Civ 3 is awful

[Bungus]

But civ 3 has its bright spots. Though too few changes from civ 2 to really be worth buying, even though I got civ 3+conquest for $25 or so. If I had known, I might not have bought it, but now that I have, I am enjoying it, maybe not long term but eh.

If you've played a game long enough to post on that game's specific forums, you've gotten your moneys worth.
Gamers are generally cheap ass bastards, and as production costs increase, this will have to change if we want good games to continue being made. $50 for 25 hours of good entertainment is cheap, 100 dollars for 25 hours of great entertainment is cheaper still. If you cannot afford 50 bucks for a game, that problem is between you and your employer, not the game industry.

 

[Ghostwind]

You should get the alien crossfire upgrade to fully appreciate it.


I personally bought the planatary pack which included it and two very thick books with it, $30 some time ago. Certainly got my moneys worth, even though I didn't find civ3 kind of community & mods for it.

I dont like its population growth based on city size system (was like that in civ2 I think though) Or the imbalance of the helicopter. But AC has alot going for it. Civ3 should have used more of its ideas.

That reminds me of the problems I encountered when I took a brief look at it. I purchased it at a garage sale and it didn't contain a rulebook. I suppose I could look around online. Maybe I could find something.

~Ghostwind

 

[TruePurple]

Most of the cost in game lay in retail stores getting their bit. Overdone packaging. Distributers, etc. I've heard about $5 of a $40-50 game goes to the actual making of the game.

$50 for 25 hours of good entertainment is cheap, 100 dollars for 25 hours of great entertainment is cheaper still

Thank you for that tid bit mr. money bags. That sounds terrible expensive to me. No one charges that much for games, noone needs to nor are great game makers terrible poor off money wise else they wouldn't be producing them in the first place, certainly not in such large numbers. (2$-4$ per hour of play is only "cheap" when compared to arcades)

If game makers don't need to charge that much and game buyers mostly can't afford those numbers. And actual games never cost anything like that... your game value numbers are simply bogus. Not any matter of gamers being "cheap ass bastards" either.

I've got so many other games purchased, free for download, cheap as hell etc that I could be playing, who knows how long ill be at civ3. The community helps alot though. Anyways I still say, if I had known how civ3 was before I bought it, I would have bought something else, spent my time playing something else. As it is though it wasn't terribly bad either.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: True Purple - Warned. Linking to warez site is against the site rules.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TruePurple]

@turner
The underdog site only lists downloads of games that are defunct, manufactor has gone under or the game is no longer being sold and the manufactorer has given special permission to provide that download, or freeware games

Notice they aren't providing a download for AC itself because you can still buy that, just not its expansion which stop selling a very long time ago.

So may I please repost my link?! It is legal and legit, not warez!

Concerning the issue of a manual. There is in game resources explaining alot of stuff. Didn't you get a manual with AC? Anyways if you've played civ 2 or 3 you'll have little trouble understanding most of the basics of AC. If you need help, ask a question in the AC forum of civfanatics.

 

[Turner]

The site supports piracy, and therefor linking to it is not allowed here.

Abandonware is fiction. There is no such thing. It's a poor attempt to justify piracy for older games.

 

[TruePurple]

It does not support piracy. It is not piracy to provide software of a company who has given you explicate permission to do so. (and unlike many other sites, I always see them make a specific point to do so, refusing to provide software no longer sold if they don't have the permission unless the company is out of business)

Not applicable in this situation but, nor is it piracy to provide the software of a company that is out of business where the copyright has fallen under public domain.

 

[Ghostwind]

Thanks TruePurple.

The copy I bought at the garage sale just came with the disk alone. I spent a whole 2 dollars. No big loss.

I figured since I played Civ II and III already I wouldn't have much trouble playing AC, but the lack of rule book proved very frustrating and I gave up. Maybe I'll try again.

Or Perhaps I can buy a copy for 10 bucks or something on e-bay that comes with a rule book and perhaps a strategy guide. I'll look into it.

~Ghostwind

Edit: I went up stairs and found the disk. Apparently there are two and one says Alien Crossfire. I found a manual on the original disk that uses a PDF format. Coolness.

 

[TruePurple]

Oh, the second book WAS a strategy guide, i personally found the manual too tedious (and sometimes incomplete in the important areas) to reference to too often and picked up alot of stuff just by playing. If you want, I'll detail the main differences of AC and civ if you create a thread asking me to.

 

[Ghostwind]

Well, I installed it and it says my cpu is not supported and it will be susceptible to crashes. I also downloaded the 4.0 patch and now it won't run at all.

I have new computer. I guess I'll head over to the Alpha Centauri section of the forums and see if I can get some help.

I wouldn't want you to do anything until I can be sure I can get it up and running with consistency.

~Ghostwind

 

[Shodan]

Ok, sorry. Civ 3 is not awful. Disappointing is better. You see, as a big fan of the series (playing SMAC often, and Colonization for windows till today) I did hope CIv 3 would be so much more. But in the end its like a simplified/shallow version of the series formula. I fact, I once did read an interview where Sid stated that he wanted Civ 3 to be more simple e pretty than ever, for attracting a new generation of gamers to the franchise.

While in SMAC is deep, allowing you to play by your style, in your own pace, be it growing up slowly or fast, enfasizing or not intracity infrastructure, environmentalism, economics, diplomacy (Lal is my favorite char - its really good to have double votes for planetary governor), etc, in Civ 3 youre forced to play by only one way - expand, expand, expand untill no more room left. Otherwise youre thrashed by the computer. There are not mechanisms in the game that control this feature.

