civ 3 players will not move on

[Aiken Drumn]

only ever played civ 4.. dont know anyone who does

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

I've only played Civ4. The first Firaxis game I ever played was the Pirates remake.

 

[jessiecat]

I've only played Civ4. The first Firaxis game I ever played was the Pirates remake.

While I've agreed so far with most of your posts supporting those of us who
prefer Civ3, you admit you've never actually played it. As somebody who's
played the whole Civ series since the beginning and gone back to Civ 3
after the disappointment of Civ4, I'd suggest you really give it a try. You
can't expect to have an informed opinion about something you've only seen
from screenshots, can you? You might surprise yourself. There are lots of
very good reasons that some of us of prefer Civ3, given the choice.
By the way, I've been playing Sid Meier's Pirates too and I love it.
What do you think?

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Got bored of it after two years and uninstalled it to make extra space. My younger brother loves the game though.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Personally I prefer Civ IV to Civ III. Someone mentioned liking Civ III as a wargame. Perhaps that was my problem with it. War seemed to be much more important and unavoidable compared to Civ II
Not sure if I prefer it to Civ II though. That was so modder-friendly
Its certainly true that Civ III contained some great features like resource dependency and borders that help make Civ IV better but Civ IV improves on Civ III - eg addition of Civics rather than government types (first seen in Alpha Centurai I believe)

 

[Red Door]

You've just said, "Civ 3 is obsolete but that doesn't mean its been replaced".
Using the word "obsolete" puts you in the same camp as Churchill. You can't
have it both ways. You should have said that Civ4 is one of a series of games
based on the Civ idea. None of them have been replaced and none of them
are obsolete. They are still played by thousands of people, each able to choose the version we like best. That's why the Civ concept is so brilliant.
Civilization as a game will never die. Long Live Civilization!

Obsolete (Noun) - of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date:

Seems a little out of date to me, but it's still better.

 

[jessiecat]

Obsolete (Noun) - of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date:

Seems a little out of date to me, but it's still better.

Exactly my point. It's not discarded or outmoded or out of date, as lots of people are still playing it, as they are with Civ 1 and Civ2.
So it's not obsolete, is it? I rest my case.

 

[Red Door]

Exactly my point. It's not discarded or outmoded or out of date, as lots of people are still playing it, as they are with Civ 1 and Civ2.
So it's not obsolete, is it? I rest my case.

Did you even read what I just wrote. It's out of date, it was made in 2001. It's graphics are of an outmoded type. Out of date doesn't mean no one plays it. It just means that compared to the current time, it's outdated.

 

[CyberChrist]

The problem comes in due to the fact that Civ 4 is an entirely new set of systems. Some people prefer the old system that was in 1, 2, & 3. So they do not see Civ 4 as an improvement.

You are a little off here. Some of the hardcore Civ2 fans didn't care much at all for Civ III and skipped it altogether, but most of them moved on quite happily to cIV.

My point being - you can't really pool fans of Civ 1, 2 and 3 together on one side and the fans of cIV on the other.

I myself have been a fan of all the versions (even though both III and IV required me to make some heavy modding before I was truly happy with how they worked).

 

[King Flevance]

You are a little off here. Some of the hardcore Civ2 fans didn't care much at all for Civ III and skipped it altogether, but most of them moved on quite happily to cIV.

My point being - you can't really pool fans of Civ 1, 2 and 3 together on one side and the fans of cIV on the other.

I myself have been a fan of all the versions (even though both III and IV required me to make some heavy modding before I was truly happy with how they worked).

