a personal view as to why civ3 doest cut it.

[Cidifer]

go play a bummer game? this game is too good for you? that is maybe the worst arguement I've ever seen

How can you say what different people will be able to do? some people probably can't even figure out how to turn on hte custom rules. So are you basically saying that if someone gave you a game that was completely imbalanced (not saying Civ 3 is so nobody claim that I am) and not at all to your liking that you would love it as long as you could modify it to the point of it being good? even if all this editing took you hours? or days? and what about all the trail and error?

Honestly I think that customization should be a bonus that's added after not used as an excuse for the fact that the game has certain obvious problems, some of which most everyone changes. Yeah you can customize the game to a point, but you can't make civs split into cival wars like Civ 2 or use trade caravans, or do a bunch of other things that made the previous civ games what they were. If you really want a game to be able to be customized however you like then make one of you own. I personally like the game but I can't deny the fact that it's pretty obvious they took out alot of cool old features from the old game even though most people liked them, some can be recreated in the editor, others can't be (atleast without som coding experiance).

[Cyclotron]

Cidifer, may I ask specifically what "obvious problems" civ3 has that need modding? I happen to enjoy my Civ3 without a single mod of any kind. I personally think that your examples of what Civ3 lacked from Civ2 are pretty weak... many people don't like caravans, and I only got a civil war once or twice in many years of playing.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Raion
Nowhere, not even MOO III is as customizable as Civ III...When you can edit the text files, edit the Civilopedia entries, add Government types, take off all the traits, change just about anything around one wants too...

I have never encountered a game that offers so much, complete customization for the player...

...and CTP2 puts civ3 to shame with its customability. Given the track record of the difficulty of making RADICAL and INNOVATIVE changes to the civ3 system, (I'm not talking about adding a HP to a tank either...) as compared to CTP2 civ3 falls short. When you add the CTP2 SLICing ability to the mix - i.e. scripting - it is no contest.

Example - Can civ3 add a Public Works system?? A CTP2 Mod can, and already has, changed its Public Works system to a worker-based setup. Modded CTP2 has added Visible Wonders and City Expansion tiles on the game map, added Leader units BEFORE civ3 came out, the ability to have dual tech trees for different civs, a unit updater that actually works for the AI, splinter civs and new civs that arise during the course of the game...

All of these things did not ship with the regular game, yet fans had the ability to use their creativity to pull this off.

And fix the AI at the same time.

I agree Cidifer and cyclotron7, its a shame that CTP2 was a poor game to start with, but its a whole new game now.

Just ask Vel about it!!!

[Cidifer]

I never said that I missed anything from civ 2 specifically. I just said that you and whoever else are 100% dead wrong, that you can modify the game to whatever your liking. The guy said that the game was missing something that drew hijm to Civ2 and there is no way he can recreate that in Civ 3's editor. Proving that the arguement that you can modify it to you liking isn't true for a lot of people, especially thouse who loved Civ 2 the way it is. Here's my advice to you do some searches to refresh your memory of how many people say that they miss this, or that from Civ 2, and then tell me if there is even 1 of those that can be added by the average player, wonder movies? no. Trade caravans? I don't think so. Cival wars? I know I sure can't do this. I can go on and on.

Also I'm talking about when the game was released it had major problems and if you don't remember that maybe you should check how many posts where here around the time of the origanals release.

[Raion]

All I am saying is that the idea of the game has changed.
I am sure that some people modded CTP many times, but I left it because of the interface. CivIII is different, than CivII, making it, well, different, in its concept. More about a Civlization, than anarchy. Plus when the game came out, I had trouble not because of the game, except at the end, getting out of it, but because of updates from Microsoft to their OS. Follow Microsoft rules for a game, and you end up with Ages of Empire, or Ages of Kings. Fine games, but limited, because of changes always being done. I am sure that there are things that are missed from Civ II, even SMAC/AC, but the game is suppose to be a little different, or else some people would say it is the same. That difference with CivIII like thinking it is boring, in parts of the time era just makes me think that life was slower, things were easier, wars were solved by wars.
How long does one spend with a computer game?
I bought StarTopia, and still may play it, but after a few games, or a few months, I still would look forward to playing CivIII, won't even touch CTP, and SMAC/AC will stay also.
I got use to all the other CIV games, and that took a while. Heck, with the original Civ, before actually anyone had an Internet, one played over and over, because it took something to play it. Attitude!
I don't know, but it took me at least a year, before I started even playing remotely even good in the game.
Other games, one plays, plays it excellently, and moves on.
With CivIII, its different. That's all. I still have CivII, so why would I want it to be the same? And CivII was much worse when it came out, it only started being good, a couple of years later, than it led to many things.
Short game of X-COM, Hodadian Spacies, NWO scenario, Christmas Reindeer and Santa, Jules Verne scenarios, Atlantis scenario, but that was at least a couple of years later.
So to me, CivIII is more refined, but more fun, after you know what they are going to do.
More feelings with Civ III, than ever with Civ II.
More emotional -- that's a difference right there, with all the posts about it -- this and that, about it.
Many ways to play CivIII, bounce up and down in a chair, turn off the music, put on a Emperor's hat, and after this week of political commercials on TV, a must have for all politicians in this World and Terrorists.
And they should be playing it also.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Cidifer
I never said that I missed anything from civ 2 specifically.

Yes, you did. Your last post said that "you can't make civs split into cival wars like Civ 2 or use trade caravans, or do a bunch of other things that made the previous civ games what they were." That's pretty specific...

I just said that you and whoever else are 100% dead wrong, that you can modify the game to whatever your liking.

Whoa, I didn't say that.

Proving that the arguement that you can modify it to you liking isn't true for a lot of people, especially thouse who loved Civ 2 the way it is.

I'm not proving that it is endlessly modifiable. I'm proving that having choices, i.e. the choice on culture flips, UUs, etc. could not possibly be a bad thing. People have been saying on this thread that Civ3 is actually bad because it gives people choice on certain elements. I agree with you that more modifying ability is better; I won't argue with you there.

and then tell me if there is even 1 of those that can be added by the average player,

I'm an average player, and I can't mod ****. A game like CTP2 where everything is modded doesn't mean I can do anything with it. Most players are not modders.

Actually, the three things you mentioned were things I loathed or was ambivalent about in Civ2... so I can't say we agree on that.

Also I'm talking about when the game was released it had major problems and if you don't remember that maybe you should check how many posts where here around the time of the origanals release.

I was here before the original was released; a quick check on when I joined should tell you that. The game did have problems, but they were corrected in a time frame I never thought they would do it in.

You say there were problems. I agree, but IMO they were all fixed in short order. So, it doesn't matter one bit what problems it did have... I got the fixes quickly and for free... and so did you, so you can't complain either.

[Cidifer]

Ok 1st of all I never said I missed caravans, I said that's something that some people missed from civ 2 that couldn't be added to 3 (atleast not by the average player). 2ndly I wasn't directly refering to you when I talked about how people claim it can be customized to however you like it, note I said "whoever else" by which I placed you with them as you seem to like more options rather then more features.

I'm an average player, and I can't mod ****. A game like CTP2 where everything is modded doesn't mean I can do anything with it. Most players are not modders.

you realise that's my point don't you? yes most players can't figure out how to add units or civs and many probably can't even figure out how to give them more attack values, that's why it would have been better for the problems relating to imbalanced be fixed before the game was released. BTW I said in case you don't remember, I never said you weren't on the forums, after all how could you remember something you were never there for? my point is alot of people had problems with the game when it came out and most have been fixed now.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Cidifer
my point is alot of people had problems with the game when it came out and most have been fixed now.

Oh, ok. In that case, we are in agreement.

[gsmoove23]

I like Civ3 more then civ2(never played civ). Love some of the changes, love the idea culutre and culture flipping (I really think this is a gem of an idea) although it isn't implemented that well. Don't like the culture traits, although I wouldn't mind if you were able to choose culture traits in the beginning no matter what your civ. Don't really like the UUs. Yeah some are cool, like the art, just don't think they're necessary and I am a little put off if I'm playing England with no navy and suddenly I can make a Man o War. Whoopee. It really is pointless if suddenly you can make a unit because in a completely different history your civ had an advantage at this point. If I'm playing a peaceful Germany and I suddenly get a Panzer whats the point. Still love the game though.

What I don't understand is the defense that you can simply edit all the functions you don't like. I've never touched the editor, never even thought twice about it, even though I have found features I really don't like. I like to play a game as is, just the way I am, if I feel like playing I switch it on and start, I'm not going to mess around with creating a game all my own. I can certainly understand not wanting to edit the game.

Really gotta say I think its bad form to attack someones spelling here. The only time I can see it is if someone really cannot be understood in which case you simply ask him to rephrase. I had no problem reading or understanding benjy's post.

[Raion]

Well, to me, Civ was a game to be edited, simply because different people have different ideas with how it should play, except for the main formulations of the game. That's helps in making it different, thats all.
Most people play it like it comes out, but in my case, I changed how often the resources will show up in the editor. Its all a personal choice, I guess.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Its not a sequel. SMAC was the sequel to Civ in that it takes the story of mankind from earth to space colonialization.

Civ3 is a remake of Civ2. The AI is better and there were lots of minor improvements but overall and IMHO, its is not in the same class as Civ2 or SMAC.

Civ3 is definitely dumbed down, though there are some subtleties in Civ3 they are more accidental than designed.

SMAC still sets the standard for me, though I have not played CTP2.

Absolutely agree with Jimmy.

I have given up on CIV3 by and large an occasional play. I stop by here to see if PTW is any better. But for my money the term "dumbing down" refers to a linearity of game play. Go to war early beat your opponents into submission, oscillate your war, reap the techs from forcing peace, repeat and rinse.

Formulaic in a players implementation.

SMAC also was formulaic but had multiple formulas. Builder, Hybrid, warmonger approaches all could be played and differently depending on the faction/civ chosen.

By the by JT,

Check out CTP2. It rocks!! (Well at least I like it) Especially with some of the mods the folks here have done. Talk about a tech tree with some meat to it, talk about nonlinear game play. It has many more nuances and intricacies then CIV3. (I'm still partial to SMAC/X but CTP2 is a close second.)

[Capt Dizle]

I guess I'll look for a copy Ogie.

[Grumbold]

Nice list Benjy. When it comes down to it, Civ III just doesn't have whatever it was that made me play Civ I and II at least a couple of times a quarter since they were released.

WesW's mod for CtP shows how unique units could be done well. EU2 shows how domestic policies can grow and change to make your empire unique. SMAC had another excellent approach. With luck it won't be too long until someone else has another ambitious attempt at a Civ style game. There's no doubt the AI copes better in Civ III, but it did it by stripping out half of the elements I used to enjoy and learning nothing from the games that improved the genre since II.

[Method]

dp

[Method]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Absolutely agree with Jimmy.

I have given up on CIV3 by and large an occasional play. I stop by here to see if PTW is any better. But for my money the term "dumbing down" refers to a linearity of game play. Go to war early beat your opponents into submission, oscillate your war, reap the techs from forcing peace, repeat and rinse.

Formulaic in a players implementation.

SMAC also was formulaic but had multiple formulas. Builder, Hybrid, warmonger approaches all could be played and differently depending on the faction/civ chosen.

that's another thing i missed from SMAC: submission. plus the corruption, combat system, culture flipping, resources, were all just plain wrong in civ3, not to mention everything else on benjy's list. i find the game boring because the the AI would never declare war on me, wheras in SMAC, you'll often have an enemy due to your social engineering choices, and it keeps you on your toes. SMAC is better by far than civ3, and i'd imagine, PTW also.

the main reason i bough civ3 was because i prefer the history approach, rather than scifi as in SMAC. i gave up with it eventually, and now i'm back to SMAC again.

"if you hate civ3 that much, why are you in the civ3 forum?" you ask? actually, to find a thread like this one

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I guess I'll look for a copy Ogie.

C'mon jimmy, join the dark side...

You too, TKG!!!

There's a CTP2 Mod with your name on it.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by TKG
"if you hate civ3 that much, why are you in the civ3 forum?" you ask? actually, to find a thread like this one

so true

You should really try CtP2, people never go there to complain anymore, all you get is plain honest answers.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Y'know, I STILL haven't finished a game of Civ3. I was actually getting kinda bored with it after a certain point as well, thinking much the same as others - I WANTED to love it, but it just didn't thrill me.

Since being in the Democracy game, I have learned a lot. People more enthusiastic than I have taken what the game CAN do, found strategies and tactics to make it fun. I have learned what these things are, and as a result, applying them to my own games has helped me realise the full fun potential of the game.

I. like many, expected a truly flawless game in Civ3. But the combination of diminishing returns (Civ really can't get much better than Civ2 easily) and overhype in my own mind let me down, not the game itself. As with all things, you just have to find out what fun you CAN have, and maximise that. Culture is something you can't find in any other game (to the best of my knowledge), the excitement of every Elite battle (will I get a GL?), and manipulating alliances and MPPs to turn the entire world into a slaughter against your one big enemy is what is fun here that you won't find elsewhere.

Yeah this game can be disappointing at first, but if you take the time to get into it enough that those inital expectations are forgotten, and you learn what the game CAN do for you, you can have monstrous fun.

[vondrack]

Amen.

Very well said, MrWhereItsAt!

I truly believe that most people spending their time learning the game instead of complaining how it fails to meet (their) expectations, will eventually find out its an excellent game. Not a perfect one, but still one of the best in the genre. And that it is getting better and better with every patch.

[Meshelic]

It's speeches like that MrWhereItsAt that landed you the Presidency in the C3DG! Bravo

I didn't know what to expect when I first got Civ3. I had already long overplayed Civ2, desperately wishing for a multiplayer version (which was granted in PTW finally), but I really liked the culture additions. I loved how the cities had actual BORDERS rather than Civ2, which really sucked in that aspect.

Sure, it's missing some things. What about unit naming? More governments would be nice! ABSOLUTELY more expanded espionage and diplomatic functions should be put in.

Civ 4 looks a long way off....