PDA

View Full Version : Civ3 thoughts


Darkstar
15-11-2004, 21:55:46
Recently, I decided to pull out Civ3 and give it a spin. I'd forgotten why I'd set it aside.

Well, now I remember. It's a very pissy game, isn't it? It's a damn good thing that 3 isn't 1. Or there would never have been a Civ 2.

So, is there any hope that Civ4 will be as fun as Civ1? Or Civ2 (for those of you that started on 2)? Are they planning on dropping the pissy bits of Civ3 or is Firaxis adding more snot and piss to Civ4?

Chris
15-11-2004, 22:10:12
From what I have heard, Civ-4 will be more like 2 than 3. Firaxis is totally disenchented with 'fan feedback' from web sites like poly, they feel that the fans wanted to much minutia, and this ruined civ 3 and MoO 3 also, and so this time they are not paying much mind to fan requests.

3 was ok, except for some really stupid crap, like oil not appearing sometimes, and the really ugly graphics.

Darkstar
15-11-2004, 22:16:52
3 wasn't ok, compared to what came before it. As a Conquer the World TBS game, it is mediocre at best.

And Firaxis was singing the praises of the "fan feedback" for quite some time. When did the fans start sucking? When they wanted money to have their scenarios and graphics included in an expansion? :) Or are they blaming all their pissy bits on "giving the fans what we think they want"?

MoO3 sucking can be blamed on "giving the fans what they want". But I'd think the dumping and total redesign of the game in mid stream, and pushing it out the door before it was close to done, were bigger reason why it sucked.

Chris
15-11-2004, 22:19:15
I'm not a fan of 3, its ok, but still craptacular.

Firaxis started to hate fans when they saw the sales figures.

HelloKitty
16-11-2004, 00:43:55
When did the fans start sucking?

Check the poly archives.

DaShi
16-11-2004, 05:34:04
Good times.

JM^3
16-11-2004, 08:46:28
Originally posted by Chris
I'm not a fan of 3, its ok, but still craptacular.

Firaxis started to hate fans when they saw the sales figures.

Civ3 sold poorly?

JM

Darkstar
16-11-2004, 09:17:24
Humm... Firaxis has turned on its fans again? I see a pattern here.

You know, it's not the fans job to design a better game. It's their place to make noise, good and bad, about the game. It's the developers jobs to decide what suggestions and feedback is valid in their new vision and what isn't.

Look at Civ3. It's just a step forward from SMAC. But it isn't a "fun centered" design. Rather, it's a logical iteration forward. So, being able to irrigate diagonally from a irrigation source while being a "fan suggestion" (wish list item), is just a logical step.

Every idea or change in Civ3 was taken from other games of their time. To claim that was due to the fans is trying to pass their own failures off. The fans asked for RELIGION, FEATS, HEROES OF MIGHT AND MAGIC, MOO1. Not Culture and a simplified little tech cards.

Civ4 is going to be simplified, or yet another step forward? Regardless, unless the game is played in house/beta for a few years to find a nice center of fun, I don't expect much out of Civ4. For one thing, its too soon. For another, they are bound to chop it up into parts (First release - SP, Exp 1 - Play by Email, Exp 2 - Play over Lan, Exp 3 - second half of SP game to complete first draft). They've gotten predicatable, and not in a good way.

So... do you think Civ4 will be more pissy? Or just less fun? ;)

MDA
16-11-2004, 16:13:59
Funny that they'd blame the fans for a crap game. As if the fans wrote the code with the infinite range AI missiles.

Funkodrom
16-11-2004, 16:22:45
The kind of people anal enough to take part in 'poly fan lists would be pretty much guaranteed to suck most of the fun out of a game.

MDA
16-11-2004, 17:28:55
I hope I wasn't on that list. Thank god my memory's shot. :nervous:

Nav
16-11-2004, 17:32:28
Fuckwit.

Anyway, I hope they finally do it in 3D. Conquering a world that way would be cool.

Funkodrom
16-11-2004, 17:39:38
Originally posted by MDA
I hope I wasn't on that list. Thank god my memory's shot. :nervous:

For all I remember I might have been. :D

I just remember being really pissed off with the whole process and how many annoying fiddly things people were asking for.

fp
16-11-2004, 18:07:38
Civ2 was utter wank.

