Civ3 up to SMAC's level, prove the whiners wrong, and ensure Firaxis's reputation.

Nato,

I know you and I were discussing this same idea inyour AI & features post. I perhaps either skimmed or misread your intentions in that thread. WHat you've posted here I would support.

It still is my belief that CIV3 is simplified to appeal to the new generation of gamers. The core game IMHO firaxis won't (and prolly shouldn't from a business POV)touch in order to have that appeal.

Your post above I would agree as a good business model for firaxis to look at. That being the expansion pack (vers. 2 most likely) should look to bring back the features we SMAC followers so dearly love. (Social Engineering being prolly chief feature ignored that really has some historical merit)

I clearly thought your intentions were that FirX should patch the existing game (in doing so they risk losing the same target marget they sought to gain). The new market once hooked on TBS would now be a large enuff market (combined witht he exisitng TBS'ers) to support the more feature laden game.

I for one would fork over the cash if I knew this was what I was getting. I have no plans on putting any money into the current incarnation of XP as it now stands tho'.

Great post Nato!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong? Let's see:

Modular units or social engineering like in SMAC? This is not a SF game.

Tib,

Gotta disagree here. SF has nothing to do with either of these ideas.

Modular units in history.
consider these units that could be created with a Unit workshop

Horse mounted archers
Dragoons (Horse musketeers)

Infantry in Jeeps
etc.


I'll grant you this the idea of the UU was FirX's attempt to give some distinctness to the individual civs that employed radical units (i.e. the chariots of Egypt, the Panzers of Germany,etc), but that same distinctness and greater overall choices could have been implemented in a way that was historically accurate IMHO.


Social Engineering

Aside from future governments let look at the first 3 tiers of choices and see if they have a historical basis

Government Types
Police - All the time in history
Democracy - Yeah
Fundamentalism - Yeah

Economics
Free Market - Yeah
Planned - Yeah
Green - Might be occuring now

Social Policy
Power i.e. Militancy - yeah
Knowledge - Yeah
Wealth - Yeah

I see no reason that social engineering is counter to the precepts of a historically based game. Matter of fact the SE choices above would IMHO allow a better modeling of the ancient through modern day civs than does the existing limited governmental choices.

[Alanus]

I've just started to play the game as it has been released very recently in France.

I must admit, as many on this forum, that the AI is very disconcerting. It refuses good deals even if you are much stronger than it and can crush your opponents by clicking fingers, and on the other hand declares war to you anytime you are not saying yes to all its unreasonable requests when you are weak. The first game that I played to get hands on, without too much reading the manual, was a disaster and I've been beaten to death when attacked suddenly by my 3 closest neighbors. And it was the easiest level of play. It never happened that way with any of the previous games of the series.

Here, I come to my point. Many comparisons are between CivIII and Civ2, as if CivIII was a direct sequel of Civ2. Except for Intellectual Property and copyright reasons (Sid Meier’s Civilization …), I don’t see why to limit the comparison with Civ2 (or Civ1) : as a matter of fact, in between 1996 (Civ2) and now, there have been two other sequels, the “Call to Power” series. Just like Civ3, the CtP games revisited the general Civilization concepts while introducing significantly new or different features (e.g. no workers in CtP, but “civil work” points). Just like Civ3, they were brand new games as far as programming, AI, graphics and so on were concerned. I wouldn’t dare saying that Civ3 is closer to Civ2 than the CtPs were. I don’t see any difference from that point of view.

I did not participate in all the discussions on what Civ3 should have been, but surely they were so intensive that those of you who have participated can only be disappointed.

The publishers of the Civilization games are here to make a sellable product and money, and they exploit the “Civilization” brand name and concept to do so. Just like movie makers do (Police Academy, Rocky, Star Wars, etc.). As they restart from scratch, there is no reason why they should or could produce for their first release a higher grade product than their predecessors. I’m in software development and I can tell you that this happens all the time when you redevelop a new range of products from scratch : you cannot incorporate all the functions of the last version of the previous range in the first release of the new products, because you cannot afford to be out of the market by being too late – not talking about the fact that the technology inside will be outdated. So you release as fast as you can and produce a roadmap with further upgrades (that you will sell).

What I know is that I am addicted enough to the Civilization concept that I would buy any game with this name in it, in particular when endorsed by Sid Meier. Alas, the reality is often disappointing. For example, I’m very angry with Activation because I purchased CtP2 at the high price (about $50) just when it was released, whereas it only deserved to be an add-on or a minor upgrade of CtP.

This being said, I need to play more with Civ3, but in addition to the AI issue, I agree with other comments that I read on this thread :

- Resources : very difficult to spot in the map – a “find/highlight resources” option / command would be welcome
- City queues : the CtP city queue system was really much better and easier to use.

[nato]

Wow thanks Ogie, I'm glad you agree.

I truly believe the AI might be better if it focused only on what it could really do well, but I had another motive also... I was hoping not making the AI learn complex things would make programming easier, and thus increase the chance of adding complex features.

But thats a seperate matter and very debatable. AI issues aside, I really hope the logic in my first post here has some appeal ... even if the wider, casual market is being sought, they really have had a chance to learn the basics, and should be eager for new things to learn and master.

And it could solve the bad response from the "hard core" market, and make it an undisputed winner and help Firaxis's reputation.

Thanks for the nice response!

[Kc7mxo]

There's a lot of things I didn't like about Civ 3, and many I do like.

Espionage: Enough's been said about this.

War: The combat system is a step down from Civ2 and SMAC

Cities: Missing some nice buildings, I liked the farms in Civ2.

Culture: Works good for borders, I don't care much for flipping cities

Corruption: Its not the way I would have gone to prevent Imperial Sprawl.

Diplomacy: Ai doesn't know a good deal when I shove it down its throat.


As for corruption, what I would like to see is cities which are too corrupt just revolting into their own empires.

My biggest complaint was that they took out the Vassal Ally dealio from SMAC, my FAVORITE part of that damn game.

This is the natural solution to Imperial sprawl. Rather than obliterate the Iroquios, I could force them to do my bidding, and leave them their empire as long as they behave. Then, when they're feeling tough enough, they could give me the finger.