civ 3 players will not move on

[jessiecat]

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.

Would you still talk to some who's had both and played them a lot but
still prefers Civ3? Are we biased and stubborn too?

 

[onedreamer]

Yes. Like I already commented in the "is BTS worth it ?" thread. People tend to make up incorrect points in order to support their biased ideas. You're biased because Civ4 is different from Civ3, it's not just a graphic upgrade (and I'd hope all game sequels were like this), mechanics are changed and you don't like them. Perfectly fine, but this doesn't make Civ3 a better game, it just means that you can't move on, IE: you're biased. But at least you've tried, and we can talk about something. What can you say to someone who doesn't even want to try ? Nothing, really.

 

[gps]

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).

Isn't the Chronicles pack a Firaxis release? Thought so...
But no matter who actually releases it - it bears the Firaxis logo, and you can rest ashured, they don't do it for free, they'll get their monetary share!
Btw. that's really something that actually angers me a little bit. On the one hand they don't even bother to finish and patch it properly, on the other hand they still sell it and even call it 'Complete'. That's a little bit cynical. But that's really the only fauxpas I would blame Firaxis for...

Yes. Like I already commented in the "is BTS worth it ?" thread. People tend to make up incorrect points in order to support their biased ideas. You're biased because Civ4 is different from Civ3, it's not just a graphic upgrade (and I'd hope all game sequels were like this), mechanics are changed and you don't like them. Perfectly fine, but this doesn't make Civ3 a better game, it just means that you can't move on, IE: you're biased. But at least you've tried, and we can talk about something. What can you say to someone who doesn't even want to try ? Nothing, really.

Sorry, now I have to defend all the Civ III lovers. Beeing better is mostly a matter of taste. If somebody likes something better that's his decision - and if he likes it better, why SHOULD he ever move on - just because you call him stubborn? And even if somebody has not tried Civ IV: as long as he does not come here and beats about the bush how bad it is and much he hates it - that's really his decision to make. I don't see any less bias in someone like you who automatically and kind of naively equals 'newer' with 'better' and calls others stubborn for just beeing a little bit more critical. I've seen a lot of game or other product sequels that really were a backstep for a lot of people, some that even killed a franchise. Luckily I for myself don't see that with Civ IV - but then again, you never know.

P.S.: Best example, your post regarding BtS. I really admire you for it's un-biased-ness!!!
BtS at the moment is still full with a lot of bugs and some of the new elements are still a little bit unbalanced. If it weren't for Bhruic unofficial patch, BtS would still stink quite a bit! But even if BtS were perfect, I still return now and then to Vanilla and Warlords and even to Civ III PtW. Gosh am I biased and stubborn...

 

[Slip de Garcon]

Setting aside everything else, the implementation of corruption ruined Civ 3. Then they patched it and made it even worse IIRC. Nothing was more frustrating than watching a city utterly incapable of building anything.

The Civ 4 'maintenance' system is many many times better in this respect.

 

[CyberChrist]

Isn't the Chronicles pack a Firaxis release? Thought so...

Not sure what you 'thought so' here, but no it isn't a Firaxis release - it is a 2K release.

 

[Dark Sheer]

Not sure what you 'thought so' here, but no it isn't a Firaxis release - it is a 2K release.

Hmmm...since 2K is now the new publisher, isn't all releases go through them? No matter what, Firaxis will get their fair share anyway. As I see it, the current trend has always been original product --> expansion --> expansion --> complete/gold which basically means $$ --> $$ --> $$ --> $$

@Ryhe : I agree totally that the original terrain in CIII is horrible But then because we have Snoopy's terrain to compare with! Honestly, graphic for CIV is nothing to shout about (granted its more acceptable than the original CIII ones ) but due to the 3D system (which was totally under utilised at the moment ) it has stopped many a talented artist from creating a new tile set which might be even more eye pleasing, no?

 

[Ace of Gold]

As you all remember in my first post i said that my friend was sticking with civ 3. Well i just got him civ 4 gold and guess what, he's absessed with it now, its amazing how stubborn civ 3 players are, missing out on civ 4. anyway he loves it and im sure his copy of civ 3 will get buried down deep in his closet. So the original question of this thread is solved but we can still argue, its entertaining on how stubborn these civ 3 players are. i can understand some people who have civ 4 and sometimes put civ 3 back in the computer but the people who dont even buy civ 4, well i dont understand them

 

[grumbler]

Well i just got him civ 4 gold and guess what, he's absessed with it now

Yuck ... they never warn you of the side effects ...

 

[CyberChrist]

Hmmm...since 2K is now the new publisher, isn't all releases go through them? No matter what, Firaxis will get their fair share anyway. As I see it, the current trend has always been original product --> expansion --> expansion --> complete/gold which basically means $$ --> $$ --> $$ --> $$

While I would assume that Firaxis get some money out of each sale then they have very little say in how 2K choose to handle packaging, marketing and distribution of any products that 2K hold the rights to - which includes the entire Civ franchise.