HelloKitty
16-11-2004, 18:23:50
I suggested they use the dev's faces for all the advisors.

Venom
16-11-2004, 19:57:14
That's the worst idea you've ever had. And that's saying something.

Resource Consumer
16-11-2004, 22:55:25
Well, I sort of agree with everyone except fp - Civ2 kept me sane when I returned to the country and had this crappy comp at BG (opposite MI6 by the way - yaaaah) which would not even run solitaire so I had to bring in my DEC 486 portable just to do the normal things that you do at a working day which is........playing computer games.

Wow - that was before SMAC and meeting you wankers.

Now, I shall eschew having a slag at Poly. Not because it ain't fun but it's a bit unfair as I ain't been there for so long. Seems to me though that all of those that type minutae into the "we luv Sid" feedback lists are the ones without any lives anyway and are people who like testing their own urine against the tap water to see if their metabolism is really as sucky as their eyesight.

So, the way I see it, Civ IV will be like Civ III but with more automation so you can ignore the crap that the nerds requested for Civ III on Civ II. OK, I am just a cynic but this Firaxis bunch are now a busted flush - would you buy a used game of these guys?

Remember. I told you Le Reynolds (in spite of the amusement he engendered) would be the one who walked away with credibility :p

Darkstar
17-11-2004, 02:49:15
The sort of thing that the fans at Poly asked for, well, 99.999999% of it didn't make it. So don't go blaming the "Wish List" rabids.

Civ3 has a lot of bad "this will make the game more difficult, and therefore more fun" ideas that the developers put in. Like "AI makes war on the Human even though its stupid to do so". Or "Put multiple AI right by the Human at world creation 90% of the time" (know how stupid that looks on large or bigger worlds and only 5 civs are in the game?). Or the "Human needs to lose this combat (regardless of odds)". So many decisions made to make the game "more fun by being more challenging" just made it more pissy.

Civ4 will be complete shit if they continue going in that direction ("this will make the game more challenging! Let's here the 5 hardcore fan boys at SidPleaseFuckUsUpOurAss.com complain about how easy they can beat the game now!") If, however, they return to the Civ1 roots, Civ4 may be lots of fun. Of course, I seriously doubt they'll make the game more fun. Always bigger and better, and more minutia. And gotta refine the game's difficulty to shut those rabid hardcore up (as they keep hurting the ego of the developers... beating the impossible! Imagine!)

stealth biased
17-11-2004, 06:38:22
i enjoy it, but it could be alot better. i like the idea of culture, and it expanding the borders, but the combat system has to go. a huge leap backwards.

i wouldn't mind seeing a smac 2, either.

The Mad Monk
17-11-2004, 08:43:31
The most annoying thing to me is the foreign advisor popup that occurs every time AIs declare war, make peace, or best of all form an alliance (which immediately calls up the war declaration popup for one or both). It happens while the computer is churning through the AI turns, so it's not as if you could do anything about it at that instant, but you still have to be there to click the damn thing so the computer can continue, which means you can't leave it alone and do other things while it does it's thing, because you never know when the popup will come, and there can be a lot of them, expecially with alliances doubling the effective number. I play with 362*362 worlds with 32 civs, so the turns take 40 minutes in the late game, but I could bear that if I could be elsewhere when it happened.

They should have just had timed popups, and a summary you could look at when you wanted to. Hell, just a summary would do. What happened to a summary?

AND WHICH FAN ASKED FOR THIS!?

Deacon
17-11-2004, 18:33:39
I never bought Civ 3. I thought I would, but by the time it came out, I'd already bought SMAC twice.

Darkstar
17-11-2004, 23:18:51
Deacon, you probably spent your money quite well doing that instead. ;)

It certainly allowed you to wait on the Civ3 Platinum release, which includes Civ3, Civ3 Xp1 - Part 2, and Civ3 Xp2 - "Almost Complete" that way.

Darkstar
17-11-2004, 23:19:32
Mad Monk... its the fans fault for NOT asking Firaxis to not do that, of course.

notyoueither
18-11-2004, 03:22:19
Where and when did they ever blame the fans?

