Civ3 is one big bore

[Sam_Catchem]

Originally posted by Galen Dietenger
Iroquois are not a civilization no matter what loose standard one applies. If civ3 properly placed civs in there relative world positions, one could say the Iroquois were only put in to 'fill' North America. Since thats not the case, includeing them amoung real civs is a bit curious to say the least. Im sure at some point well have the ability to edit them out or replace them with a real Culture\civ. But then again, it just could be politcal correctness and histroical revisionism run amok at Firaxiss

I get the feeling that you do not like the Iroqouis. They were a civilization. Now, maybe if were are going to rank the most influential or something..no they wouldn't be in the game. You should learn to read as well.

 

[Kastchei]

www.dictionary.com:

"civ·i·li·za·tion

1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.

3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.

4.Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.

5. Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains. "

So much fuss about a little word. They[the Iroqoise] might be a part of cultural development of Northen American indians, but were hardly a own civilization.

 

[Spike]

Normally just a lurker here, but found this thread somewhat interesting (especially how it now has nothing to do with the original post).. But figured I'd continue that trend. Just wanted to point out that on those Civilization profiles (Civ of the Week before the game came out), they say that the "Iroquois represent all the tribes of Northern Native Americans."
Although there are definately plenty of Civs that could have been added, I don't see a problem with all the tribes of Northern Native Americans having a Civ (even if they are all under the Iroquois name) (I can name plenty of places locally that carry names related to Native Americans, etc. so they obviously had some lasting effect)
Needless to say I think calling them barbarians isn't understanding the situation, though I'm sure anyone can name a couple Civs they believe should be in there more.

shrug, back to lurking I go.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Kastchei
www.dictionary.com:
1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

Under this description, Iroquois are not a civilization, sure. Though...

2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.

... if we take this description, then the Iroquois ARE a civilization.

 

[Sam_Catchem]

OK ..here it is.

The Iroquois are the oldest existing democracy in the WORLD. They have been around since the 1300's. They even have a constitution. Let's see..that is 800 years. They were a practicing democracy even before the United States was formed and even before the Europeans landed.

At their height they controlled the most of what is called New England and the East Coast of Canada. They also controlled the land routes around the Great Lakes. They were the most powerful Nation in North America.

I am not saying they are the greatest civilization in the world..but they are a civilization. I do not know why people are against the notion that the Iroqouis Nation is a civilization. What do you have against them? There are some great resources on the net if you want to read up...just do not judge them without ANY knowledge whatsoever.

PS..this is wayyyyy off topic. If you want to continue this debate..let's move it to the Coloseum.

 

[Jason_Els]

Actually......

The oldest democratic nation in the world is Iceland.

If the Iroquois represent ALL of the native American tribes of North America what does that make the Aztec? I don't believe the Iroquois qualify as a civilization either. They lacked just about everything that qualifies as a civilization. The Iroquois were a federation of smaller tribes sharing some language and cultural traits. Not dissing them by any means but they don't meet the criteria of a civilization. A culture surely, but not a civ even in comparison to the other civilizations in the game except the similarly misplaced Zulu.

In truth the Zulu weren't much compared to the great African civilizations in North Africa. The Mali empire was the third largest empire in the world behind the British and Mongol empires respecitvely. Timbuktu (yes there is one) was the center of learning of the world during the time of Mansa Musa. Without question it was the top empire of black Africa. One could even make a case for Benin, Dahomey, Lunda, or Zimbabwe but not the Zulu.

Which makes me wonder about why they chose Cleopatra for Egypt. She was Greek! While she certainly tried her best for Egypt she's no Ramses or Hatshepsut. And Joan of Arc for France? She failed just as badly as Cleopatra. Better choice would have been one of the Louis or Napolean; hell, I'd even take de Gaulle.

That's my 2 cents.

Jason

Moderator Action: To several gentleman: The correct forum for discussing the merits of particular civilizations included in the game, and what constitutes a civilization, is Civ3-Civilizations
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Charles]

I'm sorry but Bob is totally right, Civ3 is a flop. NO real editor, no real scenario design tools. Sure you can slap on fancy cartoon tapestry graphics, and watch little cartoon like warriors swing their swords around and grunt war cries, but the real features that made Civilization popular came with Civ2-Gold Edition, simply the ability to Customize and Design. Now you're stuck with 16 boring civs, and the same old re-hashed war game over and over everytime you play. I'm already bored on deity level, using a large map. I wont hold my breath for the expansion or Civ4. And I especially won't pay for it. But the rest of you can come on here and say "Oh this game is sooo great, I hate whiners" but the fact is, if it was SOOOO great, what the hell are you doing in here telling us that, when you could be PLAYING the damn game!

And I just want you Civ3-Lovers to know, that thousands of fans are disapointed, so quit pooring gasoline on the fire and let us vent our flames! We paid the money, we have the rights!

Charles.

 

[cutiestar]

Charles...

You know for a fact that thousands of fans are disappointed?? if not then maybe you should stick to saying you know of many disappointed fans.

As for the game is a flop because you don't like the editor and blah blah, the last i knew this was CIV III a game about starting as a certain civ on a map and building your way through time advancing your civilisation in different ways in order to win against other AI civilisations.

I didn't realise they meant to call it CIV editing tool , and maybe if you like we added as a bonus a game that you can play aswell.

You talk like this game is all about the editor, the editor is just a bonus, like a plastic toy in your MacDonalds childrens meal.

Whether the game is good or not, or a success should have absolutely nothing to do with the editor. It isn't part of the game, it is just an extra for those more adventurous types.

 

[Aslan]

Well...since this thread is going NO WHERE fast...why doesn't it get closed? Or perhaps, why doesn't a moderator move the thread to an appropriate place instead? I had a thread closed willy-nilly instead of conveniently moved. Just a thought...

 

[pax_65]

I like Civ3 and I'm not a whiner - in fact I've hardly complained. The patch helps A LOT. I like the graphics and I think they've added some great new features to the game. I'm still playing and will continue to play.

But does it blow Civ2 away? No, I don't think it does. It is better in many ways, and not as good in others.

For me, that's the disappointment. I was expecting more - more civilizations... more governments... more units... more easy customization and preferences... more historical and fictional scenarios... more advanced AI... multiplayer. (Yeah, I'm sure add-ons are coming for additional $$$ - maybe that's why the base game is so bare-bones.)

Bottom line for me: I feel civ3 is a little better than civ2... that makes it a great game... but it's still really disappointing. I was expecting much more.

Jon

 

[narmox]

Originally posted by Charles
But the rest of you can come on here and say "Oh this game is sooo great, I hate whiners" but the fact is, if it was SOOOO great, what the hell are you doing in here telling us that, when you could be PLAYING the damn game!

And if it's so bad why the hell are you boring all of us every 2 messages about it? Get over it, go away, leave us alone, we who like the game and like discussing different strategies and stuff related to civ3. Goodbye.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by narmox


And if it's so bad why the hell are you boring all of us every 2 messages about it? Get over it, go away, leave us alone, we who like the game and like discussing different strategies and stuff related to civ3. Goodbye.

The only reason I am here and not playing is that I have not figured out a way to hide civ3 from my boss, yet. If only ALT+TAB worked ........

 

[Aslan]

Why doesn't the alt-tab not work? Does anyone know? Will they fix it in the future?

 

[Bob Hitchen]

'Well...since this thread is going NO WHERE fast...why doesn't it get closed? Or perhaps, why doesn't a moderator move the thread to an appropriate place instead? I had a thread closed willy-nilly instead of conveniently moved. Just a thought...'

Interesting that you would like the thread closed why is that?
Its under the correct forum and allows people to express valid opinions about civ3. If you like I could post 10 different reasons why I don't like the game especially after civ2 but I haven't seen much from the positive side in the comments. Stop whinging is hardly likely to enhance customer satisfaction nor give Infogrammes and Firaxis feedback which they should be looking at. They made the design decisions; they decided to hide everything in the exe file to prevent clones (at the expense of patching!!); they decided to remove the replayability and flexibility in civ2; they don't want a long lived product but something they could rush out for Christmas shopping and make a quick 50 dollars a copy on ( result is a product full of bugs) then have an expansion pack etc. etc. etc.

There have been several questions asked specifically about the editor (mine just hangs on entry yes and I did remove the game reinstalled and applied the second version of the patch downloaded: Only way out is CTL ALT DEL a few times although I did get into it once on the old version but found it doesn't do saved games). I only want an editor to modify corruption settings so I can have a proper game on a huge map.
It would be nice to develop my own civilisation but English will do
but it irritates me when I put in a male name and king and still get called Lady.

It is unfortunately a modern trend where marketeers make all the decisions based on ripping off the gaming public. The want a tightly controlled game with an expensive strategy guide (sooner develop my own thanks all the same) expansion packs and add ons all with reduced costs in programming design and audit. I suspect these guys have never played a game hence they don't have a value on playability. Judging by the scores given by computer gaming magazines I suspect that they are probably owned or getting bungs from the distributors so I no longer buy them: There are other sources on the web which give far more accurate assessments from gamers themselves. I'm not against
companies making money especially when they provide something worth having then we would be glued to the games not stuck with them.

If people want to debate merits of games like adults then any forum has to welcome both positve and negative feedback. The negative is more valuable if valid since that should lead to improvement.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by cutiestar
Charles...

You know for a fact that thousands of fans are disappointed?? if not then maybe you should stick to saying you know of many disappointed fans.

Point taken. You like Civ3. So what! No matter how much you repeat yourself and shout "Civ3 is good" it doesn't change what's wrong with it. Are you aware of that? And yes, there are thousands possibly more unpleased fans with Civ3, maybe not all of them on the Net, but they do exist. Do some reading, then get back to me. Otherwise get your facts straight :crazyeyes .

Charles.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by Aslan
Well...since this thread is going NO WHERE fast...why doesn't it get closed? Or perhaps, why doesn't a moderator move the thread to an appropriate place instead? I had a thread closed willy-nilly instead of conveniently moved. Just a thought...

I don't agree, this thread (I assume) was created to allow people who are disapointed with Civ3 to vent their ideas and feelings about the matter, and to simply disallow people to do so is crap. And the only people so far that want this thread closed are the people that are happy with Civ3, but should the people that are unhappy be unable to speak? I agree that maybe this forum could be moved, but to "remove it completely" is only to suit one category of people, and not the other. Thats my opinion on that statement.

Charles.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by pax_65
I like Civ3 and I'm not a whiner - in fact I've hardly complained. The patch helps A LOT. I like the graphics and I think they've added some great new features to the game. I'm still playing and will continue to play.

But does it blow Civ2 away? No, I don't think it does. It is better in many ways, and not as good in others.

For me, that's the disappointment. I was expecting more - more civilizations... more governments... more units... more easy customization and preferences... more historical and fictional scenarios... more advanced AI... multiplayer. (Yeah, I'm sure add-ons are coming for additional $$$ - maybe that's why the base game is so bare-bones.)

Bottom line for me: I feel civ3 is a little better than civ2... that makes it a great game... but it's still really disappointing. I was expecting much more.

Jon

Pax, you brought a tear to my eye! Well spoken. My thoughts exactly. See, people in here are getting my issues and my meanings misunderstood. I'm not saying that Civ3 is horrible, I'm simply saying it "flopped" and what I mean by that, is the game is strong in many areas that Civ2 wasn't (as you said) and it's weak in areas where Civ2 was strong. Civ3 was supposed to be strong in ALL areas that Civ2 was, and more! Thats what these people won't get through their heads, and everytime someone posts something like: "Civ3 is good the way it is" it defeats any chance of us getting more out of Firaxis, we want more, simply because were not happy with the product. Why can't you people out there allow this to happen so we can IMPROVE this game!

Thats the bottom line, and I thank you for your words Pax!

Charles.

 

[cutiestar]

facts ??

hhmn Charles me thinks you need to think a little deeper, i have made no comments that require facts, but you yourself are posting numbers, therefore facts, can you show me where you get this figure of thousands of displeased civ III players?

As for the game, well yes I like it, yes it has problems, but I am not so stressed, or uptight, that it affects me at all, i still enjoy the game.

I honestly feel a little sad for people who can't buy a game and be happy it is good, without expecting it to be perfect, If CIV III had everything in it that i read about on these forums, then it would be the end of all game improvements, there will never be a better game produced, in 10 years they still will not enhance the quality.

For the year 2001, CIV III is a top class game, it gets high ratings with all the respected games reviewers, it would rank in the top 5 all time of it's genre, so as much as the more uptight types may want to unconstructively complain, it has more to do with their mind and personalities, than to do with the game.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by narmox


And if it's so bad why the hell are you boring all of us every 2 messages about it? Get over it, go away, leave us alone, we who like the game and like discussing different strategies and stuff related to civ3. Goodbye.

Well I guess you didn't read the "forum title" when you came in here. This forum (again, I assume) was designed to discuss what is "wrong" with Civ3, not what is "right" with it. No one's forcing your face up against the monitor and telling you to READ. I beleive this forum title is called:

" Civ3 is one big bore "

Can someone please explain this to "narmox" ?

Charles.

 

[Sam_Catchem]

Originally posted by Aslan
Why doesn't the alt-tab not work? Does anyone know? Will they fix it in the future?

Aslan,

That is the biggest flaw of the game.