Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Alexnm
Coracle, do you still play the game? Just out of curiosity.

Answer the question, Coracle! Your posts seem to indicate you still play, yet all you do is piss and moan about the game.... have you no better way to spend your time?

Just curious.

[CAB]

The game is incomplete as are too many other games. Most game today relies on patches after the game are released, I do think that is the same as “theft”.

I know allot of people who stare at me as if I'm crazy when I tell them they have to download a patch from the Internet to get their game to work.
There are people who don't use or know how to use the Internet, you shouldn't require internet to buy a game, unless the company supply you with a modem and a free telephone number to download their patches.

Computer games should be complete, and patches should be more of expansion packs with additional features and enhanced graphics.

I never buy a game before I've played it a few times. I borrow it from someone, a store, download demo or complete game. The last five years I have only bought a few games a year because of abuse from the game companies.

All games on my current hard drive (three of them) I have bought, Civ III is not one of them as of yet, I have a borrowed copy from my brother (who was stupid enough to buy it).

When game companies learn to release complete products I will gladly pay for them.

What if you had to buy clothes like this... no that arm will not be supplied at this time, come back in a few weeks and you can have it, and of course you have to PAY for it to and do the work yourself....

I'm just tired of the game industry as of now.... I won't buy it if they don't supply a finished product....

I'm not a beta player, what if I didn't have access to the Internet??? Some people just don't!!!

[Zoid]

Where did Civ3 go wrong? Let´s see...

# There´s a fairly big "been there, done that" feeling over the whole genre which especially affects Civ3 with the almost mythical reputation for Sid Meier. How many times can you conquer the world and still think it´s fun?

# The game was rushed. Say that Adobe had rushed Photoshop 6 in a similar way for instance. That they had a glossy eye-candyish layout but when you tried to use the program it was severly buggy and lacked even the most basic functions. Furthermore they stripped the program of some universally loved functions that were there in Photshop 5 in order to make you buy an expansion with said functions to a rather steep price.

Would you spend money on this half-assed program? No, I don´t think so. You would stick with Photoshop 5 and wait for a possibly better Photshop 7.

# That they didn´t make a sequel to SMAC/X instead. That was more than a game IMO. The whole storyline, the different faction personalities, custom unit building, etc, etc. If they fused that game with the few concepts from Civ3 that is actually good Civ3 would have been a killer game!

I think that will be enough for now...

[zulu9812]

I wanted the techs to go right from the dawn of time to the future. It didn't. It's enough to make a bloke go back to playing Call To power II!

[siredgar]

Civ3 has made me very cautious about buying a game at release. It makes me so mad when I realize how many companies are sending out rushed products. I sold my Infogrames stock a while ago, by the way.

Now, I always check on fan forums to see how a game turns out and how much patching will be required, before even thinking of buying. If it looks really bad, I won't buy the game. If it's not so bad, I'll wait for the patch and then buy the game. I'm not sure if Civ3 is fully patchable as it stands. It may require an expansion pack to do the job.

However, I refuse to buy an expansion pack unless it has a COMPLETE scenario editor with the ability to specify player starting locations. It should also have a multi-player option and the right selection of eight new civs. And of course, I won't pay more than $29.99 and this is only if it is really good and worth buying.

I'm not saying I didn't get my money's worth compared to other games, but I expected a lot more from Civ3. It is disappointing compared to Civ or Civ2, that's for sure.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
# There´s a fairly big "been there, done that" feeling over the whole genre which especially affects Civ3

This is probably my biggest criticism of the game, and a the main reason I find myself playing it more and more seldomly these days:

Civ3 isn't as replayable as its predecessors.