No longer Trippin
18-11-2004, 07:01:17
I don't even own civ3 anymore. I literally threw it away when moving with a bunch of other cd shit that either sucked just as bad or wouldn't work under XP even with emulation. Civ 4 is COMPLETELY out of the question. 3 was a hard enough sell on me, 4 will be impossible.

notyoueither
18-11-2004, 07:39:35
Is that a promise?

Kitsuki
18-11-2004, 13:07:54
I thought culture was a really good new invention - the combat, the graphics and the highly suss AI were all fucking irritating....

The Mad Monk
19-11-2004, 02:13:59
I found I could smooth out the bad combat a bit by inflating everyone's hit points. One of nice things about CivIII -- it's only real saving grace, perhaps -- is that you can tweak so many things in the editor.

...but not enough, of course. :)

No longer Trippin
19-11-2004, 07:06:43
own goal and fucking right it is a promise.

Iskandar Reza
19-11-2004, 23:26:37
Civ3 was a big dissapointment for me, after having so much fun with SMAC, luckily I got the CD from those raids I mentioned before. So the only thing I wasted was time playing it.

You know, next to those foreign advisor popups the most annoying thing I found were those settler/spearman crossing your territory repeatedly to get to that 2 squares at the edge of the continent just outside my border. :tizzy:

The Mad Monk
20-11-2004, 17:33:20
Well, I've had it.

If I am to continue playing CivIII, I am simply going to have to replace the foreign advisor with b00bs.

There is no other way.

MDA
22-11-2004, 13:13:35
Let me know if you manage to get that to work. ;)

Nav
22-11-2004, 14:05:20
Thing that most annoyed me about Civ3 (apart from random impossible combat defeats) was the way the AI attempted to found cities everywhere, even on useless mountain ranges. Meant I had to found a worthless city just to stop them encroaching on my borders...

Darkstar
22-11-2004, 20:33:46
Yep. When I see a defender/settler, I think "2 free slave workers!". BAM!

War? You are going to war anyways... the AI insists.

The Mad Monk
22-11-2004, 21:15:11
Two things I use to combat that: increase settler cost greatly -- 90 shields is not too much -- and adjust culture so it expands quickly. Between those two things, you force the AI to not just expand more slowly, but to spread out more as well.

Chris
22-11-2004, 22:39:29
I forgot about the annoying settler and defender thing, they would settle in some really stupid places, one time they settled in one artic square, right next to my oil fields.

I had to fight a war just go get the oil back.

Shining1
22-11-2004, 23:31:24
Heh.

I thought their A.I troubles were caused by Brian Reynolds moving companies halfway through the project?

As dodgy and weird and cheat based as the Civ2 A.I was, it was still damn fun to play against - the envoys felt real in their own way, and encountering a new civ was great fun. Same with SMAC, for that matter - that games weaknesses were more to do with its Rover Rush design, massive memory leaks (thanks EA!), shite graphics and unintelligible tech tree.

A Civ4 is easily doable, and could be incredibly fun. It's an incredibly solid concept, and I still can't recall a game that impressed me as much with its mix of intelligence and fun as Civ2 did.

It's just probably going to take someone other than Firaxis to do it, however...

Chris
23-11-2004, 05:42:41
My big problem with civ 2, and 3 also, was the micro management in the late game, in Civ 2, it was not uncommon to have 120-150 cities, and the brain dead AI can't be trusted to produce on its own, let alone work the land around a city.

Shining1
23-11-2004, 06:49:59
The semi-solution to that was to make camels and send them to help production in a few industrial centers. It was unfortunate that Civ2 didn't have some means to just send shields straight from one city to another (say via railroad). Modern production is certainly about transfering raw resources to a key location and then turning them into a product.

That and a unit stack would have solved a lot of the games late game issues.

Chris
23-11-2004, 18:43:26
Having to move each unit did suck, so did losing big stacks to a single attacker.

MDA
23-11-2004, 19:12:38
I thought the culture thing was a great new addition, too. I liked absorbing border cities that way, especially as China. The culture *victory* was a damned joke though. I never got one. You'd have to build lots of culture improvements and have a kickass army to beat down your competition. It ends up being the same as achieving a world domination victory while handicapping yourself by producing culture stuff instead of military units.

JM^3
23-11-2004, 19:45:56
actually, I found myself getting cultural victories when I didn't intend to

Jon miller

Shining1
23-11-2004, 20:36:55
It sounds like Civ2 was close to being the best basis for the game. Add some better management features, fix the bugs (IRMs for instance), some fairer combat, and the good ideas about border and culture from SMAC/Civ3, and you have a very good game.

Chris
23-11-2004, 21:33:31
I also scored Culture victories, they are easier than UN or world domination.

2 was the best in the series, 3 was not a better game.

Oh, and pollution and clean-up is rediculous in civ 3, every turn you have to clean up 8-10 spills, a 'make-work' thing that bored the hell out of me.

JM^3
23-11-2004, 23:30:36
I don't really know how to make it better

I think I would rather be surprised

Jon Miller

Darkstar
24-11-2004, 07:37:19
Culture was nice.

SMAC lets you move food, money, and resources. Why not carry that over to Civ4?

Kitsuki
24-11-2004, 11:51:52
But the micro management needed towards the end was a right bastard with that, unless you wanted the AI to gain an advantage...

fp
24-11-2004, 18:02:40
Originally posted by MDA
. The culture *victory* was a damned joke though. I never got one.

Then you sucked. :p

MDA
24-11-2004, 19:12:43
I managed to piece together that humililating fact when I saw JM's post saying he could do it accidentally, thanks. :)

Darkstar
24-11-2004, 20:48:41
Kitsuki, the micro-management for all the TBS conquest games is hell by the end of the game. It's been that way from the very beginning with the mainframe version of Empire. And Empire started off with "rally points", so you could have your production sent to rally points. (Chained rally point Fighters were particularly fun to watch come off the line... :D)

Acsendacy tried to keep down the micro-management hell with the AI handling everything, but, like SMAC, most 10 year old humans could and did do better. So players would end up handling it all.

Although, you could let SMAC handle the automation for you... if you were playing on level 1 or level 2. That's how you play Speed SMAC... ;)

Darkstar
24-11-2004, 20:50:30
In Civ3, I only got 1 "Single City Cultural Victory" and I had to work extremely hard to do that. It's generally pretty easy to get "Total Culture Victory" in the game. Usually spoils my "Spaceship" victory in Civ3. Often spoils my "Military Victory" in Civ3. It's the default victory condition, as far as I can tell. (Probably just my play style, though. ;))

The Mad Monk
24-11-2004, 21:13:43
It's an easy victory -- or easy game wrecker, depending on your actual goal -- if you're a hardcore builder.

Darkstar
25-11-2004, 05:34:51
Civilization update:
(found at GamersHell)

Atari Sold the Civilization Franchise
November the 25th, 2004

Who bought the Civilization franchise?
Bruno Bonnell, Atari Chief Executive, told Reuters in an interview that Infogrames recently sold the Civilization franchise, making a capital gain of 15.5 million euros (thanks: Jucaushii.ro). Firaxis Games confirmed last month that Civilization IV is under development. The first details about the game will be unveiled at the beginning of 2005.

So... Firaxis bought the Civilization. We can look forward to an endless parade of Civ sequels and Civ expansions. Hurray.

Chris
25-11-2004, 05:45:45
And they will all suck, as they are put out by one of the least fan friendly and most arrogant game companies in the business.

Darkstar
25-11-2004, 06:07:07
Well, that happens when you have made a series of super hits and "instant classics".

I'm glad to see Chris Sawyer's utter and complete success as a New Game God hasn't yet fucked him up like that. ;)

fp
25-11-2004, 18:37:22
Originally posted by Darkstar

So... Firaxis bought the Civilization.

Where does it say that?

Darkstar
26-11-2004, 00:31:25
It didn't. But, Firaxis stated they'd worked out the licensing with Atari to their mutual satisfaction back when Firaxis started work on Civ4. So... a logical conclusion would be that Firaxis bought it. And after 6 editions (or is it now 7?) of Civ3, I bet they had the cash to do so. Even at the worst exchange rates, that's only, what? $22 Million US? Cheap to secure Firaxis's eternal cash cow.

Chris
26-11-2004, 04:01:39
Firaxis was already making it, some other publisher must have bought it.

Shining1
26-11-2004, 13:24:38
I thought Hasbro owned it... :/

Chris
26-11-2004, 13:40:43
Hasbro sold the rights to it years ago.

