civ 3 players will not move on

[BeyondCivilized]

I suffered complete and utter defeat, and my retaliation is...

Well played.

 

[Gary Childress]

Thanks.

You are a good and honorable man. I doff my hat to you.

 

[CyberChrist]

If you wanna be truly precise Civ4 enjoys a 2.5 to 1 lead in complaints over the 'older' version (not sure why you failed to mention this inaccuracy )

What inaccuracy? In my first post I merely counted all the posts for both Civ III and cIV, but on your initiative I focused solely on the C&C parts in my 2nd count. Don't see why you are bringing this irrelevant part up yourself again.

These numbers are all thats really needed to downplay the wacko reasoning your on

I think a clear picture is starting to form about who is really the one with the 'wacko reasoning' here - heh.

Well look, If we appy this same ratio to the total numbers C+C posts we can conclude that the C+C posts for civ4 are of far higher concentrations of tech related concerns such as the "MAF or CTD. Correct?

No, incorrect (and yet again you bring up this totally irrelevant point up). The thread for Technical Support is a completely different thread which I didn't include the count for in my C&C comparisons, but if you want feel free to add another 35809 to the cIV count.

I posted Civ3 still garners more daily intrest then civ4 on many numerious occasions. Im sorry but however you try to swich the topic You can't discredit this. Its proof positive

I just did - twice.

...
no its not all telling but nether can it be simple discredited BASED ON WHAT YOU SAY

Yes it can, but I am only really doing the maths on the numbers you yourself suggested we should use to prove your claim - which the numbers didn't do.

What I never said was civ3 is used by more people indefinatly on a day to day basis.

Contradicting yourself now, you just said "Civ3 still garners more daily intrest then civ4" a few lines higher up in the same post - and it is still a nonsense claim.

I have given photo evidence of exactly how powerful civ3's longevity has become.

If this was you really intended to say/prove (Civ III's longevity) then I don't think anyone (including myself) would dispute this. But it still seems you are more interested in saying that Civ III is more popular/succesfull than cIV - which it isn't.

*lots of ranting*
...but don't try and discredit how a superior game, has made yet another claim to fame ...and at the same time banished it predessor to Civ hall of shame

Why do I bother ...

 

[grumbler]

Why do I bother ...

Yes, why do you?

You see, if you pretend to like Civ4, then this can only mean one thing:

You're just a paid chill trying to get on Firaxis' good side. Like all the other slutty fanbois who continue to obfuscate that Civ4 is a piece of crap.

Well, at least in the wacky tinfoil world of good ole T.A.

Or, slightly more wordy (taken from here) :

YOu are right of course. What you have to understand when you hear others constanly standing up for Civ4's shoddy makeup is that Fireaxis draws its testing group from this site. Members here who lie or or go on about how great civ4 have a chance to become part of the beta team.

Once Civ4 was finished atleast a hundred members returned from thier dreamy Firaxis job fresh from excitin lunchroom chats with SOreen Johnson, they come back to these forums where the game was being ripped to shreds for numerous technical issues.
THese trusted members of the community now did their part to show thier loyalty and gratitude to the company that paid them by belittling the unconnected 'common folk', the mass audience's specs, by saying it was working great on their computers therfor your the one to blame not the game.

So Im sayin don't think we as a whole believe this treatment is ok. If you look close What you will notice is the same people defending civ4 they represent the fanbois and they go agaist flocks of newcomers who are the reality of serious concerns being expierenced by the masses.

 

[r_rolo1]

^^WTH? Do you really believe that all of the people that say that prefer Civ IV over Civ III are trying to enter in the Firaxis beta tester team? Now that is a hell of a conspiracy theory..... Not that I care too much: I never said that Civ IV was perfect... ( and I have a ocean between me and Firaxis HQ ). But I do say that overall, with all of the glitches that Civ IV has , I still prefer it over Civ III ( never swallowed well the fact that the AI knew where all the map resources were, the corruption system and the polution MM )

 

[7of9Fan]

I too am a diehard CIV III fan and refused to play the Sid Mier's Nightmare presented by Fischer Price that is maquerading as CIV IV.

