Expansion or conjob?

HappySunShine · August 9, 2002, 22:20

"Multiplayer Modes: Includes Turn-Based and Simultaneous game types and appearing for the first time in a Civilization game, a Turn-less mode. Provides full TCP-IP/LAN, Hotseat and Play be Email support.
Multiplayer games: Face off against the best Civilization players worldwide with fast-paced multiplayer games like Elimination, Domination, Regicide and Capture the Flag.
Eight new Civilizations featuring new Leaders including: Genghis Khan Temujin, King Hannibal, Queen Isabella and King Brennus, and all new units will challenge your diplomatic and combat skills.
Enhanced Scenario Editor, including new unit and tile sets lets players construct a Scenario from any time period.
Players can strengthen their empire with:
new map features like outposts, airfields and radar towers
new guerilla and medieval infantry units
new wonders and city improvements like the stock market or the Internet

Updated interface improvements like auto bombard, rally points, stacked movement and a streamlined espionage interface allow for more efficient management.
A dazzling new opening cinematic and combat animations bring your Civilization world to life like never before.
Easier-to-use interface for streamlined management and better control."

Now what exactly here is an expansion on the game and not something that was supposed/expected to be in the game in the first place? Adding 8 new civilizations is very simple, there's all kinds of mods made by people to add them. Outposts, airfields, radar towers? Come on, it's not like they're really thinking outside the box here. Airfields were in civ2 and outposts is an idea from AOK, and correct me if I'm wrong but radar towers were in EE. New cinematics? Ok, it's an expansion, but not a useful one. Finally a better interface...but could this not have been developed through a beta? All they're doing is taking all the complaints we've made and incorporating some of them. Stacked movement for example has been asked for since the release and would have been one of the first suggestions made in a beta. Of course if they had done a beta then they wouldn't have much to go on for an expansion and that would mean less money...but we already knew that. MP is the biggest joke of all. I would like one person to name a game within the past 6 years that came out without MP and then was released in an expansion besides civilization 2. The capture the flag/regicide/domination are all ideas from other games. What does civ3 really offer that is unique about it or for that matter improves upon its predecessor? A sequel is supposed to be an improvement on the previous game, but civ3 has only taken a step back. MORE is the keyword here, not less. I don't think the word MORE exists in the vocabulary of FIRAXIS and Infogrames.

Inverse Icarus · August 9, 2002, 22:34

sure they're making you pay $30 for features that could have been included in the regular game. BUT THEY'RE GIVING YOU MORE CIVS. ALL THOSE LEADERHEADS! THEY HIRED A WHOLE NEW ART STAFF TO PUMP THIS BABY OUT ON TIME! THEY HAD TO FIRE THE CODERS TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE ARTISITS.

erm, [/rant]

FrantzX · August 9, 2002, 22:40

I'm looking at the readme.txt for version 1.29f. You know, all the additions that they put in for free. That's all.

HappySunShine · August 9, 2002, 22:45

Quote:

I'm looking at the readme.txt for version 1.29f. You know, all the additions that they put in for free. That's all.

Additions or fixes? The "additions" are more like fixes. The ability to destroy units with bombardment was not an "addition" it was a fix to the fact that bombardment was completely useless. Every single thing that has been an "addition" through the patches could easily have been in the first release if they had done a beta test. And there is no such thing as getting somethign for free. Nothing in life is free. All you're getting is what should have been in the game in the first place that you paid for. How do you think the PTW expansion would sell if firaxis never fixed some of the point voiced in the massive amounts of complaints? They aren't fixing these things because they want to, they're fixing them because if they don't nobody will buy the expansion. It's far more profitable to spend the small amount of money to fix the game than it is to lose half your consumers. So please, don't ever tell me we're getting things free from Firaxis because if anything we paid too much.

Jaybe · August 9, 2002, 22:51

"I rant on your ranting"

In the tone of "I fart in your direction" (Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Would you have preferred that they did everything without player input to get the improvements we have had in the last 9 months?

Just imagine, they could have delayed the release of the whole game until now (or later), and you would probably had to accept a 'final' game without most of that input. The assistance of all this 'playtesting' is of much greater value than a handful of beta-testers (especially if inhouse) that they could not have afforded in the first place. Not to mention all the pleasure that MANY people have had since its initial release!

