Is anyone still playing Civ 3?

Civ III has been uninstalled off my system. Permanently. Built to last or not, it didn't. I've had no real complaint against Civ III except that it was simply too easy for me not to play it. Civ IV is more fun for me and consequently I'm constantly playing it. Having read this thread I do know that there are those who'll disagree with me. Good gaming folks, regardless of the roman numeral following your chosen Civ.

I have had enough of you T. A. Jones. I have given a straight answer to a straight question, that is completely true. These are my experiences of Civ 3's performance. If they don't match yours, then lucky you, but that doesn't make them untrue.

You swear everying you say is true like the shower long pillage times suspiciously I wonder why it was never was commented on. Ive already proved may case. and I had fun doing it

Click to expand...

It was never commented on because I was utterly sick of denying every single one of your foul accusations in every single post. That is true, as is everything else I've said.

One last minor detail. you suggest Im a hypocrite for what? Eye candy is special effects, nice graphics or the Zooming globe effects or like the cute little bannanas piling up in a basket for a resource both examples taken from Civ4. Tell me what does monitering the far off/close to home, AI conflicts during the AI vs AI battle sequences have to do with eyecandy. Its a strategic view available only in Civ3.

Click to expand...

A battle animation gives you no strategic information. An immediate display of the result shows you all the information, and is a lot faster. Battle animations are therefore eyecandy.

Ive already proved may case. and I had fun doing it

Click to expand...

So you accuse me of outright lying (and your "proof" of this is that you say so). I do not have a case to "prove". I have merely presented a set of facts to answer a question, as to why I choose to play one of two games I've enjoyed over the other. You on the other hand do have an axe to grind, in that you wish to make out that Civ 3 is better than Civ 4, as is made very clear by this little gem of a thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=168610

Now frankly I don't care whether you believe me or not. If you choose out of your spiteful axe grinding to disbelieve everything anyone says that might even imply a good reason to play Civ 3 over Civ 4, then that is your problem. I will however not tolerate you calling me a liar to others.

If you have anything further to say T A Jones, you can PM me about it, but I will not have you making any further allegations of me being a liar.

[

MrCynical said:

You on the other hand do have an axe to grind, in that you wish to make out that Civ 3 is better than Civ 4, as is made very clear by this little gem of a thread:

Click to expand...

What is clear when people read this thread Is my opinion that Civ3 modded is whats prolonging attention and even peaking its viewer ratings past Civ4's on occasion. I am stating Civ3 isn't going anywhere simply because it contines to be upgraded by artists and modders who succeed in recapturing peoples interest.

I also explain on the board Im not tryin to create another bias thread toward one or the other. I quote from this "little gem of a thread" " If it relates to the reason mods have led you to continue playing Civ3 over moving to the sequal, this applies to my greater longevity legacy disscussion" Where Im stating my hatred for Civ4?.
Im actually helping to remind people the positive theme of my thread.

You know right after I posted it, I actually asked Turner the moderator to revise the Thread headline: after sequals dimsmal patch release (civ3 tops in overall rating).
I wanted the highlighted text deleted, I quickly realized I might attract the unintended bashing discussions instead of focusing on Civ3's positive modding performance as a reason for its strong stance in forum particapation. I guess he didn't think it was a big deal, or forgot.

I also have stated on Civ4 threads the people are "good sports" and have thanked members for their polite and fair feedback in responding to my posts in the past. I won'tt bother with links... unless needed.

Yes I dislike other Members slamming Civ3 with generalized statments of performance, when really its a case of one's choice in overly large map sizes(GIGA) I don't think its fair unknowledgable members post all mods are unplayable in later ages. If it only a opinion thats fine. their opinion is heard and considered, If your generalizing its important for other to laydown the facts so theres no misconceptions of the true reality for the majorty.
I made it my point to do this, So everything gets a fair shake. If no one contest others claims in obvious cases ("less then 30 sec waits in turn times with Civ4 playin on a huge maps with well below specs computers") and new players only assume them to be accurate, cause the claims are not questioned, New or Naive members with dino systems may come across these "opinions" and have their doubts eased on whether to buy Civ4. though iI know its been stated everywhere else thousands are having trouble running on even over spec systems but still, its a valid reason to question some opinion. If one guys opinions respected in one thing then it can be trusted on a similar thing. and Vise Versa....

Anyway Com'on you accuse me of subjectiveness and hyprocrisy? , the second acusation I won't even take seriously, nor will anyone else.,but you expect me not to defend myself. I suppose I can see why you'd rather it be in private Id rather we keep this all out in the open. I have nothin to be ashamed of Ive stuck by everything I wrote, not just half of it
If you want to keep feeding us this nonsence go ahead I'll keep refuting it while the picture I paint becomes clearer and clearer...