This fact (a "fact" IMO only, I suppose) is of course related to Civ3 being "dumbed down" in order to appeal to a wider audience. Let's draw up a list of areas that Civ3 is "simpler" than Civ2 or SMAC (actually, I shouldn't compare Civ3 to SMAC in this regard because Civ3 will look horrible):

1. Fewer basic units (not UUs)

2. Fewer governments (Fundamentalism is absent)

3. Fewer techs (let's face it, no one "plays" in the Modern Age)

4. Unimportance of naval warfare

UUs add a level of complexity, but a very superficial one: the UUs are good enough to always be used when possible. You learn very quickly that Immortals are just very good Swordsmen, so breaking an Immortal rush is the same as breaking a Swordsmen rush.

The most interesting units in the game, Marines and Paratroopers (is that what they're called) are stuck in some corner, far away from mainstream use. Compare to Civ2, when I used Marines to great effect (with coastal bombardment).

Yes, Civ3 has some innovations which add levels of complexity to the game. But most of these are superficial; UUs (as I said above) are not strategically interesting, Culture is pretty bland once you know what it's all about, etc.

All this adds up to create a game that is fun for (in my case) 6-8 months, then loses its appeal. If I were a very angry person I would say that Infogrames planned this so that we would be ready to buy the expansion. I feel slightly angry today.

Civ3 is a fun game, but it is not "infinitely replayable". For me, this was the major appeal of all Civ-type games. I don't play Civ2 anymore, but I got at least 4 years out of it, not 6 months.

SO, where did Civ3 go wrong?

1. Replayable only up to a certain point.

2. No wonder movies (I just had to throw that in...)


Dominae

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Dominae
The most interesting units in the game, Marines and Paratroopers (is that what they're called) are stuck in some corner, far away from mainstream use. Compare to Civ2, when I used Marines to great effect (with coastal bombardment).

I find Marines supremely useful - i've yet to meet a city that can stand up to an amphibious assault from 8 marines in one turn, even if they do have tanks.

You do have a point about paratroopers though - but we get airbases in the XP

[nato]

I like your post Dominae. I think it points out well that the heart of the problem is they simplified the game too much.

The expansion packs could fix this if they add new features, not just new leader heads and UUs!

[d4rkl0rd]

Just wanted to throw in my $.02...

Although I think Civ3 is a /good/ game, it doesn't strike me as great yet. The reason is something that I have been struggling to put into words, but maybe it could be called "pacing". In movies, pacing refers to the flow and continuity of the presentation. Civ I & II had it, but for whatever reason, I don't feel it in Civ III. I guess on these forums it might be referred to as "Just One More Turn Syndrome". I actually like all the additions to the game. However, Civ has always been more than the sum of its features. It had a holistic feel, a magical quality, that couldn't be encompassed in a few words. It was just a shared feeling between people who could crush the game on Deity. The only other game I've found that has that special pacing is NetHack.

So, I've been playing Civ III occasionally, hoping to make a breakthhrough in my own understanding that would make it fun. Mostly I've been playing Civ II MP tho. Perhaps when the XP comes out and I can play against humans I'll have the perspicacity to develop strategies that keep me engaged. Perhaps.

[Alkis]

I used to play Civ2 on Deity level and win almost every game with barbarians as "raging hordes" Yet I had the feeling I could experiment with what techs to seek, which wonder(s) to build, what strategy to follow etc. In Civ3 even though I won two games (out of say 8) on Deity level I don't feel free. My moves are dictated by the game, the way it was made and there are almost no branches. It is difficult to put into words what has gone wrong with Civ3 but I can surely say that I don't like it.

Lack of opportunities is surely one of them. The people celebrating was a great opportunity in Civ2. Also the huts were actually giving something usefull more often. You could start with a tririme and a diplomat and maybe a settler and make some very nice colony somewhere. In Civ3 there is no exploration actually.

Things to experiment with is another. In Alpha Centauri the goverments were an interesting thing to experiment with. The raise/lower terrain and generally that you could "play" with the environment changing it, was another. In Civ3 there is nothing, not even engineers, not even a "transform to" command.