Zachriel · August 9, 2002, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine The ability to destroy units with bombardment was not an "addition" it was a fix to the fact that bombardment was completely useless.

Nay, nay. Bombardment is one of the most powerful features of the game. Here is an example using cannon to soften a city's defenses:

http://www.zachriel.com/Attack.htm

If bombardment was made any more powerful, it might unbalance the game. In addition, the complete destruction of infantry units by bombardment is not historical.

Jaybe · August 9, 2002, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel
...
If bombardment was made any more powerful, it might unbalance the game. In addition, the complete destruction of infantry units by bombardment is not historical.

Especially since the AI cannot (yet) effectively bombard!

HappySunShine · August 9, 2002, 23:16

Quote:

Just imagine, they could have delayed the release of the whole game until now (or later), and you would probably had to accept a 'final' game without most of that input. The assistance of all this 'playtesting' is of much greater value than a handful of beta-testers (especially if inhouse) that they could not have afforded in the first place. Not to mention all the pleasure that MANY people have had since its initial release!

First of all, the idea of a beta is to put out a final product that is complete. Only minor changes are supposed to be made in patches. Putting in an editor is not a minor change. If we were to go by your reasoning then gamemakers would simply sell us the game as they created it so we could have "fun" with the work in progress as we gave our input. Obviously this doesn't work or all the game companies would be doing that. The reason most game companies do a beta is because the backlash of a game that is released before the problems are fixed is usually devastating. The backlash on civ3 has been incredible, but the difference is that we're dealing with a company that isn't player friendly. The best response you get from them is usually

Take a look at how ES is handling AOM. There's been 2 betas now and it's still not slated for release until late fall. When you release a game and then use the players as beta testers you get 2 things:

1. It pisses off the players.

2. You have such a flood of complaints that it's difficult to distinguish between real game flaws and just the usual whinning from players.

Personally I don't see how Firaxis could ever make civ3 a complete and finished game at this point because they have no set standard or consistency in the settings. They've basically given us an editor (finally) and told us to fix it. Well that's fine for SP, but in MP there has to be some sort of a standard to the rules or it's very difficult to get a large MP following. But I guess we'll see once PTW is released. I won't hold my breath though.

Lord Merciless · August 9, 2002, 23:29

What do you think what Infograme is? Another one of those cold, heartless, and greedy rip-off artists. On the other hand, despite all the negative press Microsoft receives, this is a company led by a visionary person who understands the business, not some corrupt and clueless Wall-Street "Professionals".

asleepathewheel · August 10, 2002, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine

The backlash on civ3 has been incredible, but the difference is that we're dealing with a company that isn't player friendly. The best response you get from them is usually

Firaxis isn't player friendly? they are on this board all the time responding to queries and complaints and have released numerous patches. Give me a break.

Backlash? Aside from a few vocal posters, I haven't seen that much of a backlash, and the game sold very well. Hardly incredible.

Aeson · August 10, 2002, 01:57

Well the backlash is incredible in one regard: how a handful of posters seem to be able to read the minds of millions of others and speak for everyone, even though everyone else disagrees with them. Amazing!

Inverse Icarus · August 10, 2002, 02:17

PTW is offering MP (supposed to be in original game).

that aside, PTW is offering efficient stack movement. again, this should be in regular civ.

The only thing they have the right to charge us for (IMHO) is the additional Civs / game modes (regicide, etc).

sigh...

Aeson · August 10, 2002, 02:37

They have the right to charge anything they'd like for whatever they produce. We have the right to buy it or not. Sometimes there are things we'd like which we can't afford (or aren't willing to pay for), sucks, but that's the way our economy works.

If you want MP (or whatever feature) bad enough to buy PtW then buy it. If not, then don't. I don't see what the problem is here.

Catt · August 10, 2002, 02:41

Why are the forums suddenly experiencing a spike in trolls? And why are the trolls so uninspired? Is there some external event that I missed to explain it?

notyoueither · August 10, 2002, 02:45

If you didn't like the game out of the box you are unlikely to like it after it is patched. So why do you stick around?