Vincent
28-11-2004, 21:04:27
Nobody really needs 4. I gave away 3 because I thought it was boring. It's not that it has new ideas or interesting scenarios. Sometimes an idea is just dead after some redos, and TBS is a little old fashioned anyway. I moved towards another idea of gaming. Conquer the world - well I did and it was boring the second time. And if you remember all the clones like CtP and AC ...

Vincent
28-11-2004, 21:05:30
Originally posted by Resource Consumer
Civ2 kept me sane now THAT'S news!

Darkstar
29-11-2004, 08:05:13
Chris, it may be that the paperwork has just recently gotten finished.

If a major game publisher (Like EA) had bought the rights, they'd have released a press statement about it. So... that leaves what? A minor publisher? Such as... Firaxis? That was their plan, way back when the company was founded... obtain the Civ license. A cash cow is cash cow, man.

Chris
29-11-2004, 10:39:41
Nobody has taken credit for having it yet.

And I'm not exactly sure that Civ is a cash cow at this point, games like Halo 2 are CCs, but TBS games?

MDA
29-11-2004, 12:18:16
Originally posted by Vincent
TBS is a little old fashioned anyway

:shoot: I'm in denial.

Civ is worn out, though. I'd play 2 before 3, and I usually default to Moo2 instead. I just have no interest in Civ4. I don't think many other people would buy it outright after Civ3. If they take a wait-and-see attitude and it sucked... no cash cow.

Played around with an 8 dollar box of Moo3 recently (there was a CD in it, but I just used that as a coaster:)). It was worth that much, but could have been so much better if they'd just finished the damned thing. People on the Moo3 boards patched some of the bugs! That's some crazy Moo love. The Civ scenario people are probably the same.

DaShi
29-11-2004, 14:16:20
I'm still waiting for Sid Meier's Atlantis aka Civ under water.

Vincent
29-11-2004, 16:55:56
I'm still waiting for the Dinosaur game

Vincent
29-11-2004, 16:56:24
Originally posted by MDA
:shoot: I'm in denial.
which proves my point :p

Darkstar
29-11-2004, 20:01:59
TBS games are definately not a has-been. There's a solid niche market out there. And look at the number of units sold... Civ3 was a huge success, if we can trust anything that has been said by Firaxis or Infogrames.

Now, way back when Firaxis started work on Civ3, they mentioned that they had the option of buying the series from its owner, and that they intended to do so if they "did a good job and had fun making it" (read: made money). So, I'm betting they exercised that option and the paperwork just got finalized on that deal.

And remember, Activision got panned for their official "Civilization" usage. So might as well get some money out of a brand they otherwise cannot lease or plan to use themselves.

TBS is definately not "dead". Look at GalCiv. It's a nice money maker for StarDock. So nice in fact, that they could sell a expansion to it, and have already started development on the sequel. There is a market for TBS out there. And its the same market that was there before RTS. Just a matter of making something fun to play. I don't think the TBS market has room for hundreds of near clones in it, but it has room for a few good games a year (Rome: Total War, GalCiv, EU2, etc etc etc).

notyoueither
04-12-2004, 09:55:32
TBS is dead! Long live TBS!

Darkstar
04-12-2004, 10:31:38
Well, www.civ5.com is still available. For you long term speculators... ;)

Spartak
06-12-2004, 21:17:18
I'm still playing smax so it can't be that bad. Actually, I havn't bought a new game in years :hmm:

Darkstar
27-01-2005, 23:33:40
Humm... Civ4 is expected to sell at least 500K units in the US, and 1.5 million units worldwide. Is that dead?

Numbers appear in newspiece about Take Two being the purchaser of the Civ license.
URL:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/26/news_6117117.html

Oerdin
14-02-2005, 02:26:54
Civ3 with PtW and Conquests finally put the game into a sold "C" ranking but major design flaws remain. It's boring, it's to difficult to order units around (CTP2 did a far better job), and the interface never had much thought put into it so it just sucks. Why does it take 4 or 5 clicks to do most things when 2 clicks would have done the job?

I haven't played this game since May and I doubt I ever will play this game again. EU2 on the other hand I still play regularly even though the game is nearly two years old. :b: