James the Wise
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2001
- Messages
- 62
hahahaha fanboy
i would have waited to January
(only made this post to cheek fanboy)
i would have waited to January
(only made this post to cheek fanboy)
So where IS the freakin' patch!?!?
- Thread starter Dearmad
- Start date
Mike C
Centurion
So let me see, I was complaining about Civ 3 not being released soon enough and that they shouldn't wait to do thourgh testing? I was one of those who was *****ing and whining about "Why can't Sid hurry up his ass?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
HAHAHA WHAT AN IDIOT.
Check my registration date on the forum. GUESS WHAT? IT WAS AFTER CIV 3 CAME OUT!!!
So how could I have been complain about it not being released SOONER?!
You would have complained, not me.
I am complaining now because Civ 3 got shoved out the door half-baked and now I am paying the price for it. So guess what? I WANT PATCH NOW.
Why don't you just watch that videotape again to avoid looking dumb.
Gholam
Chieftain
Playing MMORPGs taught me tolerance for bugs 
Trancas
Chieftain
The Civ3.com site has been updated (23/11). No reference whatsoever to the pacth in the making.
Trancas
Trancas
While you people are complaining for a patch im still waiting to get my copy of civ3 for christmas (i will get in a week from now because i have to take a high school test first).
i heard their was a mod that eliminates building air units completely.
is the game that screwed up that u people won't even play it anymore? cuz if it is than i might not get the game until a patch comes out
i heard their was a mod that eliminates building air units completely.
is the game that screwed up that u people won't even play it anymore? cuz if it is than i might not get the game until a patch comes out
Mike C
Centurion
I have personally set it aside until the obvious technical bugs are fixed. Life just ain't the same without fighters and bombers running around doing their thing.
I would consider holding off on purchasing the game until the patch.
Mike C
Centurion
LoL, thats right just go back to watching that Sid videotape. Sorry if I made you look stupid.
FrosTi
Indépendantiste Québécois
then you should wait and play another game... ur not alone... I stopped playing Counter-Strike when I got Civ3... But now while I'm waiting for the patch, I play Counter-Strike again... and wait again...
Ok, a newbie here (in this forum, but a veteran Civ2 player) and proud of it
I've been playing Civ2 for many years and I was very excited about Civ3. I bought the tin and the strategy guide as soon as it came out. And since then I've experienced nothing but disappointment.
And yes.. I *have* given Civ3 a chance. I have read here in the forum that it all seems familiar and the same old in the beginning, but once you start playing it you will soon realize how much improved Civ3 is over its predecessors.
So yes, I *have* played it for many hours. I *did* play several Civs.. at different difficulty settings.. patiently waiting for that moment of "enlightment".. that moment that it will all come together and make sense.. that moment that it will hit me in the face how improved and how great Civ3 is over Civ2.
I am sorry to report then, guys, that after playing for about 15 hours, that moment, for me, hasn't arrived. As a matter of fact, the more I play it, the more I run into the terribly gameplay bugs, and the more I realize that Civ3 has been slightly "changed" alright.. but not necessarily "improved".
So, after playing Civ3 for a few days, it has become clear to me that Sid & Co. have long ago lost their enthusiasm for this game. It shows from the lack of attention to detail, the lack of fresh ideas into the game, the constant reuse of the old and the same. Just give it a facelift, change a few game rules, put "culture" in and sell the tin for 60 bucks.
I mean, come on guys! Civ2 came out in what, 1996??? So, in other words between Civ2 and Civ3 there have passed 5 (count them: FIVE) years. So is this it?? Is this ALL Sid & Co. could come up with in FIVE whole years??? Is this how much their ideas have dried up?? Instead of blindly defending everything Sid ever says and does like he can do no wrong, just think about this last point. FIVE years.. think about it.
This lack of enthusiasm shows in the after-sale support of the game as well. I've noticed that many (Civ-fanatics) love to put the blame on the publisher, but where is Firaxis in this forum?? Their posts are far far and few between. Why noone is aknowledging people's real issues with this game?? The game currently is in a sorry state, people are complaining and Firaxis is silent. Not only there is not a patch yet for what seems to be glaring gameplay problems, but Firaxis doesn't provide an ETA. Is that how you support your community?? Is this really how low the Civ series has come??