MP is a point, however it was not advertised as having MP a year ago. In fact, it was stated on forums like these that it would not have MP originally.

You got the choice. You bought it. Live with it.

notyoueither · August 10, 2002, 02:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
Why are the forums suddenly experiencing a spike in trolls? And why are the trolls so uninspired? Is there some external event that I missed to explain it?

Yes Catt. Expectations are rising as anticipation of PtW grows and the natives are getting restless.

Catt · August 10, 2002, 02:58

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Yes Catt. Expectations are rising as anticipation of PtW grows and the natives are getting restless.

Ah - of course. Quite right. Carry on.

Coracle · August 10, 2002, 05:14

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
sure they're making you pay $30 for features that could have been included in the regular game. BUT THEY'RE GIVING YOU MORE CIVS. ALL THOSE LEADERHEADS! THEY HIRED A WHOLE NEW ART STAFF TO PUMP THIS BABY OUT ON TIME! THEY HAD TO FIRE THE CODERS TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE ARTISITS.

erm, [/rant]

Don't forget, they have also added animated SPLASHES for sea bombardment!! Wow.

What more could we want??

Coracle · August 10, 2002, 05:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
"I rant on your ranting"

In the tone of "I fart in your direction" (Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Would you have preferred that they did everything without player input to get the improvements we have had in the last 9 months?

Just imagine, they could have delayed the release of the whole game until now (or later), and you would probably had to accept a 'final' game without most of that input. The assistance of all this 'playtesting' is of much greater value than a handful of beta-testers (especially if inhouse) that they could not have afforded in the first place. Not to mention all the pleasure that MANY people have had since its initial release!

In all seriousness, I was not asked if I wanted to pay over $50 in November to be a playtester for a beta game.

Secondly, the "input" Firaxis has responded to has been very limited and grudging. They ignored over five years of input on forums after Civ 2 as we all discussed an upcoming Civ 3, and then it took them four patches to get SOME things right.

Did it really take all those patches to figure out we needed a "fortify all" command?

Why have they ignored complaints about such as unlimited MP's on RR's; a maximum range of only '8' for bombers; no modifier or 'off' switch for flipping??

After repeated complaints about the slowness of the game Firaxis slowed it down even more with patch 1.21.

Firaxis' level of responsiveness to actual significant changes (not mere bug corrections) has been very limited indeed.

And new lipstick on the same old game (with PTW) is not the answer.

HappySunShine · August 10, 2002, 10:35

Amazing how the fanboys never really debate the subject, rather they call anyone who disagrees with them a troll and a whiner. When you pay money for something you earn the right to criticize it if you feel you were swindeled. For you to sit there and tell me and anyone else who speaks out against Firaxis that we should just go play another game is lame at best. This forum is here to voice opinions, if you can't refute the arguments I have presented then don't post. I do like alot of things about civ3, but there are too many factors that outweigh the good things and I will continue to voice as many complaints as I like.

Quote:

Firaxis isn't player friendly? they are on this board all the time responding to queries and complaints and have released numerous patches. Give me a break.

Actually firaxis responds to complaints with this

And they respond to queries only if they are allowed to answer it.

Quote:

Backlash? Aside from a few vocal posters, I haven't seen that much of a backlash, and the game sold very well. Hardly incredible.

Were you not here a few months ago when this board was filled with nothing but complaints? Maybe it was a figment of my imagination. And correct me if I'm wrong but the game did not sell as well as civ2.

Zachriel · August 10, 2002, 10:50

Oh, goodie. Multiple choice.

Expansion or conjob?

(Let me see. They are going to add more features . . .

Quote:

"Multiplayer Modes: Includes Turn-Based and Simultaneous game types and appearing for the first time in a Civilization game, a Turn-less mode. Provides full TCP-IP/LAN, Hotseat and Play be Email support.
Multiplayer games: Face off against the best Civilization players worldwide with fast-paced multiplayer games like Elimination, Domination, Regicide and Capture the Flag.
Eight new Civilizations featuring new Leaders including: Genghis Khan Temujin, King Hannibal, Queen Isabella and King Brennus, and all new units will challenge your diplomatic and combat skills.
Enhanced Scenario Editor, including new unit and tile sets lets players construct a Scenario from any time period.
Players can strengthen their empire with:
new map features like outposts, airfields and radar towers
new guerilla and medieval infantry units
new wonders and city improvements like the stock market or the Internet

Updated interface improvements like auto bombard, rally points, stacked movement and a streamlined espionage interface allow for more efficient management.
A dazzling new opening cinematic and combat animations bring your Civilization world to life like never before.
Easier-to-use interface for streamlined management and better control."

