Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

Travathian · August 11, 2002, 01:04

Since I dont know how to set up a poll, I'll just post a message and ask this . . .

Does Civ 3 offer as much of an emotional aspect as SMAC?

Let me explain. Sister Miriam of the Believers is a... No matter how many games I played I always tried to kick her a$$ cause she would always, ALWAYS come after me. And Morgan, that thieving bastard, always had enough money to just steal my armies from me.

See, I dont feel that way about Ceasar or Bismark. I dislike them because they are my opponents, but I dont intensely hate them with every fiber of my being like I do Miriam.

That's what I mean by emotional aspect. The way the games draws you into its world and forces you to evoke emotion, not just because you lost a particular city, but becauce of who did it!

For me the answer is simple. All my opponents in Civ3 could be named AI#1-7, and I'd never be able to tell them apart. Or feel any differently about individual ones.

What do you think?

Added by Ming... I think you should check your PM's...

Artifex · August 11, 2002, 01:17

I loved that game,,, but I played it too much, got too good at it, beat it all the time, and then finally got burnt out and quit after it finally got too boring.

It's been 3 years since I played it. I kinda forgot alot about it. I do remember Miriam was a byatch...I liked playing as morgan.

I loved designing my own units ALOT.

I am curious if there has ever been an SMAC vs CIV III Thread? Which one of these games is acknowledged as being the best/ is most popular, has the biggest following? I have always wondered that.

Artifex · August 11, 2002, 01:20

oh as far as emotional aspect..yes civ 3 does..when I am attacking a fortified pikeman with 10 cavalry and it kills all 10 of them I cuss out loud at my computer screen..hehe. I have real bad luck in combat it seems.....

Then gettign great leaders make smy day...on the extreme opposite end of th espectrum.

As far as leaders? Hmm...I view them as pawns and thier people as slaves to help promote my empire. Xerxes can be tough if you let him get alot of immortals...

Nubclear · August 11, 2002, 01:28

No, other than when I lose a battle unfairly.

To me, it almost seems like enteracting with one entity. I know I was doing the same thing with SMAC, but with SMAC its different. I didn't feel as if I were interacting with just one computer.

But civ3 is still fun, even if it doesnt evoke the emotional response.

Demerzel · August 11, 2002, 01:37

civ3 certainly brings out the emotion in me, mostly negative as I've said before when battle after battle goes wrong or another WoW is built a turn before I complete it.

that said the leaders are a bit too cut & paste really to get emotional about individual ones, they all act the same far too much, mainly attempting to try to rip you off in the same way. a pity that firaxis didn't have it so peaceful leaders would avoid war at all cost and actively intervene in conflicts attempting to mediate ceasefires ( which I liked in Civ2 ).

SMAC: I liked the designing of my units too, shame they had to junk that - I came up with some natty units indeed. Santiago of the Spartans annoyed me most as I was often the University and she would cosy up to get most of my techs as an ally then backstab later in the game when she had what she wanted.

The thing that I miss most about SMAC were the planetary busters. I loved building a few of those babies and then using them to take out an entire empire at once and turn their lands into sea. that was quality, the nukes in Civ3 suck so much in comparison ( in game terms & in amount of fun to use ) - raising the sea level too to inundate the enemy was often fun too

The planetary council was well done imho. The interaction was reasonably basic but was a nice addition indeed for game purposes. The UN in Civ3 really does suck ( I always disable diplomatic win 'cos it is so badly done ). It looks like they spent all of five minutes on it ( if indeed that much ) - anyone feel that this was one of the corners they cut to get it out when they did? Going from SMAC's council to Civ3's UN is a comically retrogradive step.

Jethro83 · August 11, 2002, 02:12

Yes it does.

While not to the extent that Yang and Miriam do in SMAC, Xerxes and Shaka send me and my empire into a fanatical rage and I always end up in a mad rush to wipe them out.

Of course, the ridiculously random results that tend to be more in the AI's favour can invoke anger. Even when I have 20 other knights in a stack and will easily take the city eventually, losing one means that the moment my forces are stretched too thin will be drawing closer. And I also tend to think "Why didn't you retreat you fools?!" when they do no damage whatsoever to the defenders, and they don't retreat when downed to 1HP.

Being beaten by two turns to a wonder is another anger-invoking thing to happen.