My best friend finally bought the CIV IV/Warlord's/BTS for me from Direct2Drive and then refused to play me with CIV III forcing me to play CIV IV if I wanted to play multiplayer or PBEM with him. LOL

He has complained before that he has had to drag me kicking and screaming to the next game. LOL

I am getting used to the Fischer Price palette that CIV IV uses but I still prefer CIV III.

Then again I miss CIV II with it's caravans and Diplomats, the biggest thing I miss is the Economic Victory. That was my favorite way to win, build a huge economy. OH Well.

 

[T.A JONES]

No, incorrect (and yet again you bring up this totally irrelevant point up). The thread for Technical Support is a completely different thread which I didn't include the count for in my C&C comparisons, but if you want feel free to add another 35809 to the cIV count.

NO you don't understand. I said the c+c thread for Civ4 replicates a simliar overflow of tech complaints basicly making you evidence invalid if the same ratio of tech complaints between the two C+C groups is similar. THe reason you see more posting in civ4 CnC per year is because more are trying to get their mods to actually run. What you count as postive I say is record of a big negative. Yet IM wacko? Before I woke you up you were pulling the most complaints into a pile and calling it proof of more intrest, I say sure more intrest in gettin relayed..on how bad the game disapoints in the modding sector.

Yes it can, but I am only really doing the maths on the numbers you yourself suggested we should use to prove your claim - which the numbers didn't do.

You agreed to move to the basis of my argument from the start, yet you never touched on the fact all this was new lows for CIv4. WHen has the older game garnered more attention then the newer model in this way.. AFter its seconf Xpak CIv3 was attraction more to its modding forum. THis is all I ever said and it says enough.
You said more per year shows a higher user intrest rate. I showed by comparing the technical complaints ratio of civ4, that being over twice as much in under half the the time! can only means civ4's CnC, is swollen with tech related issue over mods not working correctly. I tainted your numbers yet you say IM incorrect?

Contradicting yourself now, you just said "Civ3 still garners more daily intrest then civ4" a few lines higher up in the same post - and it is still a nonsense claim.

What I really said:
"Civ3 still garners more daily intrest then civ4 on many numerious occasions."

Why you only wrote half my sentence is quite telling of the lows you like to go to try an refute on simple fact. "At times civ3 leads". I this to hard for you fathom? THis is unprecedent and like I said and which you failed to quote and instead belittle:

if you think Civ4 has the stuff it takes to beat civ5 after its 2 xpak polished (the way I proved civ3 did to civ4) then hey, thats you opinion.

If this was you really intended to say/prove (Civ III's longevity) then I don't think anyone (including myself) would dispute this. But it still seems you are more interested in saying that Civ III is more popular/succesfull than cIV - which it isn't.

Once again twisting words talking out your ass to avoid the simple UNPRECEDENTED EMBASSMENT I captured on MSPAINT and clearly explained in its relevence.

 

[T.A JONES]

Yes, why do you?

You see, if you pretend to like Civ4, then this can only mean one thing:

You're just a paid chill trying to get on Firaxis' good side. Like all the other slutty fanbois who continue to obfuscate that Civ4 is a piece of crap.

Well, at least in the wacky tinfoil world of good ole T.A.

Or, slightly more wordy (taken from here) :

SO your sayin Fireaxis dosn't take testers from this forum. You are sayin some of these members never belitted honest customers for their unsuperior hardware being the root of the problem?
Hey thats you opinion but don't try and say its any better mine.

 

[Diamondeye]

I still prefer it over Civ III ( never swallowed well the fact that the AI knew where all the map resources were, the corruption system and the polution MM )

It had it's good sides. Although I agree cIV is more challenging, civ III was defniately more for having fun (without diving into complicated maths ), which I judge as one of the lead charectestics of a game.

