civ 3 players will not move on

[Ace of Gold]

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!

I remember me saying almost always not always and like i said, in this case civ 4 is better,if you really still think civ 3 is better than you have to look around the forums because you are wrong

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

 

[Underdawg]

The people who prefer Civ III over Civ IV is a very small minority.... do you know how many Civ II players got Civ III and were disappointed? Oh boy....

Civ III is arugably the worst of the series... probably the worst issues being corruption and the ways one could exploit the AI in war....

 

[Ace of Gold]

i agree, like i said in an earlier post new games are almost always better than the old game, well not for civ 2. I played civ 2 and it had alot of the things that civ 4 has today even some more things like i think boats can sail through rivers and it has alot of wonders that civ 3 did not have and civ 4 did. So yes i agree with you that civ 3 is maybe( i dont know about civ 1) the worst civ game they made, The only thing is it had better graphics than civ 2 but now the graphics suck compared to civ 4

 

[azzaman333]

I remember me saying almost always not always and like i said, in this case civ 4 is better,if you really still think civ 3 is better than you have to look around the forums because you are wrong

Once again, you prove how stupid you really are. Seriously, no one can be wrong thinking a game is better or worse than another game. Please, use your brain if you have one...

The people who prefer Civ III over Civ IV is a very small minority....

A very small minority prefer Civ 3? Looking at the activity in the Civ 3 and 4 forums right now, 1/3 of the people in a Civ related forum are in Civ 3's subforums. That is not a very small minority.

do you know how many Civ II players got Civ III and were disappointed? Oh boy....

Probably a third of the people who had significant problems with Civ 4 when it was released.

Civ III is arugably the worst of the series... probably the worst issues being corruption and the ways one could exploit the AI in war....

Getting rid of corruption came at the cost of being the ruler of an empire. Civ 4 you're the ruler of a small number of cities or you're crippled. You can't have a big army or you're crippled. You can't remove all WW at the expense of other things in your empire even, which is a huge loss for those wanting to be able to stage huge battles between massive armies.

i agree, like i said in an earlier post new games are almost always better than the old game, well not for civ 2. I played civ 2 and it had alot of the things that civ 4 has today even some more things like i think boats can sail through rivers and it has alot of wonders that civ 3 did not have and civ 4 did. So yes i agree with you that civ 3 is maybe( i dont know about civ 1) the worst civ game they made, The only thing is it had better graphics than civ 2 but now the graphics suck compared to civ 4

The Civ 4 graphics make me want to vomit, that's how bad they are. Plus, 3d graphics aren't easy to mod, so you can't replace the graphics with others you would prefer unlike in Civ 3. In my opinion, the Warlords expansion was the worst game ever made by Firaxis. Adding a completely unbalancing unit, a new Great Person the AI failed to use wisely and Vassal States which didn't work in anyway like they were intended? Great expansion...

 

[Ace of Gold]

Once again, you prove how stupid you really are. Seriously, no one can be wrong thinking a game is better or worse than another game. Please, use your brain if you have one...



A very small minority prefer Civ 3? Looking at the activity in the Civ 3 and 4 forums right now, 1/3 of the people in a Civ related forum are in Civ 3's subforums. That is not a very small minority.



Probably a third of the people who had significant problems with Civ 4 when it was released.



Getting rid of corruption came at the cost of being the ruler of an empire. Civ 4 you're the ruler of a small number of cities or you're crippled. You can't have a big army or you're crippled. You can't remove all WW at the expense of other things in your empire even, which is a huge loss for those wanting to be able to stage huge battles between massive armies.



The Civ 4 graphics make me want to vomit, that's how bad they are. Plus, 3d graphics aren't easy to mod, so you can't replace the graphics with others you would prefer unlike in Civ 3. In my opinion, the Warlords expansion was the worst game ever made by Firaxis. Adding a completely unbalancing unit, a new Great Person the AI failed to use wisely and Vassal States which didn't work in anyway like they were intended? Great expansion...

and you say i do not have a brain

 

[grommit5]

ok, i've read every post in this thread now. you all take this way to seriously. it's a game folks. we are all entilted to our opinions but that's all they are, opinions. personally i think civ 1 and 4 are the best but thats just my opinion.

every game i have ever played has some sort of hole that a human player can exploit if one looks deep enough. just because it's there doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it.

the same game can attract different people for different reasons. i played civ3 alot and enjoyed it. played a game again just a couple months ago. why? because it was something different for a change of pace.

have fun, enjoy, life's too short

 

[azzaman333]

and you say i do not have a brain

Thankyou for proving you have failed to comprehend a single word of what I have posted.

