Civ III

Vince · 02-25-2003, 07:46 PM

I know a lot of people were vastly disappointed by this game, however does anyone still play? And has anyone tried the multiplayer expansion? I booted it up for the first time in months recently, and I was pretty happy about the game's quality, though I didn't play for very long. I wish there was more room for negotiation in the diplomatic relations with the computer...

Any thoughts on Multiplayer from those who have it?

KWhit · 02-25-2003, 08:11 PM

I don't have the expansion, but I never understood the people who claimed they were disappointed with the game. I play it and enjoy it very much.

I do prefer Alpha Centauri over Civ3 but I think that's just because I like the sci-fi element. It seems to make more sense to me than having the Germans, Persians, Iroquois, and Americans battle with tanks, jets, etc...

But all in all I think Civ3 definitely improved upon Civ2 and I still enjoy it a lot.

RendeR · 02-25-2003, 09:55 PM

I actually just bought both the game and the multiplayer upgrade recently and play it quite often, I've always loved the Civ games and can't find another game with such complete replayability, its never ever the same game twice.

I have the multi player and have never tried it, if you want to try a game this weekend PM me with the info and times you're available and we'll see if we can get something going =)

Ren

sabotai · 02-25-2003, 09:58 PM

I liked the game. It was no game of the year, but I found I got my money's worth. I don't have the expansion and I don't plan on getting simply because I've moved on and don't see myself going back to it.

Anrhydeddu · 02-25-2003, 10:16 PM

As a long time Civer (Civ2) that still play regularly (scenarios and PBEM), Civ3 was one of the very few games that I did not get my money's worth. Maybe in a few years when they allow us to build and play true scenarios then maybe it will be worth it. Until then, the only good thing I can say about it is that it is better than CtP.

Vince · 02-25-2003, 10:51 PM

Ren, I'd love to play, but I don't have the expansion yet. Was considering getting it soon though.

Anrhydeddu - Care to explain what you didn't like about it? Just the fact that the scenarios were bad?

Anrhydeddu · 02-26-2003, 09:26 AM

Aww Vince, you made me go over to the old board to see if I can dig up any of the Civ3 posts but a expected, they were before the purge. In a nutshell, Civ3 has many features that by themselves, vary on their degree of usefulness or worthlessness but taken them all together, it becomes a kluged mess of disparate parts that do not fit together. One of the biggest criticisms I had in my attempts at playing the main game (and one that raised a huge red flag prior to release) was the forced tech tree and eras. This one thing, imo, deviated from the essense of what made Civ.

To top it off, here is quote from a long time friend at Apolyton that sums it up well:

"Linear approach. I'm reminded of the movie, "The Golden Child" :: old man's voice echoing:: "Stay on the path!" And that's true. Play the game the way the designers say so, and you excel. Deviate from the methodology they lay out before you, and you screw yourself. That's linear gameplay. Their way or no way. For a game that's supposed to model (perhaps not historically accurately model, but that's another story) the history of human civilization, and given the open- ended nature of the subject matter, that seems a hellish harness to saddle players with."

The genius of Civ was that you were not forced in playing the game a certain way and Civ3 put too many things together that forced you in playing this way.

bamcgee · 02-26-2003, 11:05 AM

I also think that Civ3 out of the box was not very enjoyable, but I've really enjoyed playing the Double Your Pleasure mod. It basically revises everything in the game, and they've done a very good job making it more playable and interesting. I don't know the link offhand, but you can find it on the Civ3 website. If you're tired of the original and want some added features and complexity, it's a great choice.

Draft Dodger · 02-26-2003, 12:05 PM

I played it quite a bit, but I'm overall unsatisfied with it. Just seems rather, well, boring.

I LOVE Alpha Centauri, and I'll continue to play that for a while. CivIII just didn't have "it".

wbonnell · 02-26-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
The genius of Civ was that you were not forced in playing the game a certain way and Civ3 put too many things together that forced you in playing this way.

Isn't this the fundamental difference between an OOTP and a FOF? One allows many different styles of gameplay via deep customization while the other dictates a certain play style with the idea that a controlled environment is more enjoyable. Which do you think most people (not FOFC people) prefer? I suspect- overwhelmingly- the latter.

02-25-2003, 09:55 PM	#3
RendeR Coordinator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Buffalo, NY	I actually just bought both the game and the multiplayer upgrade recently and play it quite often, I've always loved the Civ games and can't find another game with such complete replayability, its never ever the same game twice. I have the multi player and have never tried it, if you want to try a game this weekend PM me with the info and times you're available and we'll see if we can get something going =) Ren __________________ http://wotlabs.net/s...8/signature.png http://wotlabs.net/sig_dark/na/banichi18/signature.png

02-25-2003, 10:51 PM	#6
Vince Pro Starter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Willow Glen, CA	Ren, I'd love to play, but I don't have the expansion yet. Was considering getting it soon though. Anrhydeddu - Care to explain what you didn't like about it? Just the fact that the scenarios were bad? __________________ Every time a Dodger scores a run, an angel has its wings ripped off by a demon, and is forced to tearfully beg the demon to cauterize the wounds.The demon will refuse, and the sobbing angel will lie in a puddle of angel blood and feathers for eternity, wondering why the Dodgers are allowed to score runs.That’s not me talking: that’s science. McCoveyChronicles.com.

02-26-2003, 12:05 PM	#9
Draft Dodger Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Keene, NH	I played it quite a bit, but I'm overall unsatisfied with it. Just seems rather, well, boring. I LOVE Alpha Centauri, and I'll continue to play that for a while. CivIII just didn't have "it". __________________ Mile High Hockey

02-25-2003, 08:11 PM	#2
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	I don't have the expansion, but I never understood the people who claimed they were disappointed with the game. I play it and enjoy it very much. I do prefer Alpha Centauri over Civ3 but I think that's just because I like the sci-fi element. It seems to make more sense to me than having the Germans, Persians, Iroquois, and Americans battle with tanks, jets, etc... But all in all I think Civ3 definitely improved upon Civ2 and I still enjoy it a lot.

02-25-2003, 09:58 PM	#4
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	I liked the game. It was no game of the year, but I found I got my money's worth. I don't have the expansion and I don't plan on getting simply because I've moved on and don't see myself going back to it.

02-25-2003, 10:16 PM	#5
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	As a long time Civer (Civ2) that still play regularly (scenarios and PBEM), Civ3 was one of the very few games that I did not get my money's worth. Maybe in a few years when they allow us to build and play true scenarios then maybe it will be worth it. Until then, the only good thing I can say about it is that it is better than CtP.

02-26-2003, 09:26 AM	#7
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	Aww Vince, you made me go over to the old board to see if I can dig up any of the Civ3 posts but a expected, they were before the purge. In a nutshell, Civ3 has many features that by themselves, vary on their degree of usefulness or worthlessness but taken them all together, it becomes a kluged mess of disparate parts that do not fit together. One of the biggest criticisms I had in my attempts at playing the main game (and one that raised a huge red flag prior to release) was the forced tech tree and eras. This one thing, imo, deviated from the essense of what made Civ. To top it off, here is quote from a long time friend at Apolyton that sums it up well: "Linear approach. I'm reminded of the movie, "The Golden Child" :: old man's voice echoing:: "Stay on the path!" And that's true. Play the game the way the designers say so, and you excel. Deviate from the methodology they lay out before you, and you screw yourself. That's linear gameplay. Their way or no way. For a game that's supposed to model (perhaps not historically accurately model, but that's another story) the history of human civilization, and given the open- ended nature of the subject matter, that seems a hellish harness to saddle players with." The genius of Civ was that you were not forced in playing the game a certain way and Civ3 put too many things together that forced you in playing this way.

02-26-2003, 11:05 AM	#8
bamcgee High School JV Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: San Francisco, CA	I also think that Civ3 out of the box was not very enjoyable, but I've really enjoyed playing the Double Your Pleasure mod. It basically revises everything in the game, and they've done a very good job making it more playable and interesting. I don't know the link offhand, but you can find it on the Civ3 website. If you're tired of the original and want some added features and complexity, it's a great choice.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)