What a big let down
- Thread starter dbrewer842
- Start date
OneInTen
Darkness bound
Yes but are those problems with Civ 3, or their computers? Since the game works flawlessly on most people's machines, I can't help but think that many crash bugs are most likely problems with the computer, not the game.
If it was crashing for everyone, then I'd blame Firaxis. But since it only seems to be a small minority, I'd have to say they don't seem to be at fault here.
If it was crashing for everyone, then I'd blame Firaxis. But since it only seems to be a small minority, I'd have to say they don't seem to be at fault here.
ajohn505
Mr. Fahrenheit
I agree, Zouave...
I wish the fanboys wouldn't be blinded by the Civ formula... sure it's a fun game, of course it's going to be somewhat fun: it's a Civ game. But it has huge, glaring, obvious flaws. It has atrocious turn times (amazing for the ****ty AI). It has no ease-of-use features like unit stacking, waypointing, etc, etc. that other games had years ago. It takes 10 clicks to get anything done in the game. And while the graphics aren't that important, would it have killed them to put an extra couple of hours into making the tiles better looking? (It isn't like they had to make 3d models or anything) Would it have killed them to support higher resolutions natively, without an .ini file kluge? Or make the game behave well with Windows? (it doesn't quite crash, but try task switching away from Civ3) The city view is a joke... it's like civ2, but more pitiful because Civ2 came out 6 years ago. None of the game's defenders here ever mention these issues, ostensibly because they're blinded by the games strengths (numerous as well).
One of the reasons Civ2 was more fun for me was because everything seemed modern to me... it was a game that perfectly suited the computing power of the time. Everything in Civ3 seems half-assed. They could have reused half the code from Alpha Centauri and ended up with a better game. I don't know that much about the individual developers... does anyone on this board know what else they've done?
And don't even talk about the reviewers... not one reviewer mentioned the air superiority bug while it existed for a month or so, and they all gave it incredibly high honors - proof that they didn't play the game through.
Space Empires IV (by Malfador Machinations) took +/- 2 years for a single developer to make, and it has infinitely more usability features in most respects. Interestingly, the graphics and AI are on the same level too.
I wish the fanboys wouldn't be blinded by the Civ formula... sure it's a fun game, of course it's going to be somewhat fun: it's a Civ game. But it has huge, glaring, obvious flaws. It has atrocious turn times (amazing for the ****ty AI). It has no ease-of-use features like unit stacking, waypointing, etc, etc. that other games had years ago. It takes 10 clicks to get anything done in the game. And while the graphics aren't that important, would it have killed them to put an extra couple of hours into making the tiles better looking? (It isn't like they had to make 3d models or anything) Would it have killed them to support higher resolutions natively, without an .ini file kluge? Or make the game behave well with Windows? (it doesn't quite crash, but try task switching away from Civ3) The city view is a joke... it's like civ2, but more pitiful because Civ2 came out 6 years ago. None of the game's defenders here ever mention these issues, ostensibly because they're blinded by the games strengths (numerous as well).
One of the reasons Civ2 was more fun for me was because everything seemed modern to me... it was a game that perfectly suited the computing power of the time. Everything in Civ3 seems half-assed. They could have reused half the code from Alpha Centauri and ended up with a better game. I don't know that much about the individual developers... does anyone on this board know what else they've done?
And don't even talk about the reviewers... not one reviewer mentioned the air superiority bug while it existed for a month or so, and they all gave it incredibly high honors - proof that they didn't play the game through.
Space Empires IV (by Malfador Machinations) took +/- 2 years for a single developer to make, and it has infinitely more usability features in most respects. Interestingly, the graphics and AI are on the same level too.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
I agree with you, aJohn505.
Even the color scheme looked rushed and half-assed - too much yellow. I had to replace some terrain files from these forums to make it less sickly.
Leaders stinks. Great leaders have very minimal effect on combat.
Where's the Cheat Mode?
Why couldn't it develop some way to assign all units within a certain area or proximity to some cities the command of a "computer general" to attack, defend, or whatever?
The Espionage costs are EXORBITANT and not worth it.
There are numerous glaring historical absurdities such as galleys firing broadsides in animations.
Of course I could go on.
Bad game? No. But it sure should have been better after such a long wait since Civ II.
And yes, I enjoyed more moving caravans and diplomats by naval units in Civ II. It also made navies more important.
Even the color scheme looked rushed and half-assed - too much yellow. I had to replace some terrain files from these forums to make it less sickly.
Leaders stinks. Great leaders have very minimal effect on combat.
Where's the Cheat Mode?
Why couldn't it develop some way to assign all units within a certain area or proximity to some cities the command of a "computer general" to attack, defend, or whatever?
The Espionage costs are EXORBITANT and not worth it.
There are numerous glaring historical absurdities such as galleys firing broadsides in animations.
