Is PTW worth me getting for SP only? - Page 2

Dida · December 2, 2002, 15:36

First of all, I have to say, I don't like Civ3 MP at all. So, in my opinion, PtW is not worth getting even for the MP part. The SP part adds little or nothing to the game. It would have been done in a patch rather than in a expansion which cost the gamer a dear $30. It is a complete rip off.

Jaybe · December 2, 2002, 16:18

Maybe it's just me, but I am currently a bit anxious about PTW SP. The 2 games I have started with it have been more difficult than I am used to! First one, I was eliminated; my second one (in progress) I am not that confident of either.

And that's on Regent! Soren's to blame, he changed the AI military and land-use behavior! (j/k)

--
Just as in some of the patches, there can be adjustment/learning-process involved.

Dida · December 2, 2002, 16:24

I played 2 games SP on PtW on Regent. It was quite difficult. But now I have single handedly eliminated 4 of my opponents, and have the biggest continent all to myself. I'm in the process of dominating the world.

Traelin · December 2, 2002, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
The simple answer is that I wouldn't go back to playing Civ3 without PTW if someone gave me $30 to delete it from the system and never reinstall it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. IMHO PTW is an awesome addition for SP, and I couldn't imagine not having the new Civs, units, and all the other improvements. Not to mention the bug fixes it includes for the core Civ3.

Sinapus · December 2, 2002, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

No, no
It's 12 for Stelath Bomber and 8 for Stelath Fighter.

Plus, you can change numbers manualy in editor even to 100 tiles or more.

Which is useful if you play on really big maps.

(I don't consider it a bigger planet, I consider it the same planet divided into many more (smaller) squares...)

Coracle · December 2, 2002, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Traelin

. . . Not to mention the bug fixes it includes for the core Civ3.

So a year after the original product was released, after four patches, we STILL have to pay thrity dollars to get PTW (and download and install another patch) to fix the core bugs in Civ 3 that the previous patches did not fix???

Man, oh man. Firaxis is too slick. Release a buggy messed up game and then charge people another thirty dollars to fix the bugs that should never have been in the product in the first place, not to mention finally giving us features that should have been in the original game.

Firaxis must love you guys. Exactly what would it take for you to concede Firaxis ripped us off???

notyoueither · December 2, 2002, 23:46

If you shut up and never post again, I will put "Coracle says 'Firaxis ripped us off" in my sig. I will put it in my sig and leave it there for one full year, commencing from 1 year after your last post.

There, what I just said makes about as much sense as you do in 99% of the drivel you spew.

Cyclotron · December 3, 2002, 00:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
we STILL have to pay thrity dollars to get PTW (and download and install another patch) to fix the core bugs in Civ 3 that the previous patches did not fix???

Exactly what core bugs are there in Civ3 that were not fixed by the previous patches? Or are we still in the habit of calling features we don't like bugs?

statusperfect · December 3, 2002, 06:51

Coracle is a practitcal joke isn't he? Who is it? Warpstorm... is it you *****ing with us? Cyclotron? Trip? Ixnay? Damn...

zulu9812 · December 3, 2002, 13:43

Coracle does have a point though: bug-fixes should come in a free patch.

Mikel · December 3, 2002, 17:54

Well I have always been interested in Firaxis games and any expansions that follow them. I have only had PtW for 1 day so these are just initial impressions, but I don't feel it was worth the money, unlike the previous Firaxis products I bought.

There really isn't much to enhance the SP game, although it does depend on what you are looking for. Personally I found it frustrating that so many threads on this board were concerned with whcih new Civs would be included and what their attributes would be. I feel this is merely a cosmetic change, and that an expansion should have been more concerned with new features and addressing fundamental gameplay issues. But 8 new civs is about 1/3 of what you get for your money. I concede that they listened to their fans and not me alone, a wise decision for any company. Other changes have not been addressed with as much attention as would have suited my own tastes
(good things : AI changes; easy swapping between graphic mods.
still bad : Naval combat poor ; espionage is only cosmetically changed )

The next 1/3 would be multiplayer. I play a lot of mutiplay on my LAN on line. Yet to give this a good test drive but it does look like they have put a lot of thought into it. BUT still technical complaints from many, and in the last year since I bought CivIII I have purchased another 8 games all of which had multiplayer on the basic game. This is a very old arguement and I don't want to drag it up again, just pointing out how this game rates with its competition.

The last 1/3 then would be the editor. Well it is easier to use than it was on the original game, so hopefully all the mod makers will set to putting together some great variants that will promote better strategic use of CivIII's resource management. It still feels a little weak though.

When I think back to the expansions that were released for CivII I feel very disappointed with this addition. Anyone who bought those will remember great scenarios like "Jules Verne" that used the Civ engine but with a great twist, and the fantastic scenarion editor, which after 2 expansions, allowed graphic editing, triggered story events, and easy to create maps. So I would say that CivIII+PtW is 2 or 3 steps forward for the series, but then a different 4 or 5 steps back.

Remember I have already said that I have only had this for 1 day, so if my fellow civers in North America that have had an extra 4 weeks to review would like to counter anything i have said due to it being inaccurate, completely wrong, or in your opinion just outright ridiculous then please do so.

Cyclotron · December 3, 2002, 17:57

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
bug-fixes should come in a free patch.

They did. What significant bugs were left in Civ3 after 1.29?

statusperfect: Nope, not me...

zulu9812 · December 4, 2002, 04:17

I don't know - I live in the UK so I'm not worthy to buy PTW. However, if it does contain bug fixes for 'vanilla' civ3 they should come in a free patch.

WarpStorm · December 4, 2002, 06:53

There are only a few of these that I'm aware of. The Nukes automatically causing war and the contact trading bugs.

Nearly all of the other bug fixes were bugs in PTW itself.

Traelin · December 4, 2002, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Exactly what core bugs are there in Civ3 that were not fixed by the previous patches? Or are we still in the habit of calling features we don't like bugs?

Yeah Warp's right. The bug I was referring to in particular was the automatic declaration of war when the AI uses nukes. That especially bit me a few games ago when the French went nuke-happy.

Traelin · December 4, 2002, 12:58

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
There are only a few of these that I'm aware of. The Nukes automatically causing war and the contact trading bugs.

Nearly all of the other bug fixes were bugs in PTW itself.

What contact trading bug?

WarpStorm · December 4, 2002, 17:25

Ever wonder how contact gets spread so fast in Civ3? Well, it was a bug.

Cyclotron · December 4, 2002, 18:40

Ok, fair enough, but neither of those sound to me like terribly significant bugs. Most games lounge around with minor bugs after release that are never patched or fixed. Now, I agree, Firaxis should fix bugs in patches... but the bugs still present don't seem to have reached the point where those who want to enjoy the game have to buy PTW to do so. So, I'm not seeing a big copout on the part of Firaxis.

Traelin · December 4, 2002, 23:26

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Ok, fair enough, but neither of those sound to me like terribly significant bugs. Most games lounge around with minor bugs after release that are never patched or fixed. Now, I agree, Firaxis should fix bugs in patches... but the bugs still present don't seem to have reached the point where those who want to enjoy the game have to buy PTW to do so. So, I'm not seeing a big copout on the part of Firaxis.

Oh I agree with you. I mean we can only expect them to patch so many bugs for free. I remember a particular bug in Civ that, IIRC, never got patched. Every time you'd scroll up to the top of the map by a certain point in the game, you'd get this nasty "snow" (like TV snow) that covered the entire map. The remaining glitches in Civ 3 are IMO hardly as bad as this.