CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Asperger syndromeWhat does "aspergers" mean anyway?
civ 3 players will not move on
- Thread starter Ace of Gold
- Start date
Excuse. I forgot your reply @gps
Mybe you could have better grasped this without all the Civ3 premonitions you seem preoccupied with?
That whole speel, nothing derived from what I said! Why would I "rip it apart" I never said it from the start! But on your request, lets get this started .....
Lets start with the fact I never denied the benifts of this area in development.
Think, If Diablo was deluxe moddable to the point its forum spent 1 out of 10 posts like they do here, producing/testing a free Civ-like game for its software holders to enjoy, Would you say this had no benifit to some of these players?
See for me, that shows the 4ums big C+C problem. A handful of Fireaxis employess making a handful of great mods.
Not sure about these "PRESET" presumption you have. I think this statement rings with ill. familiarity towards Civ3.
Figure you would know about WarHammer, one of the Civ3's most popular mods with the same feel as "Hereos of Might and Magic 3". You might have heard of it. It was the other award winning turn based strategy besides Civ 3 at the time
Mixing both formulas stayed true to the original concept and brought in new ideas. Yet Civ3 still enjoyed the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. Ontop of the 100's of orcs, dwarfs, and giants, Civ3 still offered Mods like Balancer Reloaded that feasted your AI vs AI enabled eyes on over 1000 REAL units equipt and come flavourfied.
Yes most new. Not this crap like you say ."..3 units in a clone format"
And man, What is a clone again? Is that another mod of the same quality and replayabilty value as the one you had just played before? Hmmm.. Well then, I think thats a good thing son!.
You can't be on about the same Civ3. The one where you start the days of Anno Domini mod and then go deeper on into the Middle Ages mod . WHere vassls take out any distance corrupton and pollution is recounted as disease in lead-up to devesting plague
Throughout all this time your seeing all original LH's, units, terrain and layout. THis is just a sample from off the pile! Certainly not seeing clones in the same way as someone else is through his exciting adventures in mod land
Still don't know how you base this. I was payin compliments to these feats in fantasy modding yet saying its distinct from other areas of traditinal civving that are still sorely lacking. So what?
From this Im some crazy 'fanatic' you're resonanting in negative light simply for noting distinct types of game type? Um you sure its not you whos the kook here?.. Just look at you laughing....creepy
Bottom line:
Its my belief that the improvment of historical epics is made possable through vast vats of user-created resources. Further more, A Great Modding secter is representive of many multitudes of era specific and culturaly diverse jouneys that stand the test of time.
If thats what you see only in civ3, then sure, call me a 'true' 'civ 'fanatic.
Hey Im sorry but anything that isn't Civ the game isn't "civ per say", an thats really all I set out to say.
Mybe you could have better grasped this without all the Civ3 premonitions you seem preoccupied with? That whole speel, nothing derived from what I said! Why would I "rip it apart" I never said it from the start! But on your request, lets get this started .....
Lets start with the fact I never denied the benifts of this area in development.
Think, If Diablo was deluxe moddable to the point its forum spent 1 out of 10 posts like they do here, producing/testing a free Civ-like game for its software holders to enjoy, Would you say this had no benifit to some of these players?
When you say "Preset" your referring to Scenarios not mods. Your right though, with Civ4's selection "Just a handfull" is all you can hope for when it comes to quality
See for me, that shows the 4ums big C+C problem. A handful of Fireaxis employess making a handful of great mods.
Not sure about these "PRESET" presumption you have. I think this statement rings with ill. familiarity towards Civ3.
Figure you would know about WarHammer, one of the Civ3's most popular mods with the same feel as "Hereos of Might and Magic 3". You might have heard of it. It was the other award winning turn based strategy besides Civ 3 at the time
Mixing both formulas stayed true to the original concept and brought in new ideas. Yet Civ3 still enjoyed the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. Ontop of the 100's of orcs, dwarfs, and giants, Civ3 still offered Mods like Balancer Reloaded that feasted your AI vs AI enabled eyes on over 1000 REAL units equipt and come flavourfied.