]

T.A JONES said:

[



For the last time.....Heres why Im concerned with you opinion
The facts you stated are as follows You have a computer thats sluggish and crashes in Civ4, You have another one thats way below specs. You claimed both of these have under 30 second interturns.on huge maps in Civ4 You say Civ4 is faster on your computer with al lit slowdowns and "low details"
then factor civ3 large maps.
Why have you not defendend any of these amazing technical feats your insisting youve accomplished with Civ4? You previous statemnts say you proved evey thing to be untrue You even skipped answeering the hardest questions alltogther! (shower long wait for AI to pillage, on unmodded huge:!!!) my There all posted for us to see. your argument Civ4 can run on your (average at best you admit) computer better then Civ3 is whats impossible You swear everying you say is true like the shower long pillage times suspiciously I wonder why it was never was commented on. Ive already proved may case. and I had fun doing it

One last minor detail. you suggest Im a hypocrite for what? Eye candy is special effects, nice graphics or the Zooming globe effects or like the cute little bannanas piling up in a basket for a resource both examples taken from Civ4. Tell me what does monitering the far off/close to home, AI conflicts during the AI vs AI battle sequences have to do with eyecandy. Its a strategic view available only in Civ3.

Click to expand...

I doubt he's lying i have a new but middle of the line computer and it won't run civ 3 but it runs civ4 just fine. I just figured civ 3 was poorly programmed but then i don't know much about programming.

Sounds like you hit Mr Cynicals link While you were there you should have asked someone one. You would have got a few good answers besides making reference to the guy's who's entire family has to live off 1000$ a month Ya for him its true new hardware isn't really a option. buts he also states he enjoys Civ3 and thats why he plays it,(instead of adding more to that income) (Im teasing Will! )
EDITcrosspost.... For your other post...
Well mybe your right, or mybe Im in the wrong forum, ether way you should always back a brother up, anyway its cool, take er easy

What the??? Stevo, what happend man? you erased your post, I replied to!! "I cant see how anybody who can afford Civ4 is still playing Civ3
then you made it out to be a double posted?
Why change what you wrote? cause I knew where ya came up with it(who cares, everyone who hit the link knew that, I thought you being funny) Come on man.

This is starting to get ridiculous like I said guys lets keep it real, thats all I ask. sheesh

I also have a new middle range PC. I can honestly say Civ4 runs a lot better late in the game for me than civ 3 does. ( AMD 3800+, 2GB of ram, 7800GT card. ) It has no trouble running civ4 3-d engine with everything maxed.

What the??? Stevo, what happend man? you erased your post, I replied to!! "I wonder how anybody who can afford Civ4 is still playing Civ3
then you made it out to be a double post?
Why change what you wrote? cause I knew where ya came up with it(who cares, everyone who hit the link knew that, I thought you being funny) Come on man.

This is starting to get ridiculous like I said guys lets keep it real, thats all I ask. sheesh :shake

and now Smidle? Why are you back again! Cynical just used you as backup over our last meeting. deva vu!! I think I need some more time away from this place, Cheers everyone

Moderator Action: Everybody calm down. This thread isn't supposed to be for bashing Civ3 or Civ4. T.A Jones and Mr Cynical, in particular.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Smidlee said:

I also have a new middle range PC. I can honestly say Civ4 runs a lot better late in the game for me than civ 3 does. ( AMD 3800+, 2GB of ram, 7800GT card. ) It has no trouble running civ4 3-d engine with everything maxed.

Click to expand...

I didn't know this was considered a middle range pc these days
I am SO stuck in 2004

I've gone back to Civ 3, Civ 4 is currently 'OK', never had any crashes or slow-downs, but I invested more time in Civ 3 than any other game before and unlikely ever again and I enjoy it, might start HOF ing again

However Civ 3 sat on my hard-drive for over a year before I got into that, so there's hope for Civ 4 after a couple of expansions and after they've fixed the scoring system (imo)

Smidlee said:

I also have a new middle range PC. I can honestly say Civ4 runs a lot better late in the game for me than civ 3 does. ( AMD 3800+, 2GB of ram, 7800GT card. ) It has no trouble running civ4 3-d engine with everything maxed.

Click to expand...

My god if that is mid range guess all the advertisements in the sunday paper are lying since those specs far outweigh anything I have seen on sale.

Civ 3 drives me up the wall; cities become worthless at a distant-enough point from your capital, making conquest for the purpose of power pretty useless (the cities you capture to enrich your civ cannot build anything!).. other civs can tramp around in your borders.. etc.

Can't stand it! Fortunately, CivIV fixed ALL of the things I didn't like! Bravo!

I love how well Firaxis involved the community in its game planning! It's unprecedented!

Guerra said:

Civ III? Eww no. I went directly from Civ II to Civ IV.

Civ III was worthless.

Click to expand...

LOL-- there was only about a 10 year wait. You are very patient, aren't you?

Gam said:

LOL-- there was only about a 10 year wait. You are very patient, aren't you?

Click to expand...

Ah, but you forget, playing CivII was the equivalent of a time warp, if whole nights could go by in what seemed like seconds, 10 years would be gone before you knew it...

I uninstalled Civ III as soon as I played IV. I didn't have any of the problems alot of people had at first with IV otherwise I might have kept it on.

But on the other hand it took a while to get used to IV I liked III better at first but it was same with II and III if you know what I mean.

Civ IV is best no going back now.