MOO3 finished!

[Egregius]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Like anything else you do on a computer, you should be saving no less than every five to ten minutes. If it's word processing, I save every thirty seconds.

DUDE!

You need to get a better computer! How on earth do you want to get any play done with saving every 5 minutes, or any typing done with saving every 30 seconds?!?
Heck, saving in Baldur's Gate 1 cost me 5 minutes each time, having to save every 5 minutes is flat out ridiculous.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I expect no more than a week of play from a game that is a true classic, because that's all the time one can spend on a game if you wish to play more than one a month. Sure, a really great game gets more play time, but that doesn't make one that only Lasts a weekend a bad game, just a normal length game.

Man you have intensly low expectations!! And one crash per hour is terrible!!! I'm amazed anyone could describe that as pretty stable. Game manufacturers must love you!

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Egregius:
You need to get a better computer! How on earth do you want to get any play done with saving every 5 minutes, or any typing done with saving every 30 seconds?!?

There's a reason that quicksaves exist, and in Word you just press ctrl-s after every paragraph. It takes about one second to save your average text document, so I don't see a problem there.

Heck, saving in Baldur's Gate 1 cost me 5 minutes each time, having to save every 5 minutes is flat out ridiculous.

Then you must have a slow harddrive. BG1 takes 10-30 seconds on my machine to make a quicksave.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by couslee:
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.

No, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You don't need weapons of any kind on defensive units, which is ridiculous. You can place the best armour on themn and punch airplanes to death.

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.

Please keep the insults out of this forum.

$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.

Wrong, $20 for a one day game is excellent value, $20 for a meal is an utter waste of money.

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.

Which is not what I ever claimed. Please learn to read before you start making claims about what I said.

You talk about playing several new games a month. At $45-50 a copy for new games, you must have an unlimited game budget.

No, I'm simply a student who knows where he wants to spend his entertainment budget instead of wasting it on food and booze.

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

Please name these "most games". I at least have named games that did not fall short.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
[QB]
Wrong, $20 for a one day game is excellent value, $20 for a meal is an utter waste of money.
[QB]

Wrong, $20 for a one day game is an utter waste of money.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

Wrong, $20 for a one day game is excellent value, $20 for a meal is an utter waste of money.

Wrong, $20 for a one day game is an utter waste of money.

---

Yup, I agree. If I'm going to buy something for $20 I want to enjoy it for awhile. $20 for a meal is high but I'd pay it if it was all you could eat steak.
Of course that's what Golden Coral is around for. You pay $10 but all you can eat buffet. And it includes all you can eat steak. You just go up to them tell them how you want it cooked and presto, steak all night. Excellent buy in that deal I say.

[ January 26, 2003, 17:08: Message edited by: Ragnarok ]

[Suicide Junkie]

I expect no more than a week of play from a game that is a true classic, because that's all the time one can spend on a game if you wish to play more than one a month.

You must go through games like toilet paper!

If it is a true classic, you should be playing it until the CD/Floppy wears out
Not to the exclusion of everything else, of course, but Classics are the ones that keep you coming back!

[Dobian]

I agree with Couslee. I have SMAC, and it was my favorite TBS game until SE4 came along.

You may think the unit design in SMAC is flawed, but it's still fun. And Civ 3 doesn't even have unit design. SMAC also has a complex tech tree that keeps the late game intersting with all the facilities and units you can build. Contrast that to the tedious late game of Civ 3. Like SE4, factions in SMAC are unitque with their own strategies. Miriam plays different than Deirdre, who plays diferent than Morgan, etc. In Civ 3, the strategies among the diferent civs isn't as diverse. SMAC also has a complex government and social model that doesn't exist in Civ 3. What are there, four government systems in Civ 3?! In SMAC, you have abou a half dozen government types, and social and economic models to choose from. SMAC also lets you play the game how you want, just like SE4. You can be a reckless expansionist if you want. You can also be like Israel, a tiny little powerhouse. In Civ 3, you have to play every game the same, as an expansionist. Don't expand, and you're finished. Again, makes the games too similar and repetitive.

I don't totally dislike Civ 3. I give it kudos for its random resources concept, which is well implemented. I also like the idea of the cultural borders. Diplomacy is very well done, too. Too bad the AI cheats when it comes to tech trading, though (civs will trade with everyone else except you, unless you want to pay up the nose). The AI in Civ 3 is also more aggressive than in SMAC. Civs will actualy attack you with an *army* (especially those Persians!), and not just a few units, like in SMAC. I like the look and style of the game. It's okay. But SMAC is better, IMO.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
One crash is too often.

So you've never had an RCE from SE4?

---

Only once or twice from the demo, and from poorly written mods. Of course, I didn't get se4 until it was at like Version 1.41 or so.

Similarly, SE has improved over the years. I still play that too - obviously!

Unfortunately, Civ 3 still has most of the major balance problems and issues that it had when released. Sure, it doesn't crash as much anymore, but it is still a bad game.

...

Civ 3 has nothing to do with SMAC. It should not necessarily be SMAC 2, but more the Civ 3 it claims to be.

[ January 26, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Unfortunately, Civ 3 still has most of the major balance problems and issues that it had when released. Sure, it doesn't crash as much anymore, but it is still a bad game.

But what _are_ these balance problems? Everybody here complains about them, but nobody's mentioned what they are.