Nailed it!
civ 3 players will not move on
- Thread starter Ace of Gold
- Start date
Nailed it!
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
Glad to hear it! But you're not under 25, as I said. The idea of Colonization
was partly addressed by the New World scenario in Civ3 but it ended up merely as a boring race to collect gold. No conquest .Not the same at all.
The scenario you're referring to in Fantastic Worlds was called "Jules Verne"
Remember hunting down the Nautilus, discovering the entrance to the center
of the Earth and the Lost World plateau in S. America.? That was a scenario!
When it came to Civ 3 and Civ 4 the makers lost the thread. Same old WW2,
Middle Ages, Future Wars and SCI-FI mods. same old boring technocratic . .. .. .. .. What's happened to imagination?
denyd
Emperor
As a big-time Civ3 player (100+ XOTM games, 10+ HOF games, numerous SG & PBEM games), I'll add my 2 cents here.
Reasons for staying with Civ 3
1. My computer's not powerful enough for Civ 4 (I've bought both CIV & Warlords) unless all I play is small maps
2. Understand most of the flaws/bugs of Civ 3 and work around or with them
3. Units look more natural than the giants of Civ4
4. I like the different factors for offense & defense
5. I didn't realize that modding was tougher on Civ 4, so that would bug me
6. Since I've only played 1 standard sized map game, this is not a well researched point, but it seems difficult to maintain a large nation.
Things I would port from Civ 4 to Civ 3
1. I like the religion feature, but would tweak it a bit
2. The expierence level growth of units is a nice plus
3. I like the zooming and animation of Civ 4, but might tire of it after months of play
4. The multi-threaded tech tree is very nice, though mod-packs on Civ 3accomplish the same effect
5. I like that way that it's tougher to build a big army and go bonk some heads that can be done in Civ 3
However, once I've gotten a new box (probably late next year), I'll give it another look (probably with Civ 4 Complete).
One more thing to consider, there is still a large, thriving community of players who are using Civ 2 and someday in the future the Civ V players will be talking about Civ IV the same way.
Reasons for staying with Civ 3
1. My computer's not powerful enough for Civ 4 (I've bought both CIV & Warlords) unless all I play is small maps
2. Understand most of the flaws/bugs of Civ 3 and work around or with them
3. Units look more natural than the giants of Civ4
4. I like the different factors for offense & defense
5. I didn't realize that modding was tougher on Civ 4, so that would bug me
6. Since I've only played 1 standard sized map game, this is not a well researched point, but it seems difficult to maintain a large nation.
Things I would port from Civ 4 to Civ 3
1. I like the religion feature, but would tweak it a bit
2. The expierence level growth of units is a nice plus
3. I like the zooming and animation of Civ 4, but might tire of it after months of play
4. The multi-threaded tech tree is very nice, though mod-packs on Civ 3accomplish the same effect
5. I like that way that it's tougher to build a big army and go bonk some heads that can be done in Civ 3
However, once I've gotten a new box (probably late next year), I'll give it another look (probably with Civ 4 Complete).
One more thing to consider, there is still a large, thriving community of players who are using Civ 2 and someday in the future the Civ V players will be talking about Civ IV the same way.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,305
Between math class and lunch today I finally figured out exactly what it is that I don't like about the Civ4 leaderhead graphics:
1. They're too shiny. Everything in them is reflecting sunlight. It was sunny out today, but hardly anything was reflecting sunlight - car hoods and glass, that's about it. Even the faces are shiny on the leaderheads - in real life that only happens if you've been sweating profusely or put on too much sunscreen. Tone down the shininess and make it make realistic.
Augustus Caesar from Warlords is an excellent example of this problem. So is http://civilization4.net/files/info-images/civilopedia/leaders/caesar.png.
2. Distorted features. This is common with caricatures and cartoons, but doesn't serve to make the leaders look more like leaders. It's not as grotesque as true caricatures, but the proportions somehow still don't look realistic. Take Lincoln in this and this picture as a comparison. They're obviously pretty similar. But I think most will agree the Civ3 one looks more realistic. There's subtle differences in proportion - a larger nose, deeper cheeks, and a wider beard in the Civ4 one. Combined with the higher shini-ness of the Civ4 one, Civ4's graphics just don't look as realistic.
3. Overall quality. They might be 2-D, but I think the CivIII leaderheads have a much more finished quality. There's no jagged edges, movement is smooth - it's just what you expect in a leaderhead.
I'm hoping Firaxis either makes drastic improvements in their 3-D graphics, or goes back to 2-D for Civ5. The great 2-D graphics of CivIII beat the poor 3-D graphics of Civ4 any day.
It's certainly not all about the graphics, either. But I've expounded on other elements at considerable length elsewhere.
I'll play a bit of Civ4 once I get my CD back, but with all its flaws I doubt it'll ever take over CivIII for me. Newer isn't always better.
---
P.S. Just for the record, for 15 months after Civ4 came out I didn't play any CivIII except for a few days over Christmas 2005. My overall Civ playtime fell drastically, however. Other games that ran much better, and were more fun, took over my former Civ time. Now my computer can handle Civ4 (for a long time it couldn't very well), but it doesn't matter, I still prefer Civ3.
1. They're too shiny. Everything in them is reflecting sunlight. It was sunny out today, but hardly anything was reflecting sunlight - car hoods and glass, that's about it. Even the faces are shiny on the leaderheads - in real life that only happens if you've been sweating profusely or put on too much sunscreen. Tone down the shininess and make it make realistic.
Augustus Caesar from Warlords is an excellent example of this problem. So is http://civilization4.net/files/info-images/civilopedia/leaders/caesar.png.
2. Distorted features. This is common with caricatures and cartoons, but doesn't serve to make the leaders look more like leaders. It's not as grotesque as true caricatures, but the proportions somehow still don't look realistic. Take Lincoln in this and this picture as a comparison. They're obviously pretty similar. But I think most will agree the Civ3 one looks more realistic. There's subtle differences in proportion - a larger nose, deeper cheeks, and a wider beard in the Civ4 one. Combined with the higher shini-ness of the Civ4 one, Civ4's graphics just don't look as realistic.
3. Overall quality. They might be 2-D, but I think the CivIII leaderheads have a much more finished quality. There's no jagged edges, movement is smooth - it's just what you expect in a leaderhead.
I'm hoping Firaxis either makes drastic improvements in their 3-D graphics, or goes back to 2-D for Civ5. The great 2-D graphics of CivIII beat the poor 3-D graphics of Civ4 any day.
It's certainly not all about the graphics, either. But I've expounded on other elements at considerable length elsewhere.
I'll play a bit of Civ4 once I get my CD back, but with all its flaws I doubt it'll ever take over CivIII for me. Newer isn't always better.
---
P.S. Just for the record, for 15 months after Civ4 came out I didn't play any CivIII except for a few days over Christmas 2005. My overall Civ playtime fell drastically, however. Other games that ran much better, and were more fun, took over my former Civ time. Now my computer can handle Civ4 (for a long time it couldn't very well), but it doesn't matter, I still prefer Civ3.
Ace of Gold
MAKE WAY FOR THE BAD GUY
I think my friend is just being stubburn, and he is just saying this because he does not have civ 4
carmen510
Deity
If he was stubborn, he wouldn't be playing Civ3 in the first place. maybe he just doesn't like 3-D graphics, or would like to stay until more improvements have been made to Civ4.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Personally then I find all the arguments/reasons (except the ones about having too weak PCs to run it properly) for not progressing from Civ III to cIV exactly as incomprehensible as the arguments many people used for not moving on from Civ 2 to Civ III.
It is of course true that both Civ III and cIV are missing some popular(and good) features that their predecessors have(ie. Civ2:ToT can have up to 4 simultaneous different maps in same game, Civ3 had true ranged combat), but it is more a case of 3 steps forward and 1 step back. All in all the newer versions are better by far imho ... cIV (vanillla) > C3C > ToT.
I have to admit though, that I was never very impressed with how any Civ game worked right out of the box, but then I always modify them heavily to suit my liking anyway - and no other version of Civ is as modable as cIV
.
It is of course true that both Civ III and cIV are missing some popular(and good) features that their predecessors have(ie. Civ2:ToT can have up to 4 simultaneous different maps in same game, Civ3 had true ranged combat), but it is more a case of 3 steps forward and 1 step back. All in all the newer versions are better by far imho ... cIV (vanillla) > C3C > ToT.
I have to admit though, that I was never very impressed with how any Civ game worked right out of the box, but then I always modify them heavily to suit my liking anyway - and no other version of Civ is as modable as cIV
.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,305
CyberChrist said:
That's the key word
.Civ4 is the most modable in terms of pure modify-ability, but Civ3 had an editor that allowed modding quite a bit more easily than Civ4 does. I'm not huge into mods, but for several mod-makers it is an important factor.
Dark Sheer
Deity
AH! Colonization! Yeah, I remember spending lots of time on that one
And I still remember my first "Boston Coat Party" 
I for one sure love to see a Colonization 2 as long as my pioneer doesn't ran out of tools and have to take some 10 years to go back to town to get some when in the middle of building road. 
But thats just me. The first Sid game I played was F-15 Strike Eagle on Apple II+ , heh, if anyone still remember that game that is.
Now that someone mentioned Colonization, I really hope Sid will do a remake of Sword of Samurai just like what he did for Pirates. 
King Flevance
Deity
I completely agree.
As for the leaderheads. Check this out. I found a lost leaderhead. It's Cyrus at Age 15.
I can understand the choice to not play a bugged game. But C3C is probably the most bugged part of the whole franchise...
Stormrage
Ever Present Taskmaster
Mind listing those bugs?
Ogedei_the_Mad
Caffeinated Khagan
Churchill 25 said:
People have their own preferences. Just because you like Civ4 more than Civ3 doesn't mean that other people have to agree with your own preferences.
I'd say its golden age was from the release of Conquests to mid-2005
There are plenty of mods that offer that, and much more than that. They even offer you to choose the mod components that you like!
And CTD aren't certainly a civ4 peculiarity. I remember many of them at vanilla Civ3 times.
The bugs listed in post 20 are really extremely minor (even the "notorious" submarine bug - how often does that actually happen?) and mostly not Conquests-specific, so I'm not sure how that supports the claim that Conquests was the most bugged version of Civ III. On the contrary, Conquests was an enormous improvement to the game.
I don't know why some people find it so hard to accept that different people like different games. Claiming that those who prefer an older game to a more recent one simply "will not move on" is like saying that historians who study the Roman empire rather than the Middle Ages "will not move on", or that actors who prefer to perform Shakespeare to Stoppard "will not move on". Later isn't necessarily better. In computer games, of course later games tend to be technologically superior, but that doesn't necessarily make them better games, because the qualities that make a game good are not restricted to the mind-blowingness of the graphics or the band-in-your-living-room quality of the sound. I still firmly believe that Rainbow Islands is the greatest computer game of all time and I've never seen any convincing evidence to the contrary.
So there's plenty of scope for a discussion about Civ III and Civ IV and the various qualities that each game has which may make it better or worse; perhaps overall Civ IV is a better game or perhaps it isn't (my computer won't run it so I have no way of knowing). There were quite a few elements to Civ I that were better than their equivalents in Civ III, although overall the latter is certainly a better game. But just dismissing those who prefer the earlier game purely on the grounds that earlier is necessarily inferior is rather foolish.
I don't know why some people find it so hard to accept that different people like different games. Claiming that those who prefer an older game to a more recent one simply "will not move on" is like saying that historians who study the Roman empire rather than the Middle Ages "will not move on", or that actors who prefer to perform Shakespeare to Stoppard "will not move on". Later isn't necessarily better. In computer games, of course later games tend to be technologically superior, but that doesn't necessarily make them better games, because the qualities that make a game good are not restricted to the mind-blowingness of the graphics or the band-in-your-living-room quality of the sound. I still firmly believe that Rainbow Islands is the greatest computer game of all time and I've never seen any convincing evidence to the contrary.
So there's plenty of scope for a discussion about Civ III and Civ IV and the various qualities that each game has which may make it better or worse; perhaps overall Civ IV is a better game or perhaps it isn't (my computer won't run it so I have no way of knowing). There were quite a few elements to Civ I that were better than their equivalents in Civ III, although overall the latter is certainly a better game. But just dismissing those who prefer the earlier game purely on the grounds that earlier is necessarily inferior is rather foolish.
The submarine bug is Conquest specific.
The princess bug is Conquest specific.
The cultural starting location bug is Conquest specific.
The bombarding everywhere bug is Conquest specific.
The stealth bombarding bug is a new feature, that never worked.
As opposed to your post, most of the issues do not exist in PtW, but were introduced for C3C.
And strangely enough I do not find any comparable bug list for Vanilla or PtW (only BtS comes close). You dont see the relevance of the bugs, I dont 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.But that wasnt even my point, everyone has to decide for himself what bug level he or shes willing to accept. But preferring C3C over CIV because its so bug free??? I dont get it!
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
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.
"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.
