civ 3 players will not move on

[azzaman333]

The submarine bug is Conquest specific.

But happened so rarely it was a non-issue.

The princess bug is Conquest specific.

There is a princess bug?! In hundreds of games I've never seen it.

The cultural starting location bug is Conquest specific.

Can be rectified by choosing the civs to play against instead of random.

The bombarding everywhere bug is Conquest specific.

I've never seen a bombarding everywhere bug.

The stealth bombarding bug is a new feature, that never worked.

It's not as bad as adding vassal states in Warlords which don't function anything like what was intended or expected.

And strangely enough I do not find any comparable bug list for Vanilla or PtW (only BtS comes close). You don’t see the relevance of the bugs, I don’t see the improvements of C3C over the other versions (except for the things they messed up from PtW to C3C, nothing that could not have been done with the PtW editor as well ), I think we are equal.

Civ 4 was unplayable until patch 1.52 unless you had unlimited amounts of RAM or used a fan-made patch.

But that wasn’t even my point, everyone has to decide for himself what bug level he or she’s willing to accept. But preferring C3C over CIV because it’s so bug free??? I don’t get it!

Every versoin of civ since at least Conquests has required at least 2 patches to reach a reasonably bug-free experience. It gets extremely frustrating when people who buy the game the first week it comes out get a game which barely functions on a playable level.

My friend played Civ 3 (with the last expansion) like there was no tomorrow. I looked at it, and had the following things to say:

"Dude, the leader head thingies suck! Gandhi looks like he popped outta a toaster! He should be lighter than that!"
"The graphics are weird. How do you know where your empire starts and ends?" (i was looking straight at the borders, too!)
"Oz, why do you have so many cities, you have 1 every 2 square things!"
"The minimap's real complicated. What are all the white dots and stuff?"

Then, I bought Civ 4. Started playing, and hit Sid's Tutorial first.
"AWESOME graphics! Dad, check this out!"
"Sound is good. But the game's a tad complicated..."
"Weird, the Settler city box thing isn't on....oh wait, now it is!" (close to Stone, not on recommended Antium site, 3 tiles away from Rome)

Close to a year later:
"Man, I wish I had BTS."
"Dozen Axes= Slaugther at Copper"
"YEAH! KICK THAT TANK'S TAIL!"

I've never played Civ 3, but as far as I know, Civ 4 is a massive improvement.

You can't make a reasonable comparison without playing both.

 

[Ace of Gold]

My friend played Civ 3 (with the last expansion) like there was no tomorrow. I looked at it, and had the following things to say:

"Dude, the leader head thingies suck! Gandhi looks like he popped outta a toaster! He should be lighter than that!"
"The graphics are weird. How do you know where your empire starts and ends?" (i was looking straight at the borders, too!)
"Oz, why do you have so many cities, you have 1 every 2 square things!"
"The minimap's real complicated. What are all the white dots and stuff?"

Then, I bought Civ 4. Started playing, and hit Sid's Tutorial first.
"AWESOME graphics! Dad, check this out!"
"Sound is good. But the game's a tad complicated..."
"Weird, the Settler city box thing isn't on....oh wait, now it is!" (close to Stone, not on recommended Antium site, 3 tiles away from Rome)

Close to a year later:
"Man, I wish I had BTS."
"Dozen Axes= Slaugther at Copper"
"YEAH! KICK THAT TANK'S TAIL!"

I've never played Civ 3, but as far as I know, Civ 4 is a massive improvement.

I completly agree, finally someone who agrees with me

 

[azzaman333]

I completly agree, finally someone who agrees with me

So you've never played Civ 3 either? Again, you have to play both to make a reasonable comparison.

 

[grommit5]

if they are still enjoying civ 3 why shouldn't they keep playing. you don't have to move on just because they update a game

 

[Ace of Gold]

So you've never played Civ 3 either? Again, you have to play both to make a reasonable comparison.

no i have C3C

 

[azzaman333]

no i have C3C

Then you should've chosen better words than "I completly agree"

 

[Ace of Gold]

I do agree civ 4 is alot better

 

[azzaman333]

I do agree civ 4 is alot better

But you also agreed that you hadn't played Civ 3.

 

[Ace of Gold]

i just agreed that civ 4 is alot better than civ 3

 

[azzaman333]

You completely agreed with him, which meant you also agreed that you hadn't played Civ 3. Choose your words carefully or people get the wrong idea.

 

[Dark Sheer]

Arguing on which version of Civ is better will never end. From what I can see, Civ has improved a lot during the years from Civ1 all the way to Civ4. Of course the one thing that has the most improvement is in graphic from the old pixilated 2D to nice beautiful 3D. That, however, cannot be a milestone you use to judge the Civ series. In fact, graphic can never be what you use to judge a game, at least never for me.

As to bugs, it is something very sad, what which game today, or for that matter those released in the past 5 years (or perhaps dare I say 10 years?) do not require or have no patch? Has the programmers, game producers etc become lazy and careless over the years? Well, I would put the blame on the availability of cheap RAM, cheap processor plus cheap storage! With the cheap hardware (which means everyone get a better/faster computer every few years) space constringe become a none-issue and with increased processor speed the size of the program also become less of an issue. So what do we get from all these? Easier life for the programmer of course! What can be done in 3 line of codes can now be written in 30 lines if you like. Frankly, I wouldn’t give a damn if it all works. However, with more lines it also means there are more chance to make mistake. And to make matter worse, it also make debugging one hell of a job. Not to mention someone who want to make changes to it later! Perhaps by now you would appreciate why it always take Firaxis so long to come up with a new patch.

So what do we judge a game with? For me it’s the gaming experience. That would include things like unique special features that are not found in other games and of course a good AI! Of course as a profit making organization Firaxis would have to consider more than these things. Additional things Firaxis need to consider are game learning curve, how to attract new players and still retain the old ones etc.

And how does CivIII stack up when compared to CivIV? Graphic wise it become full 3D but otherwise there really isn’t much improvement over those offered by CivIII. Leaderhead become more cartoonish to attract the younger gamers I presume? Unit graphic beside showing multiple figures I really can’t see that much of an improvement. Wonder movies are lame , those in Civ2 are better. In fact, one of the graphic feature I like about the Civ series are those advisor FMV in Civ2! Feature wise, corporation and religion is a good improvement over Civ3. Barbarian capturing city is nothing new (Civ2 already have that eventhough it was not in Civ3, can’t remember about Civ1) but barbarian able to develop a city is a vast improvement. City health that affect growth instead of pollution in production tile are a most welcomed feature. No editor is something I cannot understand for CivIV. I mean Firaxis can still have the SDK and all open to the players but at the same time retain the editor, why did they take away the editor for CivIV? As a result of the editor in Civ3, a player can change a lot of things to their liking, not so easily done in CivIV.

In conclusion, is Civ4BtS better than C3C? I would say there is no clear cut winner. There are areas that is an improvement over C3C (for example in between turn time on a huge map) but there are also things that are not. When Firaxis finally get around to improve the AI (hopefully in CivV? ) then perhaps we might have a clear winner.

 

[obliterate]

Is World Builder not good enough?

 

[azzaman333]

Is World Builder not good enough?

the World Builder is like trying to build a house out of ice without out it melting.

 

[Ace of Gold]

Civ 4 is a newer game. Newer games are almost always better than the old. In this Case it is better than the old, If i spent the time listing the positives about civ 4 and the negitives in civ 3 we would all be 100 years old

 

[azzaman333]

Civ 4 is a newer game. Newer games are almost always better than the old. In this Case it is better than the old, If i spent the time listing the positives about civ 4 and the negitives in civ 3 we would all be 100 years old

I'll put it plainly. You're wrong.

 

[Ace of Gold]

do you have proof that im wrong

 

[azzaman333]

do you have proof that im wrong

Not that you'd listen to.

 

[Ace of Gold]

right...... is better than you just cant argue with that

and that is why me and my friend are giving him civ 4 complete for XMas so he can finally enjoy a real game. ( he does have pirates so that is one good game he has)

 

[jessiecat]

right...... is better than you just cant argue with that

and that is why me and my friend are giving him civ 4 complete for XMas so he can finally enjoy a real game. ( he does have pirates so that is one good game he has)

Well, we CAN argue with that. That's what people have tried to do but you're
not listening. Are you really so naive (and young?) that you actually think
new is always better than old? You'll learn, in time!

 

[azzaman333]

right...... is better than you just cant argue with that

and that is why me and my friend are giving him civ 4 complete for XMas so he can finally enjoy a real game. ( he does have pirates so that is one good game he has)

I already said BtS was better than C3C IN MY OPINION you idiot. But many people would prefer to play Civ3 rather than Civ 4, and I can understand why. Just because YOU believe no one would want to play Civ 3 if they had Civ 4 DOESNT MAKE IT TRUE.

Have I made myself clear or are you too stupid to comprehend that?