Of course I could go on.
Bad game? No. But it sure should have been better after such a long wait since Civ II.
And yes, I enjoyed more moving caravans and diplomats by naval units in Civ II. It also made navies more important.
RogueNine
Warlord
About the long in-between turn waits, your soon going to realize that its not just Civ 3 that runs slow on your computer. If the turn-waits really are 'atrocious' then you probably have a junky computer. I'm playing a Huge map with 16 civs right now (13 are left) and I'm in the modern era. (Just discovered Computers.) The turn waits are less than 20 seconds. Granted, I have a top end computer (Athlon XP 1600) but its not like computer parts are all the expensive these days.
I hear people complaining about how slow their game runs on a Pentium II 400. News flash, your computer is junk. Go spend 500$ and upgrade to an Athlon XP 1900 and a decent motherboard. Less than 500$ actually if you shop online. (It was 500$ Canadian for me.) Absurd to spend that kind of money on a game? Perhaps, but why isn't it then absurd to pay 600$ for an X-box? An Athlon XP 1900 destroys what is inside an X-box, yet 600$ for a game console is considered the norm. Why is it different for PC's? Even a Pentium III 800 isn't good enough anymore. Athlon's and Pentium 4's are the requirements for smooth gameplay in 2002, weather it be Civ 3, MOO 3, Unreal Tournament 2, etc.
I know Civ 3 has really low system requirements on the box, but anyone with half a brain should know that new games these days will run slow and poorly on anything less than a Pentium III 1gig. If you didn't know that before you do now. Perhaps it sucks that games are needing better and better equipment, but such is life. Either get in the fast lane or be left behind. I don't even want to imagine how crappy Firaxis would have had to make the AI be if they wanted to make the game run on a Pentium II 400.
I know some of you guys aren't really computer geniuses, and the depth of computer knowledge needed to run some of these new games is getting hard to follow. But that is life. The hardware and software is getting more advanced, and like anything in life that usually means more complicated. Start learning now so that 2-3 years from now you'll know what it means when someone says to flash your BIOS, or edit your registry. Otherwise you'll just be left frustrated by ALL the new games.
-(end long rant on computers)-
Now, on to a few other complaints:
Leaders - I agree, they don't have a very significant effect on combat. Armies aren't as great as they could have been. I wouldn't mind seeing someone do something to improve their effectiveness or usefulness, although I don't 'mind' them the way they are either.
Cheat Mode - Um, why? Scenarios can be made with the editor. (Albeit a few options I'd like to see weren't included. Like starting locations? What was up with that?) Anyway, the only other reason I can remember for cheat mode was to, well, cheat. Now where's the fun in that?
Espionage costs - They are outrageously high. However, the editor makes it VERY easy to change this. I wish the gripes about things that can be changed in the editor in less than 30 seconds would stop. It doesn't take much effort to use, and for newbies who are intimidated by it there is a great step-by-step help file included to help see you threw it.
Historical absurdities - Firaxis didn't try to make an historically accurate game, that much is for sure. Personally that doesn't really bother me much, but I can see how it might bother others though. Hopefully, the new editing tools that Firaxis has said will come out someday will help mod-makers change some things that history buffs want done. (Although, guys like Zouave do need to understand that this isn't really a 'gameplay' bug or failure on Firaxis part, but just something that THEY would like to see implemented.)
I agree that Civ 3 could have been better. If it was perfect though, I would be dissapointed. Afterall, a perfect Civ 3 means no Civ 4 later, and that would just suck.
I hear people complaining about how slow their game runs on a Pentium II 400. News flash, your computer is junk. Go spend 500$ and upgrade to an Athlon XP 1900 and a decent motherboard. Less than 500$ actually if you shop online. (It was 500$ Canadian for me.) Absurd to spend that kind of money on a game? Perhaps, but why isn't it then absurd to pay 600$ for an X-box? An Athlon XP 1900 destroys what is inside an X-box, yet 600$ for a game console is considered the norm. Why is it different for PC's? Even a Pentium III 800 isn't good enough anymore. Athlon's and Pentium 4's are the requirements for smooth gameplay in 2002, weather it be Civ 3, MOO 3, Unreal Tournament 2, etc.
I know Civ 3 has really low system requirements on the box, but anyone with half a brain should know that new games these days will run slow and poorly on anything less than a Pentium III 1gig. If you didn't know that before you do now. Perhaps it sucks that games are needing better and better equipment, but such is life. Either get in the fast lane or be left behind. I don't even want to imagine how crappy Firaxis would have had to make the AI be if they wanted to make the game run on a Pentium II 400.
I know some of you guys aren't really computer geniuses, and the depth of computer knowledge needed to run some of these new games is getting hard to follow. But that is life. The hardware and software is getting more advanced, and like anything in life that usually means more complicated. Start learning now so that 2-3 years from now you'll know what it means when someone says to flash your BIOS, or edit your registry. Otherwise you'll just be left frustrated by ALL the new games.
-(end long rant on computers)-
Now, on to a few other complaints:
Leaders - I agree, they don't have a very significant effect on combat. Armies aren't as great as they could have been. I wouldn't mind seeing someone do something to improve their effectiveness or usefulness, although I don't 'mind' them the way they are either.
Cheat Mode - Um, why? Scenarios can be made with the editor. (Albeit a few options I'd like to see weren't included. Like starting locations? What was up with that?) Anyway, the only other reason I can remember for cheat mode was to, well, cheat. Now where's the fun in that?
Espionage costs - They are outrageously high. However, the editor makes it VERY easy to change this. I wish the gripes about things that can be changed in the editor in less than 30 seconds would stop. It doesn't take much effort to use, and for newbies who are intimidated by it there is a great step-by-step help file included to help see you threw it.
Historical absurdities - Firaxis didn't try to make an historically accurate game, that much is for sure. Personally that doesn't really bother me much, but I can see how it might bother others though. Hopefully, the new editing tools that Firaxis has said will come out someday will help mod-makers change some things that history buffs want done. (Although, guys like Zouave do need to understand that this isn't really a 'gameplay' bug or failure on Firaxis part, but just something that THEY would like to see implemented.)
I agree that Civ 3 could have been better. If it was perfect though, I would be dissapointed. Afterall, a perfect Civ 3 means no Civ 4 later, and that would just suck.
Cunobelin Of Hippo
Site Pachyderm
They are firing ARROWS as it has been noted several times after the same accusation
Nothing incorrect there.TheAntiFan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 2
I originally HATED Civ3 (hence my name), but in time this game has grown on me. The best thing that Civ3 does is require me to play Civ differently. SMAC, Civ2, and Civ1 all played basically the same way. Civ3 requires you to change your way of thinking. However, some obvious criticism of Civ3:
-Almost all of of Civ3's biggest improvements to Civ2, Alpha Centauri did first.
-Civ3 is a step back in some areas - cheat mode, for example. (This is needed to make scenarios with units already on the map, for you fanboys who don't know), SMAC had better government choices, some different diplomatic choices, and civilizations with some real personality. Also better unit upgrades, better unit management altogether, and SMAC's city governers were much cleaner than Civ3's. Let's not forget 3d maps with weather patterns, too.
-The AI DOES suck. It swarms like a mindless blob, doing everything at once. It also cheats.
-The interface in Civ3 has some real negative points. In Civ2 and SMAC, I could play the entire game without a mouse, but not Civ3.
**Side note: Memory is the biggest cause of slow turns. I played Civ3 on 2 seperate computers with the same CPU, and the computer with 512MB didn't bog like the 128MB system did.
-Almost all of of Civ3's biggest improvements to Civ2, Alpha Centauri did first.
-Civ3 is a step back in some areas - cheat mode, for example. (This is needed to make scenarios with units already on the map, for you fanboys who don't know), SMAC had better government choices, some different diplomatic choices, and civilizations with some real personality. Also better unit upgrades, better unit management altogether, and SMAC's city governers were much cleaner than Civ3's. Let's not forget 3d maps with weather patterns, too.
-The AI DOES suck. It swarms like a mindless blob, doing everything at once. It also cheats.
-The interface in Civ3 has some real negative points. In Civ2 and SMAC, I could play the entire game without a mouse, but not Civ3.
**Side note: Memory is the biggest cause of slow turns. I played Civ3 on 2 seperate computers with the same CPU, and the computer with 512MB didn't bog like the 128MB system did.
Akka
Moody old mage.
That's true. But now, if looking a little more closer and not blindly following tbe advise of my advisor, I would see that this nation has :
- less units than mine, ok, but its units are modern armour while mine are cavalry
- each of its core city can outproduce my entire empire
- it's a MPP with all my four neighbours
Well then, I would probably think twice before attacking them. Said that, I put myself in the shoes of a country leader, not in the shoes of an AI whose consider surviving as second-rated compared to use the units it just produced, even if it means death for it.
Libertarian
Pansophist
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Messages
- 186
Could be. While your masterful argument (amounting to "hey, it's no worse than civ2") is compelling, I still find myself unsatisfied.
Maybe you're right. Maybe my taste for an interface that I don't have to fight tooth and nail in order to play hinders my enjoyment of the late-game.
Silly me.
A lot of people just don't understand how much of a hassle this game is to play and they mistake addiction for fun.
The game has an addicting formula which hooked me for maybe three weeks, but I wouldn't call it fun and the interface is atrocious and incredibly tedious.
The game has an addicting formula which hooked me for maybe three weeks, but I wouldn't call it fun and the interface is atrocious and incredibly tedious.
Zachriel
Kaiser
I'm having very good luck with Great Leaders. Nothing better than to have a unit with triple hitpoints. If you get a Leader early, then nothing will stop you. Use it for swordsmen, or horsemen.
OneInTen
Darkness bound
Well show me a civ clone that does the interface thing better and I'll agree with you.
The interface to all these games are cumbersome, but civ 3 is the best of the bunch, in my opinion. I find it hard to knock a game based on some theoretical, unproven interface idea that only exists in some forum poster's head. Show a concrete example of a better game interface and explain why it's better!
Libertarian
Pansophist
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Messages
- 186
[...blushing...]
Gosh. So, you mean simple and sensible ideas like group movement *cough* SMAC *cough* and sensible unit activation order *cough* Europa Universalis *cough* are too theoretical? I have to provide a concrete example *cough* Sim City *cough* of non-tedious interfaces?
Geez. And y'know what? I'm probably the only forum poster *cough* 1,752 Apolytoners *cough* who ever even thought of things like group movement.
Gosh. So, you mean simple and sensible ideas like group movement *cough* SMAC *cough* and sensible unit activation order *cough* Europa Universalis *cough* are too theoretical? I have to provide a concrete example *cough* Sim City *cough* of non-tedious interfaces?
Geez. And y'know what? I'm probably the only forum poster *cough* 1,752 Apolytoners *cough* who ever even thought of things like group movement.
OneInTen
Darkness bound
No, you've totally missed my point. My point is that an interface has to fit together, each part has to work well with each other part - that's why I said I'm not interested in what could have been done this way or that, I want a concrete example of an interface that's better.
You've chosen 3 different games to use as examples there. I'm saying pick one, and show how its interface, as a whole is better than civ 3's interface, as a whole.
I mean, if we're allowed to pick and choose, almost anything can be made to look bad ... Oh gee, Manchester United has won something like 7 of the last 9 English Premier leage titles, but geez they suck because if you made a team out of players from all the other teams, they'd lose!
You've chosen 3 different games to use as examples there. I'm saying pick one, and show how its interface, as a whole is better than civ 3's interface, as a whole.
I mean, if we're allowed to pick and choose, almost anything can be made to look bad ... Oh gee, Manchester United has won something like 7 of the last 9 English Premier leage titles, but geez they suck because if you made a team out of players from all the other teams, they'd lose!
Akka
Moody old mage.
Originally posted by OneInTen
No, you've totally missed my point. My point is that an interface has to fit together, each part has to work well with each other part - that's why I said I'm not interested in what could have been done this way or that, I want a concrete example of an interface that's better.
You've chosen 3 different games to use as examples there. I'm saying pick one, and show how its interface, as a whole is better than civ 3's interface, as a whole.
I mean, if we're allowed to pick and choose, almost anything can be made to look bad ... Oh gee, Manchester United has won something like 7 of the last 9 English Premier leage titles, but geez they suck because if you made a team out of players from all the other teams, they'd lose!
If you are talking about user-friendly interface, well then just pick Total Annihilation :
- group moves
- ability to iterate up to 255 orders for each unit
- ability to select every units of the same type with a simple click
Now I suppose you'll tell "this game is an RTS, it's not comparable !". Considering Civ is nearly alone in the TBS games, it's for sure hard to find a better interface of a game of the same type. Though I think that I could live with the TA interface in a Civ game : simple drag to select any number of unit, simple key shortcut to select up to ten differents groups (or all units of the same type, or all military units, or all air units, or all air military units, etc...). TBS could gain a LOT by copying some part of the interface of RTS, where easy access and fast orders are a crucial point, and so where micromanaging is always much less tedious.
Libertarian
Pansophist
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Messages
- 186
What a weird argument: nevermind that it's a pile of crap it's the only pile of crap there is.
zebomba
Warlord
Yup, this is boring. But then, if they never attack, it'd be even worse.
I'd not see myself in such a situation as I don't let them get far ahead of me. Sometimes, a war to cripple your enemies is necessary.
Zachriel
Kaiser
You've never been in a losing position? You are a very fortunate game player. Sometimes I'm so powerful I can dictate terms. Some games I have to fight just to stay even. And then there are those other time. Have I ever told you about my Luxembourg strategy?
OneInTen
Darkness bound
Not the only one, just the best of a bad bunch. Possibly this is an indication that designing a good interface is hard work (why do you think Microsoft spends billions of dollars on UI research?)
zebomba
Warlord
Heh, what strategy is that?
Usually I can tell if I'm gonna win or lose. Then I just quit before it happens. After several victories and defeats, I don't wanna watch the game till the bitter end.
Also, I really send troops to cripple other civs all the time. It puts everyone in line. Sure I need the UN wonder for myself, and never hold elections, but every tactic has its downsides isn't it?