Any missing C3C patching(which was the original point of debate) has more to do with the financial troubles of Infogrames/Atari (the publisher at the time) - who ended up selling the rights to the Civ franchise to 2K - back around the time when the last actual patch was released.

 

[Dark Sheer]

While I would assume that Firaxis get some money out of each sale then they have very little say in how 2K choose to handle packaging, marketing and distribution of any products that 2K hold the rights to - which includes the entire Civ franchise.

Any missing C3C patching(which was the original point of debate) has more to do with the financial troubles of Infogrames/Atari (the publisher at the time) - who ended up selling the rights to the Civ franchise to 2K - back around the time when the last actual patch was released.

While Firaxis might not have the right to control how 2K market their product (meaning package like complete/gold), the onus of making the program work (ie. the patching part) should still fall on Firaxis, no? Granted, during the transition its not easy to post a patch on the official distributor's site (Atari vs 2K), but what about posting it on Civ3.com or Firaxis.com ?? The way I see it, there is no way for Firaxis to excuse themselves for not patching something that is broken.

 

[CyberChrist]

The way I see it, there is no way for Firaxis to excuse themselves for not patching something that is broken.

I am fairly certain that Firaxis does not have the final say in the matter. If the franchise holder(2K atm) doesn't give the go ahead then Firaxis have no right to make/release any code changes.

 

[gps]

I am fairly certain that Firaxis does not have the final say in the matter. If the franchise holder(2K atm) doesn't give the go ahead then Firaxis have no right to make/release any code changes.

Beeing as it is, we're still left with the fact that the publisher/producer duo 2l/Firaxis for years have been selling a product that they are not willing to fix properly. Bottom line for me as a customer: I am kind of cheated. Neither the product nor the customer is treated with the respect they deserve. Sadly a big black spot on the white suite of a company that otherwise makes more dedicated efforts to satisfy customers than the average mass producers like EA are willing to invest.

 

[CyberChrist]

Bottom line for me as a customer: I am kind of cheated. Neither the product nor the customer is treated with the respect they deserve.

Oh I agree. Back when it mattered I went on a few rampages against the lack of proper support for Civ III here on this forum myself. But you have to come to terms and live with the realities as they are - and seriously ... that particular boat sailed years ago.

 

[Dark Sheer]

Beeing as it is, we're still left with the fact that the publisher/producer duo 2l/Firaxis for years have been selling a product that they are not willing to fix properly. Bottom line for me as a customer: I am kind of cheated. Neither the product nor the customer is treated with the respect they deserve. Sadly a big black spot on the white suite of a company that otherwise makes more dedicated efforts to satisfy customers than the average mass producers like EA are willing to invest.

Firaxis (or its predecessor, Mircoprose) has been a great company. It fact, in the past I have known to fork out cash just because a game is being produced by Mircoprose. But then, I have never been disappointed todate at anything produced by them.

On the other hand, EA, who is like the Mircosoft of gaming industry (read: near monopoly ) do give proper support, albeit to certain of their products, can't say 100%. Its just that sometime producer/publisher need to learn the hard way. EA support for UO used to be crap in the early days as they planned for UO2. I remember unable to kill a little grass snake with a level 6 spell and called a GM online to ask about it (me being the good nature person had choose to ask why is it happening instead of complaining ) and got the answer that it is just bad luck due to unlucky random number. Yeah, right, back dice roll my a**! A week later is was publicly announced that a bug was introduced in the previous patch so that particular spell will on occasion cause zero damage! Needless to say, the embarrassed UO team soon put out a patch within a few days to fix the so called bad dice roll.

 

[King Flevance]

I am fairly certain that Firaxis does not have the final say in the matter. If the franchise holder(2K atm) doesn't give the go ahead then Firaxis have no right to make/release any code changes.

I am pretty sure Firaxis doing this without permission means someone will lose their job. (Because they were doing something they shouldn't have basically is what it would boil down to.)

Bottom line for me as a customer: I am kind of cheated. Neither the product nor the customer is treated with the respect they deserve.

Oh I agree. Back when it mattered I went on a few rampages against the lack of proper support for Civ III here on this forum myself. But you have to come to terms and live with the realities as they are - and seriously ... that particular boat sailed years ago.

I don't buy into this arguement personally. I don't mean that against you either Cyber, you aren't the only person I have seen state this. It's actually amazingly common when discussing video game quality. I think that the support that the fanbase gave when purchasing Civ 4, communicates to T2 that they are more than willing to shove old versions aside no matter their state of condition and move on to the next soon-to-be unfinished software. I doubt CIv 4 will be addressed after this last patch here ever again. Even if the patch destroys the game.
People IMO accept to easily nowdays that the consumer has no right to demand quality from manufacturers if the manufacturers are not willing to provide it. This is of course supported by the idea behind an open market. But in reality it seems that rather than even trying to demand quality consumers too easily accept poor quality, and say it is just something you have to accept. But the truth is, they don't want to "fight" or whatever. I mean in America, people complain night and day about gas prices. It's already been stated that if we all used public transportation and/or bicycles (Basically stop buying gas) for a week the price of gas would drop dramatically. Maybe that seems "crazy" to some people for some odd reason. People panic when you say they can't drive their car for 7 days here. But an alternative solution is to not buy gas from any of the the 3 major companies. I participate in that, although I don't know the companies off hand at the moment - my gas station I frequent is clear.

I know we are talking about a game here but this shows how easily the consumer caves in nowdays. If Americans would take a look back over last century they can see ordanary people can make a difference in a variety of fields. And the computer game industry isn't immune. I personally hold things like this against the company. But I highly doubt anything will change without a huge reaction from the fanbase. No, I am not trying or even suggesting rallying behind this. Well, actually ok I lied. I am suggesting it, I just doubt anyone will listen as this topic has been covered many times on this forum. Maybe when Civ 8 comes out and 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 all were abandoned to intice the people into purchasing the next one that "they will support" the next generation can finally stand up and do something. Or not. CIv is rapidly becoming a bargain bin game though for me.

 

[gps]

On the other hand, EA, who is like the Mircosoft of gaming industry (read: near monopoly ) do give proper support, albeit to certain of their products, can't say 100%.

No, they don't. Need for Speed Most Wanted was left with crashes occuring with a lot of players. Their comment: We no about it, but we don't intend to fix it. My reaction: I endend my Need for Speed career although beeing a fan of the first hour.

Oh I agree. Back when it mattered I went on a few rampages against the lack of proper support for Civ III here on this forum myself. But you have to come to terms and live with the realities as they are - and seriously ... that particular boat sailed years ago.

I agree to some extend but not completely. That 'boat' as you call it still sails (sells) every day and it sails as 'complete' edition while 'Beta' version would be much more fitting. On the other hand you can see I live with the realities. If I feel cheated by a company, they'll get dumped. My life does not depend on a single computer game. I've seen whole genres come and go. But it should be allowed to say "Hey, that's not nice" from time to time...

 

[CyberChrist]

That 'boat' as you call it still sails (sells) every day and it sails as 'complete' edition while 'Beta' version would be much more fitting.

The 'boat' I was talking about is the one containing any realistic chance to be seeing a new patch addressing the remaining problems in C3C ... and that has sailed long ago.

I doubt CIv 4 will be addressed after this last patch here ever again. Even if the patch destroys the game.

Like I said before in this thread then nearly all problems that might be detected in cIV after official support have ceased can be fixed by the community itself - since we got much of the source code with the SDK.

My point being that official support is not nearly as crucial for cIV as it is/was for C3C (or any other software release that doesn't come with source code SDK type package).

In other words then the chance of a patch 'destroying' cIV is about as small as ever seeing a new official C3C patch being released.

 

[Civinator]

We have some contact with 2K about the source code and a patch for C3C.
This is one of the statements of 2K Elizabeth about this problem:

...however, i'll give you a quick run down on why we can't release the source code:

1. some of the source code of older editions you are speaking of is lost, and we don't have it to give away.
2. civ III is still being sold, and since we make money off that code, we cannot release it to the public.
3. we sell the source code to some people for some uses, and again, if we sell it, we cannot give it away for free.

The ship sails pretty close under our noses. But it seems we have to pay for it.

 

[CyberChrist]

The ship sails pretty close under our noses. But it seems we have to pay for it.

You must have some very big noses

If you know Corporate Speak then what they are saying translates to "What you are asking will happen when hell freezes over".

 

[gps]

2. civ III is still being sold, and since we make money off that code, we cannot release it to the public.

Fix things properly then we don't need your f... code!!!

Sorry, got carried away...

That's a statement I'd really like to stuff them down their throats. Making money of that code is high priority. Properly fixing it (with some of the money they are so willingly making) obviously not. Well, but what can we do?

The 'boat' I was talking about is the one containing any realistic chance to be seeing a new patch addressing the remaining problems in C3C ... and that has sailed long ago.

I know, I was just joking.

And there we are back to the topic of that thread:

My point being that official support is not nearly as crucial for cIV as it is/was for C3C (or any other software release that doesn't come with source code SDK type package).

One of the biggest advantages of Civ IV, a daring but really fan-friendly move by Firaxis and one of the biggest reasons for me to even consider buying it. What else could we ever wish for??? Even if Civ Revolutions were a total dud and Firaxis went broke next year we'd still have everything in our hands to keep playing Civilization for the rest of our lives. If that's not reason enough to get adjustet to a little bit of unbearable 3d graphics...