Civ3 has lost the spark of Civ2

[Paradoxflux]

I was going to reply to the thread below that said civ3 sucked, but that is really a rant about the technical side of the game: how its poorly optimized and has scrolling problems on many machines.

I mean Civ 3 the game sucks.

Yes, it's got that same addictive great quality the first game had, and I still have played it for countless hours already.

Yes, it's got great new ideas for how to punch up the game and make it more exciting and involving.

But its lost the spark and I can't really say 100% why.

Maybe its the fact that the new interface is so trimmed down it has to rely on keyboard shortcuts for advanced features.

Maybe its because conquered cities randomly and frequently convert back to their owners, even when the citizens are happy, loving the king, well away from any shared border, garrisoned by lots of heavily armed units, and not corrupt.

Maybe its because somehow the enemy wants to build cities right next to you all the time in the little cracks in your borders that contain any land at all.

Maybe its because you can never really be sure how you can capture that city with culture, you just have to hope and somehow you don't capture that city you wanted, just the ones with super high corruption at the edges of your empire.

Maybe its because a city in your empire in the year 2001 that has 140 production and all the city improvements still suffers from 99.9% waste so everything that city makes goes down the toilet.

Maybe its because the resource depletion and resurfacing seems contrived in its placement, to force you to use the new and improved diplomacy system, which feels like playing an exciting game of guess the random number.

Maybe its because the great leaders of the world's civilizations are all silly looking cartoons.

Maybe its because managing workers gets incredibly boring if you dont' have a larger strategic goal in mind. (like build roads to your enemy so your spearman from the homeland can back up your frontier cities) pollution makes workers 10x more dull.

Basically I think the problem is the game is too automated, and not open ended enough. They took out some fun things that didn't make sense, like rushing to get the wonders first. Not to mention conquering huge empires without worrying about corruption. Or espionage, which is now just buy information that you want and random chance enemy will be mad. Or unique governments, all the governments now feel the same. Or use engineers to create a utopia.

civ 3 sucks. Because its civ, its still a good game, but while it feels like a great game on the surface, the core is rotten.

 

[Jezner]

Not too start a flame war, but maybe its because you're just tired of civ in general.

Personally, I played Civ1 to death. I mean, to death. When Civ2 came out, I was sorely dissappointed. I didn't find the thrill of it. It felt like the same game to me. (Which is kind of weird for me to hear everyone rave about Civ2) So I haven't played Civ in years and along comes Civ3.

Well, for me, that spark is back.

There goes my life.

My girlfriend.

My job.

 

[Paradoxflux]

That could be true, I played civ 2 to death, and all the games i've played to death have I've soured on. Even CS in all its glory has turned repetative and boring.

damn.

but i'm not saying civ3 isn't a good game, I'm just saying it doesn't have the greatness of civ1 and 2.

 

[catmandu]

I dunno what it is. I just can't seem to beat it. I was pretty good at Civ2, not diety mind you, but not bad. I just can't seem to get into this one. I can't fight the computer, I can't out-diplomatize the computer, and I REALLY can't out-build the computer, even on the easiest levels. A lot of the combat doesn't seem to add up, as well as the rate of AI production. The switch from quality of cities to quantity of cities really bugs me as well. I just can't seem to win. Ever.
*sigh* Maybe I just suck.

 

[Dire]

Its called "concept" burnout.

Sim City is an example for me. Ok great .. Sim City 2000 .. WHOOT ...

Played it for 8 hours and thought to myself .. WTH .. same darn game, new graphics. Bahh .. put it back in the box and has set on my shelf ever since.

Its the same way with the C&C series ... just got bored. Same game different wrappings.

I will admit though, points you have stated do make Civ3 a bit "annoying" at the least. Lets face it .. sometimes we have different moods. One day we might want to just build up and storm the map over in a few minutes. Others were looking for the chess game. Civ3 seems to "do away" with the first concept.

As someone who has not touched Civ2 in years (dont get me started on the time I played SMAC .. yikes) its a refreshing change. Though SMAC does have some excellent qualities, build your own troops and governement are two of them.
Given the game it does not have an "addicting property" such as the first Baldurs Gate did, but it has an enduring property meaning its a game I play on and off for .. well.. the next few years.

It is not a kiddie game by any means.

 

[dogen]

Calm down, guys!!! Civ 3 is a great game. All it needs is a patch that fix the problems.

 

[Jezner]

Random aside

SMAC was great (I bought it twice), but I couldn't get into the future setting. Plus the game went nuts on me. I nuked every civ with my planet busters and suddenly - the native lifeform rose up against me and destroyed my entire civ in 3 turns. 3 turns - can you believe it? And my civ was massive.

 

[Dearmad]

Wanker- gotta say they that ismy story too- loved Civ1 and got win95 JUST for civ2 but was SORELY disappointed in it... couldn't believeit but I uninstalled it and moved on- heard about civ3, though "oh geez, get a life and give up guys..." then more details trickled out and I got intrigued and then thilled.

Now I'm back to being a civ addict.

I feel sorry for all the civ 2 people out there because I can see this happening to them while I go on loving this game to death- but take geart Civ4 will be for them in 5 years!, but Civ5 will be for me!

 

[Jezner]

I'm right with you on Civ 5.
It seems to me that us Civ Oners are probably enjoying the game over the Civ Twoers. I'm also willing to say that a lot of the recent Civ resentment comes from expectations.

Personally, I was really excited about the game a fews before launch when I heard of it. But I bet people have been waiting for years for this game. And there's no way for any product, game, movie, underroos to ever meet those expectations.

In any case, I am thoroughly enjoying this game right now and I am not looking towards the day when my addiction fades, forcing me to rebuild my life (The pains and toils of civ addiction)

 

[jc011]

well, i feel the opposite way. now that i have played civ3, i can't get into a game of civ2 anymore... it just seems to boring now.

 

[Poochface]

I like Civ 3. But yeah, like what some other people suggested, maybe it's just cause you've civ-ed out, so to speak.

 

[donsig]

I'm only up to about 1850 AD in my first Civ III game but I like what I see so far. Playing a peaceful game on the easy level so I maybe I should reserve my opinion until I get into it more. At least I haven't seen anything to turn me off of Civ III and it has hooked me so that I want to get into it at a higher level of difficulty. I'm a player who usually tries to avoid war and that seems quite easy in Civ III. Still, I have my moments where I want to conquer the world by force and I hope Civ III turns ut to be flexible enough to make that enjoyable.

I'm not quite ready to give up on Civ II yet though. After I finish my first Civ III game I will finish my Civ II GOTM. Then I'll try the Civ III GOTM!

 

[Pike]

As a Civ1 player I got caught in a technological time warp since I couldn't afford to upgrade my computer. Long after everyone else had graduated to newer games I was still plodding away, and still discovering new ways to win. That game had legs.
The release of CivII was reason enough to finally upgrade my computer, and I immediately hated it. It took awhile, but eventually I fell in love with it too.
That experience has taught me to be patient with getting to know CivIII, but I will admit to some initial disappointment.
For me the magic of the Civ series was the total control you could exert over your growing empire. In time you could get so familiar with the stats, improvements, wonders, etc... that you could craft grand strategies, and come up with cool tricks that made up for the cheating AI. Playing on the higher levels wasn't so much a contest between civilizations, but a test of knowledge against the computer. I loved that there were so many objectives you could have, and I loved knowing the game so well.
What I was really hoping for in CivIII was an expansion of that core gameplay, with better handling of tedious issues like deploying units and borders. Instead it seems like I have far fewer options, instead of more. I just don't feel like I'm really in control of my empire. There's too much going on that I have no control over. It feels like the game is playing me.
Still there is a good core here. I hope that at least some of the bugs and features brought up on this forum are addressed, and then maybe that old Civ magic will return.

 

[droo]

I still have never played Civ 1. I didn't play Civ2 when it first came out, but I got really interested in SMAC before it came out. I spent a lot of time hanging out and posting in the Firaxis SMAC forums. I remember anxiously waiting every week for the next edition of the Journey to Alpha Centauri. And so I naturally decided that to make the wait for SMAC bearable, I should go get Civ 2. I had such a great time with Civ 2 that even after SMAC came out I wasn't sure if it was as good as Civ 2.

I didn't follow Civ3 development very much b/c of my job keeping me so busy. So after it went gold I debated whether or not to get it until this Saturday I decided to order SMACX of all things b/c I had never played the expansion. But then I saw Civ3 at the store on Sunday for $27.99 and thought it was too good to pass up. But I haven't opened Civ3 yet b/c I want to give SMAC/SMACX a good run through first. After reading Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) I have a better appreciation of SMAC as now the atmosphere feels more immersive whereas before I preferred the historical feel of Civ2 to the futuristic setting.

I think the natural feeling in any popular series such as Civ is that the current release in the series seems to bring out a nostalgic fondess and appreciation of the prior release. It always feels to me like the current release is "very good" while the previous one is the "timeless classic". I guess I'm weird b/c when the current release comes out I go hardcore on the previous one. I guess this always keeps the series fresh for me as I tend to lag behind everything. So in six months Civ3 will be a wonderful new experience.

 

[Setsuna]

Infrogrames cut the juice during the fueling stage.

*rimshot*

 

[4Lorn]

I didn't play CIV1 . CIV2 is the longest lasting game on my HD. This after 3 near complete upgrades on my computer. Every month or two I played a game or two. Most games, even the good ones, get played out after a few months. Not so with CIV2.

After 2 aborted , got slaughtered at the higher levels, and half of a long game of CIV3 I have come up with a few observations.

Most of the original posters comments seem to be dynamics built into the game and not poor design choices. Corruption is a problem but its one thats largely self inflicted.

If you go with the tried-and-true building rush that worked in CIV2 you get killed with corruption. Careful siting of your 2 capitals, you have to build the forbidden city before corruption gets too bad. This forces long term planning. Hmmm.

Keep your kingdom relatively compact. You don't have the less corrupt government until later in the game. Problem is they burden you with war weariness. It's a balancing act.

Court houses don't seem to be as effective as in CIV2. They help but not much.

As for cities reconverting after you stole them fair-and-square. Its all a matter of comparative cultural strengths. If you have a high enough culture rating compared to an invader I found I could get by with fewer troops to garrison my cities. Romans would capture one of my cities and I would have it back in a few turns.

My only gripes seem to be with the menues being stacked too high, It takes me more strokes to get to the same menues in CIV2.

Some controls/rules/dynamics are poorly documented.

The graphics could/should have been less less pretty and more emblematic. Having cute units is impressive for the first hour or two. Being a game that is ment to be played for many games with each game taking many hours only the novices will care after a game or two.

Really my complaint is that the units, as in CIV2, should have been larger compared to the squares. Setting a resolution large enough to make out the unit type means that the squares are so large, about an inch, that not much of the landscape is visible even on a 19in monitor. Given the options available 1280 by 960 seems to be the setting that works best for me. Larger and simpler unit icons would allow me to view larger areas of the world while still being able to tell the labor from the infantry.

I am getting used to it but I still feel like I'm playing through a keyhole. I enjoyed the broad sweeping views that better matched the feeling of the game.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Maybe some of you don't really think when you sign up...this site is for civfanatics...civ burnout please go to apolyton where you will be well welcome:

so:

www.civfanatics.com
for CIVFANATICS :enlighten

and

www.apolyton.com
for civ burnouts...:enlighten


Goodbye cya in Hell.

 

[Witchfinder]

I really loved SMAC, but those horrid little mind-worm buggers gave me nightmares. I just couldn't bring myself to use them as a weapon when I discovered the technology. The future setting was fine, but the unit design was clunky, and the auto-designer was imbecilic in the extreme.

"NO! I don't need weener buggies with 50 year old hull technology armed with pea-shooters! I want God's Holy Assault Legions of Total Annihilation"

As far as Civ 3 is concerned. I'll let you know when it finally gets released in the UK I can imagine I'm going to have a hard time of it though, judging by the posts I've been reading here. Aggressive AI city placement really upsets me, as well as killer-phalanxes.

 

[Sarcastro]

Originally posted by WankersRevenge
Random aside

SMAC was great (I bought it twice), but I couldn't get into the future setting. Plus the game went nuts on me. I nuked every civ with my planet busters and suddenly - the native lifeform rose up against me and destroyed my entire civ in 3 turns. 3 turns - can you believe it? And my civ was massive.

Not to rag on you, but honestly, if that happened, there was something very wrong with your empire. The native life in that game was never more than a nuisance. That was something that you had to plan for, but it should never have been so life-threatening. It's really equivalent to having your whole civ overrun by barbarians in Civ. It will never happen if you use your head while playing.

 

[sekong]

Enough said. To death. Me too.

Originally posted by WankersRevenge
Not too start a flame war, but maybe its because you're just tired of civ in general.

Personally, I played Civ1 to death. I mean, to death.