PTW: The downfall of Civilization

Originally posted by Nicosar
No, no, it is a common case of resentment.


I resent nothing. You're an anal nitpicker who is outraged because Firaxis dared to make a game that doesn't include every single little feature that you fantasize about.


That said, you got me on the "flount", I don't even know where that came from.....-slaps forehead-
 
ok, ok, settle down ol boy

and i tend to be scrupulous, though "anal nitpicker" is rather unwarranted.... but anyway, who do you want making your games?

Id take the anal nitpicker than the slack conformist anyday, so long as hes original
 
Wow, Nicosar, a post worthy Edgar Allen Poe! And a thread to far developed for me to add anything to...
 
Originally posted by Nicosar
Id take the anal nitpicker than the slack conformist anyday, so long as hes original



Yes, CivIII was positively infested with bugs upon it's release. Everyone was mad, and it was subsequently fixed with a series of patches. Then PTW came out, and it too was sloppily coded. I'm just as mad as the next guys about that, there's no denying it, they really dropped the ball. However, I still think this is a good game, and while it could always be better, that wouldn't necissarily be accomplished by adding a stifling layer of micromanagement to it, which is what you propose. I hate to label people, but I know your "type", there's been quite a few of you, the people that have a colossal list of desired additions to this game. Often these lists are full of obscure and complicated wishes that would add very little to the actual gameplay while adding layer upon layer of additional micromanagement and complexity to the game. The fact that these people always seem to equate their wishes for an insanely complicated game with a haughty air of arrogance only adds to the annoyance. In short, I think that you proposed additions would add zero fun to the game, and would only increase micromanagement and slow the game down. Not a good combination, especially for MP......
 
Nicosar you are my idol! :cooool:
 
Oh yeah and -proletarian- you are my idol also!
 
Originally posted by CurtSibling


I assume you would be happy to buy a car with no wheels as well.

Actually, there are many instances in which I would buy a car with no wheels and be pleased as punch. I'd take a 67' Camaro with a perfect body with no wheels and even no engine and be happy as a clam.

My point is, that depending on your point of view, personality, preferances, interests, (not so) random nuber generator, etc... Civ III is what you make it, as is a car with no wheels. Some might see opportunity, or something very cool that needs a bit of work. Others will just see a car without wheels and pass it off as useless.

As a side note. I have never been "completely" satisfied with any product (except perhaps, excellent food), even after I have put some work into modifying it. So please don't bother trying to convince me that such a product could even exist.
 
sure, the game might be slowed down a bit (and no, you have never met the likes of me, ever, i make up my own "type" all by meself! 8P ), but in return you have realism. Yeah, i know you cant see it now, but one day, children, like i said, that 20 ounce porterhouse will be staring you in the face and you will dribble like a mad cow before ever you begin to drool out the red and gushing warm blood out of the corner of your mouth, because, after all, all toddlers gorw up. Besides, the industry for baby formula can only grow so big given its narrow customer base, unless, of course, some matured people prefer to keep eating it and let their canines rot.... ;)

I know, i know..."novel", "essay"....whatever.
lets go over all my suggestions:

1.___no limits (simply makes the game longer lasting, bigger, more enjoyable by the realistic number of cities and armies/navies/airforces involved)
2.___allow 21 tribes to play at once (again, just making for a bigger, richer game, and alot of those would be wiped out as time drew on, like in civ 3)
3.___Make borders negotiable (yeah, so you have to take some effort and define your ground every once in a while...the payback: complete control over your diplomatic and political terrain, which 'culture' in civ 3 is ass-backwards, since in history it is often the most militaristic that have claimed the largest borders, not the most culturally advanced, and armies, after all, is how you would maintain your proposed borders)
4.___allow only parts of map to be traded (a quickly implemented option that would give players freedom and versatility; as opposed to all or none of your maps)
5.___make rivers navigable until cataracts (you simply move your ship up the river. at a certain point, where you can see a tiny but definite little waterfall, it stops you.)
6.___allow for 50 extra units, not 11 (every civ editor's dream)
6a._____allow certain units to carry other ground units (load on, load off....so hard)
6b._____stealth units and ambush (go back and read this one again, youll realise that it involves nothing but attacking at the right time)
6c._____UU (you defend civ 3....)
6d._____machine stats and oil surveying and production (this makes battle more realistic: machine units need either to go back to base and replenish on vital supplies or they need to be fed them through transports in-field, but they wouldnt be allowed to sit there indefinitely (unless they were literally sitting there doing nothing). The surveying? simple engineer command. the refinery? just another improvement. the fuel depots? somewhere you have stored up fuel and you can find out how much you have, in barrels. you then find a way to connect that depot to your city. You then produce fuel, if you have a refinery, and you send it out however you want, trucks or tankers. when you run out of fuel, you get more.adds just a microscopic level of complexity, but for the realism in return, its welcome by the sane and reasonable, with blessings!)
6e._____bombarding units, types of ammo, types of material. (a unit can bombard, or it cannot. your catapulteers have a supply of ammo they carry with them (as well as other artillery), if you wish to have stones, you tell them to get it, which takes a turn and only costs your dear simplicity the pressing of a button (youd need to be in a hill, mountain, or resource square) or get a settler to dig them up for you and transport them there, not so complicated as just moving another unit, and if the go-to in civ 2 was perfected, this would not be an issue. and for oil barrels, you get oil, build the barrels, bring them to your caddies; tell your archers to fire flames instead of regular arrows, for which thered be a simple command. as for the bombing of the walls? choose bomb, select walls, fire. as for the materials, you cut down wood with settlers, and you bring it somewhere. you now have a stash of wood, even if its in the middle of nowhere. you build an improvement out of wood, now that stack isnt so big anymore. gotta refill the stack. man, youre right, like climbing a mountain of micromanagement.)
7.___minefield. (again, simple engineer command, and the same for removing it)
8.___hiding units. (simple command, my friends, you hide and then unhide, and maybe ambush inbetween)
9.___make cities that grow across various squares (your city reaches a certain size, so you tell the people where to expand. a window comes up and you click on a square. sure, this might make the management of your city a bit more complex, and not much, but in return you can actually have realsitic battles where you control one part of the city and the enemy another, or, if there was civil war, the city splits and becomes two factions within one city. your side, if still had the factory, for instance, could still get half the people to work and still produce things while the other side controlled their improvements, like the airport which would allow their own faction to bring in troops and supplies, but this wouldnt be so easy if your side had the missile battery! [ 8 ) ] . this would be ultra-cool)
10.___pipelines and oil platforms (pipelines would be like building a road, friends, no more, and oil platforms would be like building a mine except taking the engineer on a boat and doing it in the middle of the ocean...but the game rewards for this more than justifies the little effort and complication)
11.___oil platforms visible and liable assets (there sits a platform. you take your ships and land on it, or even paradrop (that would be cool) or land a helicopter, either capture or kill the workers, and now its yours. you dont have to manage it, it simply either sits there as a mini-fort or produces a certain amount of oil (though maybe at a lower rate because of desent), end of story. or hell, you just take your battleship and decide to blow it out of the water!)
12.___make three transports, all different and specialized vessels (any complaints to this? *i hear crickets*....)
13.___three helicopters, all useful (....*im getting the bug spray*....)
14.___working simul mode (i mentioned this because if 21 people play, you better damn well have simul mode that works)

Ok. that settles that.

"Micro-management", by the way, if I should be so "arrogant" in attempting to define it all by by my poor self, is the CONSTANT refinement of certain systems, because those systems, with time, grow and change and eventually fall into disarray, which require perennial care to remain in optimal condition. And even IF my suggestions added alot to the burdens of this type of work, which they dont, i think suggestion 15 might be a highly enhanced, greatly versatile and easy to use governor system that ACTUALLY WORKS! ;)

SO! in conclusion, your idea of micromanagement is nothing but complexity! COMPLEXITY, friend, is the thing that annoys you, because, as i have said earlier, you do not truly wish for a 'world simulator' in all its glory, but a dressed up game of checkers. thats fine, i see many old men sitting on park benches playing chess or checkers with bags below their eyes (from monotony, maybe?) larger than my neighbor's pug-dog.

As for me, and millions of other strategists out there, the price of learning a few more commands, concepts and options which when learned and mastered take no longer to apply than moving a few units and ordering them as desired, is gladly paid in return for a world sim that does not insult your intelligence with its feeble but 'confortable simplicity'.
 
Civ 3 is a great game, I've like it since the beginning and lived through the bugs with no major complaints. But since PTW was announced, I was outraged that they'd charge money for what equates to be a patch when compared to other games, forget the fact that the multiplayer is shiat and doesn't work, it should have been free in the first place.

Gamespot was gracious in their 5.0 mediocre review.
 
Personally i think Civ 3 works a little bit better, the graphics are better, u can set your annoying litte workers to automate. And not having played PTW yet i would give it a chance otherwise they may not get to make a better version of the best game on God's green earth.
 
Nicosar:

It is interesting that you claim to hate Civ III so much, because your suggestions do not radically modify Civ III whatsoever. Your ideas amount to little more than a minor customization of the existing game, which leads me to believe that you enjoy Civ III, whether you will admit it or not.

I might suggest that it would have been a better idea to seperate the two components of your argument into two threads. One thread in which to criticize Civ III and PTW, another thread in which to promote your proposed modifications to the game. You will find that many people share your dissatisfaction with Civ III, but everyone and their dog has their own 'brilliant' idea about how to make Civ III better. Prior to the release of Civ III last year, there was an entire forum dedicated to Civ III ideas. In the creation and customization forum, there is an excellent wish list for Civ III features. I would also point you towards the multitudinous Civ III suggestion threads here in the Civ III general discussion forums. You will find that many people have many ideas to improve Civ III - often, they have as much or more merit as your suggestions.

As for my opinion on the state of the Civ III games as they were released, I was dissappointed. Not so much with the implementation of the games as with the number of bugs. For this reason and others, I am dissatisfied with Infogrames - not Firaxis. Infogrames, as the publisher, sets the release dates for the games it publishes. No matter how much Firaxis might have liked to postpone release of either Civ III or PTW, it was Infogrames who had the final say. Infogrames is also responsible for the state of disrepair in which we find the Civ3.com website. When the site was managed by Firaxis, it was updated frequently. Since Infogrames took over, it has been left to rot. In summary, Firaxis has done nothing that does not impress me. They are active in the Civ III community, they accept suggestions for improving the game, and they work hard to produce patches. Infogrames has proven to be nothing more than the stereotypical money-grubbing and indifferent corporation.

Regarding the design of the game itself, I will agree that some elements are poorly implemented. Could the combat system be improved? Probably. Could the editor be more flexible and more comprehensive? Yes. These are examples of relatively minor tweaks that would significantly improve the current Civilization III experience. But to demand real time strategy and close-up tactical combat is to demand an entirely different game. In which case, feel free to suggest ideas for Civ IV - or find another game that fits your criteria. I for one am close to satisfied with the design of Civ III as it is.
 
Sparrowhawk, thank you for the even, balanced viewpoint.

Nicosar, I have waded through your essays/novels/ultra-long-posts (take your pick ;) ) and find I disagree with you. No matter, you are free to hold and express your opinions.

I do dislike being referred to as a child because I would not buy the game you propose. I have played games with that level of micromanagement and complexity, before we even had PCs to handle the drudgery for us, and I will admit that I generally enjoyed them. However, when I sit down to play a civilization-building TBS game, that's what I want to play, not a 3D, Real-Time, complex wargame. (Besides, if I want a Wargame, I like the old manual, paper-map ones anyway. :D )

I suppose my complaint is with all the complainers (and modders) who want Civ3 to be a "Warmonger's Delight", when Firaxis actually toned down the capabilities of warmongering in the game. At this point in time, I have no intention of ever playing MP, because I can see that that will quickly become a wargamers' arena, and a builder like myself would never survive.

That said, I have looked at your proposed "wargame" (it is not really a civilization-building game) and admit it shows much promise. Next step: make it work on a PII-400MHz machine with 64Meg RAM, like PTW.
 
Originally posted by Nicosar
sure, the game might be slowed down a bit (and no, you have never met the likes of me, ever, i make up my own "type" all by meself! 8P ), but in return you have realism. Yeah, i know you cant see it now, but one day, children, like i said, that 20 ounce porterhouse will be staring you in the face and you will dribble like a mad cow before ever you begin to drool out the red and gushing warm blood out of the corner of your mouth, because, after all, all toddlers gorw up. Besides, the industry for baby formula can only grow so big given its narrow customer base, unless, of course, some matured people prefer to keep eating it and let their canines rot.... ;)


Again. Are you just trying to be facetious?


I would wager that there are more intelligent people than you lurking these forums, I can't imagine that they would like to be referred to as "children" and "toddlers" just because they disagree with you.


And yes, I do know your "type". There have been quite a few condescending know-it-alls around here over the past year or so. They always have a million and one ideas on how to turn CivIII into the ultimate game, without realizing that these ideas are in fact really, really bad. And yes they always, without fail, deploy a condescending, haughty attitude to others here, apparently convinced of their own superiority. Of course, I don't pretend to know you, but by the way you have conducted yourself on here, I can compare you to other users that I have observed on this board. That's all I meant when I talked about your "type".
 
Originally posted by Nicosar
could a moderator please tell me how to put an image up!!!

It seems its not as simple as as putting the location of the image up inbetween the , so im lost. or anyone else that knows how....

CCHIIIIIEEFFFFTESSSSS!!!! Come to my aid, oh divine queen of cyber-civ, please!

And warpstorm, i never claimed to have superior ideas or that i have such a version; my point being that they should INDEED simply have taken civ 2 and worked on it, and they couldve had their fancy graphics, which i would also want, cant say i wouldnt, but which dont add as much as the core changes to gameplay. civ 2 was a great base product, and i was arguing that civ 3 is not only different from the 'gold'mine that was civ 2 but also vastly inferior, and that such changes as described above would be among many welcomed changes and additions, but if you have such great ideas, and abundantly, and so often, please...humor me, id love to add to the above list. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good luck in implementing your headgame if you struggle with such relatively elementary concepts as posting an image on a forum. I am in agreement that there are ways that Civ3 (and PTW, Civ2, and Nicosar Beta) can be improved. However, I don't assume that someone who disagrees with my opinions is an infant incapable of debate. Unless, of course, proof is given in a novel manner.
 
Originally posted by -proletarian-
Yes, CivIII was positively infested with bugs upon it's release. Everyone was mad, and it was subsequently fixed with a series of patches.

What you forget is the fact that some of us actually HAVE worked for games companies.

And personally, I want the fully finished game.
I don't want patch after patch, because a crew of games makers can't get the goods made in time...that is not MY problem.

If they can't make a decent game, they shouldn't be in the business.
It doesn't matter how honoured the franchise is.

It pains me to say it; but at least CTP never crashed anywhere as much as CIV3....Ouch!

Bottom line;
Too many people are happy to get conned and ripped off blind nowadays.
The games industry has too many unscrupulous and complacent elements too.

And no imagination.

:rolleyes:
 
Curt, for sure. I'm just as pissed about the state of PTW as anyone else out there who bought it. Especially when I paid in excess of $50 for it. (Cdn $)



I'm not talking about that, I concede the point that releasing a game before it's done is a terrible way to do business.



What I took issue with was Nicosar's condescending attitude. Apparently you have no problem with people labelling everyone else here as infantile toddlers. Your funeral.....
 
This is amusing.

First, we have a man whose signature reads:
"fellow creators the creator seeks-those who write new values on new tablets",
and yet believes that nothing was wrong with the original "implementation" of the game except for the bugs! Not only that you say:
"could the combat system be improved? Probably."

....

....

probably??

PROBABLY!!? 8O

case closed.

next we have a man with absolutely NO concept of history, who believes that a world-sim should only be about building [that was some great 'building' those Huns, Spanish and Nazis did, let me tell you... ] and blames my ideas of being too far accoutrered to "warmongers"!! 8O

but it does not stop, the rape of sound reason and good sense continues....

hehehe....yes....indeed friend.....ALL intelligent people wage single-minded personal defense in reaction to a few playful words and completely avoid the debate because of it, to be sure... 8)

YES... i do think that in the gaming arena most of you are children.

NO... I will not stop calling you as such.

The reasons being, that well, pitifully, civ is STILL the best strategy game out there (but only a multiplayer custom civ 2 version) and so there is no where left for me to go! 8 (
Meaning this is my terrain as well, and ill say as i please, given good sense.... and perhaps just a dash of (surprisingly rare) humor. ;)

Really though, take a look around: right now you have games, world sim strategy games, that compared to lovely lovely civ seem like civ compared to my futuristic-head-beta... and you would probably, if for some strange reason you happened to find yourself in the website of those games writing on their forums, heap mountains of abusive critique, and lavishly, onto the avid and loyal players of that particular game for defending such a worhless trinket. It is perspective, then merely, and opinions as well, but i can tell you that from my perspective it seems games are taking on progressively more complexity in the move away from the mindless thumb-exercises by which the industry began such as pong and mario bros. and ever closer to that virtual matrix we'll have 200 years from now which will have multitudes of masses of people in therapy for a new condition called "split reality syndrome"....

However! since we are still in an archaic state of affairs relative to my non-existing imaginary game-concept (but which will inevitably exist, and does, by military institutions, such as th Pentagon, for example, but which are limited in scale and only involve the battle aspects of a virtual world), it doesnt have to be all bad, and we can still make the best of it! we can at least take the flat boards and hideous combat systems of today such as we see in civ and make them far better given just a few realistic-to-program and innovative changes, can we not?

The answer is NO. because, #1, the developers of these games are (hmmm....lets review, "facetious", "arrogant", "condenscending"....), well, they certainly arent as intelligent as me, if their products are any indication!! 8P
And, #2, because, they have such a loyal bunch of 'good enoughs' trailing behind their incompentence with only praise for their feeble attempts at a strategy sim...

And no, i havent tried SMAC!! Its one of those things ive always meant to get from the day it came out, have gotten curious at every mention of, have heard many great things about, and yet still dont have! *????* go figure.... from what ive heard, though, i probably would only be slightly pleased with it, since people have told me its like a combination of civ 2 and civ 3, taking the best of both in some ways, except id think that this hybrid would still leave me wanting.... but i cant say for sure, obviously

Oh. And by the way, i went and read all those people's suggestions....or at least a fair amount of them.... and there are a great number of valid opinions, and i even found some of my suggestions among them, but usually, a person who had ALL plausible and reasonable suggestions made a very short list. why is this? because the longer people wrote, i found that they couldnt keep a cohesive image of the game they were talking about in their heads, so that all their advice seemed like strewn together bits and pieces which didnt all combine in synchronicity to make their proposed versions far more realistic... it seems good suggestions, then, are quiote abundant and common, but that a mentality who considers an integrated game theory as a whole is quite rare.....

As a closer [every thesis needs its conclusion.. ;) ] i will make a suggestion to top all suggestions:

15.___allow nationalist factions to arise as a result of your inability to provide a proper sense of security for your people and take you over via the initial insurgency of a few cities revolting and joining this 'separate civ' civil war against you....this would happen if 'peaceful builders' neglected the world wars around them, for example, and always tried to make diplomatic solutions to remain neutral. Switzerland is unique in this aspect, maybe, but also highly small and geographically cushioned in a way. Because throughout history, and especially in modern times, violent generals and treacherous politicians have usurped power by the consent of the people, who were made to believe, truthfully or not, that their current peaceful leader was too "weak", and too "cowardly" to protect the nation well enough. ;)

(and please dont argue that other people have mentioned civil war, because we all know thats merely an idea from the top of their head but that when coming down to the details theyd start to get sloppy, and therefore couldnt actually design their ideas themselves...which is what ive seen all too often in those 'wonderful' lists you referred me to)
 
Originally posted by Nicosar
This is amusing.

....

next we have a man with absolutely NO concept of history, who believes that a world-sim should only be about building [that was some great 'building' those Huns, Spanish and Nazis did, let me tell you... ] and blames my ideas of being too far accoutrered to "warmongers"!! 8O

...

YES... i do think that in the gaming arena most of you are children.

NO... I will not stop calling you as such.

:lol:

You know virtually nothing about me, other than a few words I jotted on an internet forum, and you dismiss me as a child.

Clearly you do not wish to truly debate any issue, but rather resort to shouting down others while bragging about your supposed superiority, and using ad-hominum attacks to justify yourself.

I learned many years ago to let silly twits rant in their own sandboxes, so I shall merely bid you adieu.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Hey guys sjut wanted to say i love firaxis and their work but i am very dissapointed with the way this is setup... :( i ahve ben trying all day to get into a Mplayer game with no sucess not good!
 
Back
Top Bottom