And don't get me started about the tin (aka Limited Edition). I paid $10 bucks more for what?? For a tin box, an excuse for a techtree map (how unprofessional can one get??) and a video of Sid with a smirk in his face who might as well be saying "thanks for paying $10 for a tin box that cost us 30cents sucker.. now sit back and wait for a fully-patched Civ3Net, which we will be glad to charge you full-price for.. You *know* you will buy it.. After all, I am the *God* of strategy gaming, remember?? Now, sit back, relax and enjoy while we rip you off."
A few comments about "culture".. it beats the hell out of me how people can get so excited about such a shallow and simplistic feature! Sure, it changes the dynamics of the gameplay, but so would any change to the rules of the game. The bottom line with culture, if you *really* look closer, is that it's just a simplistic point-collection system in the game's formula for determining how much advantage to give you over others with less culture points. It's just elementary school arithmetic, guys. 1+1=2. Sure, the term "culture" and the idea of it sounds exciting... but the implementation of it is so simplistic and pathetic as to insult my intelligence (yeaah.. look at that *new* fantastic feature! Civ3 has the element of Culture now--looks good in ads and on the box.. doesn't it)
Let's talk about quality now. My uncle works for Mercedes in Germany. I can tell you this: the amount of attention to detail in the quality of the final product there is staggering. And don't tell me the software business is different. The car business is just as competitive, if not more. Sure, you will see Fords and Chryslers and Toyotas with non-working switches, problems and flaws here and there, recalls...
Not a Mercedes.
For me, the Civ series has always been the Mercedes of (strategy, at least) gaming.
No more.
Now it feels like an old, tired game that doesn't have any fresh ideas and is "stuck" in its past successes. It reminds me of an aging pop star who sure still has his fans.. but he has already contributed whatever he had to contribute, he has already said what he had to say, he has no new fresh artistic/musical ideas anymore, and now he is doomed to repeating his old hits of the 60's and 70's in cheesy Las Vegas shows (anyone seen Tom Jones lately?? Yuuuck). Sad indeed.
Now, how about the quality of the code when it comes to game performance? Don't even get me started on this one. Am I the *only* one here who simply doesn't understand how a game released in 2001 and running on a P3/1GHz is *SLOWER* than it's *not-very-different* predecessor which was running on a Pentium II back when it was released in 1996??? Let's summarize here:
--------------------------- Civ2 ----------- Civ3
released: ----------------- 1996 ----------- 2001
running on: ------------ P2/300MHz ------- P3/1GHz
overall perf/turn: --------- faster ---------- slower
Not only that, but howcome Europa Universalis II, a game that has a far deeper and more complex economic model, a far deeper and more complex diplomacy model, a far deeper and complex research model, a far deeper and more complex political model, a far deeper and more complex EVERYTHING, as well as a much MUCH greater number of AI opponent countries and provinces.. howcome then this game runs 3 times faster than Civ3 on my machine??
What gives?? What are these "new" features introduced in Civ3 that can bring my otherwise-very-competent P3/1GHz to its knees?? Beats the hell out of me! If you can explain this to me, *please* be my guest!
Out of respect for the Civ series legacy alone, they should *never* have released Civ3 in such a sorry state (the lack of multiplayer is one thing.. the gameplay-showstopper bugs another.. the game performance another yet... but senarios anyone??? how people are not revolting about this is beyond me. We should be asking for our money back damn it!!)
How much more UNREFINED can one get??? As far as "attention to detail" goes, Civ3 has hit rock bottom.
If you are really REALLY serious about strategy gaming, you OWE it to yourselves to check out Europa Universalis II. Now *THIS* is a kick-ass strategy game for the serious strategy fanatic. It's full of the fresh new ideas, depth, attention to detail, grandness of scope, atmosphere and style that Civ3 should have had.
I wrote about it in another thread if you care to read it:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10220
As for myself, I find that I have taken Civ3 off my hard drive for now (and probably for a long long time) and I find myself immersed in EU2's complex and deep political, diplomatic, trading, economic and military and religious models. (yes! religion is modeled as well as it should--Crusades anyone??)
As Gamesdomain.com said in their review "Europa Universalis II is Civilization with a college degree. It is my current favorite for top strategy game of the year. Strategy game buffs need this game."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
(By the way, talking about patches, Europe Universalis II Patch 1.01 is already out.. it was on the developer's website a couple of weeks after the game landed on the shelves. They wanted to be in the stores for the Thanksgiving shopping, I guess, but at least they *did* release the patch.)
You know, if you told me a couple of months ago, that 3 weeks after the release of Civ3 I would be playing a *different* strategy game, I would have laughed in your face. I've waited for Civ3 with extreme anticipation. I could never imagine, not even in my wildest dreams, that it would come to this.