Wonders. In Civ2 you could choose a wonder to build and actually make it. That you can't rush a wonder was a very unfortunate dicision in Civ3. It is obvious that they wanted to make the game more difficult to win, but in doing so they made the game flat. As it is now you have to accept that you will probably make no wonders in the ancient age unless you get a leader. I am talking about Deity level. And this brings us to another issue. That of the usefullness (imperative) of war. In most cases your best choice is to prepare and then make a war. You can get a leader, you get space to colonize, the enemy will give you techs and money if you win etc etc. But you know something? I don't like to war.

So, in many cases I happen to know which the best decision is, I happen to know which road to victory would be the most successfull and yet I don't like that route. Very simple. A game has to be enjoyable. It isn't enough to win. If the way to win is tedious you can as well leave the game. In all in Civ3 you don't have choices. Oh, I know you have; but most of these choices are losing ones. This gives you a feeling of oppression. This gives you a feeling that your moves are dictated. You don't feel free to experiment and it does actually make every game similar to the one you played before (if you want to win it).

[alexman]

I think the choices are still there. Just not at Deity level.

From your post I think you might enjoy the game more if you moved to a lower lever. You will probably win every game, just like you used to do in Civ 2 deity. But you will have many more options of how to do so. You will be able to build wonders, explore, and even stay peaceful.

People wanted a game that is harder to beat, so Firaxis made all levels harder than they were in Civ 2. You and others have discovered a way that makes it possible to beat Civ 3 deity, but deviating from that formula almost always results in a loss. I don't think this is bad. If you want a challenge, try playing builder at Deity. If you want the same options as Civ 2, but still being able to win every time, pretend Deity doesn't exist and try playing Monarch or Emperor.

[Dominae]

zulu9812, I agree that Marines are useful, but you have to get the opportunity to use them. In my games, I never do; they come so late that I might as well upgrade my existing forces (Tanks, etc) to create a modern army, or just go straight for the Spaceship. My point is that my games are long over once I hit Amphibious Warfare, so I never feel the need to use Marines.

The same applies to Explorers, which I forgot to mention. Explorers are certainly useful, but they come so late in the game that their impact is minimal (unless you force yourself to use them). All the units with "interesting" abilities (other than the Worker) always come too late in the game. Plus, there are so few of these that gameplay is hardly affected.

Contrast this with all the cool stuff you could do in SMAC (via all the unit special abilities), and you can see why SMAC is harder, but much more strategic (and therfore fun). Although I'm glad Caravans and Diplomats were removed in Civ3, the lack of early special units is a detriment to gameplay.

nato, I hope as you do that the expansion introduces some new strategies to the game. If we really do get 5/3/2 Knights and such, I'm probably not going to buy it. I remain hopeful that the expansion truly improves the game, not just adds extra baggage.


Dominae

[zulu9812]

True - I usually finish games in the Industrial age, so I rarely need to use them. However, I hardly ever win by conquest - meaning that there's plenty overseas cities to be conquered if I choose to play on. Cue marines.

[Stuie]

In all the comparisons being done between Civs 2 & 3, it suddenly strikes me that the Civ2 everyone goes on and on about took two expansion packs and a gold edition to finally get it right. I'm sure Civ3 (which I am thoroughly enjoying since 1.21f came out) will continue to improve, and then you can all whine your faces off when Civ4 sucks upon release.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Dominae


This is probably my biggest criticism of the game, and a the main reason I find myself playing it more and more seldomly these days:

Civ3 isn't as replayable as its predecessors.

This fact (a "fact" IMO only, I suppose) is of course related to Civ3 being "dumbed down" in order to appeal to a wider audience. Let's draw up a list of areas that Civ3 is "simpler" than Civ2 or SMAC (actually, I shouldn't compare Civ3 to SMAC in this regard because Civ3 will look horrible):

1. Fewer basic units (not UUs)

2. Fewer governments (Fundamentalism is absent)

3. Fewer techs (let's face it, no one "plays" in the Modern Age)

4. Unimportance of naval warfare

UUs add a level of complexity, but a very superficial one: the UUs are good enough to always be used when possible. You learn very quickly that Immortals are just very good Swordsmen, so breaking an Immortal rush is the same as breaking a Swordsmen rush.