 

[Gary Childress]

I have Civ3 Conquests and Vanilla Civ4. I like war games. I'm not into Donkey Kong arcade games or giving Barbie makeovers. Sorry, but that's the barbaric truth. Vanilla Civ4 is an inferior war game, in my opinion, even to Vanilla Civ3. Certainly Civ4 has done very little to improve the combat aspect of the game.

I don't like that Civ4 did away with combat experience. I don't like that Civ4 did away with separate attack and defense values. I don't like the kitschy graphics of Civ4. I don't like that combat seems to have taken a back seat in Civ4 to all the other game aspects. There's a lot of stuff in Civ4 that I find superfluous to game play. I typically play conquest style Civ and worry less about diplomatic, economic, space race or cultural victories. (Sorry, I realize I'd make a terrible President but rest comfortably I'd never run for a political office anyway.)

I do like that Civ4 has more of a rock-paper-scissors effect with regard to some units having special combat bonuses over others. This was the case in Civ2 with pikemen versus cavalry. I don't know why Civ3 gave that up. It was a great idea. I like the combat bonuses of Civ4. I think that is a neat idea.

My disappointment is that instead of improving upon Civ3, it's almost like the designers ditched a lot of it and just made an entirely new game. There are some good things with Civ3 that I like and the designers didn't keep those good things with Civ4. There are some good things I like with Civ4 that Civ3 doesn't have. It frustrates me that if I want to have some good game qualities I have to go to Civ3 and if I want others I have to go to Civ4. I love Civ3 and wish they had improved it. They didn't. They made a whole new game as far as I see it. It's like designing a great Mustang and then the designers move on, a new team of designers takes over and they forget everything that was great about the old Mustang and start from scratch. The 80s Mustang was a major step backward from the 60s Mustang aesthetically. I think the same thing happens to computer games.

Civ3 and Civ4 have almost completely different styles of game play in my experience. fighting over which game is better, to me, is almost like fighting over whether a strategy game is better than a role playing game. Different people like different game styles. Even the same people like different game styles at different times.

I haven't played a great deal of Civ4 but, then again, I usually get bored with it after a couple of hours and put it aside. That doesn't happen with Civ3. There are enough user modified graphics and scenarios to Civ3 that it is constantly a new game for me. There are enough user created combat units in Civ3 to create almost any scenario the heart desires. I really wish someone would revive Civ3 and improve upon it, make it an even better game. It's like wishing that someone would take the body of a 60s Mustang and place all the mechanical innovations of an 80s Mustang into it. (Well it happend, I think, with the new Mustangs. I love them.)

I don't like Civ4 and will probably wait for Civ5 to come out before I give up Civ3. Some people don't like war games and will probably want Civ5 to be more like Civ4. In the final analysis there is probably nothing I can do about that. Heck, maybe it would be better for man-kind if everyone liked Donkey Kong or giving Barbie makeovers.

 

[gps]

But happened so rarely it was a non-issue.



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



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



I've never seen a bombarding everywhere bug.



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

Reectifie or non-issue as much as you want. These are bugs, things that don't work as intended. Things that could have been fixed. If you want to see the princess bug, try to capture one. And if you want to bombard everywhere, choose a catapult, press G then B and fire to the other side of the world.
Strangely enough, vasall states for me work perfectly. Actually a feature I was hoping for since Civ II.

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

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.

C3 Vanilla was fixed properly, C3 PtW was fixed properly, C4 Vanilla was fixed properly, Warlords got fixed properly and for BtS there seems to be at least another patch in the making. C3C was abaondoned with long lists of issues still unfixed. See the difference??? Good for you, you can enjoy it nevertheless. I can't. C3C for me feels like playing a Beta. I hate that!
A game with the complexity of Civ is impossible to produce without bugs. So if you buy it first week, you can bet your a** you'll encounter bugs. That's why I don't buy first week. But for all Firaxis Civ titels (except for C3C which was obviously and unfortunately abandoned without proper fixing to get people working on Civ 4), you can say they did a good job fixing the issues. It's two months since the last Vanilla and Warlord patch has been released. That's what I call a great support and makes the C3C case stick out even more painfully.

 

[ThERat]

@Churchill 25, luckily you aren't in any position that has power...otherwise it would be real scary. You seem to think to have the ultimate wisdom...my goodness, get a life and stop posting such nonsense here. (why not play the game instead of wasting time posting here?). Maybe you think you need to go out and spread the faith of Civ4. It's a game, nothing else.

You like Civ4? Great for you. I prefer C3C even if you tell me it's a rubbish game. Good thing you don't decided what I have to like for enjoyment.

And please do not reply to me, I know to you I am just stupid because I think old can be nice also.

@gps, I also do not get some bugs you mention. princess bug? what's that?
I rather they would fix concepts like pollution or the shield/food overflow for C3C. That would be such a great improvement.