The factions of SMAC have personality, each one is really unique, and actually play by its own agenda (the Hive are "expand, expand", the University are isolationist researchers, Morganites are radical capitalists, Gaians are environmentalists, Spartans are war-minded, peacekeepers are humanitarian, etc.), an the AI gives them LIFE, thats because the diplomacy is great - you feel as dealing with another people, with another ideological values - you feel like role-playing a character. The SMAC unfolding story is ESPETACULAR - depicts the human nature beautifully, involving plausible and realistic sci-fi concepts (nanotech, AIs, biogenetics, transhumanism, singularity, transcendence, etc.) , in a phylosofical fest (you can see that Brian Reynalds really is graduated in phylosophy), making for an EPIC experience.

Technicaly also, SMAC is better in all aspects than Civ 3 - diplomacy (is more wide and realistic); combat (is more wide also with special habilities, unit workshop, more modifiers, etc.); terrain interaction (wide terraforming, real interactable 3D terrain - by raising terrain you can even trap the atmospheric masses that go from west-east, increasing rains and nutrient crops); etc.

Civ 3 IS a good game. For the first-timer it can be reeeaaly nice, but for a SMAC and Colonize veteran like me, who likes engrossing and deep experiences, Civ 3 is a "light" fun. Its like comparing Diablo to Planescape Torment. Diablo is a good game, but after you finish it, its over. Now PsT is more than a game, and when you finish it, you get an WOW, and stay with it in your head for a long time. SMAC is like this.

 

[Ghostwind]

Really glad to hear it, Shodan.

I'm playing my first game in a few minutes.

~Ghostwind

 

[Shodan]

Enjoy it Ghostwind!

SMAC is a game thats difficult for first-timers though - its alien, its not friendly at first, its exquisite. But, as Planescape Torment, when you get in, you wont get out.

 

[TruePurple]

Well to civ3's credit, it does have a better pop growth system then civ2 and AC(long ways to go still) It also has the resource trading thing which adds a interesting dimension and thats about the extent of Civ3's revolations to the series. But AC has treaty trade income.

Everything else about civ3 is summerized by simplicity. Less units, tech, simple & few terrian & terrian enhancements, few & limited diplomatic options, an AI who only respects war, simple in any other number of areas as well. Not even production carry over or tech/gold conversation for less waste/micromanagement.

On the other hand, some of that simplicity (like less tech & units) are probably appreciated by some.

 

[thesizzler]

each game had its pros and cons, CIV 3 had a nice recouse managment thing and the territory, better graphics. but CIV 2 had better cannon and catapult type units (the bombard action is kinda stupid/pointless/annoying/awful), AND a better interface( you can check the deimographs anytime, and if your not supposed to be playing it, you can minimize the window). I think the CIV 3 airplanes are better, and its better having the settlers and workers separete. CIV 2 had cool expansion pack built into it (e.i. fantasy mode)!


well, that was pointless

 

[brennan]

An Unbeliever!

Persecute!

Kill the Heretic!

 

[TruePurple]

Oh brennan, we wouldn't kill you, even if you don't believe. We're not like that.

 

[tR1cKy]

If you've played a game long enough to post on that game's specific forums, you've gotten your moneys worth.
Gamers are generally cheap ass bastards, and as production costs increase, this will have to change if we want good games to continue being made. $50 for 25 hours of good entertainment is cheap, 100 dollars for 25 hours of great entertainment is cheaper still. If you cannot afford 50 bucks for a game, that problem is between you and your employer, not the game industry.

Interesting. What's the point of this post, other than bragging that you have money while some of us have not? 100 dollars may be a week of work or even more in countries less developed than yours. In a developed country, 100 dollars may mean the difference between reaching the end of the month and being compelled to loan some money from a friend.

 

[bingen]

I agree that Civ3 was in many ways a step back from SMAC. Diplomacy options especially. However, on the whole I believe it to be an improvement. The main reason I prefer civ3 though is the challenge level, I still regularily lose on Sid, with SMAC I could win on transcendent before I discovered the full power of the supply crawlers, afterwards it was just a complete blowout.

Civ3's AI, while amazingly dumb sometimes, is still, several years after its release , just about the best on the market. As an example, Rome: TW was mentioned previously. In RTW it is possible to lose battles (if badly enough outnumbered) but it is just about impossible to lose the war. This is compounded by a huge bug in the game, if you load a game AI strategic behaviour is messed up for at least a turn. My last game I left the program running for days. To be fair, Civ3 Conquests is also one patch short, at least.

CIv4 is just around the corner, hopefully it will be even better.

 

[Brain]

Most of the cost in game lay in retail stores getting their bit. Overdone packaging. Distributers, etc.

So, are you saying that this money is wasted? Without marteking and distributers you wouldn't have a game at all because it wouldn't be profitable to the producers.

I've heard about $5 of a $40-50 game goes to the actual making of the game.

10% actually seems quite high. I'd say much less than that. Still, producers are finding it profitable so I don't see any problem with that.

2$-4$ per hour of play is only "cheap" when compared to arcades

Really? How much do you pay to go to the movies? What about sports games or concert tickets? Actually, if you think of the average cost of entertainment I think computer games are very cheap value*. If you compare to the price of other popular software that requires comparable amounts of human resources then you'll also find that computer games are cheap. If you think of the average lifetime of computer games and compare it to Civ you'll find that Civ is very cheap value.

*I didn't even mention the more expensive types of "entertainment".