The most interesting units in the game, Marines and Paratroopers (is that what they're called) are stuck in some corner, far away from mainstream use. Compare to Civ2, when I used Marines to great effect (with coastal bombardment).

Yes, Civ3 has some innovations which add levels of complexity to the game. But most of these are superficial; UUs (as I said above) are not strategically interesting, Culture is pretty bland once you know what it's all about, etc.

All this adds up to create a game that is fun for (in my case) 6-8 months, then loses its appeal. If I were a very angry person I would say that Infogrames planned this so that we would be ready to buy the expansion. I feel slightly angry today.

Civ3 is a fun game, but it is not "infinitely replayable". For me, this was the major appeal of all Civ-type games. I don't play Civ2 anymore, but I got at least 4 years out of it, not 6 months.

SO, where did Civ3 go wrong?

1. Replayable only up to a certain point.

2. No wonder movies (I just had to throw that in...)


Dominae

More or less exactly what I think as well

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Stuie
In all the comparisons being done between Civs 2 & 3, it suddenly strikes me that the Civ2 everyone goes on and on about took two expansion packs and a gold edition to finally get it right. I'm sure Civ3 (which I am thoroughly enjoying since 1.21f came out) will continue to improve, and then you can all whine your faces off when Civ4 sucks upon release.

Well, not quite. Civ2 was enjoyable even without the xp´s and Gold Edition. They did however enhance a good game to be even better.

[ahenobarb]

The fundamental problem with Civ 3 is that we grew up and Civ didn't. It's a kids game and we aren't kids anymore.

Most people who have played from Civ I's initial release were impressed with the quatum leap of Civ 2. We expected with the increase in computer power to have another quantum leap in civ development. Instead, its one step forward, two steps back.

The game lacks the complexity and depth necessary to hold your attention. Oh, and the renaissance "click festival", where there is nothing to build and nothing to do, but war for the next 4-500 years. Try this on a huge map and learn what boredom is.

What it lacks in complexity, it makes up for in simplicity in all its forms. The game is tailored to the 8-16 market segment. Even though they don't have the $$$, their parents will get it for them. Infogrames (never trust a company with a typo in its name) will get its dough and the kids will be none the wiser.

Civ3 = Civ 1.5

the "Old Schools" were hoping for a Better School, instead we got Kindergarden. Pray you learned to program over the years because you're gonna have to write your own game.

[Strollen]

Biggest single reason that Civ3 is only a very good game and not a classic is that Sid didn't work on. Soren did a terrific job on the AI but the rest of the game was only ok cause there nobody in Firaxis with the same skill as Sid or Brian Reynolds

Sid spent most of his timing designing and programming SimGolf.
SimGolf is a lot of fun and had all the magically elements you'd expect in a Sid game, Civ3 had very few. I still play Civ3 because building and conquouring the world is far more interesting to me than building a Golf course...

I also think that Satisfaction = Reality - Expectation and expectations for this game were so high that some people couldn't possibly be satisfied.

[Coracle]

I would hardly describe Civ 3 as "very good". Very DISAPPOINTING, in reality.

[Strollen]

Well Coracle the average reviews for the game are between 8 and 9 out of 10. According to most game site review systems that corresponds to a very good game.

You may disagree, just like I disagree with most of your criticism about the game, but the vast majority of people would disagree with your characterization as the game as worse than decent.

[Alkis]

More on what went wrong.

I already mentioned the lack of opportunities but I will give an example. Suppose you play the world map in Civ2. Suppose you start somewhere in America or Asia. You could build a tririme with one diplomat and one settler and discover Australia. You could buy barbarian units which would not need support because they would be marked as "none". In the end you could colonize Australia and build more cities there. These cities would have a lot of corruption/waste but with Democracy or Fundamentalism you had the chance to make your colony flourish someday. Try to do that in Civ3. You can't buy barbarians, you get **** out of huts, the world is colonized too early etc. I want to mention another two things. First there is no way to initiate a pop boom. Second you can't rush a wonder. Enough said.

