Civ 3 has some serious reality problems.

[Libertarian]

[...hands on hips... ...staring with intimidation...]

Yeah! You guys just whine whine whine. There ain't no game on the market more realistic than Civ3.

1. It really does take battleships the better part of three years to get from Norfolk to the Persian Gulf. That's why the Pentagon uses Miss Cleo to help determine where battleships need to be anchored.

2. Cruise missles really are carried on Transports along with, at most, seven men. They can't be fired from ships. That Gulf War thing? A hoax!

3. Great leaders really are produced only as a result of military campaigns fought and won. Examples are numerous throughout history: Martin Luther King in hand-to-hand combat with cops in the street; Gandhi firing submachine guns at British encampments; Jesus chasing Jewish Rabbis with a sword.

4. Sources of coal, iron, and uranium really do dry up if you never even use them. It's too complicated to explain, but it has to do with evaporation and quantum mechanics. Dr. Laura Schlessinger explains it all in her book, Ten Stupid Things People Do To Lose Their Coal.

5. You really can't irrigate hills. All those vineyards and stuff all over the world are just illusions created by the Great Right-Wing Conspiracy. If you don't believe me, ask Hillary Clinton. Plus, the Incas never irrigated their hills. That's an urban legend started by Spanish conquistadors.

6. Bombers really can't sink ships. Oh, I know. You're going to mention that Pearl Harbor thingy. Well, what happened there was that the ships didn't really sink. Instead, the sea spontaneously rose forty feet higher due to the blanket of low-pressure created by all those Japanese planes.

7. War on foreign soil really is always unpopular in Democracies. No one actually supported the troops in World War II. The fact is that Hitler was a hero in America. And when troops landed at Normandy, massive protests broke out in New York and Chicago. Emperor Roosevelt had to give all those people furs and silks to pacify them.

8. It really is true that the farther away a city is from its capital, the more corrupt it becomes. Just compare the rampant corruption in Honolulu with the immaculate morality in Washington, DC.

9. Armies really do move one unit at a time. Every general knows this. That's why it takes weeks and months to assemble an array of infantry and tanks. They all take turns. In case you don't know, it's called Military Etiquette.

10. Joan of Arc really was a more important French leader than either Napolean or de Gaulle. It is a little known fact that the King of France really did pay her ransom, but his check bounced due to a bookkeeping snafu.

If you don't like Civ3, then go play Civ2 or something. You think this game was made for you? Wrong! It was made for us fifth-grade snot-nosed sycophants who don't know what happened at Tiananmen. So there.

 

[RogueNine]

Originally posted by Nodog"Sometimes too tempting to come to the defense of a good person and intelligent poster, but, nonetheless, I choose to engage, I suppose."

Its always just to fight the good fight.


Libertarian, as an avid supporter of Civ 3 I should at least counter your list with a few well-thought out arguements... but I can't cause it was just too damn funny. lol!

There, now both sides have their funny post, so lets just laugh at them and leave the crap to the numerous other threads...

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Polonius
1. The movement is broken. At the start of the game it takes 50 years to walk one square.

Now Mr. P, you should know that there is historical justification for this. For instance it took 40 years for Moses to cross Sinai.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by Libertarian
[...hands on hips... ...staring with intimidation...]

Yeah! You guys just whine whine whine. There ain't no game on the market more realistic than Civ3.

1. It really does take battleships the better part of three years to get from Norfolk to the Persian Gulf. That's why the Pentagon uses Miss Cleo to help determine where battleships need to be anchored.

2. Cruise missles really are carried on Transports along with, at most, seven men. They can't be fired from ships. That Gulf War thing? A hoax!

Lib you gotta stop this, I nearly pissed my pants. So true!
keep up the good work man!

Charles.

 

[Rhandom]

"Rhandom, I have read a number of Polonius' posts and it's clear that he is neither a troll nor an insulter. His posts are invariably carefully thought out and appear to be intended to try and shed more light on a game he seems to enjoy (as I do). I might not always agree with his assessments, but he does seem to be trying to be helpful in a rational way.

