Civ 3 not up to Standards ???

[Fonzerelli]

Well there is no doubt Civ3 has some of the best graphics in the game's history.
The intro was nice, unit animation, terrain graphics are all well done. But then I dont have the same feeling of joy and curiosity I had while playing Civ 2. Civ 3 to me was old wine in a new bottle with very little to offer in the innovation, crippled diplomacy, bad interface and unintresting gameplay.
Okay the resource's management feature is nice and there are a few bright spots in the game. After playing Civ3 i decided to try out Civ2 for old times sake and i found Civ2 to be a lot more fun.
The council of miniters are a treat, interface is easy, gameplay is a lot more interesting and a lot more faster than its contemporary.
And we do have multiplayer, I mean i was totally appauled to find that me and my brother could not play a game togeather ????
I have to buy Civ3:RTW to play a simple 2 players game on the same computer. Not that RTW is a rip off, RTW seems like a nice idea to set things right.
The diplomacy of the current game is really shallow, other than trading resources and transferring money, city's, the diplomacy screen is rather wastefull.
I was kind of hoping the old council of ministers might return to cheer us up. The council was a neat break from the monotonous game.
Music and Sound Effects , well Civ2 had some wonderfull scores and clear sound effects. Civ3 seems like something mushy cooked up in the last minute.

All in all Civ 3 is a nice game that could have been a lot better. Now i know there is going to be a huge outroar over my statements but i stand by them. Civ2 was a much better game.

 

[Fonzerelli]

Could the mod's edit the poll so that "maek" is written as "mark" ??

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Fonzerelli
. . .All in all Civ 3 is a nice game that could have been a lot better. Now i know there is going to be a huge outroar over my statements but i stand by them. Civ2 was a much better game.

"Huge outroar"?? Everyone knows what you said is true. And I have been saying as much and a lot more for many months. Yes, a lot of us miss a great deal from Civ 2 be it the Cheat Mode, real scenarios, spies and caravans, etc.

Firaxis went for graphics first and a simpler game, which was rushed to market as a beta.

 

[MummyMan]

Besides the state of the game when it came out, i still think that civ3 was up to MY standards. It still had the things i wanted and more. I really don't care about the unrealistic elements of the game, it comes with the territory

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Originally posted by Zouave

"Huge outroar"?? Everyone knows what you said is true.

Yeah, that's why the vote stands at 11-2 as I write this Do stop purporting to speak for all.

 

[Reboot]

Graphics: Yes, CivIII has nice graphics. Unfortunately they designed the game such that if you play the Egyptians you must be Cleopetra, and if you play the Chinese you must be Mao. In other words, graphics in this case is improved at the cost of variability and player control. I rather have a little changeable thumbnail to represent my, like SMAC.

Music: In CivI every Civ has a unique score. In CivII there are only a few BGMs to select from. In CivIII you have slightly more BGM than CivII. Unfortunately, there is only a selection of 3-4 in every age. To make it worse, most of the original pieces from CivI and CivII are gone in CivIII. It breaks my sense of continuity. And you can't even choose the music now.

Clips: The intro is nice. Then, nothing. No wonder movies, and the only victory that has a clip is the grossly improbable Spaceship victory. It's improbably because if we are to conquer space, the retro rocket will NEVER be the medium of travel.

Gameplay: This is debatable, as can be seen by the slew of posts arguing this. But on the whole I believe that CivIII limits player style. There's only a very few routes to victory. This is not an area where realism should be injected.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by MummyMan
Besides the state of the game when it came out, i still think that civ3 was up to MY standards. It still had the things i wanted and more. I really don't care about the unrealistic elements of the game, it comes with the territory

Hmm. The "territory" was the Civilization franchise, and those of us who spent a lot of time with Civ 1 and Civ 2 had a right to expect that the much-anticipated Civ 3 would at least NOT be a step BACKWARDS in the realism department. But it was, plus it has many new weird concepts no one ever asked for.

I suppose Infogrames gave Firaxis it's orders: come up with a game that sells more. Since History is barely taught anymore in our lousy public schools, and since there was nearly six years since Civ 2 came out, with many potential buyers who never played Civ 2, Firaxis had no problems with dumbing it down so long as they boost the graphics.