Overall I agree with everyone about the shabby job Firaxis is doing at patching, I bought Civ3, C3C, Civ4 and it's expansions and am very disappointed with what they deliver.

 

[Newbunkle]

I'm stuck half way between Civ 3 and Civ 4, but I slightly prefer 3. The overcomplicated RPG-style combat system really put me off, but I do like the lack of pollution and civil disorder.

I don't understand the noobs who think Civ 3 players "can't move on". I "moved on" from Civ 1 to 2, and then from Civ 2 to 3. So, if you had a car and you thought it was your best car ever, would you trade it in for an inferior model because it was newer, or because your friend said so? Na, I didn't think so.

 

[gps]

@gps, I also do not get some bugs you mention. princess bug? what's that?
I rather they would fix concepts like pollution or the shield/food overflow for C3C. That would be such a great improvement.

There's an option in the game rules, where you can activate the princess. That's a unit sitting in the city waiting to be captured taken to your own home. Capturing earns you money. Works perfectly in PtW, is broken in C3C. OK, I rarely use it, no big deal. But it bothers me to get that option stuck right into my face each time I start a new game - while I know it doesn't work and noone at Firaxis gives a damn. Or to always having to send a transport out with my submariens so no stupid AI trireme can bump into it.
I can live with strange or stupid game concepts - but things not working at all or totally wrong bother me, sometimes so much, that I actually loose all interest in the game. But that's how different characters can be...

 

[ThERat]

OK, I rarely use it, no big deal. But it bothers me to get that option stuck right into my face each time I start a new game - while I know it doesn't work and noone at Firaxis gives a damn.

fully agree with this. I cannot comprehend how they couldn't be bothered to fix those things. same with the scientific golden age.
Unfortunately they repeated the same story with Civ4. Look at the whole vassals disaster...we could mention more...

 

[King Flevance]

The people who prefer Civ III over Civ IV is a very small minority.... do you know how many Civ II players got Civ III and were disappointed? Oh boy....

Civ III is arugably the worst of the series... probably the worst issues being corruption

A mechanic that worked the same way in Civ 1 and 2.

and the ways one could exploit the AI in war....

And a mechanic that was in 1, 2, 3, and believe it or not, is still in 4.

I played civ 2 and it had alot of the things that civ 4 has today even some more things like i think boats can sail through rivers and it has alot of wonders that civ 3 did not have and civ 4 did.

No civ game has allowed boats to travel through rivers. Civ 3 had every wonder Civ 2 had to my recollection. Plus more.

 

[obliterate]

Unfortunately they repeated the same story with Civ4. Look at the whole vassals disaster...we could mention more...

What's wrong with vassals?

 

[Grey Fox]

For me Civ4 is much better than Civ3 no matter how buggy Civ4 is. The gameplay is far superior IMO. And Civ4 also got one of the best mods I've ever played to any game. Fall from Heaven 2, and it's not even finished yet.

 

[gps]

What's wrong with vassals?

That's what I'd like to know as well! OK, there are some issues in BtS (fixable with Bhruics patch) - but Warlords seems to work, doesn't it? One might or might not like the feature from a game design point of view - but I don't see or have heard about any real bugs.

 

[6K Man]

You all do realize that it's pointless to argue about subjective preferences, right? This thread is as likely to come to a resolution as one debating the relative merits of the colour orange and the colour purple:

"Guyz u are total loosers, teh blue influens on purple makes it totally worse than teh orange is. Teh yellow makes all teh diff."

Seriously. I know these threads (Civ 3 vs 4, Civ 2 vs 4, AC vs Civ3, etc) are a fact of life on these forums, and this comment won't make them go away. But for all of you who are desperately trying to convince others that your favourite game (3, 4, BtS, Conquests, whatever) is the best, ask yourself - are you trying to convince others because that will make them happier, or are you just trying to reassure yourself that you have the universally acclaimed "best" game (if there could be such a thing)? If the latter... what's the point?

As I've said before, if people are happy playing a game, let them be. By all means, offer them a chance to play other games, but if they aren't interested, really, what's it to you?

 

[TriviAl]

I found Civ IV really hard to get to grips with. Was entrenched in my old Civ III ways and had some disasterous games. Got a bit dispirited, but remembered the same issue going from II > III, so stuck at it.

Bet the OP's friend will hate Civ IV initially if you do persuade them to try it. Suprising how different they are.

For me, it was definitely worth perservering with. Find Civ IV more fun to play in lots of ways. But each to their own.

There's plenty of other stuff where I'm an older edition Grognard.

And like someone said earlier - Where's SMAC II already?

 

[Stormrage]

Yeah, OK, why do you guys keep mentioning the catapult bug? You can use it only if you choose to. Like someone is accidentaly going to press G then B. Its more of a cheat then a bug.