However, the best emotion Civ III can invoke is the feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment from winning a conquest or space race victory, and seeing my position in first place in all demographics.

Coracle · August 11, 2002, 05:27

Re: Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

Let's see. Anger, irritation, frustration, resentment, disappointment.

Actually, because of the way the AI cheats and how its civs all work together against the human it evokes less emotion in that sense as did Civ 2. I just don't see the individual civs as separate entities, but as part of the AI whole, if you know what I mean.

Nubclear · August 11, 2002, 06:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Actually, because of the way the AI cheats and how its civs all work together against the human it evokes less emotion in that sense as did Civ 2. I just don't see the individual civs as separate entities, but as part of the AI whole, if you know what I mean.

Again, I agree with Coracle. (

) It just seems like talking with one big huge entity. My enemies are out to get me, my allies are out to get me....the have no individualness.

But Civ2 NEVER got the slightest reaction from me. I'm sorry but...it's just as bad as civ3 if not worse. SMAC is champion. I hate Miriam with a passion, and the Hive are surprisingly loyal allies to me in most of my games.

Menkerios · August 11, 2002, 06:52

I noticed, too, that the AI doesnt have much personality. Plus, they do things which are damn near inexplicable-- getting annoyed at me for no reason, even furious, without any major diplomatic faux pas on my part.
I dislike cleopatra immensly. Even when I'm ruling the world, she's still mad salty to me. Only one I get on well with is france, but it could be a fluke.

Ijuin · August 11, 2002, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Re: Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

Actually, because of the way the AI cheats and how its civs all work together against the human it evokes less emotion in that sense as did Civ 2. I just don't see the individual civs as separate entities, but as part of the AI whole, if you know what I mean.

We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

I agree that the AI Civs should stop acting like "all for one and one for all" and start acting like "every man for himself". It makes absolutely no sense for one Civ to sacrifice itself in a war with the human so that the other Civs can get ahead. It makes MORE sense if the three or four strongest AI Civs ally against the human and pound him all together.

jdd2007 · August 11, 2002, 09:14

yes. sweat drips down my neck while negotiating with countries that might hace ICBMs, or pumping my fist (tiger-style) after i capture tokyo.

Thrawn05 · August 11, 2002, 09:53

I never played SMAC, but I must say there are times I want to take the computer and throw it out!

Damn you mounted warriors!

buiz · August 11, 2002, 10:38

Oh, emotion. Throwing half full coffee mugs with cigaret butts at friends at Red Alert sessions during link parties when the god damn tank-rusher-friend-of-yours wipe out your carefully constructed defensive base with 95 tanks or when your harvester on an acird trip tries to stroll through your enemy's camp because the #)%"#)¤/&"# path finding function in RA sucked. When the small hairs on your neck rise in Diablo when you are half dead and have no mana left and you are surrounded by hairy nasty monsters.

That's when emotions run high and coffee gets spilled out into keyboards. Common to these things, however, is the athmosphere. Can't beat an overcrowded room with 5 of your best buddies on a 20hrs straigth caffeine and nicotine fueld link marathon. Can't beat that chilling music of Diablo that just spells evilness and slimy dungeons.

Got carried away there, but my point is that Civ3 (for the moment) has none of this. The game is in my opinion in many ways the pinnacle of PC games and will remain so for many years, however, WHY OH WHY does the music suck so bad? If I'd run a poll I would bet that at least 95% of all players listen 5 secs during the first game, then turns the music off and get that 30GB mp3 collection of theirs running in the background. The music is so bad that it gives me a nose bleed. And WHY OH WHY did they have to save that multiplayer facility for the expansion pack? I would rather have waited for another year and paid double for a complete game from the beginning.

Caliban · August 11, 2002, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by buiz
The music is so bad that it gives me a nose bleed.

Agreed! I hate the music. And hatred is an emotion, so...

Inverse Icarus · August 11, 2002, 12:35

Unit workshop

Social Engineering

Civ3 has niether

if we're supposed to "recreate history", why are we confined to history's governments?

frostycreep · August 11, 2002, 14:08

I dont hate the music itself, just the way the music always seems to get stuck on a note when somethings loading. This is probably because my computers rubbish. On topic though, yes i feel emotion when playing civ 3. I hate both Bismark and Shaka with a passion!

Andemagne · August 11, 2002, 19:04

yes it does, but nothing in the way SMAC does.

Odd · August 11, 2002, 21:27

I´ll never forget the day when I was getting 100s gold per turn from russia, was carefully building my industries and railroads. At the peak of the industrial age´s blossoming that russian b**** had to pour dozens of cossacks through my borders, capturing lots of workers and taking down my cities while my army was at the german border?! I had then to change the production from factories to cavalry, and my cities had to live without hospitals. Anarchy. A few turns later the infantry was available but tanks were very far away (in other words: bombard, bombard, bombard)

I disbanded all russian cities and workers, and denied all peace treaties that would give me some breathe. It lasted almost 1000 years, but I only stopped until the last russian was dead

Odd · August 11, 2002, 21:34

I believe, hovever, that civ2 scenarios were more immersive than civ3 or smac.

Turkish armies marching over Paris in 1925, in WW1, or conquering London as napoleon, or nuking Los Angeles as a soviet was far more addictive than razing Washington with Marines in 1490, or destroing computed hackers with another plasma-laser-gravity bending ray gun

Gangerolf · August 11, 2002, 22:45

yes

Switch · August 11, 2002, 23:33

Sort of, but hardly in the way SMAC did.

But then again, Civ3 has all of 4 features differing between civs: 2 traits, aggresion level, and UU. Wheras Smac, having only 7 (eventually 14) factions, had MUCH more differentiation between them, and so character was able to develop more clearly (especially with the original 7). The Sister was a ***** who should be killed ASAP (although leaving her until late game, and then devastating her massive continent, gives much more satisfaction

), Morgan was a friend to be taken with a grain of salt, the Lady was an ally to be taken with a shaker of salt, Yang was a neutral to be taken with a bucket of salt, U.N. was a friend, Spartans were a neutral who you always needed to keep an eye on, and I was always the University.

Civ3 on the other hand.....I hate Cleo and Shaka. That's about it.

And when I play as Greece, I feel sorry for the backwards Romans

. I give them stuff

kimmygibler · August 12, 2002, 00:10

I think SMAC was really a better game. But that said, there are civs that I really dislike. For it's mostly the Germans. They are always ruining things for me.

DRoseDARs · August 12, 2002, 00:23

Ah, the ever radiant Sister Miriam of the Believers...GOD WHAT BE-OCH!!! More than any of the other SMAC or AC sects, if she and her little cohorts where in the game, I ALWAYS knew who my enemy was. None of the other sects ever liked her, so it was kinda easy to keep her of my back.

As far as Civ3...none of the civs illicit a hatred that is consistent through all the games I've played. The closest thing I've got is one scenario: Huge Pangea, Me=Greeks, Zulus to the east, Chinese further east, Indians even further east, Romans to the north, Persians further north, all the rest to the east beyond the Indians. I settled in a nice, wide valley surrounded by a solid mountain range (good, fortifyable borders). The Zulus and Chinese likewise had their own valleys. For centuries I maintained my border with the Zulus and Romans by securing the highest points along the mountain ranges (kinda like what the Israelis did after the Six Days War of 1967). And for centuries, the Zulus allowed the other civilizations to use their lands as an invasion route straight to my border, while they themselves never declared war, just badgered me for tribute. After about five hundred years of putting up with that crap, killed'em and took their valley. Again secured my border, this time with the Chinese, and again my neighbors to the east welcomed invaders, as long as they were just passing through to get to my territory. After five hundred years of putting up with THAT crap, killed them too and took THEIR valley. THEN THE ROMANS TO THE NORTH STARTED DOIN' IT!!! But, they managed to piss off the Persians north of them, so between the two of us, the Romans died quickly and painfully.

I had never seen that kind of behaviour before, but on one hand, the AI was smart, and on the other hand...DAMN was that annoying.

I always liked that scenario (deleted it ages ago) because of the topography of the continent, the spread of civilizations, and the fact that three seperate World Wars ignited, almost in exact step with real-world years. Moreover, World War III had the Babylonians and Persians nuking the hell out of the Americans. Things got really ugly, really quick. From the middle of WWI through the end of WWIII, I managed to absorb the nations of India, Azteca, Germany, the United States, and half of France. Then Persia and Babylonia started getting beligerent with me. By that time, I controlled half of Pangea (with six of the seven remaining civilizations squabbling over the other half), had an unmatched modern army, and an ICBM in each of my hundred and thirty or so cities. The endgame slowdown took TEN FREAKING MINUTES BETWEEN TURNS!!! Needless to say, if I had gone to war with the Persians, Babylonians, or God forbid BOTH...I'd still be waiting for my next turn...