Oh, and on a side note I tend to agree with TA Jones

 

[r_rolo1]

^^Let me explain my position about the corruption system of civ III ( I fear that people are misunderstanding me ) :

Corruption in civ III basically cuts off part of the production of a city..... because it had to rounded, it hits less smaller cities than the big ones, and that was not the desired result. Basically, a empire with 25 cities with 10 pop in each would be less affected by civ III corruption than a 15 city empire with 20 pop in each..... and that is exactly the opposite of what corruption was intended to do.

 

[Rhye]

Originally Posted by T.A JONES
YOu are right of course. What you have to understand when you hear others constanly standing up for Civ4's shoddy makeup is that Fireaxis draws its testing group from this site. Members here who lie or or go on about how great civ4 have a chance to become part of the beta team.

Once Civ4 was finished atleast a hundred members returned from thier dreamy Firaxis job fresh from excitin lunchroom chats with SOreen Johnson, they come back to these forums where the game was being ripped to shreds for numerous technical issues.
THese trusted members of the community now did their part to show thier loyalty and gratitude to the company that paid them by belittling the unconnected 'common folk', the mass audience's specs, by saying it was working great on their computers therfor your the one to blame not the game.

Beta testers aren't paid.
But they had a chance to discuss the main problems of civ3, the new additions, the reasons why civ2, Alpha Centauri and CTP were superior in some aspects, and in the end can explain why civ4 isn't broken and hardcoded as civ3.

 

[CyberChrist]

@T.A.JONES (and other fanatical Civ III dinosaurs):
You can keep repeating the same old nonsense, refuse to give yourself a chance to discover just how much cIV really have to offer and keep playing Civ III to infinity for all I care - it still wont make the nonsense you are spewing true and the loss is entirely on your side.

So please ... go play Civ III instead of reposting drivel (on a cIV thread of all places) that noone here really cares about.

But I am done with this 'discussion', so feel free to commence your ranting and rambling anyway if you want (and I am guessing you do).

 

[grumbler]

SO your sayin Fireaxis dosn't take testers from this forum. You are sayin some of these members never belitted honest customers for their unsuperior hardware being the root of the problem?
Hey thats you opinion but don't try and say its any better mine.

No, that's not my opinion. Actually, I didn't say any of these things.
(But hey, nice try! )

Instead, I took issue with your statements that

- as a prerequisite to get on the Firaxis beta team, you have to lie about the greatness of Civ4

- beta testers were paid by Firaxis

- as a show of loyality to Firaxis, former beta testers now are in the business of routinely belittling "the unconnected 'common folk' ", i.e. those with lower hardware specs

- only "fanbois" like Civ4

Maybe it's just me, but those seem pretty preposterous to me.

 

[Diamondeye]

Beta testers aren't paid.

Pay would only be the icing on the cake, IMO.

 

[Seven05]

Hmm... I played the original Civ and loved it, played Civ II and loved it, played Civ III and didn't really like it, and am still playing Civ IV and loving it. I shouldn't really say that I didn't enjoy Civ III, however comparing it to the others I liked it the least and have far fewer fond memories of it. Now if/when Civ V comes out I'll do the same thing I always do, turn the previous one into a coaster or a frisbee and buy the new one.

As for the specific Civ III vs Civ IV 'debate' ... meh, to each his/her own. Civ IV is the first Civ game to finally achieve the degree of 'modability' that other game genres have been enjoying for the past 10+ years and for that much I am thankful.

 

[grumbler]

For the record, I liked every part of the series since playing Civ1 on the Amiga. I also don't have any problem with people playing Civ3 or whatever or even prefering Civ3 to Civ4.

I enjoyed Civ3 very much for four years. But at some point the game had become stale for me. Mods rekindled my interest for some time, but beneath the surface, the gameplay didn't really change. Ultimately, I was very much ready for some fresh experiences when Civ4 came around.