. . . plus they are going to charge money for it. That would make it an expansion, I think, not a patch. Maybe an upgrade. No, that's not on the multiple choice list. Conjob means swindle which is illegal. No pending legal action, so that doesn't apply.)

I pick expansion!

rob.derosa · August 10, 2002, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
and correct me if I'm wrong but radar towers were in EE.

You are wrong.

Pythagoras · August 10, 2002, 11:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

In all seriousness, I was not asked if I wanted to pay over $50 in November to be a playtester for a beta game.

Secondly, the "input" Firaxis has responded to has been very limited and grudging. They ignored over five years of input on forums after Civ 2 as we all discussed an upcoming Civ 3, and then it took them four patches to get SOME things right.

Did it really take all those patches to figure out we needed a "fortify all" command?

Why have they ignored complaints about such as unlimited MP's on RR's; a maximum range of only '8' for bombers; no modifier or 'off' switch for flipping??

After repeated complaints about the slowness of the game Firaxis slowed it down even more with patch 1.21.

Firaxis' level of responsiveness to actual significant changes (not mere bug corrections) has been very limited indeed.

And new lipstick on the same old game (with PTW) is not the answer.

Firaxis wont change things that only some people are opposed to, and to be fair they have included ways to change many of the complained about rules in the editor.

It does frustrate me when I see franchises (such as Star Wars, Star Trek, maybe Civ) take their loyal fan base for granted and 'sell out' by sacrificing progress for broader appeal.

reds4ever · August 10, 2002, 11:37

wasn't the fact there was no MP made known to people when the game was released? they had the choice to buy the game then or wait until the expansion became available, too late to moan now, you didn't have to buy Civ3 then and you don't have to buy the expansion now. whats the problem?

PS please don't say you thought MP would come as a free patch, beause it was obvious from Firaxis' repeated 'no comments' on the subject (not to say the past history (Civ1 and Civ2)) that they intended to charge for it

Lord Merciless · August 10, 2002, 12:05

Several of your guys blame Firaxis, which I think is really not justified. The problem lies with INFOGRAMES, they are the who determines the game release date and the its package content.

Menkerios · August 11, 2002, 08:15

Granted, stuff like stack movement should have been fixed long ago in a patch, not hyped up as a feature of the expansion.
But the initial rant is pretty unfounded. You claim its not an expansion if the 'new' features (like ctf) have appeared in some form in other games? Come on. They haven't appeared in civ3 yet, and are thus new to civ3. They EXPAND upon civ 3. For anything really unique, we will have to wait for civ 4

Coracle · August 11, 2002, 20:41

Here something else that needs to be fixed - territorial integrity.

This relates to this "Expansion" thread in that it is a sleazy cheat the AI uses to expand.

I am sick and tired of rival civ's units marching past my borders and having to be TOLD, over and over and over, to get out.

Often they don't leave until the third turn after we've reached the "Declare War or Get Out" phase. That is especially so with those irritating land-grabbing settlers.

If I attack these jerks I take a rep hit. But I often get blamed for things I never did anyway, so I may as well atack.

It sucks.

FIX IT, FIRAXIS.

Ethelred · August 12, 2002, 04:36

Obviously the AI has every bit as much respect for you as most of us do for your posts Coracle.

vondrack · August 12, 2002, 05:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred
Obviously the AI has every bit as much respect for you as most of us do for your posts Coracle.

Well said!

Ironikinit · August 12, 2002, 06:19

BOO HOOTY I BOUGHT A GAME FOR 50 DOLLARS LAST YEAR AND I DIDN'T LIKE IT... I'M STILL NOT OVER IT... FIX MY LIFE FIRAXIS OR FEAR MY CAP LOCK... PAINT MY HOUSE AND BE MY BEST FRIEND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT.