Civ3 is AWFUL

[Troyens]

BTW,

itokugawa's poll is very flawed (as is the game).

The question he did NOT put in the poll - but SHOULD have - is this one, and I bet it would have gotten the most votes:

"Is Civ III as good as you expected it to be, or as good as it should have been?".

NOT A CHANCE.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Troyens
Civ III is not "awful", but it sure is a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT, and it's filled with bugs, historical idiocies, a crazy AI, and that Culture Flipping garbage. And if the mindless, easily-pleased Firaxis shills around here don't want to hear that, too bad. I'm sure Sid could even sell them snake oil if he put his name on it.

Admit it. You got your money's worth. Just think how much fun it was making that list.

I may have bought Civ3 because of my enjoyable experience with its prequels, but that is not why I play it.

 

[Beamup]

Nice long post. Prepare for another one.

1. Yes, my single biggest gripe.

2. Yes, my second biggest gripe.

3. The army IS the combat bonus, and an extremely effective one. Anything more would be WAY overpowered.

4. Why? Except for #5, it's little more than a curiousity that would take a lot of programmer time away from core parts of the game.

5. Yes.

6. Why should you be able to do that? Fundamentally altering the structure of the game just because you don't like it isn't terribly reasonable.

7. Only thing I'd change here is to have garrisons have a MUCH bigger impact, and the city loses population based on the garrison size (they die fighting the garrison).

8. Yes, and Galleys shouldn't sink subs by accidentally moving onto them.

9. Why? They wouldn't add much of anything new, and would be a lot of extra work for the art team. Not worth it.

10. Learn to play the game. Corruption is totally managable if you put a little bit of thought and planning into it.

11. So far as I can tell, the AI doesn't cheat. Why shouldn't it give away tech? Humans do it frequently. And my extensive observations of Galleys have never seen them doing anything that mine can't.

12. Seriously overpowered given the new diplomatic system.

13. You can build canals just like in earlier Civs - with cities. The pathfinding algorithm is even smart enough to use them, and the AI is smart enough to build them!

14. There are literally thousands of other wonders that COULD be in the game. The ones you suggest add absolutely nothing and wouldn't be in the least worth the effort.

15. Not a bad idea, but could be very very very difficult to implement depending on how the relevant code was structured.

16. Human players tend to do the same sort of thing to grab potential future resources, so I don't see this as a problem. Plus, building a city inside your border is ALREADY an act of war.

17. Sounds reasonable.

18. Good ideas.

19. Nice idea, but really quite the bear to code. Would you rather have had them do that or fix the air superiority bug? Actually, the former would have probably been a lot more time-consuming.

20. I'll agree with this one, too.

21. I'll take gameplay over historical accuracy any day. Men-o-war really make much more sense as the English UU in terms of historical accuracy, anyway. Restricting airlift capability would probably be a good idea, but again, probably quite the bear to code.

22. Maybe it plans to buy off the enemy for a peace treaty. I've done the same thing sometimes, particularly if it's a war-useful Wonder, hoping for a GL or to be able to buy enough time to finish it.

23. I don't know what kind of map you're playing, but I can almost never explore more than a third of the world before Galleons.

24. You said that already - #16.

25. If they bother you that much, declare war. It's not like you don't have options.

26. Yes, but have you any idea what's involved in making an AI that's even as good at trading as this one is? I've got some understanding of it, and it frankly very much impresses me how good this part of the AI really is.

27. Again, you said that already - #22. But just to amplify, it simply IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO VAUGELY POSSIBLE to make an AI as intelligent as even a moderately good human player. Civ3's AI is much better than almost anything else out there.

28. See #26. And sometimes they have good reason.

29. Oh, so you want them to triple the number of terrain types? Really feasible there.

30. They're supposed to, flood plains are a kind of desert!

31. Never seen this happen, and my system is slower than the recommended specs.

32. Yes, this would be a very useful mission type.

33. Oh, you mean it forces you to act at least a little bit realistically and THINK about what you want to research? How dare they do such a thing!

34. Again, humans are often the same way. Why shouldn't the AI do it too?

35. Doesn't bother me at all, in fact I rather like it. And this is in fact something to which the editing capabilities are totally germane - if you don't like it, change it. There is no possible way they could please everyone, so this is the best possible solution.

36. I have no trouble at all seeing them. And their rarity is the whole point! If everyone had them, it would be pretty stupid, now wouldn't it?

 

[filmic10]

Originally posted by Chaos
Goddamn it, you are a biggest whiner I have ever seen. Its obvious CivIII is WAY superior to CivII. Good graphics, LOTS of options and AWESOME diplomacy system. If you think its so bad then don't play it and stop flaming it with these pathetic useless polls.

Moron :midfinger

I wouldn't go as far to say WAY better (I even voted fo Civ 2 as the better game on a poll that was out I don't know how long ago ). I am also not saying that Civ 3 is awful. I just don't like the amount of bugs that it came with. I also think (as many oters do) that it should have ben though out a little better (bombardment, SR depletion and difficulty to trade for, etc.). Even though I think Civ 2 is a better game overall (other than graphics, which is the detail on the bottom of my list), I still wil probably play Civ 3, rather than 2 now (except for maybe a trip back to memory lane game). Why? A question worthy of an answer I am unable to give .

 

[TrailblazingScot]

We needed another "I didn't like civ3 thread" to be opened...there are plenty already to add to...

But instead we have:

1. Poster gives a few reasons why they don't like civ3
2. Same band of replying brothers post yay or nay
3. Repeat
4.

 

[Mr Spice]

Originally posted by itokugawa

Please correspond because Civ team must receive a clear message.

And a clear message it is. When looking at the results of the poll, 75% have chosen the only "I like Civ 3" - option available. Hurray!

 

[Cerryl]

Oh please.

It was completely STUPID to not let a unit walk by another due to ZOC. The 'new strategy' is dealing with the AI creeping into your territory. Also, it works BOTH WAYS, for you and the AI.

If you think the AI is bad in this game COMPARED to civ 1&2, please pass me what you're smoking.

Sounds like to me, you just want a simple and easy to win game with little or no thought process, come on, complaining about: MOVING YOUR UNIT TO A SQUARE and ending up in it when you win the battle. Maybe you want your units with transporters so they can warp back to their home city when their hitpoints are low?

A rival, will sell 'Extra' resources to you, the only time they won't deal with you with extra resources, is when YOU HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER. *dink*

And don't worry about the Civ team, the message they're getting is: The best selling Civ in the series yet.

 

[itokugawa]

Troyens has mentioned many points, but probably the most important of them was that some participants here do not want to hear that Civ3 is a failure.

That's why Chaos wrote that I may not play Civ3 (I did, but now I am playing only Civ2) and additionally that I should not start polls. I have the right to start whatever poll I like and the results will show if I am wrong.

Indeed it would be better to have "Worse than Civ2" as option instead of "bad". As for MrSpice's message that 75% (now 77%)have voted "Better than Civ2", I anyway believe that Firaxis should not be happy. 10 votes that Civ2 was better and only 2 new players. Result: -17% of the fans. The more that this is a Civ3 forum (as mentioned the results would be better for me in Civ2 forum).

By the way, some participants wrote that you can build a line of fortresses. It is true I didn't explore the game intensively but do they mean to close every square of the front line and not just some points as the image I provided?

 

[Mr Spice]

Originally posted by itokugawa

By the way, some participants wrote that you can build a line of fortresses. It is true I didn't explore the game intensively but do they mean to close every square of the front line and not just some points as the image I provided?

Yes, you have to close every square.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by itokugawa
Troyens has mentioned many points, but probably the most important of them was that some participants here do not want to hear that Civ3 is a failure.

Personally, I don't really care that a few people here insist on repeatedly posting that civ3 is a failure. I still haven't figured out why they do it. Seems like a waste of time to me. I also haven't figured out why people from the civ2 forum continue to post polls on the civ3 forum to show how bad civ3 is. Activities like this are doomed to failure. Maybe the civ2 players who do this are just threatened that many people are playing a game that they are not good at. Or maybe they are jealous that civ3 players often have new stuff in store for them when they start a new game. Believe me, I played more than my share of civ2, enough that I beat it regularly on emperor. It is a great game. I, however, need new challenges, and get really bored winning every time.

 

[Cerryl]

No, it's not that no one doesn't want to hear it's a failure at all, I'm having fun with the game, that makes it a success in my book.

And after 5 months, these threads get old, but mostly when the whines are just, LAME.

In November, the were many good complaints, corruption (Still one of mine), air missions not working properly, the rate at which the AI pursues culture over everything else, issues not whines.

You go find any of the reputable game sites and find a poor review of this game then come back and post the link.

But mostly, what's the motivation for posting a bash on the game, in the games forum? Furthermore, from someone who doesn't even know the ins and outs of the game.

Sounds like you're just trolling when you should just shut your piehole until you've at least examined the game enough to make some educated criticism.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by itokugawa
Troyens has mentioned many points, but probably the most important of them was that some participants here do not want to hear that Civ3 is a failure.

Oh, so you are saying that even though the overwhelming majority of people completely disagree with your position, and many of them wrote thorough responses as to why they feel that way, that you know it is really beacause they don't want to hear that Civ3 is a failure???

Couldn't it just be that they disagree with you?

Take your screenshot and complaint about lack of Zone of Control. I hated Civ2's ZOC, there is no logic whatsoever to the idea that your three groups of spearmen can effectively seal off a border much larger than they. They don't have the weaponry to do so.

I think Civ3 is a massive improvement over the fundamentally flawed Civ2.

 

[macaskil]

What is the point of this poll?

I bought Age of Empires and didn't like it. I don't spend my entire time going to AoE websites and saying so. I accept that some people like the game and who am I to argue.

BTW I also like CTP2. However if I go to CTP2 websites I find them full of "CTP2 sucks" messages. I wonder if they are from the same people?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by itokugawa
I have the right to start whatever poll I like and the results will show if I am wrong.

Dear itokugawa,

You have every right to post. I was just ribbing you about the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle." Nevertheless, they have every right to flame you, too. So it is best if everyone would stay on topic and be considerate of one another. (I am a sinner, too, no doubt.)

As far as Civ3 being a "failure," that is a testable prediction. I believe that the future will prove you wrong. The game is selling very well, and there will be many improvements made. When the editor is beefed up, and it will be, then players will make even more improvements. Time will tell.

 

[Sarcastro]

Troyens, do you just keep that list on your clipboard for handy pasting?

 

[Selous]

well it would seem that most of the people that dont really like civ3 are not posting mebey it is because some of u arrogent bastards will flame anyone that dont like it? the fact that almost 20% said that civ3 is awful and bad for a sequil that comes out 5 years later CANT be good!!! no matter what u think personally, and i will almost go as far as to say that EVERYONE here had much higher expectations that what we have received?

unless some major work is done to bring the editor up to a good standard there will not be many people playing civ3 in a few years time, unlike civ2 where there was/is a dedicated core of fanatics, that is my opinion at least

and i think that the worst thing that could happen is that the legion of gamers out there will stop to trust firaxis and perhaps even stop trusting SID!! (sacralige u say? well another couple of titles like this and sid's name will be mud) and then there are the other 4x games out there that might use inovation and ADD something to the genere. Master of Orion 3 is looking VERY promicing and they are trying some very intersesting ideas and if they get it to work well then they will have a genere breaking game that will make civ3 look like the dinosaur clone that it is

and i agree that the poll was flawed, u could of had AC in there as it IS superiour to civ3 but i would have to say that civ3 is slightly better than civ2, but only marginally, and ESPECIALLY when u concider that it has been such a long time since civ2 came out

 

[Troyens]

Let me add some other things that annoy me about Civ III.



The incredibly long lag time between turns with more than eight civs when we get to the 19th Century.


Army units cannot unload the combat units inside them for upgrading. We apparently can't even change that in Editor as it is hard-coded in.


Army units appear to always move with a '1' movement rate.


We can no long use roads and railroads in enemy territory when invading. I will give you railroads. BUT NOT ROADS! The defender should have to PILLAGE them to prevent their use by the invader.



Civ III maynot be "awful", but I sure expected better. I also expected to not have to pay Firaxis to end up a Beta playtester!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Selous
unless some major work is done to bring the editor up to a good standard there will not be many people playing civ3 in a few years time,

Look closely at your post. You are indicating the people will be playing Civ3 for years to come, but you don't think that's good enough. You expect an "awful" lot for a $50 game.

 

[Selous]

well yes ... i did expect a game that would last a few years ... like civ1 and civ2 and what im predicting AC to be. Civilization is THE GRANDDADDY of this genere, and with the 3rd edition of the game i have seen advance in gameplay at a VERY marginal rate, and i am sooo dissapointed!!! ... and especially when the game goes BACKWARDS from the last one the firaxis team made... i am sooo dissapointed with this game because it is a simple rehash of civ2, i expected so much more!, and at the worst a good editor to make some senerios

 

[Mr Spice]

Originally posted by Selous
Civilization is THE GRANDDADDY of this genere, and with the 3rd edition of the game i have seen advance in gameplay at a VERY marginal rate, and i am sooo dissapointed!!! ... and especially when the game goes BACKWARDS from the last one the firaxis team made... i am sooo dissapointed with this game because it is a simple rehash of civ2, i expected so much more!

I recognize the feeling. When Civ 2 was released I was very disappointed. "WTH, it is almost the same game", I thought. And proceeded to throw it into the wall. Or strictly speaking not - since I spent some money on it - but I really felt like it. A year later or so I tried it again, and was owerwhelmed, I could not stop playing. I guess that you agree with me that Civ 1 and 2 are quite different, and my first opinion of Civ 2 was a bit unfair. It turned out that I had just gotten tired of Civ and needed a break to get the "Civ-feeling" back.

To me it seems very likely that something similar has happened to you. I feel very sorry for you, but please do not call us others arrogant bastards only because we do not share your fate this time. And please do not tell us that we are idiots only beacuse we like a game that you do not.