Lack of humor. Yes, previous versions of Civilization were a lot more playfull. Civ3 makes me wonder whether I play a game or I am just working.

No engineer unit. No way to transform terrain. Too few kinds of bonus squares.

No espionage unless you really want to waste money or make someone else attack you.

The game is tedious. Maybe in their vocabulary challenging and tedious are synonymous but there is a difference. Strategic resourses should be opportunities enabling you for example to build faster but not required for absolutely necessary things, like railroads for instance. There is no coal on my continent; ok that's not my fault, now what? Well, you can't build railroads, have a nice time crawling on the map. Or another scenario, there is coal and I have it. Great, let's build some railroads! And the next day the coal disappears.

Not even one interesting new wonder. Wonders stepped down. In any case you can't be sure you will build one. And yes, no wonder movies (Frankly I don't care much about that).

Even with roaming barbarians the world is too hostile to make exploration worthwhile. Pity because many players actually like exploration.

About corruption and waste. I don't mind that as an element, what makes the game tedious is that there is no way to get rid of it completely. This makes you feel that your efforts to build a big empire were in vain.

Pollution. Same as the above, only a bit worse. In fact although I need the extra population I feel reluctant to build hospitals. Compare this with the expectation we had in Civ2 for the Sanitation advance. In all you build an empire which doesn't make you happy but instead it gives you more problems and requires more and more micromanagement. (At least Shift + P works correctly now.) This is realistic of course, but I think it's too much reality for a game.

For best results you have to fight the builder in you and also the honorable part of you. Going to war, breaking treaties, surprise attacks, backstabing etc are all very profitable in this game.

P.S. I wouldn't mind playing on Emperor, as someone suggested, but as you can see there is more than the fact that Deity level limits your choices.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Strollen
Satisfaction = Reality - Expectation

I don't think that equation holds true in all circumstances. Imagine yourself a prisoner of a hostile force, you have no expectation of release. Are you satisfied?

Originally posted by Alkis
In all you build an empire which doesn't make you happy but instead it gives you more problems and requires more and more micromanagement. (At least Shift + P works correctly now.) This is realistic of course, but I think it's too much reality for a game.

I think the problem is just the opposite, it's the lack of reality (i.e. complexity) in the game. In the context you're speaking - expansion leads to corruption - you are of course correct, but overall I think the game lacks depth. When it was being advertised, it was said that "warmongers won't like it. This is a game for builders." (close enough) But if you don't go to war, what is there for you to really do? Oh goody, I built all the buildings in my city and I only have to wait 40 turns for the next advance that will give me the technology that allows me to research something, so that I can build another building after 40 more turns of research. click, click, click, click, click.

What about exploration and commercial development? Oh yeah, build a marketplace. There's some commercial development for Ya'

[Stuie]

Originally posted by ahenobarb
Most people who have played from Civ I's initial release were impressed with the quatum leap of Civ 2.

That's funny. I remember people complaining to no end that Civ2 was just Civ1 with a graphics upgrade and it sucked because it didn't have multiplayer out of the box. I don't recall ANYONE asserting that it was a "quantum leap" over Civ1 when it came out. Amazing how perceptions change.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Stuie et. al.,

Every Civ-style game has been slammed on these boards upon release. It was the same for CIV2 then SMAC, wow did CTP ever get thrashed, and now CIV3.

In each of those situations (I can't speak for CTP as I never tried it, being too involved in SMAC at the time), I thought the critics were waaay off base. As you follow the progression of the games, each generation of games added something to the game. CIV3 took away much more than it added IMHO. Now the game itself is Ok and if modded or Xp'd properly might even become good ( I doubt if it ever will achieve classic status ), but my issue with the release of CIV3, is the message SID/FirX are delivering and receiving.

