c#211 CIV3: THE LAST GLASS OF WINE

MarkG · July 20, 2002, 20:56

#211 CIV3: THE LAST GLASS OF WINE

The eternal issue: exactly how much does civ3...

2 articles this time, the last of their kind....

tniem · July 20, 2002, 22:13

So Markos, you are going to be desperate for articles, yet you will not accept any more that complain about Civ III? What is left?

MarkG · July 20, 2002, 22:18

Bush

Jaybe · July 20, 2002, 22:20

MarkG,
I am SO glad that these are the last articles of their kind. I put them into the same class as all the other articles which I didn't care for (all of them, as I recall). They seem to have done nothing but *****, *****, *****.

I LIKE the abstraction that resources portray. Saltpeter represents the capability to make gunpowder, whether or not IRL gunpowder comes from a mineral in the ground call saltpeter.

The vast majority of the time, if I get a start in a so-so location, then it is just a challenge to get to the point of overtaking the AI. I may start over, but I play dozens of hours first. A game of mine may last hundreds of hours. I like to play Regent, and I am a builder/warrior combo.

Basic things I haven't liked about the game include the Starship coming too early (I made it Robotics dependent in 1.29) and lack of different bomber types. Tech trading among the AI is something I just have to deal with

BTW, I have had a tank repulsed (though not destroyed) by a spearman defending in a town.

(Sorry, but I am not much of a writer - get Vel!)

Wise Ass · July 20, 2002, 23:33

I really liked the Artical compareing it to CTP id made some really good points.

Switch · July 21, 2002, 00:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
MarkG,
I am SO glad that these are the last articles of their kind. I put them into the same class as all the other articles which I didn't care for (all of them, as I recall). They seem to have done nothing but *****, *****, *****.

[

]My sentiments EXACTLY! Finally, we'll get some more original articles more often. Why do people complain about a game? Why not just do something else and let people who like it play and chat about it without their incescant ranting?

Frankly, all I hear when reading these negative rants is
"Don't pick it up, pick it up, pick i -
"Don't pick it up, pick it up, pick i -
"Don't pick it up, pick it up, pick i - "
(That's for all of you Douglas Adams fans out there

)

The positive comment is for the second ranter, who actually complained about something relatively original, starting positions. But that's about it, really.

I guess I should shut up myself now, before I start digging myself a hole

[/

]

AAGamer · July 21, 2002, 00:10

I have to admit I agree with a number of things in the article by Dirk Zelwis about 10 reasons not to buy Civ3... I enjoy a number of things about the game--they are few. Probably the best thing to come out of a game with problems are all the individuals that step up and make programs to expand upon the games limitiations.. Between here and Civfanatics I have found many a reason to keep trying to play civ 3 only because of their efforts to improve, modify and limit the boredom.. I too own CTP and didnt play it for long due to its limits from Civ2 and returned to Civ2 only because of its scenarios.. Civ3 still in incapable of creating effective historical scenarios... I could probably create 10 more reasons not to buy but I will leave that up to someone elses artilce.... Thanks for speaking up!!!

NeoStar · July 21, 2002, 01:36

I've noticed how people who dislike Civ3 always refer to previous versions of the game. They should remember not to forget that Civ and Civ2 never had so much expectation placed upon them.

I loved Civ2, but if Civ3 had been nothing but an updated incarnation of that I would have been disappointed. Civ3 shares the legacy, but its another individual game by itself so if you judge it by its own merits I reckon Civ3's a fun game.

Nubclear · July 21, 2002, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
2 articles this time, the last of their kind....

Begin

Mark, why did you post them again in the first place? This has been argued over and over again and frankly, it's getting so ******* old (pardon my language).

I mean, I come online and the columns, their just filled with "Civ3 Sucks, Civ3 Sucks, Civ3 Sucks" and it's so annoying. I mean......its frustrating.

So, on your word of honor, promise us that these are the LAST articles of this kind. No surpises, no loopholes......And please, no more anti-civ3 articles.

