New Expansion Pack Press Release!


Windows XP has been out for almost a year. HOWEVER. it is not worth buying yet. YOu can get 90% of the features of windows XP in a much more stabler Form, if you buy Windows 2000. I have used both, on this Very machine, and there is a reason I stuck with Windows 2000.


It's true that 90 % of what you have in XP is in 2000. Though, I found XP at least as stable as Win2K, and probably a bit more.


Windows 2000 is a much stabler OS then it's sucessor Windows XP, it still supports 16 bit applications, unlike Windows XP, and it doesn't have the horrific Memory Leak Windows XP has.


False and false. XP is built on the Win2k core, and BOTH don't support 16-bits applications. None of them have the horrible memory leak that was the feature of Win9x. Don't mix XP and WindowsMe :P


I personally have had this computewr run for over 30 days withotu rebooting, and I only rebooted to install a security update and Ever Quest.


Same for XP.


Windows XP useually runs out of ram after only a few days up-time, due to a horribel memory leak, that is actually biulled as a FEATURE by Microsoft. THis "feature" allows 1/4 of the RAM from any program to stay in memory. For Civ3 this means 20 megs of memory. THis is Insane, because unlike what Microsoft claims, XPO does NOT re-use this memory the next tiem the program is run, instead it simply loads the entire program on top of what it already had, and when you exit, you have even more crap floating in yoru memory.


Completely false. Seems that again you mix XP with WinMe. XP clean the memory even better than win2000, and it's extremely useful to have part of the program staying in unused memory, as it's twice faster to relaunch it. And XP DO reuse the memory (or I don't know how I would be able to launch so much memory-hungry programs in a row without rebooting).


Civ3 takes abotu 80 megs of RAM to play, so this problem in XP is very noticable. IN windows 2000, only 4 megs of Ram is left in memory from the 80- meg chunk thats 1/20th of the total needed RAM. as you can see this is a MUCH more efficient operating system.

False. See above.
 
I bought Civ2 in '96
I bought Civ2 Gold in '99
I bought 1/2 Civ3 in '01
I will not buy the other half this year!

I'm brazilian, and 40 dollars to us is equivalent (comparing avg. wages) to (at least)100 dollars for Americans/Europeans...

now they'll actually finish the game, and want to get more money from us that already payed for it... no way! come and arrest me if you feel like it, firaxians, but I'll get a pirate version.

:vomit:GREED
 
Originally posted by rsirangelo
I bought Civ2 in '96
I bought Civ2 Gold in '99
I bought 1/2 Civ3 in '01
I will not buy the other half this year!

I'm brazilian, and 40 dollars to us is equivalent (comparing avg. wages) to (at least)100 dollars for Americans/Europeans...

now they'll actually finish the game, and want to get more money from us that already payed for it... no way! come and arrest me if you feel like it, firaxians, but I'll get a pirate version.

:vomit:GREED

I also bought Civ1 in 1992 and AC about 2000.
I agree with you, though it's not the lack of money but the principle alone that will prevent me to buy the expansion.
I don't hold much grudge against Firaxis, though. I know Infogrames and it has a LONG habits of disrecpecting the consumer and the product. I don't think (and I hope) that Firaxis has much to do in the greediness process. The worst they can be accused is lack of talent/competence, and it's nothing morally bad.
 
Again, history. Civ2 was originally released WITHOUT Multiplayer. Multiplayer was later released as an expansion for Civ2. People have no problems with buying that, why the big problem with buying it now?
 
Originally posted by Desert Fox
Originally posted by Shoegaze99
Look I suppose your a good moderator but you make no good points what so ever. If you are not working for Firaxis or sponsored by them, you must be filthy rich or your parents are. I suspect you a young "kid" who doesn't know the first thing about life or business.
Strangely enough, I think this applies more to you? Dont state things. Proove it. Again, you're just using the cliche 'You dont agree with me, you're an idiot' statement. It doesnt mean you're RIGHT as you havent proven anything.