Yeah I know some people had some difficulties moving from 2 to 3. But the mechanics of the game in 1, 2, & 3 are VERY similar at the ground floor. Meaning corruption, governing types, terrain bonuses, and such. Civ 4 introduces a new system that is VERY different than 1, 2, and 3's ground floor mechanics. Civ 4 was admittedly "rebuilt from the ground up." Which I think is why so many of the new systems work well together. But also why some people may prefer the old system. I prefer the new system, but I don't mind playing the old system at all. It's just different. But I can understand someone not seeing the new system as an improvement. Much like someone thinking some of the "new" systems in Civ 3 over Civ 2 being bad.
I personally think 3 is slightly better than 2, but I don't think it impossible for someone else to honestly think the opposite. But 1, 2, and 3 all share the same core mechanics for the most part. Maybe its better said they all share the same idea behind their core mechanics. Civ 4 has stepped out behind a new idea. Change is not always good (better) or bad (worse) because as we all have already agreed upon, that is entirley based on the individual consumer's response. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. But my point is Civ 3 is closer to Civ 2, or Civ 1 than Civ 4 is. Maybe 4 "feels like" Civ 2 more to some people. I personally don't see it. But the mechanics are not why. It can only be based on the "feel" from their perspective.

Personally I prefer Civ IV to Civ III. Someone mentioned liking Civ III as a wargame. Perhaps that was my problem with it. War seemed to be much more important and unavoidable compared to Civ II
Not sure if I prefer it to Civ II though. That was so modder-friendly
Its certainly true that Civ III contained some great features like resource dependency and borders that help make Civ IV better but Civ IV improves on Civ III - eg addition of Civics rather than government types (first seen in Alpha Centurai I believe)

I always saw Civ 2 more of a wargame than 3 personally. But only sort of. Because I never played a game of Civ 2 where the AI did not sign mutual aggression pacts against me (the player) to stop my "aggression". Even when I had been playing peacefully. CIv 3 allowed me to play peacefully and not have the AI hit a trigger and team up against me. Every Civ 2 game I had that lasted into the early modern times became me vs. the world. No matter how I got there.
However, I also sort of see what you mean because in 3, warfare is more intriquit (sp?) to manage. Maybe even more tedious. However, I find Civ 4 more tedious than Civ 3 in warfare. I don't mind warfare tedium. I also enjoy civics and the idea of unit promotions in 4. Although, I personally dont like they way they implemented promotions initially but that is a 5 min fix for the most part. But while playing Civ 3, I personally don't even think about it being absent.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I always saw Civ 2 more of a wargame than 3 personally. But only sort of. Because I never played a game of Civ 2 where the AI did not sign mutual aggression pacts against me (the player) to stop my "aggression". Even when I had been playing peacefully. CIv 3 allowed me to play peacefully and not have the AI hit a trigger and team up against me. Every Civ 2 game I had that lasted into the early modern times became me vs. the world. No matter how I got there.
However, I also sort of see what you mean because in 3, warfare is more intriquit (sp?) to manage. Maybe even more tedious. However, I find Civ 4 more tedious than Civ 3 in warfare. I don't mind warfare tedium. I also enjoy civics and the idea of unit promotions in 4. Although, I personally dont like they way they implemented promotions initially but that is a 5 min fix for the most part. But while playing Civ 3, I personally don't even think about it being absent.

I suspect if I'd stuck to Civ III for longer I'd have learnt to like it but my initial reaction was negative, I went back to Civ II and then Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings came along.

I see what you mean about the late game in Civ II. The first couple of 1000 years were what i enjoyed most and late game I just turtled. I've always been a builder rather than a fighter and so far I'm finding Civ IV better for that style of play.

 

[King Flevance]

Yeah late game in Civ 2 was just a matter of finishing it off usually like most of the Civ titles. ANd if you did it right, it didnt matter if they teamed up on you because you commanded the world in tech and power. (Or at least just tech.)

My friend played similar to your style. I seriously didn't know it was possible to play peacefully until I saw him doing it. Civ 2 was the first time I ever played peacefully. Civ 1 I almost always won by conquest. Only every once in a while did I manage to get my ship to AC before I had conquered the world. Many times I conquered the world as my ship was making its way there.

I am going to go look up Crusader Kings. I never heard of that one before.

EDIT: Oh yeah, you remember that "Congress has overruled your decision to go to war"? I hated Congress. I would throw a revolution just to declare war.

 

[Dark Sheer]

Its interesting how this thread has now going into the 15th page.