Yes most new. Not this crap like you say ."..3 units in a clone format"
And man, What is a clone again? Is that another mod of the same quality and replayabilty value as the one you had just played before? Hmmm.. Well then, I think thats a good thing son!.
You can't be on about the same Civ3. The one where you start the days of Anno Domini mod and then go deeper on into the Middle Ages mod . WHere vassls take out any distance corrupton and pollution is recounted as disease in lead-up to devesting plague
Throughout all this time your seeing all original LH's, units, terrain and layout. THis is just a sample from off the pile! Certainly not seeing clones in the same way as someone else is through his exciting adventures in mod land
Bottom line: I always thought 'Civ-Fanatics' to be a winking exaggeration. Obviously for some it's not. And now rip me to shreds if you like...
Still don't know how you base this. I was payin compliments to these feats in fantasy modding yet saying its distinct from other areas of traditinal civving that are still sorely lacking. So what?
From this Im some crazy 'fanatic' you're resonanting in negative light simply for noting distinct types of game type? Um you sure its not you whos the kook here?.. Just look at you laughing....creepy
Bottom line:
Its my belief that the improvment of historical epics is made possable through vast vats of user-created resources. Further more, A Great Modding secter is representive of many multitudes of era specific and culturaly diverse jouneys that stand the test of time.
If thats what you see only in civ3, then sure, call me a 'true' 'civ 'fanatic.
Ace of Gold
MAKE WAY FOR THE BAD GUY
ok went on vacation and just came back. alot of discission is happining and this thread i started is already 13 pages so im just going to say this instead of reading all the posts
I salute all of the the real civ fans who are playing civ 4 right now and not lagging behind and playing civ 3.
about the graphics its not at all cartoonish. I cant believe your arguing that civ 3 graphics are better because on civ 3 a mine is a circle, its horrible. in civ 4 its an actual mine and you can see the mine cart going in out of the mine. also the smoke coming from the tribal villages, its awsome. so again the people who say civ 4 graphics are bad and look cartoonish, go get your eyes checked.
I salute all of the the real civ fans who are playing civ 4 right now and not lagging behind and playing civ 3.
about the graphics its not at all cartoonish. I cant believe your arguing that civ 3 graphics are better because on civ 3 a mine is a circle, its horrible. in civ 4 its an actual mine and you can see the mine cart going in out of the mine. also the smoke coming from the tribal villages, its awsome. so again the people who say civ 4 graphics are bad and look cartoonish, go get your eyes checked.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Ok lets be fair - the official leaderheads in cIV ARE extremely cartoonish (totally out of proportion, exaggerated animations etc.).
azzaman333
meh
5 examples of Civ 3 Graphics being better than Civ 4 graphics.
1 - Tribal Villiages.
The number of times I've walked past a tribal villiage in Civ 4 is incredibly frustrating. They blend in too well with the surroundings. Civ 3 tribal villiages are very clear and noticable, and are impossible to miss.
2 - Leader Heads
Why is Gandhi's head twice the size of his body? Why is Darius a gorilla? Why does Boudica have breasts the size of her head? Why is Alexander so old? Why do Pacal and Suleiman have bright red eyes? Why does Montezuma look like a drug addict? Why does Hatshepsut wear a potato sack? Why does Lincoln look like a cartoon character?
3 - Resources
Unless you turn on the Show Resources tags, it is extremely easy to miss the locations of Silk and Spices. Realism be damned, give clear pictures to show what each resource is and where.
4 - Unit Clarity
It is frequently difficult to see who owns what unit and what it actually is.
5 - Moddability
Very few people have the same ability to create original graphics for Civ 4, and this difference is magnified when compared to those who can for Civ 3.
OMG!!! He returns!!! To pen the deciding argument! To What great side has he chosen to support, or throw down with his persuasive might?!! I don't like the sound of this
lolWell hes got a point there!
Well said
Mods I do believe we can put this one to bed. Another well played post for the game with most..... 
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Actually that is totaly subjective. At best they are 5 examples of your (and no doubt many other Civ III addicts) graphical preference.