Message sent : A stripped down version of CIV is what the gaming public wants b/c overly complex games (that ultimately culminated in overly complex SMAC as the last generation) will not find a wide appeal.

Message recieved: Look at the reviews from the (syncophant) game reviewers, Look at our sales!! Woohoo told you we were right! Civ 4 should be even further stripped!

OTOH forums such as these appear to be the only areas of dissent. So in summary I think there is a real and legitamite reason to be alarmed and send FIRX/Sid the meassage we as faithful TBS's want him to hear.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Stuie


That's funny. I remember people complaining to no end that Civ2 was just Civ1 with a graphics upgrade and it sucked because it didn't have multiplayer out of the box. I don't recall ANYONE asserting that it was a "quantum leap" over Civ1 when it came out. Amazing how perceptions change.

I am ANYONE and my perception hasn't changed, i still play Civ 2 and it is still a quantum leap over Civ 1 *AND* Civ 3.

Ogie Oglethorpe is spot on, keep the games nice and shallow (It costs less to program), jack up the price, and rake in the dough. The more shallow, the more boring, the more boring, the more the player will want to buy another game -- would you like another shallow game? Excellent, we have several, $60 please.

Nice and shallow, ankle deep will do.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by nato
I like your post Dominae. I think it points out well that the heart of the problem is they simplified the game too much.

The expansion packs could fix this if they add new features, not just new leader heads and UUs!

More "stuff" does not make a better game. Sometime's more "stuff" just makes a pile of "stuff". Civ II and SMAC definately had more "stuff" and much of it was never used. I'm glad they reduced the clutter, but if you think reducing clutter is the same as simplifying....I don't know what to say. Good luck to you.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

AC,

I understand you want a cleaner more simplified game, hated SMAC, Love CIV3 and all that. But certainly you can see, all that stuff that was never used might have been valuable and used by someone else.

One mans trash is afterall another mans treasure.

Taking it out means that the folks that liked the clutter (as you refer to it) never have the option to use it. A bit too restrictive a policy if you ask me.

[nato]

More "stuff" does not make a better game. Sometime's more "stuff" just makes a pile of "stuff". Civ II and SMAC definately had more "stuff" and much of it was never used. I'm glad they reduced the clutter, but if you think reducing clutter is the same as simplifying....I don't know what to say. Good luck to you.

Oh please. You might not agree with my position, but nothing I said was stupid or unreasonable. "I don't know what to say. Good luck to you." I'm so sure.

I'll save you the trouble. Until you can stop being condescending, don't worry about what to say ... don't say anything.

[Dominae]

Well, it all depends if the "stuff" in question has strategic value, or if it is essentially superficial.

The UUs in Civ3, although a great idea and pretty cool to play with, are mostly superficial. Building an bunch of Immortals is not strategically interesting (similarly for almost all other UUs). I could go so far as to say that early game warfare in Civ3 is dominated by the question: Swordsmen or Horsemen? Building a "mixed" army is hardly more interesting. UUs do not add to this basic question, but in fact make it easier to answer. Mao: "Hm, it's the Middle Ages, guess it's time to build some Riders".

If you've played SMAC sufficiently enough, you know that in no part of the game are the decisions this simple. Sure, the good strategies that have been learned after hours of gaming, yet there are still (IMO) many opportunities for innovation.

"Would upgrading my Terraformers with armor really help thwart an invasion, and is it worth the cost?"

"Can I afford to have Deidre hate me if I change to Free Market economics, given that I have no defenses against Mind Worms?"

"Will my Foil chassis Probe Teams have enough coastal targets, or will they just cruise around and get sunk by Isles?"

I think you'll agree with me that all the decisions arise from complex game mechanics, in other words, they are hardly "superficial". Compare any of these questions with most decisions you make in Civ3 and you'll see my point immediately.

Civ3 is inherently simpler than SMAC; it was designed this way. SMAC was more complex, thus more strategic, thus more replayable, and thus more fun (all IMO).


Dominae

[Alex]

Dominae: