[couslee]

" The game is still better than it's immediate predecessor SMAC, which has the ridiculous unit design mechanism that allows you to kill attackers armed with the best weapons by putting better armour on you units. "

Oh horsepucky. I played SMAC for a couple of years. Civ3 Lasted about 2 games before getting deleted. And yea, gee, it's amazing that if you put your best armor on your units, you have a greater chance of defeating an attacker.

You love Civ3, that is apparent, I hated it. so what. Opinions are like a**holes. every has their own, and it's usually full of crap.

When you talk about value in a game, value in an item is based on a standard that people are use to. A good meal at a nice restaruant can cost $20 a plate, and your done eating in 30-60 minutes. If you compare that to a $20 game you play for a whole day, then the meal looks like a bad value and the game looks like a good value. That, is comparing apples to oranges and is no basis for comparison. $20 for a one day game is poor. $20 for a tasty meal is not. Stick with apples and apples and leave the other fruit in the fridge.
Customers have come to expect games, esp in the 4x genre', to have months and months of enjoyment. If the game playability is bad because of bugs, balancing issues, hardware issues, ect to the point it is not worth the effort loading up, and you just bought the game, it's not a good value.
You talk about playing several new games a month. At $45-50 a copy for new games, you must have an unlimited game budget. Must be nice. I, and the majority of gamers do not have that much money to burn. We expect value (meaning dollar spent, per game hour enjoyed, per industry standard). And lately, most games have fallen short of that mark. imnsho

[ January 26, 2003, 12:15: Message edited by: couslee ]