You seem extraordinarily sensitive to imagined insults directed at you but seem to have no qualms at all about insulting Polonius. "

Actually, every one of his "helpful" posts that I've have seen have included a paragraph explaining that the problems with the game are all in the minds of people too lazy to read the rules, too stupid to develop strategies, too paranoid and think the game is just out to get us, etc. This one is no different. If you like, I could go back and snag them for you. Or you could take the fanboi glasses off and read the posts yourself.

Not only has he felt the need to preemptively attack anyone who might disagree with his posts right from the start, he utterly fails to add anything useful beyond quoting the manuals, seeming to ignore the fact that nearly all of the negative posts about the game involve it not following the the rules laid out by the manuals.

Contrary to the typical other fanboy attacks I've garnered on this post and others, I love civ like games. I played Civ 1 with friends all night in the schools computer labs, MOM 2 stayed on 4 successive computer hard drives, Got both MOO's, played Civ 2 endlessly until Alpha Centauri came out, which I played about once a month until civ 3 came out. I ranked Firaxis as one of the best, most trustworthy software companies out there. I bought the game the day it came out, travelling to 4 different stores to get a copy. I too thought the game was awesome the first couple of days I played - until I hit massive, illogical city flips, and non functional air support, and thought I'd see what scenarios were included, then thought I'd try to make a few, then found the game starting me numerous times in areas that could support at best a size 3 city (tundra, desert, mountains), then found the game had 3 different lock up bugs that completely destroyed games, including one that corrupts every save game file (including autosave) from that game, making them impossible to load. I found that the civ specific abilities, instead of enhancing gameplay and tactics through well balanced pros and cons, only give benefits that make victory incredibly easy. The AI, instead of presenting challenging choices, merely acts bloody minded in every circumstance even when it has everything to gain through cooperation, and everything to lose by attacking you. Some people claim that this represents good AI - I think it represents cop out programming that simply makes the AI's hostile if the situation falls outside of a very few hardwired cooperation events. Topping it all off, multiplayer isn't included, one of the most important factors to strategy games.

Also contrary to fanboi opinion, this game is not hard - except the difficulty of getting through a game without a fatal bug destroying it or bugs wrecking the game or a starting position in antartica. The AI is extremely susceptible to a few strategies, strategies made even easier by the unique units and civ advantages. You are not 1337 dOOdz because you play civ, or any game.If you think disliking an incomplete and not well designed product makes me less a person than you, please, continue calling me a preschooler or whiner or whatever. I hope you feel better about yourself afterwards.

Because you are doing nothing for Sid, Firaxis, Civ 3 or gaming in general by pretending all the problems with the game are in our heads, or that its just a few whiners, or whatever. I know 8 people personally who have got Civ 3, and not one of them was impressed past the second week. No one has played it more than a month, except me, and that is pretty infrequent now (my last 3 games were start-in-middle-of-desert-with-nothing/ start-in-middle-of-tundra-with-a-fur-forest/ blue-screen-after-2-hours-with-all-autosaves-corrupted-while-leading-in-score-3-to-1) . Firaxis has lost reputation on this game among the people who actually bought it, even if not among the reviewers who play it for a few hours then write a review before moving onto the next game.

If the next firaxis or civ product is to be made better than this one, it will the people willing to criticize this one that will prevent it from being released incomplete or with glaring bugs. It won't be those making excuses for the companies or attacking people who legitimately complain.

 

[nodog]

I picture eight really cranky friends working in a video store and hanging out over Tequiza complaining about the utter bull**** of Big Bird being able to talk.

Also, there is a huge difference between constructive criticism and just being a pompous, irritating whiner.

 

[RogueNine]

Rhandom, I generally agree with what you have said. I agree that the game as some problems, and its apparent that it bothers some people more than others. (Lets not forget that some people ARE enjoying it though.)

What I think was most annoying of all though was when Polonius, or someone else who loves the game, would start a thread about 'a tip to help with problem x', or a thread to 'discuss solutions for corruption', and so on, it would more often than not get run over by people posting something along the lines of "We shouldn't have to come up with fixes for corruption, it should have been fixed before release. This game sucks." Or, "I've tried your stradegies and they don't work. This game needs serious tweeking, you listening Firaxis?" Those are all fine opinions, but they DON'T belong in threads started with good intentions. There are plenty of ***** threads out there. Threads started by Fayadi that read 'If you ran Firaxis, who would you fire first?' Or, 'This game is boring'. I personally don't believe threads like that add ANYTHING to these boards, but thats just my opinion. Until now I've kept that to myself, and let people ***** to their heart's content in those threads. It is their right. However, when people bring their negative comments to threads started by people who love the game, its just not right. Why can't someone like Polonius create a thread about the game he likes without having you or Fayadi or Zouave come in tell us all what you think is wrong with the game? Is it so much to ask to actually let those of us who enjoy the game discuss it without being forced to defend our POV every single damn time?