 

[T.A JONES]

No, that's not my opinion. Actually, I didn't say any of these things.
(But hey, nice try! )

Instead, I took issue with your statements that

- as a prerequisite to get on the Firaxis beta team, you have to lie about the greatness of Civ4

Never said that but again nice try. I said some hope to be called into beta testing so they say what they will. I call it a lie when they say it consumers fault the game won't run for having a computer that meets required specs DO you need links or can you trust me these guys do exist and that many did take part in the favoured 100 test group

- beta testers were paid by Firaxis

Testers may have received free merchidise or perks like having lunch with Soreen and gettin to feel like their part of team. Basicly thats enough pay for them to return loyality in my books. THis is after CIvfanatcs ( I do apoligize for hinting I meant currency)

- as a show of loyality to Firaxis, former beta testers now are in the business of routinely belittling "the unconnected 'common folk' ", i.e. those with lower hardware specs

Sorry but mybe you don't think this happend but many other do. I'll add links when I get back from work

- only "fanbois" like Civ4

Yes the ones who repeatidly harass those who spoke up on legit gripes of the game and then continue to make excuses for the shabby treatment of its constumers puts them to shame.
These are some indicters of fanbois. I never said all who don't like CIv3 are one of these, or if i did then where?
You can see me talking with people who rationionly defend a game they enjoy without belittling others in the process. THey are friends who like civ4.

Maybe it's just me, but those seem pretty preposterous to me.

Not sure if its just you but IM not alone ether in the way I feel others were treated . Mybe look back and see for yourself.

 

[Civinator]

Beta testers aren't paid.
But they had a chance to discuss the main problems of civ3, the new additions, the reasons why civ2, Alpha Centauri and CTP were superior in some aspects, and in the end can explain why civ4 isn't broken and hardcoded as civ3.

Rhye, if you post here, this is always something special for me, as you did (at least) one of the best mods for Civ 3 and I don´t want, that your post simply submerges in the ocean of the normal Civ3/Civ 4 quarrels.

Is here someone, who knows where Civ 3 is broken and can help us to repair it?

One point about these discussions to construct the next civgame, I was always wondering about: Were there any known unit-makers from the Civ-community among the persons that were allowed to take part in these discussions?

In your famous Civ 3 mod, you were able to choose among thousands of existing high-class civ 3 units. Civ 4 was concepted for completely modding, but this concept of completely modding -in my eyes - was completely broken by fixing the game to that 3d-engine. Modding without the proper graphics is not enjoyable in my eyes. Was the possibility discussed of giving Civ 4 an auxiliary 2d graphics possibility? Was there such a possibility?

If you are not allowed to answer these questions I understand this.

 

[rysmiel]

There was a lot more wrong with Civ III than has been mentioned:

• Endless micromanagement to avoid civil unrest
• Infinite city sprawl tedium
• Pollution
• Corruption
• RoP rape
• Overpowered wonders
• Ridiculous switching of hammers between projects and the resulting wonder cascades
• Really stupid AI
• Cities flipping back immediately after conquest and subsequent loss of the invading army

For what it's worth, micromanagement, lots of cities, having to track pollution, having wonders have real impact, learning how to handle wonder cascades, and culture-flipping cities are all things I see as positive features.

To my mind corruption in Civ III is a wrong-scale attempted fix to the ICS problem in Civ II, and nerfing the Forbidden Palace et al in C3C is a wrong-scale fix for a mechanic I'm not at all sure is a problem, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the mechanic, just that more tools to counter it should become available in the late game.

Insufficiently smart AI I suspect will always be with us.

 

[Smidlee]

@ TA Jones
I would say you arguments have really hit an all time low lately and not civ4 mods. I guess you had to nitpick something else about civ4 since now you can no longer claim you can play with more civs with civ3 than with civ4.
While civ3 was my least favorite of all civs (still was fun), I still have it installed and hope it's continues for many more years.
P.S I had a lot more technical issues with GalCiv2 than the first GalCiv yet it would be a joke to suggest this means GalCiv was better.