criticism gone?

sabrewolf · February 2, 2003, 08:55

i joined poly in june 2002 and the first thing i noticed was the permanent criticism of civ3 and firaxis.

since then there has been some patches for the vanilla game (1.21f, 1.29f) and an XP (1.01f, 1.04f, 1.14f).

and now i hardly hear any criticism any more. why's that?
1. the game i nearly perfect by now (except maybe MP) so there's no reason to grumble
2. coracle, jimmytrick, etc. have been exiled out of this section
3. people are just tired of ranting

as for me, i'm fairly pleased with the game 1.29 and PTW1.14 are stable and are still fun to play. and the MP problems don't matter to me, because i havn't got time for MP and i'm too much a builder

i'm still missing real scenario support (diplomacy editor, scripting), removing of some hardcoded stuff (tech cost, flexibility for traits, workers tasks, etc) and some other smaller things.

how do you guys explain the nearly missing criticism?

player1 · February 2, 2003, 09:19

1) all cruical things fixed
2) or maybe lack of interest

As far as me, all is OK exept MP (which would need some boost in next patches).

CerberusIV · February 2, 2003, 10:01

I bought civ3 in August 2002 and patched to 1.29 almost straight away so I never had much problem with it. The only real problem I have had was the european patch fiasco for PTW 1.14. They still haven't really sorted that one out since sites that have the US patch say it should not be used with the european PTW but don't then tell you where to get the european patch.

Other than that SP and PBEM seem to work OK so I don't have a problem. The editor does as much as I want to right now.

WarpStorm · February 2, 2003, 10:10

Most all of the bugs have been fixed. The big complaint that Civ3 was not Civ2++, but rather a different game with different rules and assumptions, has mostly quieted down.

MrBaggins · February 2, 2003, 11:32

Maybe ,also the fact that the modability required to make real scenarios a la Civ2 is gone... never to return, since Firaxis is utterly opposed to scripting languages... etc.

The large civ2 scenario making/playing contingent have given up on civ3, perhaps?

sabrewolf · February 2, 2003, 11:50

MrBaggins,
you actually remind me of something else that's missing:
customizable AI.
e.g. in a scenario you'll want a civ to be specially agressive toward another, but not at all to an ally (e.g. WWII: germany shouldn't attack italy, britain and france should keep together, etc.)

i remember there once was a game with AI-scripting, but i can't remember which one.

GhengisFarb™ · February 2, 2003, 13:47

1) Enough patches are out and with PTW the multiplayer was added making the die-hard civers happy.

2) Anyone that was not a die-hard civer or was at least moderately okay with Firaxis has long since left this arena to go complain about something else.

Master Zen · February 2, 2003, 13:53

I too was VERY disappointed by the original release, the 1.29 patch alleviated most of my issues but PTW 1.14 is, to me, truly the game I wanted to play from the start 10/10 no doubt about it. (i don't have much time for MP either)

I still miss the lack of scenario support and truly hope Firaxis does something about it in a future patch since the game has even more potential for good scenarios than Civ2. Plus, I doubt that the designers would find it sufficient to include cities, units, techs, etc. in the editor yet fail to include diplomacy and events, why include the former at all then? It's like building a car and not putting the chasis, quite worthless in spite of the effort.

player1 · February 2, 2003, 15:18

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i remember there once was a game with AI-scripting, but i can't remember which one.

That was CtP2.
(and CtP to some extent)

GhengisFarb™ · February 2, 2003, 18:14

I think a lot of people have come to the realization that Firaxis just isn't capable of programming the necessary code to make a bug-free scenario editor like we had in Civ2.

sabrewolf · February 2, 2003, 18:25

maybe they could be pressurized to release the code and let the freeciv guys have a go at it. in 2 months you'd have a bug-free perfect scenario editor with scripting, etc. and a gam with an AI which could start 2000 years later on a 1 tile island and still beat the best of us

no, seriously, i don't know if it's firaxis fault (too many artists, too few good programmers) or if you have to blame infogrames (too tight scedule, too many "no"s for game feature requests).

let's just hope before civ4 comes out, the developers will make an extensive enquiery in the community...

notyoueither · February 2, 2003, 18:30

Some of the critics still drop by from time to time. However, it would be expected that most people who do not like, and can never come to like, Civ 3 would move on eventually.

GhengisFarb™ · February 2, 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
(too many artists, too few good programmers)

I certainly wouldn't say that, we've got quite a few people in their SPARE TIME creating graphics that far surpass the Firaxis stuff for free.

sabrewolf · February 2, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I certainly wouldn't say that, we've got quite a few people in their SPARE TIME creating graphics that far surpass the Firaxis stuff for free.

i respect you artists a lot.
but for me, the gameplay is decisive. and with my limited time, i turn all animations off...
personally, i would have preferred less unit animation and more other game functionalities (as mentioned in earlier posts)

sabrewolf · February 2, 2003, 19:59

but i guess today you can't sell games without beautiful graphics and cool sounds...

Centauri18 · February 2, 2003, 20:01

I could care less that Civ 3 wasn't a modification of Civ 2 and I like it just fine the way it is. Sure, they need a few more Civs (Incas, Dutch, possibly Thai, definitely Israel - it would be so cool to play as Israel and conquer Rome and Babylon - maybe the Sioux, since we need another North American civ. Maybe we could ass another South American civ as well, since otherwise the Incas would have it all to themselves) but that's about it. And a slightly smarter AI would make things interested.

WarpStorm · February 2, 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
maybe they could be pressurized to release the code and let the freeciv guys have a go at it. in 2 months you'd have a bug-free perfect scenario editor with scripting, etc. and a gam with an AI which could start 2000 years later on a 1 tile island and still beat the best of us

And just how would you go about pressuring Infogrames into giving out the source code for one of their hit titles?