Despite the initial emotion of pure, unadulterated contempt for the Zulus, Chinese, and Romans, I walked away from this particular game pretty happy with myself. Of course, when I saw the first Babylonian sneak-attack nukes hit one of my mid-sized cities...I just shut the computer off...

Dimorier Maximus · August 12, 2002, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Of course, when I saw the first Babylonian sneak-attack nukes hit one of my mid-sized cities...I just shut the computer off...

Don't we all?

I was in a game (Tiny map, 4 civs), and how does the computer start me? On an island between the Babylonians and the Zulus. Germany, gets their own island continent

, and I am in such a position between Babylon and Zululand that I can only place 3 cities. I think, "This will be challenging." So I play for a while and I start kicking some Babylonian butt after they tick me off. I capture Babylon itself. Then I remember the Zulus, and I take over Zimbabwe. I think I am doing well and then the stupid Germans start bombarding me 100 times each turn with ironclads. No civilization likes me in this game, and I don't like anyone of them either. Then I am building what I have, and I get into another war with the Zulus. Zimbabwe gets mad and flips back to Zululand even though the population is half Persian (my civ) and I built a ton of culture there of my own!

So I shut the game down right there. I was finished with that one.

The Puny Celt · August 12, 2002, 03:38

I agree the SMAC leaders were more personalised, probably because their characters were better defined. I can remember the irrational anger I'd feel towards Lady Diedre when that environmentalist started blasting me with Planet Busters - it was the hypocrisy of the woman that really got to me!

I don't know how the Civ developers can add personality to the world leaders. Maybe they could do a few audio tracks for each leader to bring them to life. Imagine a furious Bismarck yelling at you, or a cold Elizabeth, or a polite Joan d'Arc with ze sexy Frensh accent. I think I'd easily warm to Joan, then I'd feel doubly betrayed when she inevitably turns on me!

NeoStar · August 12, 2002, 04:22

Where's the group movement...?!

Where's the scenario support...?!

Well, it used to evoke emotion before they released the patches

But emotion is what makes civ work. Sometimes you can't help feeling satisfied when you defeat a more powerful enemy, or build the biggest empire from the worst starting location...

dworkin · August 12, 2002, 08:06

A toast to Miriam, the supreme queen ***** of the universe.

Her motivated terrorists, um, probes made her ideal to play against all those sick, demented, godless wackos who insisted on defiling Planet.

CivIII is more like II. The AIs are quite similar but each having a special spot in their co-processers for the human.

Still, I'm developing a particular hatred for Cleo and Joan. Any game against these queens of industry usually ends with a spat of nuking, sacking and pillaging as I ruah to launch the Spaceship.

candybo · August 12, 2002, 11:47

What about that warm feeling one gets from raising your civ from infancy to a juggernaut? My feelings tend to be more toward the state of my own production units.... I mean, citizens

edited for spelling

dworkin · August 12, 2002, 13:14

Greed - It is my gold I tell you, all of it. Those other civs are merely holding it for me.

Anger - Die you (DELETED)(DELETED)(DELETED) spearman spawn of Satan!

Exasperation - You want to build another ironclad? We've got 40 already. I'ld swear you coastal types are navy mad!

Revenge - Revolt and I'll flatten ya! Remember Rostov?
Rostov was burned to the ground.
Precisly!

Puzzlement - Where exactly are you going tank leader?
Just doing doughnuts in the cornfields sir.

Mad Cackling - Yes my evil plan worked. Everybody is shooting each other. Muwahahahahahaha!!!

warmachine · August 12, 2002, 19:01

For me, SMAC evoked emotional responses to leaders because factions were based around idealogy. In no particular order, I hate greed, religious dogma, dictatorships and unhealthy fascinations with guns. I'm a Peacekeeper all the way.

Civ 3 doesn't evoke emotional responses as Firaxis seems to have avoided the controversial leaders. Put me against Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan and I'd strive to put their head on a pike.