End

Bleyn · July 21, 2002, 04:35

First, it tends to worry me when someone places CTP1/2 in the direct Civ lineage, considering that neither Sid nor Microprose ever had any direct control over them, and CTP2 didn't even have the Civ moniker. I'm not surprised that Firaxis effectively ignored them.

Second, lets try not to distort the facts too much shall we? According to all the comments from Firaxians I've read, fundementalism was gone well before 9/11. And I doubt PCness had anything to do with its disappearance personally. And for the record, I consider the government modeling in Civ3 successful. I never bothered with Communism or Fundie in Civ2, going straight to Democracy as quickly as possible and staying there. In Civ3, I've started using all of the governments at different stages of the game and will switch between govs in the late game depending on my war status. I just can't see how they could stick Fundie into that mix and have it be useful.

On the subject of the resource system, I personally like it. To me it does make the game more challenging. Its not all just about racing through the tech tree as quickly as possible, or having the most effective system for tiling your cities and terraforming the land into exactly the form you want. You have to think ahead, and position cities in opportune locations, and hope they pay off. It makes the game more of a gamble, because even after you can see where everything is, things can still change. And yes, I can think of some nitpicks with the resource system, but to be honest, they are minor, and I understand why they did it how they did.

As for combat, I'm not surprised that they only did minor changes. Its not like they made major changes with Civ2 either. It works, its familiar and to be honest, after hanging around here, I personally suspect that there would have been more whining on this forum if the combat system had been completely reworked than has occurred with the revisions they did do. You can't please everyone and trying to do so would probably end up with the biggest disaster of them all.

Aeson · July 21, 2002, 05:45

I should pay more attention to the threads at the top. The numbers make so much more sense now.

Harovan · July 21, 2002, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I mean, I come online and the columns, their just filled with "Civ3 Sucks, Civ3 Sucks, Civ3 Sucks" and it's so annoying. I mean......its frustrating.

Good god, who reads these columns? They are 99.9% utter nonsense. See the gibberish of that second guy.

MarkG · July 21, 2002, 06:57

Quote:

why did you post them again in the first place?

they were sent before we made the announcement that we wont be posting any more articles like this. i felt they should be posted

player1 · July 21, 2002, 07:33

These articles look like some sort of Civ3 bashing.

Talking only about bad sides of Civ3, about good sides of other games, and sometimes even complaining about things that are OK for most people.

There were much better articles which criticized Civ3 in past.

These are just not good.

SpencerH · July 21, 2002, 08:28

Markos, AFAIK its your website and you're free to choose what to publish. Where does this type of "broad stroke" censorship end though? The comments are negative towards CIV3 therefore its whining? Is there no place now for legitimate dissent with the majority opinion? Whats next, no firaxis-bashing in the threads? Will we be banned for the "no comment" comments and have to burn the (your) T-shirts?

Perhaps you need to clarify your position?

High Lord J · July 21, 2002, 10:50

all these people talk about is how hard it is and they call that a bad thing.

1: Waah I don't always get a perfect starting point all the time.

Nobody does that is why it is fun. You have to work hard and conquer a new place when your land doesn't suite you. Build workers to improve the land and such. I find it a good feature that you often get a bad starting point and through history most civs didn't start out in a perfect position.

2: Waah I don't have enough resources.

Your not supposed to. You have to chance your strategy based on resources that is the fun part. It helps give you a new game each time you play so shut up!!!

MarkG · July 21, 2002, 11:04

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
Where does this type of "broad stroke" censorship end though?

i fail to see where the censorship is? we're just saying that we've given more space than needed to these kinds of articles. we believe it's time to be more fair towards civ3 in terms of what's posted on civ3

Quote:

The comments are negative towards CIV3 therefore its whining?

read my PS on the intro article

Quote:

Is there no place now for legitimate dissent with the majority opinion?

The Column != Forums

Quote:

Whats next, no firaxis-bashing in the threads?

bashing of any kind is prohibited anyway

Quote:

Will we be banned for the "no comment" comments and have to burn the (your) T-shirts?

when was the last time someone was banned only because his opinion was different?

Quote:

Perhaps you need to clarify your position?

perhaps you need to read more carefully of what is and have been posted?

AAGamer · July 21, 2002, 11:55

Well unfortunaly this doesnt seem like a forum to place opinions.

Quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
Where does this type of "broad stroke" censorship end though?
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
i fail to see where the censorship is? we're just saying that we've given more space than needed to these kinds of articles. we believe it's time to be more fair towards civ3 in terms of what's posted on civ3.. End Quote:

This is the definition of Censor as per Webster's

Roman magistrate with authority to regulate the moral conduct of the citizens: an officer who examines written and printed matter with power to delete or suppress the contents: a stern critic: (pysch.) an unconsious inhibitive mechanism in the mind that prevents what is painful from emerging into consciousness---v.t. to subject to censorial examination: to delete, suppress as a censor might. --adjs. censo'rial, belonging to a censor, or to the correction of public morals......

Unfortunatly what SpencerH said is quite accurate.... Censorship....... Now when you reply to this --- no condesending tone allowed and make sure you censor it first!!!

But seriously this is a good forum----- I have been reading for a quite a while but have saved my comments... Let people say what they have to say and they'll be done with it, but if you get adversarial or confrontational you may be surprised who shows up...
Thanks Mark

SpencerH · July 21, 2002, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
i fail to see where the censorship is?

Quote:

2 articles this time, the last of their kind....

My point is, what "kind" is that?

Quote:

The comments are negative towards CIV3 therefore its whining?

read my PS on the intro article

Quote:

The point of all this is that I believe we've given too much space to the minority of civ3 players: the ones who didnt like parts of it or all of it for that matter.....

PS. Yes, the general title of this issue is provocative(if you get the pun

) and certainly not characteristic of what we have published about civ3 on the Column.

So you've given too much space to them but they're not characteristic of whats been published

Quote:

Is there no place now for legitimate dissent with the majority opinion?

The Column != Forums

Quote:

Whats next, no firaxis-bashing in the threads?

bashing of any kind is prohibited anyway

Quote:

Will we be banned for the "no comment" comments and have to burn the (your) T-shirts?

when was the last time someone was banned only because his opinion was different?

Those are rhetorical questions with a philosophical, rather than practical focus. I apologise if they are badly worded.

Quote:

Perhaps you need to clarify your position?

perhaps you need to read more carefully of what is and have been posted?

I read it quite carefully, thanks.

Quote:

we're just saying that we've given more space than needed to these kinds of articles. we believe it's time to be more fair towards civ3 in terms of what's posted on civ3

That seems resonable to me, but not the idea that you wont publish any more dissenting views. What I was trying to evoke was a clarification of "whining" vs "legitimate concerns". I think most, but not all, gripes with CIV3 have been handled with the patches. What happens with PtW though? It may be great out of the box (I hope it is), but it may not be! The inference from your statement is that you will not publish any more dissenting views. I think thats a mistake.

Switch · July 21, 2002, 13:17

I think, SpencerH, that Mark is saying that he's currently going to stop using negative, repetative columns, because most people on these forums have heard them a hundred times over, and most people want something orignal. Sure, criticizing is good, at least constructive, but there comes a point when everything is just repeated blithering, and no one really cares to read the columns due to a usualk lack of orignal content.

And personally, I also think that people are over-exagerating Civ3's problems WAY too much, ex. You might get a lot of difficult starting positions, so DON'T BUY THE GAME!; I don't like the culture system, it's unrealistic, so DON'T BUY THE GAME!; There are a few problems, so the ENTIRE GAME IS UNPLAYABLE!, etc. Sure, the game has problems, but most people are making them out to be a lot bigger than what they are. As a comedian once said, don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.

MarkG · July 21, 2002, 13:55

Quote:

Mark is saying that he's currently going to stop using negative, repetative columns, because most people on these forums have heard them a hundred times over, and most people want something orignal.

AMEN

MarkG · July 21, 2002, 13:57

btw, by the time of PtW we will have one more way for people to express their opinions, beyond the forums and the column

Purple · July 21, 2002, 14:18

If I understand the thrust of the new policy, it is not negativity that will be "censored," but repetitive negativity. If someone comes up with an original criticism, that would be an acceptible topic for a column.

