Why is Civ 3 so much more addictive then the latter versions?

[scratchthepitch]

I am saying if they kept Civ 3 graphics the whole time with improvement, but not 3D like was implemented, people would be wanting better.

Casual gamers accustomed to console games, perhaps.

Strategy gamers are more into the mechanics of the game than the eye candy. One of the most consistent complaints I've seen about the Civ series of games is that they lack a quality AI. Giving a player more tedious (and unrealistic, for an historically based game) things to micromanage does not replace a challenging AI. Also, being able to easily edit the games is great, but since the AI is unable to handle any but the most least creative changes, it's pretty much a one sided affair where the player gains further advantages against the hobbled AI.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

The only graphics change I would want with Civ 3 is a nice 16:9 resolution. My laptop will fill it out to the side edges but only at the expense of widening everything. I suppose I could zoom in on my widescreen TV. That would also act as a maginifier. Then if I need a function of the interface, just zoom back out.

I really like how siege units (in 3) require another unit to protect them. That seems so much more natural than the way they did it in 4.

The matrix of civics in 4 is pretty cool. Aside from zoom and 16:9 graphics capability, it's the only thing I like about 4.

 

[Sparthage]

Strategy gamers are more into the mechanics of the game than the eye candy.

I agree fully. When I do play Civ5, I play on Strategic View because there are somethings that I can't tell without it (like marshlands). Civ3 is much more enjoyable to me than any other version of Civ that I have played because of its true "One-More-Turn" aspect.

 

[GamezRule]

Every time I play Civ, I have a hard time putting it down. Honestly, that is why I have a hard time starting. SG's are easier.

 

[ThERat]

Actually research and shield overflow aren't exactly bad things either. However, there are many irks in Civ 4, one of them the absence of a no WW civic that can get really irritating.

When I do play Civ5, I play on Strategic View

Wow, I find that view horrific to no end.

 

[Sparthage]

Wow, I find that view horrific to no end.

Mostly because it's too slow on the computer I use to contemplate playing on the normal screen. But it still makes the situation slightly more obvious by showing a bar of health next to the unit icon and nothing else.

 

[dominatr]

i find it easy to mod, edit, and i just love all the civs and how the maps look, and watching my replays, its just so welcoming to me, its where i began the civ series, and unless they can make another good one, its where i will end too.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Actually research and shield overflow aren't exactly bad things either. However, there are many irks in Civ 4, one of them the absence of a no WW civic that can get really irritating.

Wow, I find that view horrific to no end.

A number of people who bought CivV find the whole thing horrific no end. I can't comment because after looking at the opinions of those who tried it and played it I decided to save $50.

Really, one nice thing about Civ 3 is that it runs faster than the later games.

 

[ThERat]

A number of people who bought CivV find the whole thing horrific no end.

Unfortunately I am one of them. I really gave Civ 5 a fair chance and was quite skeptical about the majority of the Civ 4 is better than Civ 5 crowd. However, after playing Civ 5 for a bit, I agree that's it's the worst ever civilization game.

Really, one nice thing about Civ 3 is that it runs faster than the later games

I usually play huge maps and inter turns can get very long and delayed. I rather had Civ 5 taking longer with a smarter AI. Try warfare in Civ 5 and see how abysmal the AI is. 1upt is the worst feature to be introduced into this game. It's even worse than the happiness model.

 

[ThERat]

And have a look at the succession game section of Civ 5. Even Civ 3 has more active games after 9 years running than a brand new civ

 

[Lanzelot]

The only graphics change I would want with Civ 3 is a nice 16:9 resolution. My laptop will fill it out to the side edges but only at the expense of widening everything.

I have a laptop with 16:10 and a desktop with a 24" 16:10 display, and on both it worked perfectly by setting the KeepRes=1 parameter in conquests.ini
(Meaning that the screen is not "stretched", but that you really see a larger portion of the map.)

Lanzelot

 

[Iranon]

I think the most important difference between Civ3 and Civ4, something that will make or break either game for many, is something I'd call 'density'.

The Civ4 designers went on a crusade against busywork (avoiding rounding/overflow waste, city micromanagement, featureless city spam) while upping complexity. They wanted to make every decision the player makes count AND to have lots of viable alternatives.
It generally worked, evidenced by Civ4 veterans agreeing on practically nothing (compact vs. sprawling empire, city specialisation vs. empire-wide optimisation, power of civics or improvements, austerity or wonder-hogging, war or peace, usefulness of religion and espionage...)

Personally, I far prefer Civ4 as a game because I have a very low tolerance for busywork... I can unironically use the phrase 'soul-crushing drudgery' after mere minutes of it.
On the other hand, it is arguably too dense and convoluted for what it's still trying to be, namely an epic. Focusing just on the clever bits and cutting the lull where you just enjoy overseeing the growth of your empire sort of erodes the sense of a grand scale... a bit like cutting all the gorgeous landscape/crowd shots from an epic movie because, after all, 'nothing happens there'.

 

[bryanw1995]

Sorry, I was talking about Alpha Centuari. Actually a flurry of activity has erupted in the Civ 3 Creation forums at least; more than at any point in the whole past year.

I've gotten over 600 hours in civ5. after coming back and playing a couple of cIII games I can say that 5 has a lot in common with 3, just enormously better graphics. 5 is probably more like 3 than 4 imho. obviously I really enjoy 5, and now I'm really enjoying re-learning 3 again.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I've gotten over 600 hours in civ5. after coming back and playing a couple of cIII games I can say that 5 has a lot in common with 3, just enormously better graphics. 5 is probably more like 3 than 4 imho. obviously I really enjoy 5, and now I'm really enjoying re-learning 3 again.

This is my understanding as well. Strategies in 3 that bombed in 4 work again. More cities, fewer improvements, unknown diplomacy and diplomacy mattering less. 5 plays a lot like 3 from what I can tell and nothing like 4. One reason the Civ 4 forum hates 5 passionately.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

I've gotten over 600 hours in civ5.

Seriously? According to Wikipedia it was released in September ... September-December is 4 months, average 30 days/month at 24 hours/day gets you 2880 hours (and that's assuming it was released around the 1st and you got it then - if you got it later ...). You've spent about a fifth of your total time since September playing one game?

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Youi can't really roll in Civ IV - always, you are balancing expansion against your economy. It makes for a more challenging game, but one where you can't just go.

 

[scratchthepitch]

I think the most important difference between Civ3 and Civ4, something that will make or break either game for many, is something I'd call 'density'.

The Civ4 designers went on a crusade against busywork (avoiding rounding/overflow waste, city micromanagement, featureless city spam) while upping complexity. They wanted to make every decision the player makes count AND to have lots of viable alternatives.
It generally worked, evidenced by Civ4 veterans agreeing on practically nothing (compact vs. sprawling empire, city specialisation vs. empire-wide optimisation, power of civics or improvements, austerity or wonder-hogging, war or peace, usefulness of religion and espionage...)

Personally, I far prefer Civ4 as a game because I have a very low tolerance for busywork... I can unironically use the phrase 'soul-crushing drudgery' after mere minutes of it.
On the other hand, it is arguably too dense and convoluted for what it's still trying to be, namely an epic. Focusing just on the clever bits and cutting the lull where you just enjoy overseeing the growth of your empire sort of erodes the sense of a grand scale... a bit like cutting all the gorgeous landscape/crowd shots from an epic movie because, after all, 'nothing happens there'.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[bryanw1995]

Seriously? According to Wikipedia it was released in September ... September-December is 4 months, average 30 days/month at 24 hours/day gets you 2880 hours (and that's assuming it was released around the 1st and you got it then - if you got it later ...). You've spent about a fifth of your total time since September playing one game?

609 hours to be exact, I just looked. yes, I know, that's a lot of time. that's not exactly the total time that I was in front of the computer, however. I bought cIII complete the other day on steam when it was under $4, and it now shows that I've played cIII for 47 hours already. I left it on overnight a couple of times. civ5 is much harder to do that with b/c the game is so buggy, but I'd say my actual time in front of the computer is probably 450-500 hours at least.

 

[Iranon]

Thanks for the laugh.

Care to elaborate a little?

 

[milr]

I really like CIV III. I purchased CIV IV when it came out, but didn't like it.
I bought CIV V before it even came out, and found I liked it even less than CIV IV.

Perhaps what turns me off from the newer versions more quickly than anything else is the graphics. I wouldn't play chess on a board with unnecessarily embellished graphics, nor do I play with 'realistic' chess figures. They just distract from the task at hand.

The critical component of a strategy game is not the interface of course, it is the logic engine mechanics. We can observe in the CIV series that that is also most difficult to get right.

I do agree that the CIV III community could in theory improve CIV III if given access to the source code. But from a practical perspective, such an effort would be unlikely to be (volunteer) staffed and disciplined enough to succeed.

I know there is an open source effort underway to produce a strategy game in the general class of games like the CIV series. From what I read, the effort is producing really good-looking graphics – not a good sign in my game-value measurement system.

I haven't looked into the effort yet, but my guess is that the code is well structured, in which case the graphics issue is not a major issue. If/when the strategic playability attracts a sufficiently dedicated audience, graphic alternatives will spring to life. The problem I foresee with an open source game is basic logic engine (rules) stability. One of the nice things about a CIV III is the game play rules are stable, which makes GOTMs possible. I am quite optimistic that one or more really enjoyable games will emerge over time from the open source efforts, but I guess it will take longer than I like to reach that nirvana. I do encourage those among us who are both CIV minded and application software development gifted to participate in such open source projects.