Do you think this kind of arguement convinces Civ 3 players to change to Civ 4 (what is the theme of this thread)?
civ 3 players can rot. i dont want them to change to civ 4 if they havent already. they seem prefectly happy being in their own little world, having acute knowledge of civ 3 exploits and bandying about how great it is. why should i change them?
Moderator Action: Trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
King Flevance
Deity
Just an FYI, you can see the mine shaft, and a cart on the mine graphic for Civ 3.
Really? This statement amazes me. It's like 1 step off from a pixar movie. With the striking resemblence of Charlemagne to the Burger King mascot and Cyrus to Linguini off of Ratatouille.
But obviously, your easily amused... so long as it has been released recently.
We could easily say the same to you. What kind of cartoons are you watching is what I want to know. I can't think of 1 game that came out in CIv 4's lifetime in 3-D that has worse graphics than Civ 4. I would be interested to hear any nominees though.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Heh - all of you ought to shift your focus away from the graphics(and other superficial stuff) and start focusing on what Civ is REALLY about. Namely the business of building a Civilization - with all that entails.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,883
Churchill 25 you showed in some later posts, that your real intention was to create another flame thread against Civ 3. So these remarks about real civ fans who play civ 4 are as superfluous as the clasical "smoking chimney"-position that lots of civers just have commented in a way I don´t want to citate here.
Could it be that the mind of some Civ 4 players doesn´t exceed the radius of their Civ 4 dvds ?
Churchill 25 , in fact with your question in your first post of this thread you did one of the most spectacular self goals in the history of Civ3 hate threads.
In your first post you showed that you yourself have no arguements for convincing civers who still enjoy to play Civ 3 to switch for Civ 4. In the following tons of postings it was demonstrated that the other Civ 4 fans didn´t have these arguments too (and this is no wonder as the civers who still prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4 have their reasons for doing it, so most of them have bought Civ 4 and its expansions). On the other side you got tons of hints about weaknesses of Civ 4 with mostly well-founded arguments why this group still isn´t convinced about Civ 4. Churchill 25 and all other Civ 3 hate posters, please don´t forget that in this thread you want to convince Civ 3-civers to move to Civ 4. These Civ 3-civers don´t want to convince you to move to Civ 3.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,883
Well you answered a question with a question. This is no answer. Could it be, that in the posting where you received my answer you only wanted to do a stinky posting?
Another problem is, that lots of posts -your last included- are speaking about groups like "the Civ 3 players" followed by some hair-raising speculations and mostly ending with something to show that the poster thinks of them as inferior creatures.
Here I can only give you a hint about my motives (and not of other civers who prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4): I´m not completely happy with Civ 3. In fact I´m very upset about the last unfinished semi-patch for C3C and I´m angry that this work was interrupted to do this Civ 4, that is next to worthless for me. Civ 4 has a lot of new good features what I would have been happy if they would have been included in a new better Civ 3. But some other facts, especially the 3d graphics, a gameplay which is boring for me, the lost feeling of empires, the loss of governements as a king can´t be a king any longer and especially the by far more complicate way of modding Civ 4 (including these 3d graphics) and on the other side the possibility to have a pool of thousands of -in my eyes- accepted units that are available while the only units that can be produced for Civ 4 always must stay some kind of "lego-units", let me weigh the pro and contras to still prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4.
BTW: In Civ 3 a lot of these exploits you mentioned can be modded away. The "small world" you did speak about, in fact for me is much smaller with Civ 4 (especially considering the maps of this world
) and also in the sight of modding this world as in Civ 4 I always will end with graphics that I don´t accept.
Ogedei_the_Mad
Caffeinated Khagan
That some people have a complete utter lack of ability to comprehend the simple fact that people may have different preferences continues to amaze.
Some people like Civ4 and other people like Civ3 - deal with it and quit screaming "my dog is bigger than your dog" like the big whiny prick at the school yard.
Some people like Civ4 and other people like Civ3 - deal with it and quit screaming "my dog is bigger than your dog" like the big whiny prick at the school yard.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
Thanks for that. Heard of something like it, but didn't know it was called that. Thanks again.
Well you answered a question with a question. This is no answer. Could it be, that in the posting where you received my answer you only wanted to do a stinky posting?
Another problem is, that lots of posts -your last included- are speaking about groups like "the Civ 3 players" followed by some hair-raising speculations and mostly ending with something to show that the poster thinks of them as inferior creatures.
Here I can only give you a hint about my motives (and not of other civers who prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4): I´m not completely happy with Civ 3. In fact I´m very upset about the last unfinished semi-patch for C3C and I´m angry that this work was interrupted to do this Civ 4, that is next to worthless for me. Civ 4 has a lot of new good features what I would have been happy if they would have been included in a new better Civ 3. But some other facts, especially the 3d graphics, a gameplay which is boring for me, the lost feeling of empires, the loss of governements as a king can´t be a king any longer and especially the by far more complicate way of modding Civ 4 (including these 3d graphics) and on the other side the possibility to have a pool of thousands of -in my eyes- accepted units that are available while the only units that can be produced for Civ 4 always must stay some kind of "lego-units", let me weigh the pro and contras to still prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4.
BTW: In Civ 3 a lot of these exploits you mentioned can be modded away. The "small world" you did speak about, in fact for me is much smaller with Civ 4 (especially considering the maps of this world
why is it many civ 3 fanatics and self diagnosing asperger enthusiasts want to be convinced to like civ iv for no other reason than do defend civ 3? it's like the goddamn mormons or furries that purposely want me to explain why i think that being an agnostic fur suit basher is so awesome only to insist on how great their own life choices are. its trolling through and through, and it is a bit histrionic to boot.
for instance, t.a. jones couldnt stop posting about why civ 3 was sooooooooooooo great. in the end i just couldnt keep up with him because I knew that he was satisfied in wasting time professing his love for civ 3 in a place where it was innappropriate. he also had much more professed knowledge about both games than i did which was shocking considering how much more he enjoyed civ 3.
regardless people that stick to civ 3 are little lost causes. they are like the people who can only imagine fallout: a post apocalyptic role playing game and it's sequel in one way and anythign that changes that is de facto awful and terrible. do you argue with those people? no. no you do not. you get a drink and play your game.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
Exactly!
Anybody who tells us to "rot" cause he can't deal withdifferences of opinion is either showing his age or his mentality (very low).
I've played Civ from the beginning (18 years?) and was a beta tester for
Civ 2 in the early 90's. I too "moved on" and tried Civ4 incl BTS like everybody
else, despite my reservations about the graphics, the espionage and the AI.
I've only returned to Civ 3 Conquests a week ago and guess what. It feels
like Civ again and it's FUN. All these other arguments over modding etc. don't
matter to me. I'm just happy to be playing civ again as I think it should be
played. Only my opinion folks. Take it or leave it!!
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,883
Please don´t forget who are the real "asperger enthusiasts" (to use your words, what otherwise I wouldn´t have done) of this thread.
Here is again post one of this thread as it seems you have forgotten the reason for all these postings:
"I have a friend who got me interested in civ by giving me civ 3, when civ 4 came out I bought it and he did not. It has now been almost 3 years since civ 4 came out and he still has not bought it and keeps on saying, Its not good, civ 3 is better, I'm not used to the graphics, stuff like that. He has a new computer too. Do any of you have friends like that, What should I say to try to convince him to buy it."
It´s quite revers from what you posted: Not civers that still prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4 started this thread, it was a Civer who prefers Civ 4 and after he get responses by Civers who still prefer Civ 3, he showed that he wanted only to do a flame thread, that went completely different as he wished.
It´s a fact that there are civers who prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4 and they have there reasons for it.
It´s a fact that there are civers who prefer Civ 4 over Civ 3 and they have their reasons for it.
But it´s also a fact, that Firaxis and 2K interrupted their last semi-patch for
C3C to do Civ 4. This was good for the civers who like this game and very bad for the civers, who prefer Civ 3. But the people who now say, that say prefer Civ 4, should always be aware, that companies as Firaxis and 2k, that did this once to their customers are able to do this twice, too.
Why do Civ4 posters -as here again- always start those flaming threads and don´t accept that other civers have their reasons for still playing Civ 3? They should play the game they like and accept that other people have different opinions.
And now I continue my C3C modding for SOE and a new epic game. The drink comes later.
Please don´t forget who are the real "asperger enthusiasts" (to use your words, what otherwise I wouldn´t have done) of this thread.
Here is again post one of this thread as it seems you have forgotten the reason for all these postings:
"I have a friend who got me interested in civ by giving me civ 3, when civ 4 came out I bought it and he did not. It has now been almost 3 years since civ 4 came out and he still has not bought it and keeps on saying, Its not good, civ 3 is better, I'm not used to the graphics, stuff like that. He has a new computer too. Do any of you have friends like that, What should I say to try to convince him to buy it."
It´s quite revers from what you posted: Not civers that still prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4 started this thread, it was a Civer who prefers Civ 4 and after he get responses by Civers who still prefer Civ 3, he showed that he wanted only to do a flame thread, that went completely different as he wished.
It´s a fact that there are civers who prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4 and they have there reasons for it.
It´s a fact that there are civers who prefer Civ 4 over Civ 3 and they have their reasons for it.
But it´s also a fact, that Firaxis and 2K interrupted their last semi-patch for
C3C to do Civ 4. This was good for the civers who like this game and very bad for the civers, who prefer Civ 3. But the people who now say, that say prefer Civ 4, should always be aware, that companies as Firaxis and 2k, that did this once to their customers are able to do this twice, too.
Why do Civ4 posters -as here again- always start those flaming threads and don´t accept that other civers have their reasons for still playing Civ 3? They should play the game they like and accept that other people have different opinions.
And now I continue my C3C modding for SOE and a new epic game. The drink comes later.
you know why they dont accept why other people don't play civ 3? why do we make fun of the amish? they are backwards people that spat upon progress and seem to be none the worse off for it (unless it is like that movie witness with harrison ford). i think the main problem is the need of civ 3 players to be validated by civ 4 players. it'd be like the amish riding in to the Los Angeles from Blade Runner and then ranting about how "see, our society is great because we dont use repilicants to do labor offworld."
meanwhile everyone in LA is going "who the hell are these amish folk and why must they always prothelitize and seek validation from us? you exist! hooray! leave us alone, we need to be sinful."
for the most part i think that is the problem within CFC. you have a bunch of loudmouth, insecure civ 3 fans that perk up every time there is a thread about civ 3 comparing to civ 4. it was way worse before but i swear to god, there are a few people that just hope and pray that a thread like this comes about so they can tout why civ 3 is so great and civ 4 is crap. Now not having actually visited the civ 3 forums for a while, I cant speak of the deplorable behavior of civ 4 fans that just are annoying jerks telling you something you could care less about. keep in mind this thread started in a civ 4 forum and wasnt aimed at stalwart civ 3 defenders. it was aimed more at people who liked civ 4 and had experience playing both.
so really the lesson here is;
let your friend do whatever he wants and if he wants to bash civ 4 go get a girlfriend or steal his make fun of him for devoting his life to comparative analysis of computer games.
to answer and resolve what you regard as important;
explain why convincing you that civ 4 is worthy to be played over civ 3, worthy in its own right?
Exactly!
differences of opinion is either showing his age or his mentality (very low).
I've played Civ from the beginning (18 years?) and was a beta tester for
Civ 2 in the early 90's. I too "moved on" and tried Civ4 incl BTS like everybody
else, despite my reservations about the graphics, the espionage and the AI.
I've only returned to Civ 3 Conquests a week ago and guess what. It feels
like Civ again and it's FUN. All these other arguments over modding etc. don't
matter to me. I'm just happy to be playing civ again as I think it should be
played. Only my opinion folks. Take it or leave it!!
differences of opinion? the fact that you prefer civ 3 has no bearing on whether i care about your preference. civ 4 players can go rot. as long as they arent cluttering the forum with useless crap unrelated to the game (like i've been doing) then i abide.
Similar threads
