Did anyone...

HappySunShine · January 24, 2003, 17:12

think civ3 MP would be so bad? I mean I knew it was going to bad, but I had no idea anything could be this bad. You go into gamespy and you never see anyone playing. You go into the Civ3 MP forum and it is for all intents and purposes dead. The only ladders seems to have about 5 players playing PBEM. Civ3 has been such a bust I don't think there will be a civ4. It looks like the civ series is pretty much dead.

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 17:23

u could be right Sean

rah · January 24, 2003, 17:25

I agree with you mostly about the game, but based on sales, there will be a civ IV. They'll keep trying till they don't make any money.

ColdWizard · January 24, 2003, 17:32

civ3 was done half-assed, so it's not surprising that ptw is also done half-assed (i assume, i don't follow the ptw forum, hell i don't even know when ptw was released). maybe MP play will pick up after they finish/fix it

Ming · January 24, 2003, 17:49

I'm not sure they are going to finish/fix it to the extent that we would like.

But I agree with rah... the sales were good enough that a civ 4 is very possible. They made money, and that's what counts to them.

Flatlander Fox · January 24, 2003, 18:12

Civ 3 is not a bad game, it's just unfinished.

Alot of people like it, but the multiplayer aspect of it scared quite a few people away.

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 19:04

its was a radical change poorly implemented, many people said the same thing about ctp series...i c a civ4 in the future.......i wonder if it will take four more years...

the unfortunate thing is the reviews for civ3 have been harsh, but finally they are telling us the truth

Ming · January 24, 2003, 19:31

Yeah... but it looks like the changes implemented were the worst of many games, and not the good things from every game. And yes, it is strange reading harsh reviews... usually the reviewers don't play the game enough to realize the many problems.

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 20:04

its about time the reviewers stepped up and showed their support for the gamers and not just the companies making them....and as much as it hurts to see civ3 bashed..they really made a mess of it.

i think the ideas were great, would have added new life into this amazing series, unfortunately they did not learn from activisions fiasco and tried to do too much too quickly...

how much responsibility does apolyton have in this mess

Ming · January 24, 2003, 20:06

None... I hope

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 20:13

haha, i guess were hoping we lost that manuscript which in a court of law would convict us

Ming · January 24, 2003, 20:22

I will admit that Firaxis did listen to many of our complaints (and flaws/bugs we pointed out) about Civ II.

Most of them (if not all) were removed or changed. I'm just not sure they made the "right" changes. There are a lot of GREAT things about Civ III... it's just the total package doesn't it do it for me. There is no longer the sense of discovery... or excitement.

CapTVK · January 24, 2003, 21:00

True, I've tried as Civ3 well and despite the new features there's a "been there, done that..." feel to it. I never had that feeling with Civ2 despite it being an update of the original. Maybe it's different if you're new to Civ and haven't played 1 nor 2.

In deciding to fix the flaws in the Civ1&2 gamedesign they ended up with something different altogether. The same way CtP 1 and 2 are different from the Civ system.

The irony in it is that the great wishlist might have proven to be a curse in the end. We got exactly what we wished for.

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 21:20

lol yeah cap i agree entirely

DrFell · January 24, 2003, 22:36

PTW is an even worse screw up than the original civ3, remarkable considering the amount of time they spent making patches for the original. The civ3 MP forum is quieter than this forum too. So yep, civ is finally dead unless they can find someone competant to make a civ4.

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 02:55

and more of the zone shows up, we have two dr.'s in the house now

Ming · January 25, 2003, 03:44

I am surprised that we seem to be more active than the Civ III MP forums... that kind of sums it up

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 06:02

well when a game is a flop with the consumers even though too many of us bought it, thus skewing the successs of the game, and the magazines pan it.....you know it sucks....

thankfully we have civ2 still....and although not raging anymore its still going strong in our group

DrSpike · January 25, 2003, 07:29

Civ4 is a certainty IMO. It was a successful SP game, and the key point, as I have made several times around the forums, is that SP will always dominate a market such as the TBS market. So although I am certain of Civ4, I doubt it will be aimed at a MP audience, or even tweaked to make MP good after the SP release.

Civ3 MP made barely a ripple........very disappointing.

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 12:02

i agree with your comments , perhaps we were just lucky with how much fun civ2 mp is...i never really played civnet, kinda like how i don't like civ3 mp.....

maybe they are due to realease a version (civ4) where the even numbers are good years and the odd are bad for mp....

anyone remmeber bret saberhagen in the 80's and his odd/even year records

DrSpike · January 25, 2003, 12:27

I have always thought that the greatness of Civ2 for MP was somewhat serendipitous.....sure they can get the credit for providing a great game, but as we know greatness in SP generally does not equal greatness in MP.

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 12:36

well its a great sp game for its time, though not a revolutionary as civ1 was for its time of course.....

the staying power of civ 2 is the scenarios and customization, the mp only appeals to a small crowd of people with time to waste....

customization will always extend longevity...so will altering the rules.txt to make the game more enjoyable and civ2 is easy to do on both fronts

Ming · January 25, 2003, 12:50

Yeah... we got lucky with Civ II MP. It's really too bad that Civ III wasn't Civ II A. It would have been much better to just have a similar game, but with lots of new features and options, plus all the bugs fixed.

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 12:54

which in essence is how many games in a series go....but they tried to do too much, and i am surprised by this b/c the CTP series was a fiasco at first and it took them two games to finally get the game working properly....

we will see a civ 4...but i think it will be just civ3 reworked into better game mechanics.....

and we will probably have to buy the mp version of it too , again

DrFell · January 25, 2003, 12:59

Yeah I remember everyone in the civ3 forums pre-release complaining that the game looked like civ 2.5. It would've been better that way though, you can't improve much on a winning formula as PTW aptly demonstrates

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 13:02

if they could have improved civ2's ai a bit, and the graphics (they are fine though , and i don't like civ3's) and taking out the rest of the bugs...civ2.5 would have rocked...

maybe civ3.5 in on the horizon ?

i need to give free civ another whirl..or clash of the civilizations , is that what it is called...

Ming · January 25, 2003, 13:03

I do really wish it had been civ 2.5

sigh... Well thank god for Civ II

DrSpike · January 25, 2003, 13:05

Civ2 is more like Civ1.5......and it worked pretty well.

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 13:09

perhaps spike has said it best, i never thought of it that way....damm my left handedness

Ming · January 25, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Civ2 is more like Civ1.5......and it worked pretty well.

And also made tons of money... So they should have just done the same thing again, and given us civ 1.75