THATS whats so irritating about you guys. You call us fanboys. Fine. Whatever. Just stay out of our threads. Its obvious that we like the game, can't you just LET US LIKE IT? I agree Firaxis needs feedback, and if its mostly negative thats fine too. Just don't keep repeating the same comments in EVERY THREAD. It gets tiresome, and some 'fanboys' have already stopped posting here because of it. Another month of this and Civ Fanatics will just be a place to come and ***** to Sid. So here's my plea for sanity in the hopes that won't happen. Its up to you guys.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by RogueNine
Rhandom, I generally agree with what you have said. I agree that the game as some problems, and its apparent that it bothers some people more than others. (Lets not forget that some people ARE enjoying it though.)

What I think was most annoying of all though was when Polonius, or someone else who loves the game, would start a thread about 'a tip to help with problem x', or a thread to 'discuss solutions for corruption', and so on, it would more often than not get run over by people posting something along the lines of "We shouldn't have to come up with fixes for corruption, it should have been fixed before release. This game sucks." Or, "I've tried your stradegies and they don't work. This game needs serious tweeking, you listening Firaxis?" Those are all fine opinions, but they DON'T belong in threads started with good intentions. There are plenty of ***** threads out there. Threads started by Fayadi that read 'If you ran Firaxis, who would you fire first?' Or, 'This game is boring'. I personally don't believe threads like that add ANYTHING to these boards, but thats just my opinion. Until now I've kept that to myself, and let people ***** to their heart's content in those threads. It is their right. However, when people bring their negative comments to threads started by people who love the game, its just not right. Why can't someone like Polonius create a thread about the game he likes without having you or Fayadi or Zouave come in tell us all what you think is wrong with the game? Is it so much to ask to actually let those of us who enjoy the game discuss it without being forced to defend our POV every single damn time?

First of all your not being forced to read all of this, just because negative messages exist in these forums and threads doesn't mean your doomed. You just simply do not have to read them is all. If something offends you, skip onto the next message, simple. But I do agree people should not only stick to the topics of each individual thread but they should also be constructive and productive with thier issues. However, people do undeniably become irrational when they get upset. And since this isn't face to face.. people will be likely to say anything. But that's the beauty of these forums on the internet, you can be whoever you wanna be and say whatever you wish to say. And for the most part these "complainers" are only venting.... give it time, it'll pass.

THATS whats so irritating about you guys. You call us fanboys. Fine. Whatever. Just stay out of our threads. Its obvious that we like the game, can't you just LET US LIKE IT? I agree Firaxis needs feedback, and if its mostly negative thats fine too. Just don't keep repeating the same comments in EVERY THREAD. It gets tiresome, and some 'fanboys' have already stopped posting here because of it. Another month of this and Civ Fanatics will just be a place to come and ***** to Sid. So here's my plea for sanity in the hopes that won't happen. Its up to you guys. [/B]

Now see, you can't start categorizing things like "fanboys" and "complainers" or this is our thread (our turf) stay away. I don't even agree with this whole labelling issue where everyone chooses a side like in the American Revolution and claims territoriality. We obviously have two types of movements here, people who hate the game, and people who love the game. And it has nothing to do with "there are more people that love the game, so that must be right" or "this is a discussion thread on what is *right* with the game so you have no right to speak in here" all of these things are situations just begging for an argument. And we do want to avoid arguments. But I find myself compelled as you do to continue to defend my points. That said, it's obvious here that we are both right. There are plenty of things wrong with Civ3, and Civ3 should have been completed before release, but the game that was released is a pretty damn decent game, it has great potential. Like I said, both sides are right. This situation kind of reminds me of the "dog that chases it's tail" scenario.

Charles.