To whoever that says CIV is an entire new engine I would have to disagree. Everyone knows that CIV is build upon CIII. That is why so much comparison is being made between the two, no? Usually for companies that produces a great series, each installment is an improved version of the last. Especially for a company like Firaxis which has produced so many great games, a new game should combine all the great features of all the previous games, that would be a no brainer to me. But alas, no, each installment will always have something good being removed and something completely new (and sometime worse of ) being added. Why is it Firaxis do not capitalize on what is already a successful ingredient is beyond me.

To me, each installment of Civilization is an improvement over the last in some area but not all good things are retained, which is why there always arise the argument of old is better or new is better due to these missing good elements. For one thing, the combat system has been greatly improved from CI all the way to CIV, there is no argument about that. (back in CI days I still remember my bomber/battleship can be lost while attacking a stupid militia! And people complaining about spearman defeat tanks in CIII ) As to graphics, we can also see that Firaxis is progressing towards the next level based on the general trend in the market. However, as I have said in my earlier post, the trouble is its improvement for the sake of improvement, the full potential is not being explored (no multi-layer in 3D for example).

I do not blame those who says that they like CIII better nor those who says CIV is better. Personally I still play both, but my CIII game is so heavily modded that even Sid might not recognized it. One thing I find is that one should not patch out something just because AI can’t handle it. One way to go is to improve the AI or the way AI work together when the odds are against them (not how AI always work against the player in CIII ). A good example of a lousy patch is in the case of a game produced by a Taiwan company call Martial Kingdom 2 (MK2). As with many Chinese games, or most games for that matter, some players tend to cheat by editing the resources etc and the AI expand at a ridiculously slow rate. (game map is china and expansion spot are prefixed so all you need to do is to move your units to occupy them. Prepatched the AI hardly occupy a single spot even after 10 years. ) What the company did was patch it so that the player is so heavily handicapped that you can’t play at all without editing. (AI expanding all over the map after maybe 2 years? Not to mention my level 10 unit cannot defeat AI’s level 5 unit due to extremely lopsided starting equipment the AI get after the patch! ). I have since drop the game after patching to 1.07.

Anyway, back to Civ series. I don’t believe we will ever have a clear winner on whether CIII or CIV is better. Game play wise each has its own merit, as to bugs, if there is something that doesn’t make the game crash I usually doesn’t care much, especially those like the bombardment anywhere bug in CIII that you can choose to ignore or exploit. AI wise I don’t really see much improvement if there is any. CIV AI is still equally stupid as compared to CIII. AI still turn down a good deal from player then offer a deal that is worst of to them. Graphic wise, 3D really didn’t make it better in CIV, it only make it much harder to mod for the players. At least we have not seen something like what Snoopy offered for CIII even after more than 2 years for CIV which I think is a good enough proof. Of course just to be fair there are notable improvements in CIV. Health vs pollution chasing in the late game, MPP automatically cancelled upon declaration of war, removal of RoP rape, just to name a few.

I sure hope someone from Firaxis is reading this thread so that they might learn what their mistake is and will bring us a much better CV!

 

[CyberChrist]

At least we have not seen something like what Snoopy offered for CIII even after more than 2 years for CIV

Hmm, assuming you are talking about improved Terrain graphics then the Blue Marble graphics mod did the job - as far as I am concerned. And the first version was released shortly after vanilla cIV hit the streets iirc.

 

[Dark Sheer]

Hmm, assuming you are talking about improved Terrain graphics then the Blue Marble graphics mod did the job - as far as I am concerned. And the first version was released shortly after vanilla cIV hit the streets iirc.

It does offer something different but if you where to compare it with what Snoopy's set made to CIII's original tiles I don't think it even come close. Honestly, I did install the Blue Marble set but I don't really feel such a huge different as compared to when I install the Snoopy tile set back in CIII.

 

[jessiecat]

Did you even read what I just wrote. It's out of date, it was made in 2001. It's graphics are of an outmoded type. Out of date doesn't mean no one plays it. It just means that compared to the current time, it's outdated.

I do wish that some people who try to use words to rubbish the opinions of
others, would at least grasp the meaning of the words they're using.

What you are describing can be defined in the dictionary as "technical
obsolescence" in the sense that compared to the present time it is outdated.
In this case, however, it is not "functional obsolescence" in that the object
is not replaced by the newer version and is thus fit for use.