2 months

It took the freeciv guys 8 years to get where they are now. (According to their website they are looking at having someone write modules to teach the AI about diplomacy, democracy, the value of towns, and they are looking at putting scripting in).

BTW, putting scripting in the editor is easy. Putting it into the game is the hard part especially since it wasn't built with scripting in mind.

Master Zen · February 2, 2003, 20:22

It think it is one of the following:

1) Infogrames doesn't give a damn and is more interested in world sales domination that perfecting the game itself.

2) Firaxis has just given up, it's only purpose now is to correct MP but screw the editor, leave it as it is.

It would be said if 2) is correct since as I said, Civ3 has huge scenario potential and good scenarios make for new expantion packs which make for extra bucks! I for one would shell out $20-30 for an XP with a perfect editor and 8 or 10 or more really good scenarios (WW2 scenario a MUST!, good defensive units make for a good WW1 scenario too)

sabrewolf · February 2, 2003, 20:35

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
And just how would you go about pressuring Infogrames into giving out the source code for one of their hit titles?

my comment wasn't meant that serious

(note those smilies)

Quote:

2 months

It took the freeciv guys 8 years to get where they are now. (According to their website they are looking at having someone write modules to teach the AI about diplomacy, democracy, the value of towns, and they are looking at putting scripting in).

i was exagerating, as you surely noticed.
the trouble about AI is that it isn't "intelligence", it's just simulated. the computer uses formulas and algorithms (a maybe a random factor) to calculate what's best. these algorithms are fixed and hardcoded and don't adapt.
you can win a game against 10 oponents by just killing one after the other - because this sort of intelligence wan't programmed

Quote:

BTW, putting scripting in the editor is easy. Putting it into the game is the hard part especially since it wasn't built with scripting in mind.

ofcourse i know it's too late now. but actually it can't be much too hard. in fact, as a application developer i know it's easy - just needs enough time and a good concept developed.

i could imagine something like the 'crontab' in linux/unix-OSs. every minute (or in the game every turn), the computer polls if a certain defined incident happens (e.g. specific year reached, a certain city captured/destroyed, a great wonder built, etc.), something else happens (e.g. create unit, send message, victory, etc.).

most tutorials and scenarios in other games have something like that. e.g. in AoE2 when you crossed a certain line, or killed a special unit, the next quest started. that's what i call interactivity...

WarpStorm · February 2, 2003, 20:37

Firaxis is busy fixing MP. That has to be their highest priority as that's what they've been paid to do. They have not given up. I was playing a new scenario from them just this morning.

AFAIK, Infogrames sees no incentive in the editor as it means people will be playing Civ3 for longer (a bad thing from a publishers point of view). A publisher wants games to sell a lot and then be forgotten so that you buy 'The Next Big Thing'.

Firaxis has been working on the editor to cater to their hardcore minority (the vast majority of players neither buy expansions nor uses editors in the games they buy, hell, most never patch their games). But as I said earlier, right now their priority is getting MP working better.

WarpStorm · February 2, 2003, 20:44

Sabrewolf, I just think it is ludicrous to assume that people who after 8 years don't have as good a product as Civ3 could miraculously solve the problems in Civ3 that they haven't solved in their own.

Centauri18 · February 2, 2003, 20:46

I think a Civil War feature would be cool in Civ4. Or even in Civ 3. England had the War of the Roses, for instance. Even Germany wasn't a completely united nation until only recently - historically speaking. And there was the huge war in China between the Communists and the Nationalists...

MrBaggins · February 2, 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
*snip*
BTW, putting scripting in the editor is easy. Putting it into the game is the hard part especially since it wasn't built with scripting in mind.

"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis

Master Zen · February 2, 2003, 23:46

LOOOVE that idea Centauri18, bad governments gotta pay the price!

wilbill · February 3, 2003, 02:16

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
the trouble about AI is that it isn't "intelligence", it's just simulated. the computer uses formulas and algorithms (a maybe a random factor) to calculate what's best. these algorithms are fixed and hardcoded and don't adapt.
you can win a game against 10 oponents by just killing one after the other - because this sort of intelligence wan't programmed

True, if you're referring only to the Civ 3 AI. But AI's can be programmed to "learn" and adapt - remember those robotic "pets" that were a modest fad a couple of years ago? Or the better chess programs, for that matter, can remember and adapt to a human opponent's style.
Honestly, I think there's a limit to how good most Civ series players would want the AI to be. A large per centage of the people who post on these boards seem to enjoy winning against 10 opponents "by just killing one after the other." How many of us would really want to play against an AI that was capable of beating our best game 50% of the time or more? Actually, I think I would, but I might be fooling myself.

ellie · February 3, 2003, 04:17

Well

to answer your question. I personally was dissapointed with the game. My main two issues were combat (which i think was made simplistic for the animations) and performance. It managed to slow down my husbands v.quick pc somehow.

But whats the point in raging on about it ;p it just annoys others and gains me nothing.

Centauri18 · February 3, 2003, 04:22

Those things really happened.

Alex · February 3, 2003, 07:40

Criticism is gone, for the most part, because those who dislike the game have long gone to other places and because Firaxis managed to fix the most glaring errors or shortcomings in the game with the latest patches (and especially with PTW, which really improves the single-player game, taking the AI into account).

Anyway, all that happened left me a sour taste in my mouth.

ACooper · February 3, 2003, 17:35

Sure was a lot of fun with Libertarian and Yin26 around though. Even If they were big pains in the rear.

player1 · February 3, 2003, 18:58

But it's interesting to note that Libertarian disapeared in same moment when Civ3 patch which included stack movement command was released.