Firaxis and Infrogrames is ripping all of us off no question about it.
From the comments of SEVERAL people, there is indeed a question about it. Just because you feel something is true doesnt MAKE it true.
If you are happy with your purchase and no problem buying the expansion pack well I am happy for you then. I personally am not wealthy I am very ill as a matter of fact. I play games to keep my mind off my illness. I don't even recall any other game company annoying me this much.
Ooh. We have the pity card here...

It is up to Firaxis to wise up regardless how many messages you people make the expansion pack will be pillaged big time. Not many accept people like yourself feel that Firaxis is doing right by their loyal customer base. I have been buying from Sid ever since he did his first game. Not once did I pirate a game. Listen I have worked in the industry I know what it is all about.
Lots of messages have been supporting the expansion pack too. I suppose you havent noticed those? And you worked in the industry? Fancy that. What did you work on and with what company? Can you prove that claim?
That is why I normally purchase all of my games. Every time someone complains about something one of you fluckies defends them. If your not paid boy you sure sure doing a lot for them for nothing! :rolleyes: :p Now if you want to respond again go ahead but I think you are wasting your time defending a company that is milking their product.
Again the old fall back. If you dont agree with me, you're an idiot. REAL good line of reasoning there. How about a REAL line of argument rather then that old standby?
Expansions are cool once you have completed software to build from. Civ3 is not complete to get the complete version it will cost what, $20.00-40.00? If it is over $20.00 for the expansion pack I will download my version for sure! Keep sucking up to big corporations where does it get you huh?
You know, if you ARE 'poor' and 'sick', I think you have better things to spend your money on then computer games. And being 'poor' is no excuse for pirating software. If you feel the expansion is a bad thing, dont buy it. And if the game sucks so much as you feel it does, why do you want the expansion to begin with?
 
Originally posted by Akka

Still, there is a "spirit" of defences for Firaxis that just drive me mad, and I've to answer it.
One example of this spirit are :

I suppose you know have an idea about the kind of spirit we've here.
Now let's check the box.
Hang on there, sport. I am NOT saying that Firaxis is the god company that needs to be worshipped. There WERE problems with the game and I agree that the editor leaves much to be desired. The POINT is, this was adequately mentioned with the many reviews given for the game. Furthermore, the lack of multiplayer, ANOTHER rallying point by many people on the board, was NOT mentioned as being a feature on the box. If you REALLY felt these key points didnt 'complete' the game, you SHOULDNT HAVE BOUGHT IT. IF you didnt read any reviews of the game and bought it anyways, you have no one to blame but yourself.
 
I dont agree that civ 3 was "half finished" in the sense that the expansion pack completes it (although the fact that there are patches means it wasnt quite finished, however the patches are free).
As many wise individuals point out, Civ 2 came out without much of an editor, no multiplayer, and two scenarios. Expansion packs followed and culminated in Civ 2 MGe which finally added multiplayer and total editor control. It sounds like this first expansion will actually put Civ 3 on a par with Civ 2 MGE. No waiting through two expansion packs, but instant customizability and multiple forms of player interface (play by email being the one that I think will work best).

Now, I do feel sympathy for people (especially in hard economies like Brazil) who cant afford to pay to enhance a game they already bought. (Although if you have a computer and internet connection in Brazil you are already doing pretty good, I can tell you after having lived there a year) But generally pirate versions appear sooner or later on the internet. And sooner or later you are going to buy some kind of computer game again - so maybe it is going to be play the world.

Honestly, Im much more ticked off that I cant control what cable channels are available to me or who gets appointed president than that I will have to pay full price for a game expansion - in fact, I would happily pay double the price to own PTW now than wait till next christmas...
 