Wikpedia defines obsolescence as "the state of being which occurs when a
person, object or service is no longer wanted, though it may still be in working
order".

Therefore your use of the word "obsolete" only describes a state in which YOU
don't want it anymore, even though it is still wanted and used by others.
A pretty loaded use of the term by you, wouldn't you agree?

You might also have noted that Firaxis is still producing Civ 3, as the recent
release of Civ3 Complete clearly demonstrates. So, it's not at all obsolete,
by any definition, is it?

You wouldn't regard a classic film or work of art as obsolete just because someone
has copied or made a remake of the original, would You? Any more than you would
describe classic board games like Monopoly or Risk "obsolete" just because the
makers have released newer (improved?) versions of the original.

Sadly, such disrespect for the preferences of others seems all too common
amongst SOME defenders of Civ4, who regard those of us, like me, who have
returned from Civ4 to Civ3 by choice, as being seriously dysfunctional.

 

[gps]

You already play Civ 3 though I thought you said. The fanbase is split though. Check out this guy.

And I don't see many people socially not accepting anyone for what Civ version whoever plays.

I never claimed everybody on the Civ IV side to be a saint.

As for the part about my madness, I am not even going to reply to that. It's all been covered pretty much.

Seen the quotation marks around madness? They are there for a reason, I guess...

As to the bolded part, that was clever. It's complete speculation based on nothing outside of your opinion but a clever way to make me out to be "paranoid". I got news for you though the fanbase is split.

Exactly the same goes for your claim of a widely split fanbase: “complete speculation based on nothing outside of your opinion”. If I have a look at this forum, it’s hundreds of threads were people are discussing tactics and strategies, hints and tipps, the official and unofficial patches in a rather nice and friendly way. Most of them seem perfectly happy with what they got, enjoying an discussing their favourite game. None of them is forcing Civ III players to convert, none of them doesn’t socially accept Civ III players less than Civ II players or says anything negative about Civ III. And then there are threads like the one originally titled ‘Firaxis you suck’ and ‘Alamring silence of Firaxis’ or this one. And strangely enough, in those threads you generally find the same handful of guys venting their frustration over and over again in a (in some cases) rather unfriendly matter. (To some extend I can even understand that frustration, because the way Firaxis dumped Civ III Conquest was not a nice way!) But for me that’s not really a split fanbase.
Firaxis from my point of view seem to be knowing what they do. Sticking to 2d graphics obviously would be a bad move. The larger part of your ‘split’ fanbase and the market out there obviously sees it as a necessary step to go and as an improvement. They produce and sell what they think has the best chances to sell and survive against competition products. That’s why their next product is ‘Civilization Revolution’. That’s what they have to do. They are not a social welfare office, they are a business enterprise. If things don’t sell big time they are off the market. And a handful of 2d enthusiasts that keep playing a game for years on end without buying anything new from point of view of a business enterprise is not the best customer you could have.
But what do you want to do, if you don’t like what they do? Posting in threads like that probably won’t solve your problems or cure your frustration. It just gets you worked up more. And if something gets you worked up so badly, maybe it’s time to step away from it and head for something different. Hard to accept, but I really mean this as friendly advice...

 

[CyberChrist]

You might also have noted that Firaxis is still producing Civ 3, as the recent
release of Civ3 Complete clearly demonstrates. So, it's not at all obsolete,
by any definition, is it?

Heh, I would hardly call a product (Civ III Complete) that was first released back in 2004 for a 'recent' release. Also, if someone are still making copies of it then rest assured that it isn't Firaxis doing it (and they never did come to think of it - this was/is done by Atari/2K and later Mastertronic).

 

[Rhye]

It does offer something different but if you where to compare it with what Snoopy's set made to CIII's original tiles I don't think it even come close. Honestly, I did install the Blue Marble set but I don't really feel such a huge different as compared to when I install the Snoopy tile set back in CIII.

of course, but that's because Civ3 original terrain sucked badly!!

 

[onedreamer]

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.

You can't convince a biased and stubborn person whose excuse for not buying an undoubtly better product is that he's not used to its BETTER graphics..... just give up even talking with that kind of person.