On the other hand, I would not want to read repetitive fawning. We've witnessed plenty of that, too.

Jawn Henry · July 21, 2002, 16:38

Too many people compare Civ3 to Civ2, as if it should be a successor, an "offspring", like if there should be direct lineage between the two. I feel this is a pitfall, and is why many "disgruntlees" are, well... disgruntled. The title of the game would have us believe it is meant as this, but when you really get down to look at it, Civ3 is an entirely new game, and should be treated as such.

Instead of treating it as a crowning achievement that failed, why don't we treat it as a new begining, something new to build upon. This is what we got - let's work with it.

I've got my gripes about the game, there's no doubt about it. I used to dislike Civ3 very much - though i knew it was a good game in itself. I just couldn't figure why i didn't like it : that never happened to me for a Civ game. It's because i expected it to be some sort of super-improved Civ2. Sorry, it isn't. IMHO, it is different enough to say it's a whole new game. We're staring anew, people. Civ2 isn't better or worse than Civ3. Just different.

My 2 cents...

JH

sabrewolf · July 21, 2002, 17:41

i must admit: when i read these columns i thought "not again". i don't mind citisism, after all, civ3 isn't perfect. but a lot of the grumbling is based on inexperience.

specially the "10 reasons not to buy civ3" pi$$ed me off a LOT.
- reasons 1-5 were ALL based on starting locations... well, that's ONE point to me, not 5.
- reason 6 (AI cheatin)... well, it looks like good old dirk was reloading 100 times to realize, that the random generator is based on things like unit number, turn number and so on and isn't completely random. looks like he cheated, so don't blame the AI to do the same
- the best was reason 9:

Quote:

"My impression is, you survive with luck. When playing on level "prince", the third easiest level, you survive with big luck"

now i'm not a very good player either, but to admit hardly being able to survive level 3/6 and blaming that on the AI is a joke. that a POSITIVE aspect of the game, not a negative one.

so much to the topic

but back to thread conversation:
markos, i don't think you should exclude further critisisms. only the bad ones. and the rate of negative articles published should be the same as the rate of negative articles written...
... but having seen so many "civ3-suckz"-columns recently, i believe a break could be healthy

SpencerH · July 21, 2002, 18:26

The answer is to publish a positive article with the negative ones, or to provide a direct rebuttal. I would say there are lots of people who could/would do it if asked.

Switch · July 21, 2002, 22:44

Actually, I agree with that. Rebuttals

Who woulda thought? And we have a perfect medium through which to do so: These very forums!

BTW, sorry if I sounded sarcastic, I didn't mean to

tniem · July 22, 2002, 00:21

I agree with what one poster said above. It isn't that you shouldn't post negative comments, they should be educated. It seems at times that the column is in such need of something that you take whatever is provided. Maybe we should just go a week without it or with you begging for more. Make someone rewrite things that they have posted if they are not good. Have someone edit it. Have someone look at it for content. And yes I know this means someone has to do it.

By the way, I have worked for the past two hours on a column. I am going to send it to Dan tonight. I would love it if you guys would read it and tell me it either a) is pretty good, b) is good but needs work here, or c) go back to the drawing boards. Seriously, this thing is going to be read by many people. Some basic editing and rewriting should take place.

Harovan · July 22, 2002, 04:52

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
specially the "10 reasons not to buy civ3" pi$$ed me off a LOT.

I didn't take this article serious. It's bare of all logical sense. While criticism in the style of Libertarian, Zylka or jimmytrick is at least intelligent and tolerable (even though one might not agree), this article is merely the childish rant of a piss poor player, who blames the game for the fact, that he is unable to win.

Adriano · July 22, 2002, 05:07

I hate Civ III,although there are some good ideas in, so I enjoy reading pieces like Dirk's!!.
But.....a moment please.....Why I hate Civ III so deeply?.
..cause I loved CivI&II so much!.
This is the reason why the community is alive !!!.
This is the reason why I'll keep on buying all Civ and Ctp games( I bet Dirk too....)!
So I think to choose if an article is enough original it's a big mistake!
We all deserve professional games......the level and the quality of AI is going down not growing up.