Originally posted by Akka
Now, what happens is that if I add a new tech, the last icons make the game crash. If I add twenty techs, the twenty last icons make the game crash. It means that I have to find where the glitch come, and then that I have to reallow the tech icons so no tech will have an icon which is in the X last icons that makes crash the editor. THAT is a glitch and a proof that the editor is incomplete and buggy.
Another one (which was fixed) was the crash if you used the 17 last colors for a civ.
Another one is that once you add tech, the small icons will perhaps work well, but the big ones will be randomly distributed (my Monarchy tech has now a big icon that is representing a nuclear plant).
Adding a tech as in replacing one that's already there, or as in adding an ADDITIONAL tech. Since there's no to add an additional tech without non-editor specific tools, it could be argued that this is your fault, and not the editor. If a piece of second party software or ad hoc modification of the files causes a problem, it's not the editors fault and it doesnt make the editor buggy. (Which is a COMPLETELY different argument then the fact that the original editor was lackluster)
 
Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I dont agree that civ 3 was "half finished" in the sense that the expansion pack completes it (although the fact that there are patches means it wasnt quite finished, however the patches are free).
As many wise individuals point out, Civ 2 came out without much of an editor, no multiplayer, and two scenarios. Expansion packs followed and culminated in Civ 2 MGe which finally added multiplayer and total editor control. It sounds like this first expansion will actually put Civ 3 on a par with Civ 2 MGE. No waiting through two expansion packs, but instant customizability and multiple forms of player interface (play by email being the one that I think will work best).
Exactly.


Now, I do feel sympathy for people (especially in hard economies like Brazil) who cant afford to pay to enhance a game they already bought. (Although if you have a computer and internet connection in Brazil you are already doing pretty good, I can tell you after having lived there a year) But generally pirate versions appear sooner or later on the internet. And sooner or later you are going to buy some kind of computer game again - so maybe it is going to be play the world.
I can feel SOME sympathy, but not much. The reviews were out, no one forced them to buy the game in the first place, and I suspect it could be argued it was only common sense that an expansion of some sort was going to added (Whether it be something you buy or a freebie). If, as many have stated, you dont feel Civ3 to be a complete game without a fully featured editor and multiplayer, why in the heck did you buy a, in your opinion, unfinished game? At the very least, you should have waited until the final status of the game, in regards to these issues, was determined, and then make your purchase. No one forced you to buy the game, and that, my friends, IS a fact.
 
Why does every general dicussion thread turn into a
"The game feature sucks' thread???????????


I am not interested in argue anything here.

But consider this, that game must have value to everyone posting. If it didn't, you would not waste your time at this board.;)
 
Originally posted by LKendter
Why does every general dicussion thread turn into a
"The game feature sucks' thread???????????

I am not interested in argue anything here.

But consider this, that game must have value to everyone posting. If it didn't, you would not waste your time at this board.;)

Many people who think the game sucks have spents hours and hours complaining and whining on the forum. For the "glass half empty" crowd, that's got to be worth something!
 
I didn't think I'd do this, but I actually read a whole bunch of posts and felt compelled to reply.

First off, I like Expansion packs. My favorite XP is Broodwar for StarCraft. That was a game that came complete in the first place, and then the XP added a sequel to the game. Some of the Quake expansions have also added a ton of playability.

Some people argue that because Civ I and II didn't get released with MP, that it is completely consistent that Civ III didn't have it on release either. They also often mention that MP wasn't 'promised' with Civ III.

I disagree with both arguments. First, they said "we have some really cool ideas about MP, but we're just not ready to talk about them yet" for, literally, months prior to the release of Civ III last October. We were given that smidgen of information, and nothing else all summer and into the fall. They were working on it, they said, and would talk about it when ready.

Only in the final weeks before release did they deem it time to mention that they weren't going to get it done in time for their pre-Christmas release, and that it would follow sometime in the Spring of 2002. (which has also changed)

So it seems to me that Multiplayer has been implied from the start, and though they didn't promise when they would deliver it, it seems that there has been a commitment to deliver it for more than a year now.

Secondly, saying that a game shouldn't have a feature because it's predecessors didn't have that feature seems like basic faulty logic to me. The whole point of making a new version of the game (is to make money, I know, but besides that) is to improve upon the original, and include features that are popular to increase the market. That's why they didn't admit to the lack of a multiplayer earlier, and that's why they've implied that multiplayer would be included all along. If they had come out and said, "Well, we're making the game, but no one here gives a flying flip about multiplayer, so we're not going to even touch it until we've made some money from this franchise." It might have hurt sales.

I actually wonder if there was some marketing guy who said "You've got to say it will have multiplayer so we can get a share of that market."

Now, there are those who have said, "Well why the heck did you buy it if it wasn't finished?" That is a good question, and it is true that no one forced me to buy an unfinished game. My lame answer is, impatience. Like the person who would gladly pay twice the price for the expansion if they got it now instead of at Christmas, I bought the single player version because I wanted to play the freaking game.

If I had known how bad the corruption would be, or some of the other issues the game has had to address with Major patches, I might have still bought it, I don't know. My only justification is that I hope to play multi-player against my friends, and they had bought it, and I worried that if I waited until it actually supported multiplayer that I would be so far behind the learning curve as to never catch up. (Two of the guys I play with are VERY good.)

Excuses aside, I bought it. Regardless of my reckless purchasing and insatiable impatience, it remains my opinion that Firaxis and Infogrames released an unfinished game. It also remains my opinion that ANY game released in this day and age should support multiplayer in one form or another, unless the game format precludes it.

They (Firaxis and Infogrames) obviously knew this sentiment existed in a wide enough format to imply that MP would be part of Civ III, even if they didn't actually care enough to put it in until they could make a bundle selling it as an 'expansion,' and that, I believe, is what is upsetting most of us who are complaining.
 
Originally posted by D.Shaffer
Hang on there, sport. I am NOT saying that Firaxis is the god company that needs to be worshipped. There WERE problems with the game and I agree that the editor leaves much to be desired. The POINT is, this was adequately mentioned with the many reviews given for the game. Furthermore, the lack of multiplayer, ANOTHER rallying point by many people on the board, was NOT mentioned as being a feature on the box. If you REALLY felt these key points didnt 'complete' the game, you SHOULDNT HAVE BOUGHT IT. IF you didnt read any reviews of the game and bought it anyways, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Sigh...
That's exactly the kind of spirit I was talking about, seems you did not understood my statement. Let's have a requote :

Originally posted by Akka
Oh, by the way, it's not written on the box that there is no Anthrax in it. I suppose that then if Firaxis put 100 mg of it in each box it would be fine ? After all, if you read carefully the box it's NOT written on it that it's Anthrax-free. If people aren't smart enough to read the boxes then it's their fault if they got contaminated !

Now let's reformulate your sentence :

Furthermore, the absence of Anthrax into the box, ANOTHER rallying point by many people on the board, was NOT mentioned as being a feature on the box. If you REALLY felt that dieing 'cause you inhalated some Anthrax, you SHOULDNT HAVE BOUGHT IT. IF you didnt read any police report about how the game was filled with Anthrax and bought it anyways, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Again : common standard.
 
Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
As many wise individuals point out, Civ 2 came out without much of an editor, no multiplayer, and two scenarios.


False. Ever tried the editor in Civ2 ? You had starting positions, a whole complete cheat mode that allowed to create objectives and set some rules, and place cities and units on the map, as well as define the relationship between each civilization, the techs they knew and the government they had.
Expansions IMPROVED the editor, but it was full from day one.
Before giving lessons, know what you're talking about :p
 
Originally posted by NiceGuy
Secondly, saying that a game shouldn't have a feature because it's predecessors didn't have that feature seems like basic faulty logic to me. The whole point of making a new version of the game (is to make money, I know, but besides that) is to improve upon the original, and include features that are popular to increase the market.

I agree, and that's what I call "common standards".
 
Why does every general dicussion thread turn into a

i guess posting and reading criticisms helps me deal with the frustrations i'm having over my disapointments with the game. of course, i've received hours of entertainment value from civ3, but it could (and dare i say it, should) have been so some much better.

maybe another reason is that there is some small chance that a jd, mba, or cpa from infogrames will read some of these postings and improve on their practices in the future. very wishful thinking i know.

back in october, i enjoyed my civ3 games, however i felt things from the experience were missing that i could not articulate. it helps even now in may reading what others post that i could not articulate.

again, bringing up a point that was brought up before...wouldn't it have been nice back in september before the release of the game that there was announcement on civ3.com :"listen fans, we have to inform you that a lot of features will be in an expansion pack a year later. it's just not economically feasible to release certain things this october."

i understand that stuff like that will happen in fairy tale land, but i'm tired of actions done by business people (infogrames) who don't play computer games.

okay, let the flames fly...:)
Why does every general dicussion thread turn into a
 
Originally posted by Akka


??? :confused: :confused:

Well let's see... An EDITOR is a program that is made to EDIT, AFAIK. I mean, EDIT, no MESS UP WITH. A program is SUPPOSED to work, when you launch Winamp it's SUPPOSED to read mp3 files and send the music to the soundcard, not formatting your hard drive. So a EDITOR (editor => editing => edit, this kind of stuff) is supposed to EDIT the rules, not mess up with (in fact the AC and Civ2 editors worked perfectly and I NEVER had a single glitch with them).
You expect that if a database manager completely mess up your databases the seller will tell you "hey, this program is working on the core of a database, you should know that tinkering with the core of things ends up fucking them, it's normal" ?

Well since you decided to use a database analogy, let me clarify it a bit. The similarity to civ3 is getting a programmed database, but also having Access to edit that application. Now any changes you make to the application could very well corrupt the original datafiles. I know, I do some database programming and application building on the side and when ever I work with databases I make sure to backup or copy the data tables I want to play with first.

What you want is for the editor to have something like a syntax check with it. I am not exactly sure how that would work, but I would like to see an example of a game that came with a truley robust game editor. All the editors that I know about are not fully robust and part of the process of making a mod is always chasing done the inevitable bugs and crashes (such as mods for I-War).

I like playing with editors, but I always know that I am on the edge and to not make too many changes before testing. And anyways at least the editor is only a supplimental part of the game. I have used multi hundred dollar programs where I am always saving because the next item I add or setting that I set may crash the program.
 
Since Civilization I (first released version) there has never been Turks included in the game, much to my disappointment. Yes, I know every person from every nation in the world wants their included, but I am going to bat on this by saying that to not include the Turks is to ignore a huge part of human history. There are some Civilizations included in the game, and no disrespect to them but I do not understand how you could include them but not others such as the Turks. Taj Mahal was built by the Turkish Mogul Ruler, Great Wall of China was built to keep us out, Crusades were fought against us, yet we have no presence in the game.

Here is a quick history of the Turkic Peoples that I hope will convince the programmers if they have not included the Turks to put them in there:
The Turks are a nomadic, warrior people whose roots are in Central Asia but who in several ways of migration moved west conquering lands in India, China, the Middle East, Russia, Anatolia, Eastern Europe & Africa. The old Turkish society of the steppe was one that was dominated by a tribal structure, in which women were treated with equal regard and respect as the menfolk. Culturally, honor, strength, and courage were the most respected virtues, and being a good fighter (warrior or soldier) was an essential part of becoming an effective and respected tribal member. Both men and women engaged in combat, and were skilled in both archery and swordsmanship. This inate fighting skill developed by Turks established them as empire-builders, and gave birth to such famous conquerers as Tamerlane, and Attilla the Hun, Akbar the Great and Suleiman the Magnificent.
Although Turkish people are commonly associated with Islam, the old Turkish tribes were not Muslim and in fact practiced a religion known as "shamanism": the warship of nature (particularly fire, water and air) though divinely inspired holy men known as shamans. As the Turks migrated west, however, they came into closer association with the Muslim peoples of the Middle East. Turks were first introduced to Islam by mystics who travelled through the frontiers of Islam. Turks were not forced into Islam, but accepted it freely. Because of their warrior nature and roots in the frontier, however, the Islam practiced by Turks came to be spiritual and militant, responding well to the cries of war in the name of God. Turks came to become the majority in the Arab Empires of the Middle East before finally overtaking the Arabs themselves, forming Empires such as the Mamluks in Egypt, the Seljuks of Persia and Anatolia, and finally, the greatest of them all, the Ottoman Empire which at its height spanned from Eastern Europe to North Africa, the Caucasus and the Middle East.
However, not all of the Turks migrated southwest and became Muslims. Many also migrated towards the North deeper into Russia, and even as far as Finland, where they instead adopted Christianity. Peoples such as the Georgians, the Chuvash, and the Gagauz are all Christians with Turkic origins. However, because of the dominance of the Islamic Empires established by Turkish ruling families, and their subsequent wars with the West which had religious overtones, such as the Crusades, the Europeans came to equate "Muslim" with "Turk." In fact, in European vernacular, a Christian who became Muslim was typically said to have turned "Turk.' Nevertheless, the term "Turk" is an ethnic term, not a religious one, and connotes people of all religious who have Turkic origin.
When the Turks became Muslim, Islam became the dominant cultural force. Much of the old Turkish customs were replaced by Islamic ones with Arabic and Persian influences. Evidence of this can be found in the ever increasing domination of men in society as well as the adoption of the Arabic alphabet to express the spoken Turkish. The Ottoman Empire was ruled with the Islamic Seriat Law and conquests were made in the name of Islam.
 
Originally posted by etj4Eagle
Well since you decided to use a database analogy, let me clarify it a bit. The similarity to civ3 is getting a programmed database, but also having Access to edit that application. Now any changes you make to the application could very well corrupt the original datafiles. I know, I do some database programming and application building on the side and when ever I work with databases I make sure to backup or copy the data tables I want to play with first.
What you want is for the editor to have something like a syntax check with it.

I do not agree on the idea of "playing with a database". I consider that an editor alter the rules of a game like a database alter the data on the database. It's MY work to give proper command to the editor, like it's MY job to make proper request when I use a database. If I type "DELETE FROM *" and I ends up with an empty database, it's my fault. If I type incorrectly a request, it's my fault. I do not ask for an editor to look above my shoulder to see if I'm doing it all well all good.
But if I type a correct request and then my database crash and got erased, it's NOT my fault. And hopefully, it does not happen often. So I want for the editor to do what it's told to do without bugging all the way out.

I am not exactly sure how that would work, but I would like to see an example of a game that came with a truley robust game editor.


If you consider the whole game edition : Alpha Centauri, Civ2 Fantasy Worlds (and I heard that CTP 1&2 were purely wonderful on the editors' side, but I've never touched them, so I can't vouch myself for them).

If you consider only the scenarios side, Starcraft/Brood War, Age of Empires, Operation Flashpoint...


All the editors that I know about are not fully robust and part of the process of making a mod is always chasing done the inevitable bugs and crashes (such as mods for I-War).
I like playing with editors, but I always know that I am on the edge and to not make too many changes before testing. And anyways at least the editor is only a supplimental part of the game. I have used multi hundred dollar programs where I am always saving because the next item I add or setting that I set may crash the program.

I don't have a problem about bugs in mod as long as they are MY fault. It's just like when I program : I KNOW that any bugs is MINE, not from the compiler/interpreter, so it's fine. But I hate when it's the EDITOR that just can't do the thing.
 
Originally posted by shamu
i've received hours of entertainment value from civ3, but it could (and dare i say it, should) have been so some much better.
. . .
back in october, i enjoyed my civ3 games, however i felt things from the experience were missing that i could not articulate.
. . .

What exactly do you expect for a $50 computer game? (I can't even take the kids out to a movie for $50!) "Hours of entertainment" is about all that can fairly be expected from any game.
 
Back
Top Bottom