Cheers (and sorry about the long post!)
iLiAS
I've been playing Civ2 for many years and I was very excited about Civ3. I bought the tin and the strategy guide as soon as it came out. And since then I've experienced nothing but disappointment.
And yes.. I *have* given Civ3 a chance. I have read here in the forum that it all seems familiar and the same old in the beginning, but once you start playing it you will soon realize how much improved Civ3 is over its predecessors.
So yes, I *have* played it for many hours. I *did* play several Civs.. at different difficulty settings.. patiently waiting for that moment of "enlightment".. that moment that it will all come together and make sense.. that moment that it will hit me in the face how improved and how great Civ3 is over Civ2.
I am sorry to report then, guys, that after playing for about 15 hours, that moment, for me, hasn't arrived. As a matter of fact, the more I play it, the more I run into the terribly gameplay bugs, and the more I realize that Civ3 has been slightly "changed" alright.. but not necessarily "improved".
So, after playing Civ3 for a few days, it has become clear to me that Sid & Co. have long ago lost their enthusiasm for this game. It shows from the lack of attention to detail, the lack of fresh ideas into the game, the constant reuse of the old and the same. Just give it a facelift, change a few game rules, put "culture" in and sell the tin for 60 bucks.
I mean, come on guys! Civ2 came out in what, 1996??? So, in other words between Civ2 and Civ3 there have passed 5 (count them: FIVE) years. So is this it?? Is this ALL Sid & Co. could come up with in FIVE whole years??? Is this how much their ideas have dried up?? Instead of blindly defending everything Sid ever says and does like he can do no wrong, just think about this last point. FIVE years.. think about it.
This lack of enthusiasm shows in the after-sale support of the game as well. I've noticed that many (Civ-fanatics) love to put the blame on the publisher, but where is Firaxis in this forum?? Their posts are far far and few between. Why noone is aknowledging people's real issues with this game?? The game currently is in a sorry state, people are complaining and Firaxis is silent. Not only there is not a patch yet for what seems to be glaring gameplay problems, but Firaxis doesn't provide an ETA. Is that how you support your community?? Is this really how low the Civ series has come??
And don't get me started about the tin (aka Limited Edition). I paid $10 bucks more for what?? For a tin box, an excuse for a techtree map (how unprofessional can one get??) and a video of Sid with a smirk in his face who might as well be saying "thanks for paying $10 for a tin box that cost us 30cents sucker.. now sit back and wait for a fully-patched Civ3Net, which we will be glad to charge you full-price for.. You *know* you will buy it.. After all, I am the *God* of strategy gaming, remember?? Now, sit back, relax and enjoy while we rip you off."
A few comments about "culture".. it beats the hell out of me how people can get so excited about such a shallow and simplistic feature! Sure, it changes the dynamics of the gameplay, but so would any change to the rules of the game. The bottom line with culture, if you *really* look closer, is that it's just a simplistic point-collection system in the game's formula for determining how much advantage to give you over others with less culture points. It's just elementary school arithmetic, guys. 1+1=2. Sure, the term "culture" and the idea of it sounds exciting... but the implementation of it is so simplistic and pathetic as to insult my intelligence (yeaah.. look at that *new* fantastic feature! Civ3 has the element of Culture now--looks good in ads and on the box.. doesn't it)
Let's talk about quality now. My uncle works for Mercedes in Germany. I can tell you this: the amount of attention to detail in the quality of the final product there is staggering. And don't tell me the software business is different. The car business is just as competitive, if not more. Sure, you will see Fords and Chryslers and Toyotas with non-working switches, problems and flaws here and there, recalls...
Not a Mercedes.
For me, the Civ series has always been the Mercedes of (strategy, at least) gaming.
No more.
Now it feels like an old, tired game that doesn't have any fresh ideas and is "stuck" in its past successes. It reminds me of an aging pop star who sure still has his fans.. but he has already contributed whatever he had to contribute, he has already said what he had to say, he has no new fresh artistic/musical ideas anymore, and now he is doomed to repeating his old hits of the 60's and 70's in cheesy Las Vegas shows (anyone seen Tom Jones lately?? Yuuuck). Sad indeed.