PTW continues that tradition making "Conquistadors" the Spanish UU, even though they never were an actual Spanish military unit; just a small gang of thugs in the New World massacring native peoples. But to their new buying public, none of this matters.

 

[Evie]

Including stuff in Civ for popularity reasons alone has always been a thing found in every game. Including the previous civs.

Or what were the vikings doing in there when much more deserving civilizations were constantly ignored, both in and out of Europe? Simple. They are a known symbol - something the average players (for whom the game is meant, regardless of what we may wish) - just like the conquistadors were a spanish symbol.

Sure, I would rather have the Tercio (for example) than the conquistador. But how many average players - which is who the fricking game is meant for, as it should be (else Firaxis would go bankrupt - they need the average gamer's money and thus a product they can relate to far more than they need our money and a product we can appreciate) - even knows what the tercio is or care about it? They want something that makes sense to them. Something they can relate to. Sure, the Songhai empire may have spawned a large stretch of west africa, and been reputed as a place of learning with Timbuktu et al, but nobody heard of them in the general public. Whereas people knows about the viking. Sure, the Tercio may have been at the time among the most if not hte most feared military force in Europe, but it's the Conquistador that people know.

But as I already said...it's not just a question of money grabbing.

It's a question that they *NEED* the money. They must present a product that will sell well, and that means sacrificing historical accuracy to honor the average gamer as opposed to apprentice historian/professional one. If they didn't follow that path, they'd go down and that would be the last of civ. I frankly'd rather have a game that's slightly less historicaly accurate and that's going to keep the series alive than the other way around.

Is the game perfect? No, certainly not.
Is the game good? You think not. I think it is enjoyable enough to warrant the title. To each its own.

But whatever's the case, you do not speak for the entire forum, or even a sizeable majority of the civ community, and I would again ask you not to assume that the truth you believe in is the only truth that can seriously be believed in. When you get right down to it, that is perhaps one of the thing you do that irritate others (me included) the most.

 

[JtheJackal]

Whoops meant to vote that Civ 3 is the best Civ game since Civ 2. Its better and its great.

Noone will not buy the expansion because the Spanish UU would be the Terico instead of the Conquistador. It effects gameplay zero. They could put whatever they want as a UU and noone will care! They will still buy it because its an expansion pack to a great game! Noone will make thier descion on a UU.

 

[Exile_Ian]

You know, I'm getting really annoyed at your grumbling Zouave. The various polls have shown that you certainly do not speak for the majority (so stop say 'Everyone ...'). If Civ 2 is so great (and it was) carry on playing it - there's plenty of other people out there doing just that. I wouldn't want to go back to Civ 2 (even if there are a feww of its features I miss).

Ok Civ 3 isn't everything YOU hoped for - so what? It has to stand or fall on what it includes (not what it might/could/should have contained). You can keep comparing it to your vision of what the next Civ game should have been - but that's not relevent.

As for the 'wierd' concepts that you keep referring to (presumably Culture and the (in)famous Culture-Flipping) - again, you seem to be in a minority. Most people (from what I can see) applaud the introduction of Culture and either like or at least accept the CFing.

Frankly your allegations about who instructed who in the company hierarchy, or what their motives were, are without foundation. No-one (I am positive) deliberately misled us or sought to take an easy option in the production of Civ 3. (You really think that all that programming of the 'so-called' unwanted new features was easy?!).

Personally I also resent the implications of your comments on a 'dumbed-down' game. Are you trying to imply that those of us who are still happily playing are equally dumb? Excuse me, I enjoy Civ 3 - will continue to play it, will continue to look forward to enhancements (either from Firaxis or the gaming community) and will continue to disregard virtually all that you continue to rant about.

The shame is that you obviously have a passion for Civ, but that seems to have deteriorated to bitterness - to the extent that I doubt whether anything Firaxis does now is going to meet with your approval. (Even if the 'perfect' version of Civ was released next month you'll continue to complain that it should have been done that way last year).

Sorry it reads as a flame - I'm just frustrated at the regular snipes you make. [Maybe I should compile a list of "Positive Zouave comments" but I think it would be very small].

Understand that we're not all misguided fools just because we enjoy Civ 3. Bottom-line is, I'll continue to play happily (and patiently) while you're just down $50 and bitter about it.