Now, how about the quality of the code when it comes to game performance? Don't even get me started on this one. Am I the *only* one here who simply doesn't understand how a game released in 2001 and running on a P3/1GHz is *SLOWER* than it's *not-very-different* predecessor which was running on a Pentium II back when it was released in 1996??? Let's summarize here:
--------------------------- Civ2 ----------- Civ3
released: ----------------- 1996 ----------- 2001
running on: ------------ P2/300MHz ------- P3/1GHz
overall perf/turn: --------- faster ---------- slower
Not only that, but howcome Europa Universalis II, a game that has a far deeper and more complex economic model, a far deeper and more complex diplomacy model, a far deeper and complex research model, a far deeper and more complex political model, a far deeper and more complex EVERYTHING, as well as a much MUCH greater number of AI opponent countries and provinces.. howcome then this game runs 3 times faster than Civ3 on my machine??
What gives?? What are these "new" features introduced in Civ3 that can bring my otherwise-very-competent P3/1GHz to its knees?? Beats the hell out of me! If you can explain this to me, *please* be my guest!
Out of respect for the Civ series legacy alone, they should *never* have released Civ3 in such a sorry state (the lack of multiplayer is one thing.. the gameplay-showstopper bugs another.. the game performance another yet... but senarios anyone??? how people are not revolting about this is beyond me. We should be asking for our money back damn it!!)
How much more UNREFINED can one get??? As far as "attention to detail" goes, Civ3 has hit rock bottom.
If you are really REALLY serious about strategy gaming, you OWE it to yourselves to check out Europa Universalis II. Now *THIS* is a kick-ass strategy game for the serious strategy fanatic. It's full of the fresh new ideas, depth, attention to detail, grandness of scope, atmosphere and style that Civ3 should have had.
I wrote about it in another thread if you care to read it:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10220
As for myself, I find that I have taken Civ3 off my hard drive for now (and probably for a long long time) and I find myself immersed in EU2's complex and deep political, diplomatic, trading, economic and military and religious models. (yes! religion is modeled as well as it should--Crusades anyone??)
As Gamesdomain.com said in their review "Europa Universalis II is Civilization with a college degree. It is my current favorite for top strategy game of the year. Strategy game buffs need this game."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
(By the way, talking about patches, Europe Universalis II Patch 1.01 is already out.. it was on the developer's website a couple of weeks after the game landed on the shelves. They wanted to be in the stores for the Thanksgiving shopping, I guess, but at least they *did* release the patch.)
You know, if you told me a couple of months ago, that 3 weeks after the release of Civ3 I would be playing a *different* strategy game, I would have laughed in your face. I've waited for Civ3 with extreme anticipation. I could never imagine, not even in my wildest dreams, that it would come to this.
Cheers (and sorry about the long post!)
iLiAS
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
One thing that I find disappointing in computer games in general is the need to rush them out the door to meet a market deadline.
However, I'm coming from a slightly different standpoint to the other people talking about frustration and bugs.
Where I'm coming from is the legal ramifications. Most countries have laws that require suppliers of goods to ensure that they are 'fit for purpose', or they are not allowed to sell them. And they are certainly not allowed to misrepresent them.
How can game designers continue to get away with releasing a product that doesn't work in the way that they (or more specifically - the marketers) advertise that it will? Yes, they can release a patch, but a patch should only be for "unforeseeable" problems. In my opinion, a patch should only fix technical details, where the product won't run with a particular (less popular) videocard or similar. Massive gameplay faults should NOT be left to a patch to fix. Enhancements are a grey area, but my opinion is that it leaves the consumer feeling very uninspired at the basic game qualities. Maybe some industry guidelines are required on this - at the minimum a voluntary code of ethics? It *costs* me to download a patch.
The manufacturers must also remember that the people buying Civ III will be a mix of fans of Civ and Civ II, and people who have never even seen a Civ game before. Thye are losing both ways - people who have played Civ II are complaining about lack of finesse and attention to detail. The others are simply going back to their old favorites.
However, I'm coming from a slightly different standpoint to the other people talking about frustration and bugs.
Where I'm coming from is the legal ramifications. Most countries have laws that require suppliers of goods to ensure that they are 'fit for purpose', or they are not allowed to sell them. And they are certainly not allowed to misrepresent them.
How can game designers continue to get away with releasing a product that doesn't work in the way that they (or more specifically - the marketers) advertise that it will? Yes, they can release a patch, but a patch should only be for "unforeseeable" problems. In my opinion, a patch should only fix technical details, where the product won't run with a particular (less popular) videocard or similar. Massive gameplay faults should NOT be left to a patch to fix. Enhancements are a grey area, but my opinion is that it leaves the consumer feeling very uninspired at the basic game qualities. Maybe some industry guidelines are required on this - at the minimum a voluntary code of ethics? It *costs* me to download a patch.
The manufacturers must also remember that the people buying Civ III will be a mix of fans of Civ and Civ II, and people who have never even seen a Civ game before. Thye are losing both ways - people who have played Civ II are complaining about lack of finesse and attention to detail. The others are simply going back to their old favorites.
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
Interesting comments Ilias, I can see where you are coming from in some respects but I disagree with you in others.
One point where I sincerely agree with you is that of the performance of civIII (or lack of it) I am too running it on a 1Ghz machine often to see end of turns taking 1-2min to compute. I have only been playing the game a week and yet I have had about 3 or 4 crashes (0 crashes in 10yrs of civI & civII). This put together with the many bugs shows an apalling drop in quality from the civ team.
I will disagree with you on terms of gameplay though, although there are areas where I think it should have ventured further from civII on the whole the game delivers enough new stuff to get me hooked allover again.
Your argument that culture is not a good addition to gameplay just because it was easy to code does not wash with me, so what if it was easy it's a great idea and it works well (Dodgy city flipping sometimes though).
The new concept of resources and trade is absolutely sensational, perfectly executed.
The diplomacy model is fantastic.
The AI has come on in leaps and bounds.
This plus all the other little changes is enough to satisfy me but then maybe I am easily pleased.. I cannot comment on the other strat game you mentioned but I will certainly check it out in future.
One point where I sincerely agree with you is that of the performance of civIII (or lack of it) I am too running it on a 1Ghz machine often to see end of turns taking 1-2min to compute. I have only been playing the game a week and yet I have had about 3 or 4 crashes (0 crashes in 10yrs of civI & civII). This put together with the many bugs shows an apalling drop in quality from the civ team.
I will disagree with you on terms of gameplay though, although there are areas where I think it should have ventured further from civII on the whole the game delivers enough new stuff to get me hooked allover again.
Your argument that culture is not a good addition to gameplay just because it was easy to code does not wash with me, so what if it was easy it's a great idea and it works well (Dodgy city flipping sometimes though).
The new concept of resources and trade is absolutely sensational, perfectly executed.
The diplomacy model is fantastic.
The AI has come on in leaps and bounds.
This plus all the other little changes is enough to satisfy me but then maybe I am easily pleased.
. I cannot comment on the other strat game you mentioned but I will certainly check it out in future.WarandPeace
Warlord
hmm, I will give EUII a look.
it is true that somethings can't last forever...
it is true that somethings can't last forever...
Witchfinder
BuroMil Inquisitor
I'd hardly say Blizzard and Sid Meier lead the world in original products. Successful no doubt, but original?
Civ III, is a rehash of Civ II which was a rehash of Civ. Oh yeah, and Alpha Centauri, which is a rehash of Civ II, only in space. A
Warcraft 1, 2 and 3? Remakes of the old tried and trusted RTS formula. Diablo and Diablo II? Entertaining, but hardly original. WoW - another(!) EverQuest clone.
People like Peter Molyneaux bring originality to games. Don't get me wrong, I love Civ, but it's hardly original!
Now a question for Gholam - is that the Gholam Stickyfingers?
WarandPeace
Warlord
I see your point that those companies have made sequels to their successful games but if you take a good look at Blizzard, all their games are freshly exciting, as well as popular. And for what reason? Not because they reinvent a whole new genre of games with the release of each game, but they work on one subject and takes it into another level. You take WoW and compares it to EQ, obviously that tells me you've not much understanding of either game. Sure they are both massive online multiplayer games but two movies in a genre don't make them the same movie, nor does it prove one is less or more inventive than the other.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Uh, guys, think we got away from the point here.
The 'point' being:
Where in the Got Damn Hell is my Mother Freakin' @$$ patch at? I've been waiting now all Got Damn Mother Freakin' month for that sum*****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 'point' being:
Where in the Got Damn Hell is my Mother Freakin' @$$ patch at? I've been waiting now all Got Damn Mother Freakin' month for that sum*****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Witchfinder
BuroMil Inquisitor
Bing! When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME
I've played EQ since Phase 4 (recently cancelled my account with a level 56 rogue). I've been following WoW closely, along with what I think will be the best of the next MMORPG generation - Shadowbane. I know quite a bit about both, thanks!
Yes, WoW will no doubt be vastly superior, but at it's roots is the same old MMORPG genre.
Exciting and popular don't mean original. I'm not knocking any of those games, I just don't think they are worthy of being called original.
Similar threads