Moderator Action: Posts directed at other posters are for the Private Message feature. If that user has them disabled, you either send an e-mail or keep your thoughts to yourself. Gonzo :santa:
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[LordAzreal]

In my opinion Civ III is definitely better than Civ II. Upon initial release, it easily met my standards (no more, no less). Sure it wasn't perfect, but nothing really is.

With each patch released, it began to exceed my standards more and more.

And I'm confident that PTW will cause the game to transcend even further up as one of my favourite all-time releases.

 

[Koronin]

I have issues with PTW:

Multi player should be FREE, period, charging for it in this day and age is asinine.

The 'new' civs aren't really new at all, most we covered in the first 2 games.

Of course, I could be a true 'crusader' and spend the next 9 months *****ing and moaning about the same thing, but I'm not going to. I certainly am not going to *BUY* PTW.

 

[Talar]

If it was just "any game" civ3 would have been up to the mark. It's a very good game compared to most other games. But civilization games isn't just any game. Both civ1 and 2 gave us things far beyond our expectations so we expected Firaxis to do the same thing with civ3, and I think they could have if they just had some more time and resources (and playtesters ).

So I would say civ3 is well up to the mark if you consider it just a computer game among all other computer games, but lacking some if you expected it to be the #1 game of all time. Like many others I'm disappointed it wasn't, but (at least after the latest patch) I can still enjoy it as a good and fun game.

 

[Flavor Dave]

Talar's post hit the nail on the head. Civ 3 is a better game, to me, than Gettysburg! or Age of Empires, etc. (Not as good as Championship Manager, but what is?) Now that I've d/l'd a patch, I think I might even say it's better than Civ 2. (For one thing, I had gotten too good at Civ 2; it was boring.) There are some definite steps forward.

But bottom line is, it's a disappointment because it could have been so much better, so easily. It's like a high school valedictorian that ends up making $45K at age 35. Better than the average bear, no doubt, but still underachieving.

 

[Fonzerelli]

Personally i was just hoping they would just upgrade the graphics and leave the rest of the game just as it was.
Diplomacy could have been a lot better in Civ3.
Peace Treaties, alliance's, united nations, wto, NATO , i mean the possibilities are limitless.
It would have been great if we could select from over 3-4 leaders from each civilization. And I miss the title editor that was provided in Civ2. Prime Minister, President are fine but then we would like to modify them.
The technology tree looks untouched, other than the cosmetic changes. The resource monitor looks encouraging, forcing you to seek out minerals,resources for developing new units is interesting.
I expected a lot more new units, workers take too much time to develop terain. It would have been kewl if we could develop the sea.
Alpha Centauri was an awesome game, and i was expecting a lot more from Civ3 after playing Aplha Centauri.
And I am gald to hear that i am not a lone voice of dissent in the Civilization community.

 

[Venger]

As Talar notes, Civ3 is simply a profound underachiever, less than the sum of it's parts. The poll is too simplistic. Do I like Civ3? As of 1.29, yes. So does that make it up to the mark? Well, I've not burned the CD and box in the fireplace, but I also lament alot of gameply choices, and the fact that the game engine is pure SMAC and not revolutionary (some may even argue evolutionary) in the least.

Up to the mark? Maybe, but not what I had hoped for nor expected.

Venger

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

nice game, like it, and it is very much what i expected: still no sortable city list.. and so on

 

[Civddict]

IMO, who thinks game is not "up to standards", has problem of understanding macro and micro picture of game.

 

[Ripley]

[Whisper]

Zouave has 6 aliases on Civ Fanatics forums.
Correction :ak47: :shottie: :slay:

Now come on, forgive and forget

[/Whisper]



MOD EDIT: Just had to..... Gonzo :santa:

 

[Reboot]

Originally posted by Civddict
IMO, who thinks game is not "up to standards", has problem of understanding macro and micro picture of game.

The question is "up to mark" - I assume that means by our expectations? Well, if it fulfills our expectations so well we won't be complaining one bit...

Of course, it depends on how serious we percieve these problems as well. If we see them as big ones, then CivIII falls short. If we see them as minor ones, then CivIII is "up to mark". IMO those that think the game is "up to mark" has few expectations of the game.

The game is good, but that doesn't make it meet my mark (expectations) of what the game can and should be.